Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Turkey: The Move to Categorical Exclusion of Illegally Gathered Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

Abstract

Prior to 1992, Turkish law had no rules regarding exclusion of illegally gathered evidence, though it was generally understood that statements that were the products of torture could not be used in a criminal trial. In that year, however, the legislature enacted a specific exclusionary rule to apply to involuntary confessions, and a more general rule which provided for exclusion of evidence “unlawfully” obtained by law enforcement officials. Thereafter, the Turkish Constitution was amended to require exclusion of “illegally” obtained evidence and the new 2004 Code of Criminal Procedure contained provisions reflecting the constitutional command. This Chapter explores the Supreme Court’s application of the new rules and notes a certain reluctance to apply them, especially in the context of the “fruits of the poisonous tree”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Packer (1968, 149–173).

  2. 2.

    For studies on the theme see e.g., Tosun (1976), Öztürk (1995), Toroslu (1995, 55–58), Şahin (1994, 169–236), Yenisey (1995), Istanbul Barosu, Marmara Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü (1995), Demirbaş (1996, 247–305), Şahin (1998, 343–354), İçel (1998, 121–127), Şen (1998), Yurtcan (1998, 519–22), Koca (2000, 105–146)), Soyaslan (2003, 9–26), Çınar (2004), Kunter et al. (2006, 986–1027), and Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 476–525). See also the relevant sections of the following commentaries: Yasar (2007), Tasdemir and Özkepir (2007), and Yurtcan (2008). In foreign languages, Öztürk (1992, 667–687) and Bıçak (1996).

  3. 3.

    See eg., the Decision of the Court of Cassation, the Assembly of Criminal Divisions (hereafter CGK) CGK, Judgment March 24, 1980, 1/121 and 1 CD, Judgment August 9, 1977, 2261/2580 cited in Erem (1996, 291). (It is rare in Turkey to refer to a case by the names of the parties. Citations normally include the court, date and registration number of the cases in the court). The Court of Cassation ruled that “…taking the confession, which was clearly made under pressure and which did not reveal consistency, as a basis for the judgment is unlawful.“ Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, vol. 12 (March 1991) no.3., p. 420, “For a confession to be accepted as evidence, it should result from the individual’s free will and be made before the judge, and should not be withdrawn in a further stage of criminal proceeding and finally it must be supported by corroborative evidence”, CGK, Judgement February 16, 1987, 6–271/50, cited in Erem (1996, 293). See also Judgment December 12, 1991, 1–301/334, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (1992), Vol. 13, 1108–1111.

  4. 4.

    CGK, Judgment December 10, 1990, 6–257/335 “Without support of other evidence, if a confession is withdrawn on the grounds that it was made under pressure, a confession made during the police interrogation cannot be the sole basis for a conviction” see also, CGK Judgment, March 7, 1983, 3–104, CGK Judgment April 1, 1985, 6/511–182, cited in Yasar (2007, 748–755).

  5. 5.

    In 1996, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture observed that “resort to torture and other forms of severe ill-treatment remains a common occurrence in police establishments in Turkey”. CPT, Public Statement on Turkey, CPT/Inf(96)34, 6 December 1993, para.38. On the legal implications of the coup d’état in English, see Gemalmaz (1989).

  6. 6.

    Hafızogulları (1993, 37–47) and Sokullu-Akinci (1998, 253–269). See also Toroslu (1995) and Tezcan et al. (2004, 414–417).

  7. 7.

    Turkey ratified the ECHR with Law no. 6366, 10 March 1954. Official Gazette, 1567. Since then, the Convention has been a part of national law. See Gölcüklü and Gözübüyük (1998).

  8. 8.

    Law no 3411, 25 February 1988, Official Gazette 25.02.1988, no. 19737.

  9. 9.

    Law no 3441, date: 21.04.1988, Official Gazette, 29.04.1988, no, 19799.

  10. 10.

    Ünal (2000, 63–85), and Gözlügöl (2002, 435–454).

  11. 11.

    For an American view on the subject, see Calhoun (2000, 61–68).

  12. 12.

    Law no 3842, Official Gazette, 01.12.1992, no. 21422.

  13. 13.

    The reformed procedural rules were not applicable to persons suspected of offenses such as terrorism, drug smuggling, membership in illegal organizations and espousing or disseminating ideas prohibited by law as damaging the indivisible unity of the State. For a discussion see Calhoun (2000, 61–68).

  14. 14.

    The principle of a state under the rule of law in Turkey has constitutional footing. Art.2 of the Turkish Constitution (hereafter Const.) states that “The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law….” Art. 125 Const. furthermore states that “Recourse to judicial review shall be available against all actions and acts of administration”. See on the implications of the principle of the Rechtsstaat with regards to criminal procedural law, Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 163).

  15. 15.

    Most vocally, see Savaş and Mollamahmutoğlu (1995, 1155–1214). Demirbaş argues that “Acting with the intention to go far beyond European provisions and discovering ‘America’ again was unfortunate for the Turkish system”. Demirbaş (1996, 303).

  16. 16.

    Öztürk (1995, 11); See Gless, Chap. 5, Sect. 5.1.2.3.

  17. 17.

    Yenisey (1995, 218–219); See also Şahin (1998, 353–354). Sokullu-Akıncı observes that “This solution is taken from American law where many procedural rules are in the American Constitution and violations of these rights of the individual are hence “unconstitutional”. But this is not true for Continental Europe and Turkey where only a few of the procedural rules are in the Constitution but the majority of procedural rules are in separate Codes. So all illegal evidence is not “unconstitutional”. This proposition seems to be one of the unfortunate efforts to limit the application of § 254(2) CCP (1929). If we respect the rule of law, all illegal evidence must be considered within said article”. Sokullu- Akıncı (1998, 267).

  18. 18.

    Kunter et al. (2006, 986–992).

  19. 19.

    Ibid, 986.

  20. 20.

    Koca (2000, 105–146), Yurtcan (1998, 519–522), Toroslu (1995, 55–58), and Şen (1998, 159–161).

  21. 21.

    Security forces in Turkey are composed of police and gendarmerie.

  22. 22.

    CGK, Judgment October 15, 2002, 8–191/362, cited in Çınar (2004, 52).

  23. 23.

    According to § 174 CCP (2004). See Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 487).

  24. 24.

    See § 254(2) CCP (1929), in Sect. 12.1.2, above.

  25. 25.

    Art. 90 Const. provides: “International agreements duly put into effect bear the force of law. No appeal to the Constitutional Court shall be made with regard to these agreements, on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. In the case of a conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms duly put into effect and the domestic laws due to differences in provisions on the same matter, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail”.

  26. 26.

    There are also provisions in §§ 73, 159 of the Banking Law (Law no. 5411). §§ 23, 29 of the Bank Cards and Credit Cards Law (Law no. 5464), which entered into force on March 1, 2006, also includes certain provisions aimed to protect the personal data of bank card and credit card holders.

  27. 27.

    CGK, Judgment June 26, 2007, 7–147/159, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi (2008), 82(no.1), 451–466.

  28. 28.

    CGK Judgment February 22, 2007, 5671/1111, accessible from: www.hukukturk.com.

  29. 29.

    CGK, Judgment November 29, 2005, 7–144/150, accessible from: www.kazanci.com.

  30. 30.

    See Sözüer (1997, 76).

  31. 31.

    Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 632).

  32. 32.

    The office of the public prosecution is required to inform the individual in question in writing within 15 days of the completion of the investigation about the reasons, context, duration and outcome of the wiretapping if the recordings related to the measure have been destroyed.

  33. 33.

    Telekomünikasyon Yoluyla Yapılan İletişimin Tespiti, Dinlenmesi, Sinyal Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi ve Kayda Alınmasina Dair Usul ve Esaslar ve Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı’nin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yetkileri Hakkinda Yönetmelik, Official Gazette 10.11.2005, 25989, Section 3-f. Yargitay 4 CD, Judgment November 29, 2006 4669/17007, 5CD, Judgment October 3, 2005, 14969/20489, accessible from www.hukukturk.com.

  34. 34.

    CGK, Judgment April 8, 2003, 9–30/98 accessible from www.kazanci.com. See also, 8CD, Judgment June 9, 1999, 9021/9538 and 9CD Judgment October 26, 1995, 4186/5414, cited in Çınar (2004, 55).

  35. 35.

    CGK, Judgment July, 3, 2007, 5–23/167, www.kazanci.com.Cited in Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 670).

  36. 36.

    Generally, it is accepted that a body search may include stripping the suspect or the accused without actually conducting an internal physical examination. Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 582).

  37. 37.

    Official Gazette, 23.7.1965, no.12056.

  38. 38.

    See eg. CGK, Judgment, October 4, 1993, 6/192–217, cited in Yasar (2007). See also CGK Judgement December 2, 1991, 301/334, YKD, 1992/7 cited in Erem (1996, 1108). See also, CGK, Judgment October, 18, 1993, 236/255, YKD, 1994/5, p. 804, cited in Erem (1996, 297), CGK Judgment December 5, 1988, 6/424–506 cited in Yasar (2007, 748), CGK Judgment April 5, 1985, 6/511–182, cited in Yasar (2007, 749), 8CD, Judgment March, 20.1985, 583–1390 cited in Yasar (2007,756).

  39. 39.

    Judgment February 16, 2004, 1CD, 3819/299, cited in Çınar (2004, 52).

  40. 40.

    Toroslu (1995, 58), Öztürk (1995, 135), and Koca (2000, 131).

  41. 41.

    Feridun Yenisey advocated this approach at a symposium on unlawful evidence in1995, see Istanbul Barosu, Marmara Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü (1995, 45); see also Yenisey (1995, 1235).

  42. 42.

    İçel (1998, 124).

  43. 43.

    Gemalmaz (1997), and Doğru (2004).

  44. 44.

    See also, İnceoğlu (2005).

  45. 45.

    For the document see Alexander et al. (2008, 463).

  46. 46.

    See in English e.g., Smith (2007, 262–274).

  47. 47.

    Öztürk and Erdem (2007, 482).

  48. 48.

    CGK. Judgment December 19, 1994, 6–322/343, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (July 1995), 21, no. 6, 1119ff; CGK Judgment October 24, 1995, 6–238/305, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (December 1995),21, no.12, 1884; Judgment December 17, 1996, 6–263/282, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (March 1997), 434; see also 4CD Judgment October 4, 1994, 7351/7693, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (September 1995), 1476–1478; CGK Judgment October 24, 1995, 6–238/305, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi, (December 1995), 21, no.12, 1888.

  49. 49.

    2CD, 9.6.2004, 2003/4094, 2004/11538, 4CD, 21.1.2004, 2003/891, 2004/433. cited in Çınar (2004, 53–54); see also CGK Judgment October 24, 1995, 7–165/302, cited in Demirbaş (1996, 261); (YKD 1996, S. 1, s.103), CGK, Judgment (March 26, 1996), 6–63/66 (unpublished, cited in Demirbaş (1996, 263–264).

  50. 50.

    Judgment September 26, 1994, 7114/7264, cited in Yurtcan (1998, 521); for a similar case: 4CD Judgment October 4, 1994, 7351/7693, Yargıtay Kararları Dergisi (September 1995), 1476–1478, 4CD, Judgment October, 1994, 7351/7693, cited in Savaş and Mollamahmutoğlu, op. cit., p. 741.

  51. 51.

    See for a positive evaluation of this decision, İçel (1998, 127).

Bıblıography

  • Alexander, Y., E.H. Brenner, and S. Tutuncuoglu Krause. 2008. Turkey, terrorism, civil rights and the European Union. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bıçak, V. 1996. Improperly obtained evidence (a comparison of Turkish and English Law). Ankara: Yardımcı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, R.K. 2000. Confessions and the right to counsel: Reflections on recent changes in Turkish Criminal Procedure. Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law 6: 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çınar, A.R. 2004. Hukuka Aykırı Kanıtlar. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 55: 31–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirbaş, T. 1996. Sanığın Hazırlık Soruşturmasında. İfadesinin Alınması. Izmir: DEÜ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doğru, O. 2004. İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi İçtihatları, vol. 1, 2. Istanbul: Legal Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erem, F. 1996. Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu (Şerhi). Ankara: Dayınlarlı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemalmaz, S. 1989. The ınstitutionalization process of the Turkish type of democracy: A politico-juridical analysis of human rights. Istanbul: Amaç Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemalmaz, S. 1997. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Komisyonu Önünde Türkiye-1: Kabuledilebilirlik Kararları. Istanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gölcüklü, A.F., and A.Ş. Gözübüyük. 1998. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması, 2nd ed. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gözlügöl, S.V. 2002. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve İç Hukukumuzdaki Etkisi, 2nd ed. Ankara: Yetkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafızogulları, Z. 1993. Ceza Muhakemeleri Usul Hukukunda Yapılan Değişiklikler Üzerine. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 43(1–4): 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • İçel, K. 1998. Sorgulamada Hukuka Aykırılık ve Sonuçları in Nurullah Kunter Armağanı, 121–127. Istanbul: İHF yayını.

    Google Scholar 

  • İnceoğlu, S. 2005. İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Adil Yargılanma Hakkı, 2nd ed. İstanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • İstanbul Barosu, Marmara Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü. 1995. Hukuka Aykırı Deliller Sempozyumu. Istanbul: Istanbul Barosu Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koca, M. 2000. Ceza Muhakemesinde Hukuka Aykırı Delilleri Değerlendirme Yasağı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 4(1–2): 105–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, N., F. Yenisey, and A. Nuhoğlu. 2006. Muhakeme Hukuku Dalı Olarak Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 15th ed. Istanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, B. 1992. Beweisverbote im türkischen Recht. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechts­wissenschaft 104: 667–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, B. 1995. Yeni Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Delil Yasakları. Ankara: AÜ SBF İnsan Hakları Merkezi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, B., and M.R. Erdem. 2007. Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 11th ed. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. 1968. The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, C. 1994. Sanığın Kolluk Tarafından Sorgulanması. Ankara: Yetkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, C. 1998. “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Hukuka Aykırı Deliller ve Değerlendirme Sorunu” in Nurullah Kunter Armağanı, 343–354. Istanbul: İHF yayını.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savaş, S., and S. Mollamahmutoğlu (eds.). 1995. Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunun Yorumu, vol. 1, 2. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şen, E. 1998. Türk Ceza Yargilamasi Hukuku’nda Hukuka Aykırı Deliller Sorunu. Istanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T.W. 2007. Leveraging norms: The ECHR and Turkey’s human rights reforms. In Human rights in Turkey, ed. Z.F. Arat-Kabasakal, 262–274. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokullu-Akinci, F. 1998. Recent attempts to guarantee human rights in the Turkish Penal Procedure Law. Annales de la Faculté de droit d’Istanbul XXXII(48): 253–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soyaslan, D. 2003. Hukuka Aykırı Deliller. Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7(3–4): 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sözüer, A. 1997. Türkiye’de ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Telefon, Teleks, Faks ve Benzeri Araçlarla Yapılan Özel Haberleşmenin Ceza Yargılaması Önlemi Olarak Denetlenmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 55(3): 6, 66–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasdemir, K., and R. Özkepir. 2007. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu Şerhi, vol. I, 3rd ed. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tezcan, D., M.R. Erdem, and O. Sancakdar. 2004. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Türkiye’nin İnsan Hakları Sorunu. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toroslu, N. 1995. Hukuka Aykırı Deliller Sorunu, Hamide Topçuoğlu Armağanı. Ankara: AÜHF yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, Ö. 1976. Ceza ve Medeni Muhakeme Hukuku Açısından Hukuka Aykırı Yollarla Elde Edilen Delillerin İspat Kuvveti. Istanbul: İHF Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ünal, S. 2000. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarının Türk İç Hukukuna Etkileri. Anayasa Yargısı 17: 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasar, O. 2007. Uygulamalı ve Yorumlu Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu, 2nd ed. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yenisey, F. 1995. Yasak Yöntemlerle ve Hukuka Aykırı Şekilde Elde Edilen Deliller. In Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunun Yorumu, vol. 1, ed. S. Savaş and S. Mollamahmutoğlu, 1214–1239. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurtcan, E. 1998. Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Hukuka Aykırı Delile Dayanma Yasağı. In Armağanı, ed. Nurullah Kunter, 519–522. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurtcan, E. 2008. CMK Şerhi, 5th ed. İstanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hukuk Fakültesi, Istanbul Üniversitesi, Ceyave Ceya Usul Hukuku Anabilim dali, Beyazit-Istanbul, 34116, Turkey

    Adem Sözüer

  2. Hukuk Fakültesi, Uludag Üniversitesi, Uludag Üniversitesi Gemlik Sungipek Yerleskesi, 16600, Gemlik/Bursa, Turkey

    Öznur Sevdiren

Authors
  1. Adem Sözüer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Öznur Sevdiren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adem Sözüer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA

    Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sözüer, A., Sevdiren, Ö. (2013). Turkey: The Move to Categorical Exclusion of Illegally Gathered Evidence. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation