Çocuklar Bakımından Uzlaştırma: Farklı Yararlar Arasında Bir Denge Arayışı

Abstract

Çocuklar bakımından uzlaştırma, günümüzde gerek dünyada gerek Türkiye’de gittikçe öne çıkan bir ceza ve ceza muhakemesi hukuku kurumudur. Bu bağlamda, anılan kurum kapsamına giren suç tiplerinin giderek çeşitlendiği ve zaman içinde daha ciddi suçların bu kapsamda ele alındığı görülmektedir. Buna bağlı olarak da, çocuklar bakımından uzlaştırmaya tâbi olan dosyaların sayısı hızla artmakta ve uzlaştırma kurumu, adalet sistemi içinde daha görünür hâle gelmektedir. Buna karşın, çocuklar bakımından uzlaştırma uygulamasından beklenen yararların sağlanabilmesi için, öncelikle bu yararların neler olduğunun açıkça tespit edilmesi ve hangi hukuki kurum ve kurallar aracılığıyla hayata geçirilebileceğinin belirlenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, çocuklar bakımından uzlaştırmadan beklenen üç farklı yarar kategorisi olduğu ve başarılı bir uzlaştırma uygulamasının da, ancak bu yararlar arasında makul bir denge kurulmasıyla mümkün olabileceği ileri sürülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çalışmada benimsenen yarar kategorileri; adalet sistemi bakımından “alternatif çözüm yöntemi”, uzlaştırmanın tarafları bakımından “onarıcı adalet” ve çocuklar bakımından da “çocuğun yüksek yararı” olarak belirlenmiş bulunmaktadır. Çalışmada, her üç yarar kategorisi ayrıntılı bir biçimde tanımlanmakta ve Türk Hukuku’ndaki mevcut durumun analizi yapılarak, sorunlu olduğu düşünülen alanlara işaret edilmekte ve somut çözüm önerilerinde bulunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Çocuk
• Uzlaştırma
• Alternatif çözüm yöntemi
• Onarıcı adalet
• Çocuğun yüksek yararı

Victim-Offender Mediation for Juveniles: In Search of a Reasonable Balance amongst Different Benefits

Abstract

Victim-offender mediation for juveniles is a criminal and criminal procedure law institution, which has recently come into prominence both in the world and in Turkey. In this context, one can observe that the types of crimes within the scope of this institution are gradually diversifying and over time, more serious crimes are handled within this scope. Accordingly, the number of cases refereed to victim-offender mediation for juveniles increases rapidly and the mediation institution becomes more visible in the justice system. However, in order to achieve the expected benefits of victim-offender mediation for juveniles, it is necessary to clearly determine what these benefits are and through which legal institutions and rules can be realized. In this study, it is suggested that there are three different benefit categories expected from victim-offender mediation for juveniles and a successful mediation can be achieved only after securing a reasonable balance thereof. In this context, the benefit categories adopted in the study are “alternative solution method” for the justice system, “restorative justice” for the parties of mediation and “best interest of the child” for children. All three categories of benefits are defined in detail and the current situation in Turkish Law is analyzed accordingly. In conclusion, the areas that are considered to be problematic are pointed out and concrete solutions are offered.

Keywords

• Child
• Victim-offender mediation
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Restorative justice
• Best interest of the child

References

1. Kitaplar ve Makaleler: Abdullah Batuhan Baytaz, “Onarıcı Adalet’e Genel Bir Bakış”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, 2013, LXXXI (1), 117-130.
2. Adam Crawford/Tim Newborn, Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing Reform in Youth Justice, Willan Publishing, Devon, 2003.
3. Alberta Fiadjoe, Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Developing World Perspective, Cavendish Publishing, London, 2004.
4. Ali Rıza Töngür/Ekrem Çetintürk, “Onarıcı Adalet Anlayışının Teorik Temelleri”, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2018, 17 (2), 7-26.
5. Allison Morris/Gabrielle Maxwell, “Implementing Restorative Justice: What Works?” in Allison Morris/Gabrielle Maxwell (eds.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Portland, 2001, 267-281.
6. Anette Storgaard/Andrea Păroşanu, “Denmark” in Adélaïde Vanhove/Giulia Melotti (eds.), European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice – Volume I: Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States, International Juvenile Justice Observatory, Brussels, 2015, 49-52.
7. Anne Lemonne/Inge Vanfraechem, “Victim-Offender Mediation for Juveniles in Belgium” in Anna Mestitz/Simona Ghetti (eds.), Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe: An overview and comparison of 15 countries, Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, 181-209.
8. Asuman A. İnceoğlu/Ulaş Karan, “Türkiye’de Ceza Davalarında Uzlaşma Uygulamaları: Hukuki Çerçevenin Değerlendirilmesi” in Galma Jahic/Burcu Yeşiladalı (eds.), Onarıcı Adalet: Mağdur-Fail Arabuluculuğu ve Uzlaşma Uygulamaları: Türkiye ve Avrupa Bakışı, Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008, 45-81.

9. Bahri Öztürk, “7188 sayılı Kanunla Getirilen Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukuna İlişkin Yeni Düzenlemelere Toplu Bakış” in Murat Balcı/Handan Oruç Ömeroğlu/Hüseyin Şık/Hüseyin Aydın/Destan Çakıroğlu/Alev Özeroğlu/Şölen Çakıroğlu (eds.), Ord. Prof. Dr. Sulhi Dönmezer 102 Yaşında/Tebliğler, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2020, 99-124.
10. Berrin Akbulut/Murat Aksan, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Uzlaştırma, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2019.
11. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, “Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” in James Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, Oxford, 2015, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-59, , Erişim Tarihi: 23.12.2020.
12. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, “Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” in Neil J. SMELSER/Paul B BALTES (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pergamon, Oxford, 2001, 9507-9512.
13. Cumhur Şahin, “Ceza Muhakemesinde Uzlaşma”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi: Süleyman Arslan’a Armağan, 1998, 6 (1-2), 221-297.
14. Cumhur Şahin/Neslihan Göktürk, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku – II, 10. Bası, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2020.
15. Daniel W. Van Ness/Karen Heetderks Strong, Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice, Fifth Edition, Elsevier Publishing, Waltham, 2015.
16. David Miers/Michael Semenchuk, “Victim-Offender Mediation in England and Wales” in Anna Mestitz/Simona Ghetti (eds.), Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe: An overview and comparison of 15 countries, Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, 23-46.
17. Deborah Thompson Eisenberg, “What We Know and Need to Know about Court-Annexed Dispute Resolution”, South Carolina Law Review, 2016, 67, 245-265.
18. Declan Roche, “Retribution and Restorative Justice” in Gerry Johnstone/Daniel W. Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice, Willan Publishing, Devon, 2007, 75-90.
19. Donna Shestowsky, “Disputants’ Preferences for Court-Connected Dispute Resolution Procedures: Why We Should Care and Why We Know So Little”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2008, 23 (3), 549-626.
20. Durmuş Tezcan/Mustafa Ruhan Erdem/Oğuz Sancakdar/ Rifat Murat Önok, İnsan Hakları El Kitabı, 8. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2019.
21. Ebru Ceylan, “Türk Medeni Kanunu’nda Çocuğun Korunmasıyla İlgili Güncel Yargıtay Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Şeref Aktaş’a Armağan, 2017, 19 (Özel Sayı), 349-375.
22. Ebubekir Yıldırım, 6763 ve 7188 sayılı Kanunlarla Yapılan Değişiklikler Işığında Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Uzlaştırma Kurumu, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2020.
23. Ekrem Çetintürk, “Onarıcı Adalet Anlayışı ve Uzlaştırma Kurumunun Türk Ceza Adalet Sisteminde Algılanışı (Geleneksel Ceza Adalet Anlayışına Eleştirel Bir Bakış)”, Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, 2009, 4 (9), 191-245.
24. Ekrem Çetintürk, Onarıcı Adalet ve Ceza Adalet Sisteminde Uzlaştırma, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2017.
25. Emine Akyüz, Çocuk Hukuku: Çocukların Haklarının Korunması, 6. Baskı, Pegem Akademi, Ankara, 2018.
26. Frieder Dünkel, “Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich: German experiences with mediation in a European perspective”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 1996, 4 (4), 44-66.
27. Frieder Dünkel/Andrea Păroşanu, “Germany” in Adélaïde Vanhove/Giulia Melotti (eds.), European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice – Volume I: Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States, International Juvenile Justice Observatory, Brussels, 2015, 75-80.
28. Frieder Dünkel/Philip Horsfield/Andrea Păroşanu, “Introduction” in Adélaïde Vanhove/Giulia Melotti (eds.), European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice – Volume I: Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States, International Juvenile Justice Observatory, Brussels, 2015, 3-17.
29. Galma Akdeniz, “Onarıcı Adalet Yaklaşımı ve Kavramsal Temelleri”, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2019, XVI (1), 1-23.
30. Gerry Johnstone/Daniel W. Van Ness, “The Meaning of Restorative Justice” in Gerry Johnstone/Daniel W. Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice, Willan Publishing, Devon, 2007, 5-23.
31. Giuliana Romualdi, “Problem-Solving Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Italian Legal Context”, Utrecht Law Review, 2018, 14 (3), 52-63.
32. Gordon Bazemore, “The “Community” in Community Justice: Issues, Themes, and Questions for the New Neighborhood Sanctioning Models”, Justice System Journal, 1997, 19 (2), 193-227.
33. Gordon Bazemore/Mara Schiff, “Introduction” in Gordon Bazemore/Mara Schiff (eds.), Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities, Routledge, New York, 2001, 1-17.
34. Gordon Bazemore/Mara Schiff, “Understanding Restorative Community Justice: What and Why Now?” in Gordon Bazemore/Mara Schiff (eds.), Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities, Routledge, New York, 2001, 21-46.
35. Gordon Bazemore/Mark Umbreit, “Rethinking the Sanctioning Function in Juvenile Court: Retributive or Restorative Response to Youth Crime”, Crime and Delinquency, 1995, 41 (3), 296-316.
36. Hakan A. Yavuz, “Onarıcı Adalet ve Uzlaştırma Kurumu Bağlamında Ceza Adalet Sisteminde Mağdurun Konumu”, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 2015, 6 (23), 85-115.
37. Hamide Zafer, “Türk Ceza Hukuku'nda Fail-Mağdur Uzlaşması (TCK m.73/8)”, Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2006, 5 (2), 117-140.
38. Hayrunnisa Özdemir/Ahmet Cemal Ruhi, Çocuk Hukuku, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2012.
39. Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, Herald Press, Pennsylvania, 1990.
40. Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Good Books, New York, 2014.
41. Hüsamettin Uğur, “Suça Sürüklenen ve Suç Mağduru Çocuklarda Uzlaşma”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, 2010, 43, 123-144.
42. Hüseyin Ertuğrul, “7188 Sayılı Kanun Sonrası Uzlaştırma Kurumu Üzerine Değerlendirmeler”, Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Dergisi, 2020, 5 (2), 119-138.
43. Irma Canyaningtyas, “Penal Mediation of Treatments for Children in the Juvenile System”, Diponegoro Law Review, 2018, 3 (2), 264-276.
44. Ivo Aertsen, “The Intermediate Position of Restorative Justice: The Case of Belgium” in Ivo Aertsen/Tom Daems/Luc Roberts (eds.), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice, Willan Publishing, Devon, 2006, 68- 92.
45. Ivo Aertsen/Frieder Dünkel, “Belgium” in Adélaïde Vanhove/Giulia Melotti (eds.), European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice – Volume I: Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States, International Juvenile Justice Observatory, Brussels, 2015, 25-28.
46. Ivo Aertsen/Jolien Willemsens, “The European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 2001, 9, 291-300.
47. İzzet Özgenç, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Ceza Hukukuna Giriş, Suç Teorisi, Yaptırım Teorisi, Milletlerarası Ceza Hukuku, 16. Bası, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2020.
48. James R. Holbrook/Laura M. Gray, “Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution”, Journal of Contemporary Law, 1995, 21 (1), 1-20.
49. Janez Kranjc, “The Liability for Wrongful Acts of Children in Roman Law” in Yener Ünver (ed.), Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Çocuk Hakları - VI. Türkiye-Slovenya Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Sempozyumu, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2018, 69-84.
50. Jean Zermatten, The Best Interest of the Child: Literal Analyses, Function and Implementation, Working Report, Institut International des Droits de l’Enfant, 2010.
51. Jessica M. Marshall, “(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction: Using Restorative Justice to Satisfy Victims' Rights”, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2014, 15, 569-596.
52. Jiska Jonas-van Dijk/Sven Zebel/Jacques Claessen/Hans Nelen, “Victim–Offender Mediation and Reduced Reoffending: Gauging the Self-Selection Bias.”, Crime & Delinquency, 2020, 66 (6–7), 949-972.
53. Jonathan Doak, “England and Wales” in Adélaïde Vanhove/Giulia Melotti (eds.), European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice – Volume I: Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States, International Juvenile Justice Observatory, Brussels, 2015, 53-60.
54. Kathleen Daly, “Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice” in Heather Strang/John Braithwaite (eds.), Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice, Ashgate&Dartmouth, Aldershot, 2000, 33-54.
55. Kurtuluş Tayanç Çalışır/Melissa Doğan, Çocuklar Suçun Nesnesi Olamazlar (Çocuk Hakları Manifestosu), Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2020.
56. Lode Walgrave, “Towards restoration as the mainstream in youth justice” in Elizabeth Elliott/Robert M. Gordon (eds.), New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues, Practice, Evaluation, Willan Publishing, Devon, 2005, 3-25.
57. Lottie Wahlin, “Victim-Offender Mediation in Sweden” in Anna Mestitz/Simona Ghetti (eds.), Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe: An overview and comparison of 15 countries, Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, 77-100, s. 95.
58. M. Nedim Bekri, “Ceza Muhakemesi Uygulamasında Uzlaşma”, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016, 6 (1), 73-98.
59. Mahmut Kaplan, “Onarıcı Adalet ve Türk Ceza Hukukuna Yansımaları”, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2015, 5 (1), 59-86.
60. Marc Galanter, “The Vanishing Trial: What the numbers tell us, what they may mean”, Dispute Resolution Magazine, 2003, 10 (3), 3-6.
61. Marc Galanter, “The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts”, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2004, 1 (3), 459-570.
62. Marit Skivenes/Line Marie Sørsdal, “The Child’s Best Interest Principle across Child Protection Jurisdictions” in Asgeir Falch-Eriksen / Elizabeth Backe-Hansen (eds.), Human Rights in Child Protection: Implicationsa fro Professional Practice and Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018, 59-88.
63. Mark S. Umbreit/Jean Greenwood, Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue, University of Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Washington DC, 2000.
64. Mark S. Umbreit/Robert B. Coates/Betty Vos, “Victim Impact of Meeting with Young Offenders: Two Decades of Victim Offender Mediation Practice and Research” in Allison Morris/Gabrielle Maxwell (eds.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Hart Publishing, Portland, 2001, 121-144.
65. Mark S. Umbreit/Robert B. Coates/Betty Vos, “Victim offender mediation: An evolving evidence-based practice” in Dennis Sullivan/Larry Tifft (eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective, Routledge, Oxon, 2006, 52-62.
66. Melissa Lewis/Les McCrimmon, The Role of ADR Processes in the Criminal Justice System: A view from Australia, Paper presented at ALRESA Conference, 4-8 September 2005, Uganda, https://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/2005uganda/ent_s3_mccrimmon.pdf, 06.01.2021.
67. Memduh Cemil Şirin, “Çocuğun Yararı Gözüyle Çocuğun Yüksek Yararı İlkesine Bakış”, Çocuk ve Medeniyet, 2019, 2, 219-240.
68. Michael Kilchling, “Victim-Offender Mediation with Juvenile Offenders in Germany” in Anna Mestitz/Simona Ghetti (eds.), Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe: An overview and comparison of 15 countries, Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, 229-257.
69. Murat Aydın, “6763 Sayılı Kanun ile Getirilen Uzlaşma Kurumunun Uygulanması”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, 2017, 12 (126), 69-77.
70. Mustafa Albayrak, “Son Yasal Düzenlemeler Işığında Uzlaşma Kurumu Üzerine Düşünceler”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, 2007, 10, 131-143.
71. Mustafa Özbek, “Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesinin “Ceza Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk” Konulu Tavsiye Kararı”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005, 7 (1), 127-166.
72. Mustafa Özbek, “Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununda Uzlaştırma”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005, 54 (3), 289-321.
73. Mustafa Özbek, “Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununda Yapılan Değişiklikler Çerçevesinde Mağdur Fail Uzlaştırmasının Usûl ve Esasları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2007, 56 (4), 123-205.
74. Mustafa Serdar Özbek, “Suça Sürüklenen Çocuklara Yönelik Adalet Programları ve Çocuk Arabuluculuğu” in Prof. Dr. Turgut Akıntürk’e Armağan, Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2008, 449-466.
75. Mustafa Taşkın, “Fransız Ceza Hukukunda Uyuşmazlıkların Muhakeme Dışı Çözüm Yolları Bağlamında Yaptırım Sözleşmesi ve Müessesenin Türk Ceza Hukukunda Uygulanabilirliği”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, 2010, 41, 17-46.
76. Neva Öztürk/Gökçen Taner/Ersoy Kontacı, Çocukların Adalete Erişim Hakkı Çerçevesinde Hukuki Yardım Hizmetlerine Dönük İhtiyaç Analizi, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, Ankara, 2019.
77. Nur Centel/Hamide Zafer, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 14. Bası, Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2017.
78. Özden Özer Taşkın, “Velayet Hakkının Kullanılması, Velayetin Değiştirilmesi”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2020, 6 (1), 239-262.
79. Öznur Sevdiren, “Cezalandırmada Bir Paradigma Değişikliği Olarak Onarıcı Adalet Felsefesi: Bir Sentez Denemesi-I”, Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, 2011, 6 (15), 103-129.
80. Philip Alsyon/Bridget Gilmour-Walsh, The Best Interest of the Child: Towards a Synthesis of Children’s Rights and Cultural Values, UNICEF, 1996.
81. Philip Milburn, “Mediation and Reparation for Young Offenders in France: An Overview” in Anna Mestitz/Simona Ghetti (eds.), Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe: An overview and comparison of 15 countries, Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, 301-319.
82. Seldağ Güneş Peschke, “The Crimes against Children in Tutela: In the Relation between paterfamilias and filius familias” in Yener Ünver (ed.), Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Çocuk Hakları - VI. Türkiye-Slovenya Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Sempozyumu, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2018, 85-92.
83. Sertaç Işıka, “Uzlaştırma Sürecinde Suça Sürüklenen Çocuklara İlişkin Bazı Sorun ve Değerlendirmeler”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2020, 151, 61-84.
84. Shannon M. Morris, "Alternative Dispute Resolution in Criminal Cases - Is It Constitutional and Efficient?," Resolved: Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2015, 4 (3), 74-105.
85. Soner H. Çetin, “Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunda Uzlaşma (CMK m. 253, 254, 255)”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2009, 82, 1-33.
86. Susan M. Olson/Albert W. Dzur, “Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism”, Law & Society Review, 2004, 38, 139-176.
87. Şeniz Anbarlı Bozatay/Avni Akın Ürünal, “Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu Kapsamında Uzlaştırma Kapsamına Giren Suçlar: Kuramsal ve Hukuksal Bir Değerlendirme”, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2018, 16 (32), 329-344.
88. Tali Gal, Child Victims and Restorative Justice – A Need-Rights Model, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011.
89. Thomas J. Stipanowich, “ADR and the ‘Vanishing Trial’: The Growth and Impact of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’”, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2004, 1(3), 843-912.
90. Tony F. Marshall, “The Evolution of Restorative Justice in Britain”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 1996, 4 (4), 21-43.
91. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Adalet Bakanlığı, Yargı Reformu Stratejisi, Mayıs 2019, https://yargireformu.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/yrs.pdf, 15.01.2021.
92. UNHCR, Guidelines on the Assessing and Determining the Best Interests of the Child, 2018.
93. Veli Özer Özbek/Koray Doğan, “Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nda 5560 Sayılı Kanun’la Yapılan Değişikliklerin Değerlendirilmesi”, Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, 2006, 1 (2), 227-252.
94. Veli Özer Özbek, “Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Uzlaştırma Kurumunun 6763 Sayılı Kanun Hükümleri Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi”, Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, 2016, 11 (32), 7-28.
95. William Bradshaw/David Roseborough, “Restorative Justice Dialogue: The Impact of Mediation and Conferencing on Juvenile Recidivism”, Social Work Faculty Publications, 2005, 69 (2), 15-21.
96. Ulusal Mevzuat ve İlgili Belgeler: Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun, Sayı: 6763, Tarih: 24.11. 2016, R.G. 29906, 02.12.2016.
97. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ve Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun, Sayı: 7188, Tarih: 17.10.2019, R.G. 30928, 24.10.2019.
98. Ceza Muhakemesinde Uzlaştırma Yönetmeliği, Adalet Bakanlığı, R.G. 30145, 05.08.2017.
99. Ceza Muhakemesinde Uzlaştırma Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik, Adalet Bakanlığı, R.G. 30395 (4. Mükerrer), 31.12.2019.
100. Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanunu Tasarısı ile Ceza Muhakemeleri Usulü Kanununun Bir Maddesinde Değişiklik Yapılması ve Bu Kanuna Bazı Maddeler Eklenmesi Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı ve Adalet Komisyonu Raporu (1/535, 1/292), Dönem: 22, Yasama Yılı: 3, TBMM S. Sayısı: 698.
101. Çeşitli Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına İlişkin Kanun, Sayı: 5560, Tarih: 06.12.2006, R.G. 26381, 19.12.2006.
102. Türk Ceza Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun, Sayı: 5918, Tarih: 26.06.2009, R.G. 27283, 09.07.2009.
103. Uluslararası Belgeler: Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 October 2018 at the 1326th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
104. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. (2003) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning New Ways of Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency and the Role of Juvenile Justice, (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 September 2003 at the 853rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
105. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Social Reactions to Juvenile Delinquency (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1987 at the 410th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
106. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (87) 18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning the Simplification of Criminal Justice (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1987 at the 410th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
107. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (87) 21 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Assistance to Victims and the Prevention of Victimisation (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1987 at the 410th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
108. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (85) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 June 1985 at the 387th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
109. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Social Reactions to Juvenile Delinquency (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1987 at the 410th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
110. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (88) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Social Reactions to Juvenile Delinquency Among Young People Coming From Migrant Families (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 April 1988 at the 416th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
111. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (99) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Mediation in Penal Matters (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 1999 at the 679th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies).
112. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (92) 16 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1992 at the 482nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
113. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (92) 17 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Consistency in Sentencing (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1992 at the 482nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
114. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (95) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Management of Criminal Justice (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 1995 at the 543rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
115. Council of Europe European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Recommendation Concerning Mediation in Penal Matters, CEPEJ(2007)13, 7 December 2007.
116. Council of Europe European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice Working Group on Mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED), The Impact of CEPEJ Guidelines on Civil, Family, Penal and Administrative Mediation, CEPEJ-GT-MED(2017)8, 16 May 2018.
117. Council of Europe European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Mediation Development Toolkit: Ensuring Implementation of the CEPEJ Guidelines on Mediation, CEPEJ(2018)7, 27 June 2018.
118. Council of Europe European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Handbook for Mediation Lawmaking, CEPEJ(2019)9, 14 June 2019.
119. Council of Europe, European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - b. Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning restorative justice in criminal matters [1326 meeting], CM(2018)115-add2.
120. Council of Europe, European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights, 25.01.1996, ETS No. 160.
121. Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child-Friendly Justice, (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010 at the 1098th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
122. European Union, Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57–73.
123. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General comment No. 10 (2007): Children's Rights in Juvenile Justice, 25 April 2007, CRC/C/GC/10.
124. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the Right of the Child to Have his or her Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (art. 3, para. 1), 29 May 2013, CRC/C/GC/14.
125. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, ECOSOC Res. 2000/14, U.N. Doc. E/2000/INF/2/Add.2 at 35 (2000).
126. United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20.10.1989, UNTS 1577.
127. United Nations, United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), (Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990).
128. United Nations, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) (Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985).
129. Mahkeme Kararları: AİHM, Çoşelav/Türkiye Davası, Başvuru No. 1413/07, 9 Ekim 2012.
130. Yargıtay 13. CD, 03.03.2016, E. 2015/2032, K. 2016/3593.
131. Yargıtay 17. CD, 27.11.2017, E. 2017/5072, K. 2017/14611.
132. Yargıtay 19. CD, 05.11.2015, E. 2015/16, K. 2015/6675.
133. Yargıtay CGK, 10.07.2018, E. 2018/4-35, K. 2018/337.
134. Yargıtay CGK, 5.7.2005, E. 2005/10-84, K. 2005/90.
135. İnternet Kaynakları: Avrupa Adaletin Etkinliği Komisyonu İnternet Sitesi, “Mediation”, https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-work/mediation, 04.01.2021.
136. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Adalet Bakanlığı Ceza İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2019 Yılı Uzlaştırma İstatistiği, https://alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/22720201054542019%20Yılı%20%20(01.01.2019%20ilâ%2031.12.2019%20Tarihleri%20Arasındaki)%20Uzlaştırma%20Verileri.pdf, 06.01.2021.