Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to Turkish counterterrorism law through a comparative law analysis on procedural rights in police interrogation. It compares the scope and roots of the right to counsel, the right to silence and the right to be notified of these rights in the U.S., the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments and Turkey. Particularly, it scrutinizes the conditions under which these rights can be restricted in emergency circumstances and in cases when unscrupulous defense counsel aims to obstruct justice or further terrorism by abusing their communication with a terror suspect. Firstly, the article proposes that Turkey should establish a public safety exception to the right to counsel and the right to be informed of procedural rights when there is an urgent need to protect the life, liberty and bodily integrity of individuals. Secondly, it addresses a common problem stated by senior Turkish counterterrorism officials in interviews: defense counsel may be engaged with the terrorist organization of a suspect, coerce him to give a statement in a particular way, or facilitate information exchange. The article recommends that Turkey should enact an amendment allowing the replacement of unethical defense counsel with another lawyer through a magistrate judge order.

Keywords

• The right to counsel
• the right to be notified of procedural rights
• public safety exception
• the exclusion of defense counsel

References

1. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). Avukatlık Kanunu [Advocacy Code] 1136 A.K. § 6 (1969). Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press.
2. AYM 14.6.2017 E: 2017/24 K: 2017/112. AYM 24.7.2019 E: 2018/73 K: 2019/65. AYM 27.12.2018 E: 2018/153 K: 2018/119. AYM 07.09.2016 E: 2016/124 K: 2016/155. AYM 01.11.2017 E: 2017/142 K: 2017/150.
3. Barkhuysen, T., Emmerik, van M., Jansen, O. & Fedorova, M. (2018). Right to a fair trial (Article 6). In Pieter van Dijk, Fried van Hoof, Arjen van Rijn & Leo Zwaak (Eds.), Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 497-655). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Intersentia.
4. Schlink, B. (2012). Proportionality (1). In Michel Rosenfeld & András Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp.718-738). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
5. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976). Case of Borg v. Malta (App. no. 37537/13) Strasbourg 19 February 2016.
6. Case of Croissant v. Germany (App. no. 13611/88) Strasbourg 25 September 1992. Case of Deweer v. Belgium (App. no. 6903/75) Strasbourg 27 February 1980.
7. Case of Eckle v. Germany (App. no. 8130/78) Strasbourg 15 July 1982. Case of Martin v. Estonia (App. no. 35985/09) Strasbourg 30 May 2013.
8. Case of Mayzit v. Russia (App. no. 63378/00) Strasbourg 20 January 2005. Case of McFarlane v. Ireland (App. no. 31333/06) Strasbourg 10 September 2010.

9. Case of Pishchalnikov v. Russia (App. no. 7025/04) Strasbourg 24 September 2009. Case of Popov v. Russia (App. no. 26853/04) Strasbourg 13 July 2006. Case of Zagorodniy v. Ukraine (App. no. 27004/06) Strasbourg 24 November 2011.
10. Centel, N. & Zafer, H. (2013). Ceza muhakemesi hukuku (10th ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Istanbul, Turkey: Beta Yayıncılık.
11. Ceza Kanunu [Penal Code] 5237 T.C.K. § II/3, 4 (2004). Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu [Criminal Procedure Code] 5271 C.M.K. § 5, 6 (2004).
12. CoE. (2020a, January 2). Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005. Retrieved from https://www.coe. int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures.
13. CoE. (2020b, January 2). Complete list of the Council of Europe’s treaties. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/ en/web/conventions/full-list.
14. CoE. (2019a). Details of Treaty No.005. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/ conventions/treaty/005.
15. CoE. (2013, October 2). European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
16. CoE. (2019b). European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/en/web/tirana/europeancourt-of-human-rights.
17. Devlet İstihbarat Hizmetleri ve Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı Kanunu [The Statute on State Intelligence Services and the National Intelligence Organization] 6189 M.I.T.K. § 1 (1983).
18. Dvorski v. Croatia (App. no. 25703/11) ECHR 2015, 405. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
19. Ekinci, H. & Sağlam, M. (2015). 66 soruda bireysel başvuru (2nd ed., extended) [Individual applications in 66 questions]. Ankara, Turkey: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları.
20. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). Gözler, K. (2000). Türk anayasa hukuku (1st ed.) [Turkish constitutional law]. Bursa, Turkey: Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları.
21. HRW. (2000). Preventing torture. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/turkey2/Turk009-01.htm.
22. HRW. (2019). Türkiye’de avukatlar ve adil yargılanma hakkı saldırı altında [Lawyers and the right to a fair trial are under attack in Turkey]. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/turkey0419turk_ web.pdf.
23. Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (App. nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/092016) ECHR 2016.
24. Jandarma Teşkilat, Görev ve Yetkileri Kanunu [The Statute on the Organization, Duties and Authorities of the Gendarmerie], 2803 J.T.K. § 6 (1983).
25. Klatt, M. & Meister, M. (2012). The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
26. LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J. & Kerr, O. S. (2015). Criminal procedure V.2. Minnesota, United States: West Academic Publishing.
27. Meftah and others v. France (App. nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97) ECHR 2002-VII, 265.
28. Metin, Y. (2002). Ölçülülük ilkesi: Karşılaştırmalı bir anayasa hukuku incelemesi (1st ed.) [The principle of proportionality: A comparative constitutional law analysis]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
29. MFA. (2011). Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/council-of-europe.en.mfa.
30. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986). New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
31. Oehmichen, A. (2009). Terrorism and anti-terror legislation, the terrorised legislator?: A comparison of counterterror legislation and its implications on human rights in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and France. Antwerp: Intersentia.
32. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969).
33. Öztürk, B., Tezcan, D., Erdem, M.R., Sırma, Ö., Saygılar Kırıt, Y. F., Özaydın, Ö., Alan Akcan, E., & Erden, E. (2015). Nazari ve uygulamalı ceza muhakemesi hukuku (9th ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
34. PACE. (1992, June 30). Situation of human rights in Turkey, Eur. Parl. Ass. Res. 985 (June 30, 1992). Retrieved from http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16396&lang=en.
35. Polis Vazife ve Salahiyet Kanunu [The Statute on Duties and Authorities of the Police] 2559 P.V.S.K. § Supp. 7-2 (1934).
36. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). Saltzburg, S. A. & Capra, D. J. (2014). American criminal procedure: cases and commentary. Minnesota, United States: West Academic Publishing.
37. Salduz v. Turkey (App.no. 36391/02) ECHR 2008-V, 59. Saunders v. the United Kingdom (App. no. 19187/91) ECHR 1996-VI, 2044. Soyaslan, D. (2016). Ceza muhakemesi hukuku (6th ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Ankara, Turkey: Yetkin Hukuk Yayınları.
38. Strafprozeßordnung [Criminal Procedure Code] StPO § 137, 138a (1987). Tanör, B. & Yüzbaşıoğlu, N. (2001). 1982 Anayasasına göre Türk anayasa hukuku ( 2nd ed.) [Turkish constitutional law in respect of the Constitution of 1982]. Istanbul, Turkey: YKY Yayıncılık.
39. T.C. Anayasası [Turkish Constitution] 2709 AY § 2 (1982).
40. The Arrested Lawyers Initiative & CNF (2020). Mass prosecution of lawyers in turkey: unjust arrests & convictions (2016-2020). Rome, Italy: Infocarcere LTD Limited Cooperative Company.
41. Retrieved from https://arrestedlawyers.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/rapporto-febbraio-2020delle28099associazione-arrested-lawyers-initiative-sulla-persecuzione-di-massa-degli-avvocati-in-turchiainglese.pdf.
42. U.S. Constitution Amend. V (1787). Weisselberg, C. D. (2017). Exporting and importing Miranda. BUL Rev., 97, 1235-1291. Retrived from https:// heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bulr97&div=33&id=&page=.
43. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988). Yenisey, F. (2015). Kolluk hukuku (2nd ed.) [The law of law enforcement agencies]. Istanbul, Turkey: Beta Yayıncılık.
44. Yenisey, F. & Nuhoğlu, A. (2015). Ceza muhakemesi hukuku (1st ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.