The Meaning, Purposes, Types, and Oversight of Amnesty (A Comparative Constitutional Study)

Öz

The study first explains the types of amnesty by drawing on examples from Turkey and other countries, and identifies the purposes served by this institution. In doing so, it aims to contribute to the Turkish literature on the subject. It further examines comparative practices and argues that the Turkish Constitutional Court should adopt jurisprudence prohibiting amnesties for serious human rights violations (particularly concerning the right to life and the prohibition of torture) as well as the prohibition of self-amnesty. Finally, the paper contends that the power vested in the President cannot be fully characterized as amnesty/pardon, and it emphasizes in detail the need for legislation to prevent arbitrariness in this regard.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• amnesty
• pardon
• Serious human rights violations
• Comparative law

AF KURUMUNUN ANLAMI, AMAÇLARI, TÜRLERİ VE DENETİMİ (Karşılaştırmalı Bir Anayasal İnceleme)

Öz

Bu makalede öncelikle af kurumunun türleri Türkiye ve dünya örnekleri üzerinden açıklanmış, bu kurumun hangi amaçlara hizmet ettiği ortaya konulmuştur. Böylece konuyla ilgili Türkçe literatüre katkı sağlanması hedeflenmiştir. Ayrıca karşılaştırmalı uygulamalar incelenerek, yaşam hakkı ve işkence yasağı gibi haklarla bağlantılı olarak ağır insan hakları ihlallerine yönelik af yasakları ile kendi kendini affetme yasağına ilişkin içtihatların Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından benimsenmesi gerektiği ileri sürülmüştür. Son olarak Cumhurbaşkanına tanınan yetkinin tam anlamıyla af olarak nitelendirilemeyeceği savunulmuş ve bu konuda keyfiliği önlemek için bir kanun çıkarılması gereği ayrıntılı biçimde vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Genel af
• Özel af
• Ağır insan hakları ihlalleri
• Karşılaştırmalı hukuk

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma TÜBİTAK (2219 - Yurt Dışı Doktora Sonrası Araştırma Burs Programı) tarafından desteklenmiştir.

Teşekkür

Ar. Gör. Sıla Er'e redaksiyon ve atıf desteği için teşekkür ederim.

Kaynakça

1. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘General Comment No. 4 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Redress for Victims of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment (Article 5)’, Adopted at the 21st Extraordinary Session, 04/03/2017.
2. Allier-Montano E and Vicente Ovalle C, ‘As an Unhealed Wound: Memory and Justice in Post-Dictatorship Uruguay’ in Allier-Montano and Emilio Crenzel (eds), The Struggle for Memory in Latin America: Recent History and Political Violence (Palgrave 2015) 35-53.
3. Altıparmak K, Zaman ve Aşımı Ağır İnsan Hakları İhlallerinin Kılıfını Kaldırmak (Ütopya Yay. 2023).
4. Armağan S, ‘Anayasa Hukuku Açısından Af Yetkisinin Değerlendirilmesi’ (2001) (18) Anayasa Yargısı 347-363.
5. Arsel İ, Türk Anayasa Hukukunun Umumî Esasları (Birinci Kitap: Cumhuriyetin Temel Kuruluşu) (Mars Matbaası 1965).
6. Aslan T, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Genel Af Uygulamaları’ (2009) 3(5) Akademik Bakış 41-60.
7. Barrientos CJ, ‘Memory Policies in Chile, 1973-2010’ in Eugenia Allier-Montano and Emilio Cranzel (eds), The Struggle for Memory in Latin America (Palgrave Macmillan 2015) 53-70.
8. Beigbeder Y, International Justice Against Impunity Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff 2005). Black HC, Black’s Law Dictionary (West Publishing 1992).

9. Burgess P, ‘De Facto Amnesty? The Example of Post-Soeharto Indonesia’ in Francesca Lessa and Leigh A. Payne (eds), The Example of Post-Soeharto Indonesia,” Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability: Comparative and International Perspectives (Cambridge University Press 2012) 263-290.
10. Close J, Amnesty, Serious Crimes and International Law: Global Perspectives in Theory and Practice (Roudledge 2019).
11. Collins C, ‘Human rights trials in Chile during and after the ‘Pinochet Years’ (2010) 4(1) International Journal of Transitional Justice 67-86.
12. Conaghan CM, Fujimoris’s Peru: Deception in the Public Sphere (Pittsburgh Press 2005).
13. Craig R, Royal Law: Prerogative Foundations (Bloomsbury 2025).
14. Crouch J, The Presidential Pardon Power (University Press of Kansas 2009).
15. Da Silva VA, The Constitution of Brazil: A Contextual Analysis (Hart Publishing 2019).
16. Dimoulis D, Die Begnadigung in vergleichender Perspektive Rechtsphilosophische, verfassungs – und strafrechtliche Probleme (Duncker& Humblot 1996).
17. Döner A, ‘Cezai ve İdari Yaptırımların Farklılığı Bağlamında TBMM’nin Af Yetkisi’ (2008) 12(3-4) Erzincan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 33-54.
18. Engle K, ‘Self-Critique, (Anti) Politics and Criminalization: Reflections on the History and Trajectory of the Human Rights Moment’, in Jose Maria Beneyto and David Keneddy (eds), New Approaches to International Law: The European and the American Experiences, (Springer, 2012) 41-74.
19. Erem F, Ümanist Doktrin Açısından Türk Ceza Hukuku (Seçkin 1995).
20. Garreton R, ‘Chilean Transitional Justice and the Legacy of the De Facto Regime’ in Jessica Almqvist and Carlos Esposito (ed) The Role of Courts in Transitional Justice: Voiced from Latin America and Spain (Routledge 2012) 81-102.
21. Gobodo-Madikizela P, ‘Elternatives fo Recenge: Bulging a Vocabulary of Reconciliation through Political Pardon’ in Charles Villa-Vicencio and Erik Doxtader (eds), The Provocations of Amnesty: Memory, Justice and Impunity (Institute for Justice and Reconciliation 2003).
22. Gözler K, ‘Karşılaştırmalı Anayasa Hukukunda Af Yetkisi’ (2001) 18 Anayasa Yargısı 298-330.
23. Gready P, The Era of Transitional Justice: The Aftermath of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and Beyond (Roudledge 2010).
24. Gualde A and Luterstein N, ‘The Argentinean Reparations Programme for Grave Violations of Human Rights Perpetrated during the Laws Military Dictatorship’ in Carla Ferstman and Mariana Goetz (eds) Victims of Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (Brill 2020) 415-434.
25. Gülener S, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında ‘Genel Af ’ Kanunları Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi 411-429.
26. Israel FL, Major Peace Treaties of Modern History 1648 – 1967 (Chelsea House Publications 1967).
27. Joinet L (UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities), ‘Study on Amnesty Laws and Their Role in the Safeguard and Promotion of Human Rights’, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/16, 21/07/1985.
28. Kant I, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre. Metaphysik der Sitten (3rd edn, Felix Meiner Verlag Erster Teil 2009).
29. Keyman S, Türk Hukukunda Af: Genel Af-Özel Af (Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi 1965).
30. Koca M, ‘Özel Af ile İnfaz Rejimine İlişkin Düzenlemelerin Özellikleri’ (2021) 38(1) Anayasa Yargısı 1-41.
31. Küçük Y, Türkiye Üzerine Tezler (Tekin Yay. 1978).
32. Lavedra RG, ‘The Possibility of Criminal Justice: The Argentinean Experience’ in Jessica Almqvist and Carlos Esposito (eds), The Role of Courts in Transitional Justice: Voiced from Latin America and Spain (Routledge 2012) 56-80.
33. Lessa F and Payne LA (eds), Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability Comparative and International Perspectives CUP 2012).
34. Mallinder L, ‘Global Comparison of Amnesty Laws’ iç M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed), The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-Conflict Justice, (Intersentia 2010).
35. Mallinder L, Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide (Hart 2008).
36. Mamdani M, Neither Settler Nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities (Harvard University Press 2020).
37. Manthey L, Amnestiegesetze und Rule of Law im Völkerrecht: Die völkerrechtliche Einhegung innerstaatlicher Amnestien – Verrechtlichung des Politischen oder Politisierung des Rechts? (Mohr Siebeck 2022).
38. Mera G and Eduardo M, Inter-American Judicial Constitutionalism: On the Constitutional Rank of Human Rights Treaties in Latin America through National and Inter-American Adjudication (Inter‑American Institute of Human Rights (IIDH) 2011).
39. Montoya Vivanco Y, ‘Responding to Human Rights Violations Committed during the Internal Armed Conflict in Peru: The Limits and Advances of Peruvian Criminal Justice’ in Jessica Almqvist and Carlos Esposito (eds), The Role of Courts in Transitional Justice (Routledge 2012) 159-184.
40. Novak A, ‘Pardon Power’ in Rainer Grote, Frauke Lachenmann and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law [MPECCoL] (Oxford University Press 2017).
41. Novak A, Comparative Executive Clemency The Constitutional Pardon Power and the Prerogative of Mercy in Global Perspective (Routledge 2015).
42. Ntoubandi FZ, Amnesty for Crimes against Humanity under International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).
43. Okumuş N, Türk-Amerikan İlişkilerinde Haşhaş Ekimi Krizi (1968-1975) Kriz Yönetimi Acısından Bir İnceleme (Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yay. 2020).
44. Orentlicher D, ‘Report of the Independent Expert to Update the Set of Principles to Combat Impunity’, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2005/102, 08/02/2005.
45. Öndin HB, ‘Terör Örgütü Üyeliği Suçunda Etkin Pişmanlık’ (2020) (43) Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 145-176.
46. Özbudun E and Yazıcı S, ‘Military Regimes’ Extrication from Politics: Exit Guarantees’ in Aleksandra Jasinska, Kania and Jacek Raciborski (eds), Narod–Wladza–Spoleczenstwo (Scholar 1996) 325-340.
47. Özdemir AU, ‘Lozan’da Başarıyı Ölçmek: Konular Bazında Bir Değerlendirme’ (2013) 13(53) Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi (Lozan Antlaşması Özel Sayısı).
48. Özden YG, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Kanun Koyucu Gibi Hareketle, Yeni Bir Uygulamaya Yol Açacak Biçimde Hüküm Tesis Edemez Kuralına Nasıl Gelindi? Bu Kural Nedir, Ne Değildir?’ (1985) 2 Anayasa Yargısı 41-90.
49. Özdönmez M, ‘Orman Suçları ile İlgili Af Kanunları ve Sonuçları’ (1973) 23(2) İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 48-61.
50. Sarkin JJ, ‘How Conditional Amnesties Can Assist Transitional Societies in Delivering on the Right to the Truth: Are Such Processes Compatible with International Law?’ (2017) 6(2) International Human Rights Law Review 143-175.
51. Sattamini LP and Green JN, ‘Brazil: Never Again?’ (2011) 72(1) History Workshop Journal 275-282.
52. Sınmaz Sönmez C, ‘Cumhuriyetin Onuncu Yıldönümü Kıtlamaları ve 26 Ekim 1933 Tarihli Genel Af Yasası’ (2004) 9(33) Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi 89-101.
53. Slye R, ‘The Legitimacy of Amnesties under International Law and General Principles of Anglo-American Law’ (2012) (43) Virginia Journal of International Law 173-247.
54. Soyaslan D, ‘Af ’ (2001) 18 Anayasa Yargısı 412 – 437.
55. Sözüer A, ‘Türk Hukukunda Af, 4454 ve 4616 Sayılı Kanunlarda Öngörülen Şartla Salıverilme ve Ertelemeye İlişkin Hükümlerin Hukuksal Niteliği ile Bu Hükümlerin Anayasa’ya Uygunluğu Sorunu’ (2001) 17(1) Anayasa Yargısı 219-253.
56. Straßner V, ‘Uruguay: Vergangenheitspolitik – Die Dialektik von Vergessen und Erinnern’ in Peter Hoeres and Hubertus Knabe (eds), Nach der Diktatur Die Aufarbeitung von Gewaltherrschaften (De Gruyter 2023) 391-477.
57. Süß F, Studien zur Amnestiegesetzgebung (Duncker & Humblodt 2001).
58. Şirin T, “Norm Kavramına Dair Düşünceler: Gözler-Altıparmak Tartışmasına Dönük Bir “Saptırmama” Denemesi”, Ömer Egeliği (haz.), Norm ve Olgu: Gözler, Altıparmak ve Şirin’in HAGB Kararı Tartışmaları, (Yetkin Yay., 2023)
59. Şirin T, ‘Türkiye’de Cezasızlık Sorunu ve Anayasa Mahkemesi’ (2019) 21, D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1577-1607.
60. Teitel RG, Transitional Justice (Oxford University Press 2000).
61. Tuğay O, Türkiye’de Vergi Affı Uygulamaları (Ekin Yay. 2021).
62. UN Committee Against Torture, ‘Committee against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture – Nepal’ CAT/C/NPL/CO/2, 13/04/2007.
63. Urtubey M, ‘Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitation for Crimes Committed in Argentina: Barrios Altos’ (2005) (11) Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 109-131.
64. Uyar L (der), Birleşmiş Milletler’de İnsan Hakları Yorumları: İnsan Hakları Komitesi ve Ekonomik, Sosyal ve Kültürel Haklar Komitesi, 1981-2006 (İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yay. 2006).
65. Yalta B, Bir Darbeci Subayın Hatıraları: 27 Mayıs 1960, 22 Şubat 1962, 21 Mayıs 1963, Erhan Çiftçi (haz.) (Kronik Yay. 2020).
66. Yılmaz N, ‘150’likler ve 3527 sayılı Af Kanunu’ (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi 2009). ‘Declaration of Amnesty’ (1924) 18(2) American Journal of International Law 92-95.
67. İNTERNET KAYNAKLARI ‘Case of Castillo-Páez v. Peru’ (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 27 November 1998)
68. accessed 30 May 2025)
69. ‘Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru’ (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 27 November 1998)
70. accessed 30 May 2025)
71. Close J, ‘Amnesty Provisions in the Constitutions of the World: A Comparative Analysis’ (International Law Blog, 05 January 2015)
72. accessed 29 May 2025.
73. KARARLAR Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1964/12 K 1964/47, 09.06.1964.
74. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1966/7 K 1966/46, 19.12.1966.
75. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1974/19 K 1974/31, 02.07.1974.
76. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1974/34 K 1974/50, 28.11.1974.
77. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1974/40 K 1975/4, 07.01.1975.
78. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1974/48 K 1975/10, 28.01.1975.
79. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1975/193 K 1976/16, 16.03.1976.
80. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1975/3 K 1975/35, 05.03.1975.
81. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1975/34 K 1975/70, 03.04.1975.
82. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1976/7 K 1976/35, 24.06.1976.
83. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1978/67 K 1979/14, 13.03.1979.
84. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1985/30 K 1986/10, 18.03.1986.
85. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E. 1988/3, K.1989/4, 18/1/1989.
86. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 1999/39 K 2000/23, 19.09.2000.
87. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2001/4 K 2001/332, 18.07.2001.
88. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2002/99 K 2002/51, 28.5.2002.
89. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2004/92 K 2008/119, 12.6.2008.
90. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2018/31 K 2020/38, 16.07.2020.
91. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2020/44 K 2020/41, 17.07.2020.
92. Anayasa Mahkemesi, E 2020/53 K 2021/55, 14.07.2021.
93. Cem Sarısülük ve diğerleri [GK], B. No: 2015/16451, 15 Aralık 2021.
94. Fatma Turan, B. No: 2014/7804, 10 Haziran 2020, § 59.
95. Yunis Karataş [GK], B. No: 2021/34231, 26 Ocak 2023.
96. BVerfGE, 30, 108, 110.
97. Dujardin v France App No. 16734/90 (ECtHR, 2 September 1991).
98. Ateşoğlu v Türkiye App No. 53645/10 (ECtHR, 20 January 2025).
99. Tarbuk v Croatia App No. 31360/10 (ECtHR, 11 December 2012).
100. Gutierrez Dorado v Spain App No. 30141/09 (ECtHR, 27 March 2012).
101. Marguš v Croatia App No. 4455/10 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 27 May 2014).
102. Janowiec and Others v Russia App No. 55508/07 & 29520/09 (ECtHR Grand Chamber, 21 October 2013).
103. Ould Dah v France App No. 13113/03 (ECtHR, 17 March 2009).
104. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo (CCT11/96) [1997] ZACC 4; 1997 (6) BCLR 708; 1997 (4) SA 1 (Constitutional Court of South Africa, 18 April 1997)
105. Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others (CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4; 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC); 2010 (2) SACR 101 (CC); 2010 (5) BCLR 391 (CC) (Constitutional Court of South Africa, 23 February 2010).
106. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6 (1983).
107. Atachahua v Peru Communication No. 540/1993 (UN Human Rights Committee, 16 April 1996) UN Doc CCPR/C/586/D/540/1993.
108. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority 1 QB 26 (CA, 1989).
109. Burt v Governor-General 3 NZLR 672 (CA, 1992).
110. Yasmin v Attorney General FCA 91 (FCAFC, 2015).
111. Thatcher v Attorney General 1 FC 289 (FCC, 1997).
112. Masacre Las Hojas v El Salvador Case 10.287, Report No. 26/92, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83, Doc. 14. (IACHR, 24 September 1993).
113. Massacre of El Mozote and Nearby Places v El Salvador Series C No. 252, (IACHR, 25 October 2012).
114. Ignacio Ellacuría et al v El Salvador Case 10.488, Report No. 136/99 (IACHR, 22 December 1999).
115. Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras Series C No 4 (IACtHR, 29 July 1988).
116. Loayza-Tamayo v Peru Series C No. 33 (IACHR, 17 September 1997).
117. Castillo Páez v Peru Series C No. 34 (IACHR, 27 November 1998).
118. Barrios Altos v Peru Series C No. 75 (IACHR, 14 March 2001).
119. Almonacid-Arellano et al v Chile, Series C No. 154 (IACHR, 26 September 2006).
120. Gomes Lund v Brezil Series C No. 219 (IACHR, 24 November 2010).
121. Gelman v Uruguay Series C No. 221 (IACHR, 24 February 2011).
122. Malawi African Association et al v Mauritania 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97–196/97 ve 210/98 (ACHPR, 11 May 2000).
123. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe Communication No. 245/02 (ACHPR, 15 May 2006).
124. Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains v Cote DIvoire Communication No. 246/02 (ACHPR, 29 July 2008).
125. Thomas Kwoyelo v Uganda 036-2011, (ACHPR, 08 September 2011).
126. Maru Ram v Union of India SC, AIR 2147, 11/11/1980
127. Swaran Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 5962-1994, 05/03/1998.
128. Satpal v State of Haryana SCI, AIR 1702, 01/05/2000.
129. Lewis v Attorney General of Jamaica 35 (UKPC, 12 September 2000).