Genel Prensiplerle Masumiyet Karinesi: Danıştay Kararları Açısından Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Masumiyet karinesi, tüm uluslararası ve bölgesel insan hakları sözleşmeleri tarafından, Kıt’a Avrupası Hukuk Sistemiyle benzer bir biçimde, adil yargılanma hakkının unsuru olarak tanınmaktadır. Anglo- Sakson Hukuk Sisteminde ise karine, ispat yükünü ve standardını belirleyen bir ilke olarak kabul edilmiştir. Buna karşılık her hukuk sisteminde masumiyet karinesi, Anglo-Sakson ve Kıt’a Avrupası Hukuk Sistemlerinin öngördüğü şekilde kabul edilmeyebilir. Karinenin ortak bir değer olarak kabul edilebilmesi, belirli bir düzeyde asgari mutabakat seviyesinin belirlenmesiyle mümkündür. Bu asgari mutabakat seviyesine göre karine, suç ile itham edilenleri, yanlış mahkûmiye􀄴 en koruma amacına hizmet eder ve kişinin, suçlu olduğu kanıtlanıncaya kadar masum sayılmasını sağlar. Masumiyet karinesinin anlaşılabilmesi, ilkenin doğasının tespit edilmesiyle mümkündür. Bu makalede, Danıştay içtihatları ışığında masumiyet karinesi inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. Makalenin birinci kısmında genel prensipler, ikinci kısmında masumiyet karinesinin amaçları, üçüncü kısmında idari yargıda masumiyet karinesi ve dördüncü kısmında Danıştay kararları yer almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Masumiyet karinesi
• masumiyet karinesinin amaçları
• idari yargıda masumiyet karinesi
• Danıştay kararlarında masumiyet karinesi
• masumiyet karinesinin felsefesi
• masumiyet karinesinin doktrini
• ispat yükü
• delil standardı

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES: A REVIEW CONSIDERING THE COUNCIL OF STATE’S DECISIONS

Abstract

The presumption of innocence is accepted by its position in all international and regional human rights treaties as a standard of fair trials, which similar to that Continental Law System. According to Anglo-Saxsons Law System, the presumption is described in principle of burden and standard of proof. Whereas; the presumption of innocence in every legal system may not be understood as an accepted by Anglo- Saxons and Continental Law Systems. A level of abstraction is necessary, for accepted to common principle, a search for the minimum standard that universally hold. According to this minimum standard level; the presumption has long been regarded as fundamental to protecting accused persons from wrongful conviction; and the basic principle is that the accused is to be considered innocent until proven guilty of a criminal off er. Understanding the presumption of innocence is possible with determining the nature of the right. In this article, the presumption of innocence considering the Council of State decision is examined. There are general principles in fi rst part, the purposes of the presumption of innocence in second part, presumption in administrative law jurisdiction in third part and the Council of State decisions in fourth part.

Keywords

• The presumption of innocence
• the purposes of the presumption of innocence
• presumption of innocence in administrative law jurisdiction
• presumption of innocence in Council of State decisions
• philosophy of the presumption of innocence
• doctrine of the presumption of innocence
• burden of proof
• standard of proof

References

1. ALEXY, Robert (2003), Constitutional Rights, Balancing and Rationality, Ratio Juris Press.
2. ARI, Abdülselam (2003), Hz. Ömer’in Ebu Musa El Eş’ariye Gönderdiği Mektubun Yargılama Hukuku Açısından Analizi, Islamic Law Review, V. 0/2.
3. ASSEFA, Simenah K. (2012), The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence and Its Challenges in The Ethiopian Criminal Process, Mirzan Law Review, V. 6/2.
4. ASWORTH, Andrew (2006), Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence, Sweet and Maxwell Press.
5. BENTHAM, John (1982), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Methuen Press.
6. CAMPBELL, Liz (2013), Criminal Labes, the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumption of Innocence, The Modern Law Review, V. 76/4.
7. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2020), Masumiyet Karinesi Doktrini, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Review, V. 0/42.
8. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2019), Geçiş Adaleti ve Avrupa Arındırma Hukuku, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Review, V. 0/40.

9. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), Adil Yargılanma Hakkı, Legal Law Press.
10. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Mahkemeye Erişim Hakkı, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Review, V. 0/ 28.
11. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Dördüncü Bölüm: Borg v. Malta Davası, Küresel Bakış Review, V.0/20.
12. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), Kamu Görevlilerinin Statüsüyle İlgili Uyuşmazlıklarda Adil Yargılanma Hakkı, Terazi Law Review, V. 11/ 116.
13. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), The Right to a Fair Trial, the Covarage of the Right and Application in the Tax Cases, Law and Justice Review, V. 0/12.
14. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2016), The Right to a Fair Trial in the Discrepancies Originating from Public Offi cials’ Status, Human Rights Review,v. 0/12.
15. ÇAYAN, Gökhan (2014), Ulusal ve Uluslararası Hukuk Açısında; Suçluların İadesi, Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk ve Yargıtay İçtihatları Bakımından Bir Değerlendirme, Legal Law Review, V. 12/142.
16. De JONG, Ferry, Van LENT, Leonie (2016), The Presumption of Innocence as a Counter Futual Principles, Ultrecht Law Review, V. 0/12.
17. DEBUSİ İsa, (Translated by Mehmet Boynukalın), Takvimü’l-edille, Beyrut, Dar’ul Kütüb’il İlmiyye.
18. DUFF, R. Antony (2001), Punishment, Communication and Community, Oxford Press.
19. ERTURHAN, Sabri (2002), İslam Hukukunda Şüpheden Sanığın Yararlanması İlkesi (In Dubio Pre Reo), Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Review, V. 6/ 2.
20. EŞ- ŞEYBANİ, Muhammed bin, (Translated by Mehmet Boynu Kalın), Beyrut, Dar İbn Hazm, X. Cilt.
21. FERZAN, Kimberly Kesler (2014), Preventive Justice and The Presumption of Innocence, Law and Philos Review, V. 0/ 8.
22. FEYZİOĞLU, Metin (1999), Suçsuzluk Karinesi: Kavram Hakkında Genel Bilgiler ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, cd: 30/12/2019 h􀄴 p:// dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/38/293/2671.pdf s. 136.
23. GRAY, Anthony (2017), Presumption of Innocence in Peril, Lexington Press.
24. HABERMAS, Jürgen (1996), (Translated by W. REGH), Between Facts and Norms, Polity Press.
25. KITAI, Rinat (2002), Presuming Innocence, Okla Law Review, V.0/ 63.
26. JACKSON, D. John, SUMMERS, J. Sarah (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, Cambridge University Press.
27. LACEY, Nicola (2016), in Search of Criminal Responsibility; Ideas, Interests and Institutions, Oxford University Press.
28. LAUDAN, Larry (2006), Truth, Error and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, Cambridge University Press.
29. LAUFER, S. WILLIAM (1995), The Rhetoric of Innocence,Washington Law Review, V. 0/ 17.
30. LIPPKE, Richard (2016), Taming the Presumption of Innocence, Oxford University Press.
31. ROBERTS, Paul, HUNTER, Jill (2012), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights, Hart Press.
32. ROBERTS, Paul, ZUCKERMAN, Adrian (2004), Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press.
33. SCHEINER, Robert (2007), Standard of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, And Plea Bargaining: How Wrongful Conviction Data Exposes Inadequate Pre-Trial Criminal Procedure, California Western Law Review, V. 0/ 55.
34. SHERMAN, J. Clark (2014), The Juror, The Citizen, and The Human Being: The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Judgement, Cirim Law and Philos Review, V/ 8.
35. SMITH, E. (2012), The Presumption of Innocence, Scandinavian Studies in Law, cd.: 31/12/2019, h􀄴 ps://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/51-23.pdf.
36. STUMMER, Andrew (2010), The Presumption of Innocence Avidental and Human Rights Perspective, Oregon Press.
37. ŞEBBE, Ömer bin, (Translated by Mehmet Boynukalın), Tarihü’l-Medine Daru’l-Uleyeyani, V: II.
38. TRACHSEL, Stefan (2005), Human Rights in Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press.
39. WILKINSON, Harvaie (2018), the Presumption of Civil Innocence, Virginia Law Review, V. 104/ 4.
40. VITKAUSKAS, Dikov, LEWIS- ANTONY Sian (2012), Right to a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Integrights Press.
41. Von HIRSCH, Andrew, ASWORTH, Andrew (2005), Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles, Oxford University Press.
42. ZEDNER, Lucia (2004), Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press.