Journal of Penal Law and Criminology

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JPLC2020-0001   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2020-0001    Full Text (PDF)

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

Gülen Soyaslan

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

PDF View

References

  • Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987). google scholar
  • Avukatlık Kanunu [Advocacy Code] 1136 A.K. § 6 (1969). google scholar
  • Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • AYM 14.6.2017 E: 2017/24 K: 2017/112. google scholar
  • AYM 24.7.2019 E: 2018/73 K: 2019/65. google scholar
  • AYM 27.12.2018 E: 2018/153 K: 2018/119. google scholar
  • AYM 07.09.2016 E: 2016/124 K: 2016/155. google scholar
  • AYM 01.11.2017 E: 2017/142 K: 2017/150. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976). google scholar
  • Case of Borg v. Malta (App. no. 37537/13) Strasbourg 19 February 2016. google scholar
  • Case of Croissant v. Germany (App. no. 13611/88) Strasbourg 25 September 1992. google scholar
  • Case of Deweer v. Belgium (App. no. 6903/75) Strasbourg 27 February 1980. google scholar
  • Case of Eckle v. Germany (App. no. 8130/78) Strasbourg 15 July 1982. google scholar
  • Case of Martin v. Estonia (App. no. 35985/09) Strasbourg 30 May 2013. google scholar
  • Case of Mayzit v. Russia (App. no. 63378/00) Strasbourg 20 January 2005. google scholar
  • Case of McFarlane v. Ireland (App. no. 31333/06) Strasbourg 10 September 2010. google scholar
  • Case of Pishchalnikov v. Russia (App. no. 7025/04) Strasbourg 24 September 2009. google scholar
  • Case of Popov v. Russia (App. no. 26853/04) Strasbourg 13 July 2006. google scholar
  • Case of Zagorodniy v. Ukraine (App. no. 27004/06) Strasbourg 24 November 2011. google scholar
  • Centel, N. & Zafer, H. (2013). Ceza muhakemesi hukuku (10th ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Istanbul, Turkey: Beta Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • 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). google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • CoE. (2020b, January 2). Complete list of the Council of Europe’s treaties. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/ en/web/conventions/full-list. google scholar
  • CoE. (2019a). Details of Treaty No.005. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/ conventions/treaty/005. google scholar
  • CoE. (2013, October 2). European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. google scholar
  • CoE. (2019b). European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/en/web/tirana/europeancourt-of-human-rights. google scholar
  • C.G.K. 19.12.1994 E. 1994/6-322 K. 1994/343. google scholar
  • C.G.K. 24.10.1995 E.1995/6-238 K. 1995/305. google scholar
  • 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). google scholar
  • Dvorski v. Croatia (App. no. 25703/11) ECHR 2015, 405. google scholar
  • Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). google scholar
  • Ekinci, H. & Sağlam, M. (2015). 66 soruda bireysel başvuru (2nd ed., extended) [Individual applications in 66 questions]. Ankara, Turkey: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). Gözler, K. (2000). Türk anayasa hukuku (1st ed.) [Turkish constitutional law]. Bursa, Turkey: Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları. google scholar
  • HRW. (2000). Preventing torture. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/turkey2/Turk009-01.htm. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (App. nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/092016) ECHR 2016. google scholar
  • Jandarma Teşkilat, Görev ve Yetkileri Kanunu [The Statute on the Organization, Duties and Authorities of the Gendarmerie], 2803 J.T.K. § 6 (1983). google scholar
  • Klatt, M. & Meister, M. (2012). The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J. & Kerr, O. S. (2015). Criminal procedure V.2. Minnesota, United States: West Academic Publishing. google scholar
  • Meftah and others v. France (App. nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97) ECHR 2002-VII, 265. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • MFA. (2011). Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/council-of-europe.en.mfa. google scholar
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). google scholar
  • Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986). New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969). google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Polis Vazife ve Salahiyet Kanunu [The Statute on Duties and Authorities of the Police] 2559 P.V.S.K. § Supp. 7-2 (1934). google scholar
  • Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). google scholar
  • Saltzburg, S. A. & Capra, D. J. (2014). American criminal procedure: cases and commentary. Minnesota, United States: West Academic Publishing. google scholar
  • Salduz v. Turkey (App.no. 36391/02) ECHR 2008-V, 59. google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Strafprozeßordnung [Criminal Procedure Code] StPO § 137, 138a (1987). google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • T.C. Anayasası [Turkish Constitution] 2709 AY § 2 (1982). google scholar
  • The Arrested Lawyers Initiative & CNF (2020). Mass prosecution of lawyers in turkey: unjust arrests & convictions (2016-2020). Rome, Italy: Infocarcere LTD Limited Cooperative Company. google scholar
  • Retrieved from https://arrestedlawyers.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/rapporto-febbraio-2020delle28099associazione-arrested-lawyers-initiative-sulla-persecuzione-di-massa-degli-avvocati-in-turchiainglese.pdf. google scholar
  • U.S. Constitution Amend. V (1787). google scholar
  • 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=. google scholar
  • Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988). google scholar
  • Yenisey, F. (2015). Kolluk hukuku (2nd ed.) [The law of law enforcement agencies]. Istanbul, Turkey: Beta Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Yenisey, F. & Nuhoğlu, A. (2015). Ceza muhakemesi hukuku (1st ed.) [Criminal procedure law]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Soyaslan, G. (2020). Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 8(1), 143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


AMA

Soyaslan G. Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology. 2020;8(1):143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


ABNT

Soyaslan, G. Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, [Publisher Location], v. 8, n. 1, p. 143-168, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Soyaslan, Gülen,. 2020. “Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 8, no. 1: 143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


Chicago: Humanities Style

Soyaslan, Gülen,. “Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 8, no. 1 (Apr. 2025): 143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


Harvard: Australian Style

Soyaslan, G 2020, 'Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law', Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 143-168, viewed 25 Apr. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Soyaslan, G. (2020) ‘Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law’, Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 8(1), pp. 143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001 (25 Apr. 2025).


MLA

Soyaslan, Gülen,. “Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, pp. 143-168. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


Vancouver

Soyaslan G. Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology [Internet]. 25 Apr. 2025 [cited 25 Apr. 2025];8(1):143-168. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001 doi: 10.26650/JPLC2020-0001


ISNAD

Soyaslan, Gülen. “Limiting Procedural Rights During Police Interrogation in Terror Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of European and U.S. Laws and Suggestions to Turkish Law”. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 8/1 (Apr. 2025): 143-168. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2020-0001



TIMELINE


Submitted07.01.2020
Accepted12.06.2020
Published Online30.06.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.