(Oct. 17, 2019) On October 7, 2019, the Justice Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT, Turkey’s parliament) accepted a draft bill constituting a “judicial reform package” that was submitted to the GNAT by Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (the AKP) on September 30, 2019. A press statement released by the AKP stated that other draft bills would follow in accordance with the Judicial Reform Strategy that the government published in May 2019. The Justice Commission’s version of the bill was placed on the GNAT’s agenda after its passage by the Commission.
Especially notable in the draft bill are four proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 5271). One of these amendments limits the allowed period for pretrial detention of a suspect during the investigation phase of the criminal process (the stage before the indictment is submitted to and approved by the court) to a maximum of two years for terrorism-related crimes; crimes against the safety of the state, the constitutional order, national defense, and state secrets; and crimes committed collectively. The amendment also limits to one year the period of pretrial detention for crimes that are within the jurisdiction of the court of assize (which has jurisdiction in crimes punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment and certain other crimes), and limits to six months the period of pretrial detention for other crimes. (Draft bill art. 18.)
Two amendments introduce new procedures, the first being likened by the AKP’s deputy chairman to plea bargaining in American law, whereby the prosecutor would be able to offer a 50% reduction in the punishment of certain listed crimes to obtain the accused’s consent to a summary judgment. Under the second new procedure, the criminal court could employ an expedited process conducted without hearings for crimes that are punishable by two years of imprisonment or less. The court would revert to the ordinary procedure if a party objected to the use of the expedited procedure. (Arts. 23–25.)
Another amendment enables appeals to the Court of Cassation against judgments issued by criminal divisions of regional courts (courts of second instance) with regard to certain serious crimes, which are currently not appealable due to the minimum prison-term limit provided for in article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Art. 29.)
Some of the other significant amendments proposed by the draft bill are as follows:
- An amendment to article 19 of the Law on the Protection of Children (Law No. 5395), allowing prosecutors to postpone for a period of five years the prosecution of crimes punishable by five years of imprisonment or less for juvenile suspects younger than 15 years of age. (Art. 33.)
- An amendment to the Law on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications (Law No. 5651), requiring the judge applying the procedure set forth in article 8 of the Law (allowing access to internet content to be blocked if its placement is suspected of constituting one of the crimes listed therein) to block access only to the offending content and not to the whole website, if possible. (Art. 36.) The article 8 procedure and other content-blocking procedures included in Law No. 5651 are controversial and were criticized by the Venice Commission.
- An amendment to article 7(2) of the Law on Combatting Terrorism (Law No. 3713). Article 7(2) proscribes “engaging in propaganda that justifies, praises, or promotes the use of a terrorist organization’s methods of coercion, violence, or intimidation.” The amendment adds a sentence to article 7(2), clarifying that expressions made to merely convey news or offer criticism do not constitute an offense. (Art. 13.) Opposition MPs in the Justice Commission have argued in their dissents attached to the Commission report approving the draft bill that the amendment did not do enough to reform the law, whose ambiguity and overly broad language in their view enables the violation of freedom of expression. The Constitutional Court of Turkey has found such a violation in the application of article 7(2) in its recent high-profile judgment in the Sirri Süreyya Önder case.