{"id":1708,"date":"2018-06-13T15:21:02","date_gmt":"2018-06-13T12:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/?p=1708"},"modified":"2018-06-13T15:21:02","modified_gmt":"2018-06-13T12:21:02","slug":"otomatige-baglanmis-baris-icin-akademisyen-kararlari-ve-kendi-kuyusunu-kazan-istanbul-yargisi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/?p=1708","title":{"rendered":"Otomati\u011fe Ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyen Kararlar\u0131 ve Kendi Kuyusunu Kazan \u0130stanbul Yarg\u0131s\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"

Otomati\u011fe Ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyen Kararlar\u0131 <\/strong><\/p>\n

ve <\/strong><\/p>\n

Kendi Kuyusunu Kazan \u0130stanbul Yarg\u0131s\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kerem Alt\u0131parmak & Yaman Akdeniz<\/strong><\/p>\n

13 Haziran 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bu yaz\u0131n\u0131n PDF s\u00fcr\u00fcm\u00fcne buradan ula\u015fabilirsiniz<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

05 Haziran 2018 g\u00fcn\u00fc \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyenlerden Prof. Dr. B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir mahkumiyet karar\u0131 verdi.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Karara g\u00f6re, Profes\u00f6r Ersanl\u0131 Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in akademisyenler (\u201cBAK\u201d) inisiyatifinin \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 bildiri metnini imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in \u201cter\u00f6r propagandas\u0131\u201d su\u00e7undan 1 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131na \u00e7arpt\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, san\u0131k istemedi\u011fi i\u00e7in h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmedi\u011fi gibi hapis cezas\u0131 da ertelenmemi\u015fti.<\/p>\n

Bu karar \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi\u2019nin BAK imzac\u0131lar\u0131 ile ilgili verdi\u011fi ne ilk ne de son karar. Ayn\u0131 mahkeme, i\u015fbu yaz\u0131n\u0131n haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131 ile Prof. Dr. B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 ile beraber tamam\u0131 \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metnini imzalayan 39 akademisyeni yarg\u0131lamakla g\u00f6revlendirilmi\u015fti. \u0130\u015fbu yaz\u0131n\u0131n haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih itibar\u0131 ile \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 ile birlikte 10 ki\u015fi hakk\u0131nda karar\u0131n\u0131 verdi, 29 imzac\u0131 akademisyenin ise yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 devam ediyor. Bug\u00fcne kadar sonu\u00e7lanan t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lamalarda san\u0131klara ayn\u0131 ceza olan 1 y\u0131l 3 ay hapis cezas\u0131 verildi. Tamamlanan yarg\u0131lamalarda, iki san\u0131k d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki sekiz san\u0131k h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 (\u201cHAGB\u201d) talep ettikleri i\u00e7in h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 geri b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, HAGB\u2019yi kabul etmeyen iki ki\u015fi i\u00e7in istinaf yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmakla birlikte cezalar\u0131 hen\u00fcz kesinle\u015fmedi.<\/p>\n

Devam eden 29 yarg\u0131lamada da \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin san\u0131klara HAGB talebinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir \u015fekilde ayn\u0131 cezay\u0131 vermesine kesin g\u00f6z\u00fcyle bak\u0131l\u0131yor. Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle, ba\u015ftan sonucu belirli bir yarg\u0131lamay\u0131, \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi usulen yap\u0131yor, savunma alm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ve duru\u015fma yapm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor. Fakat t\u00fcm san\u0131klar i\u00e7in yaz\u0131lan iddianame ayn\u0131, verilen m\u00fctalaa ayn\u0131 ve tabii ki yaz\u0131lan karar ve h\u00fck\u00fcm de ayn\u0131. Bu durum sadece \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi \u00f6zelinde bu \u015fekilde ilerlememekte, BAK imzac\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm di\u011fer \u0130stanbul A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemelerinde de benzer durumlar s\u00f6z konusu.<\/p>\n

Peki hukuk, adil yarg\u0131lama, su\u00e7lama ve savunma bu kadar hafife al\u0131nacak ve standartla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lacak \u015feyler mi ger\u00e7ekten? A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z \u00fczere bu sorunun cevab\u0131 kesinlikle hay\u0131r! \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi ve benzer \u015fekilde di\u011fer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemeleri ilk BAK karar\u0131n\u0131 verdikten sonra tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yitirdi\u011fi i\u00e7in ayn\u0131 konuda ba\u015fka BAK davalar\u0131na bakamaz, yarg\u0131lama yapamaz, h\u00fck\u00fcm veremez. Bu durum karar vermi\u015f di\u011fer a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemeleri i\u00e7in oldu\u011fu kadar, karar vermemi\u015f ama birden fazla ayn\u0131 nitelikte davaya bakmakta olan a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemeleri i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli.<\/p>\n

Bu garip durum nas\u0131l olu\u015ftu? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Asl\u0131nda art\u0131k tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm tarafs\u0131z g\u00f6zlemciler taraf\u0131ndan[2]<\/sup><\/a> sorgulanan T\u00fcrkiye yarg\u0131 sistemi kendi kazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 kuyuya kendi d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 tamam\u0131yla birbiriyle ayn\u0131 nitelikte olan eylemden kaynaklanan davalar\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 iddianameler haz\u0131rlayarak \u0130stanbul A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemelerine g\u00f6ndermeye karar verdi. A\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemeleri de \u00f6ncelikle bu ayn\u0131 nitelikli ve birbirinin ayn\u0131s\u0131 iddianame ve kovu\u015fturma dosyalar\u0131n\u0131 reddetmekten ziyade kabul etti, sonras\u0131nda da avukatlar\u0131n taleplerine ra\u011fmen bu birbirinin ayn\u0131s\u0131 davalar\u0131 birle\u015ftirmedi. Hi\u00e7bir mant\u0131ksal a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 olmayan bu tutumun ancak siyasi bir a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 yap\u0131labilir. \u00d6ncelikle bu hamleyle teker teker ve farkl\u0131 mahkemelerde yap\u0131lacak yarg\u0131lamalarla izole edilmi\u015f san\u0131klar\u0131n birlikte hareket etme iradesini k\u0131rmak ama\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Fakat gerek iddia makam\u0131 savc\u0131lar\u0131n gerekse mahkemelerin g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131rd\u0131klar\u0131 \u00f6nemli bir husus vard\u0131. \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine ayn\u0131 konuda 39 ayr\u0131 karar verdirterek 38 karar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde tarafs\u0131z olmayan ayn\u0131 mahkemeye verdirtmi\u015f oldular. Bu durum \u0130stanbul\u2019da birden fazla BAK davas\u0131na bakan t\u00fcm a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemeleri i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erli. Asl\u0131nda bu hamleyle BAK davalar\u0131n\u0131 adil yarg\u0131lama ilkeleri hi\u00e7e say\u0131larak bizzat \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemeleri \u00e7\u00f6kertmi\u015f oldu.<\/p>\n

Daha \u00f6nce \u00e7e\u015fitli vesilelerle \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metninin neden a\u00e7\u0131k bir ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kullan\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftik.[3]<\/sup><\/a> Bu nedenle, bu yaz\u0131da bu davalar\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yapmak yerine sadece \u0130stanbul Yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu usul facias\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131z.<\/p>\n

Tarafs\u0131z ve Ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z Mahkemede Yarg\u0131lanma Hakk\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

Teknik incelemeye ge\u00e7meden \u00f6nce bir kurgu yapmak istiyoruz. \u015e\u00f6yle bir kurgu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn; \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi hakimleri bir konferansa kat\u0131l\u0131yor ve kendilerine Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyenler i\u00e7in ne d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fckleri soruluyor. Onlar da bu ki\u015filerin \u201cs\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n\u201d, \u201cs\u00f6zde akademisyen\u201d olduklar\u0131n\u0131 ve mutlaka Ter\u00f6rle M\u00fccadele Yasas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade ediyor. Ard\u0131ndan bu heyet \u00f6n\u00fcnde Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyenlerin yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131na ba\u015flansa \u201ciyi de bu heyet g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc davay\u0131 g\u00f6rmeden verdi, \u015fimdi neyin karar\u0131n\u0131 verecek ki<\/em>\u201d demez misiniz? Peki bir mahkeme heyeti bunu bir konferansta de\u011fil de hukuken ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan yarg\u0131 karar\u0131nda dedi\u011finde de ayn\u0131 sonuca ula\u015fmam\u0131z gerekmez mi? A\u0130HM\u2019in tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin i\u00e7tihad\u0131 a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da g\u00f6rece\u011fimiz gibi zaten mant\u0131\u011f\u0131n da gerektirdi\u011fi gibi ayn\u0131 sonuca ula\u015fmam\u0131z gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor: Bir eylemi bir kez yarg\u0131layan heyet, ayn\u0131 eylemi yapan bir ki\u015finin yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda art\u0131k tarafs\u0131z mahkeme s\u0131fat\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yamaz<\/strong>!<\/p>\n

A\u0130HM \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Bir mahkemenin ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanacak objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kavramlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda \u00e7ok yak\u0131n bir ili\u015fki vard\u0131r. A\u0130HM bu kavramlar\u0131n her ikisini birden i\u00e7eren durumlarda her iki kavram\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirmektedir. (Findlay\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, no. 22107\/93, 25.2.1997, para. 73; \u015eahiner\/T\u00fcrkiye, no. 29279\/95, 25.9.2001, para. 37)<\/li>\n
  2. Tarafs\u0131z bir mahkemede yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 davaya bakan mahkeme veya yarg\u0131c\u0131n taraflara kar\u015f\u0131 herhangi bir \u00f6nyarg\u0131 ya da pe\u015fin h\u00fckme sahip olmamas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir ve \u00e7e\u015fitli y\u00f6ntemlerle test edilebilecektir. A\u0130HM bir mahkemenin tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcbjektif ve objektif y\u00f6nden ele almaktad\u0131r<\/strong>. S\u00fcbjektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k<\/strong> bir yarg\u0131c\u0131n ki\u015fisel olarak davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 mesafesine ili\u015fkindir. Objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k<\/strong> ise yarg\u0131lama makam\u0131n\u0131n kurumsal durumuna ili\u015fkindir. Yarg\u0131lama makam\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel olarak yarg\u0131laman\u0131n taraflar\u0131yla ilgisi olmasa bile d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda hak arayanlara ve t\u00fcm topluma tarafs\u0131z oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini vermesi gerekir. Objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n saptanmas\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm bile belirli bir \u00f6neme sahip olabilir. Demokratik bir toplumda mahkemeler topluma ve daha \u00f6nemlisi ceza davalar\u0131nda san\u0131\u011fa g\u00fcven vermelidir. Hukuk d\u00fczeni ve mahkeme tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin me\u015fru t\u00fcm \u015f\u00fcpheleri ortadan kald\u0131racak g\u00fcvenceleri sunmal\u0131d\u0131r (Grieves\/Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k, no. 57067\/00, 16.12.2003, para. 69; Hauschildt\/Danimarka, no. 10486\/83, 24.05.1989, para. 48). Her ne kadar bu a\u00e7\u0131dan san\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u00f6nemliyse de tek ba\u015f\u0131na yeterli de\u011fildir, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n nesnel olarak do\u011frulan\u0131p do\u011frulanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirleyici olacakt\u0131r (Hauschildt\/Danimarka, para. 48).<\/li>\n
  3. Bununla birlikte, s\u00fcbjektif ve objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 birbirinden kesin bir \u015fekilde ay\u0131rmak kolay de\u011fildir. Bir hakimin aksi kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece s\u00fcbjektif olarak tarafl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir karine vard\u0131r. Bu karineyi \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctmek zorsa da objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ilkesi bu konuda \u00f6nemli bir g\u00fcvence sa\u011flar. Bir hakimin objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin \u015f\u00fcphelere yol a\u00e7an davran\u0131\u015f\u0131 sadece nesnel bir g\u00f6zlemci a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u015f\u00fcpheye yol a\u00e7makla kalmaz, bu \u015f\u00fcphe hakimin ki\u015fisel inanc\u0131na ili\u015fkin de sonu\u00e7lar i\u00e7erebilir (Kyprianou\/K\u0131br\u0131s, no. 73797\/01, 15.12.2005, para. 119; Toziczka\/Polonya, No: 29995\/08, 24.07.2012, para. 34).<\/li>\n
  4. Objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k yarg\u0131lanan ki\u015finin adil bir yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin kayg\u0131 duymamas\u0131n\u0131, savunmas\u0131n\u0131n adil bir \u015fekilde dinlenip incelenece\u011fine ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencesi olmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Kyprianou karar\u0131nda A\u0130HM tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlali durumunun iki halde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kabilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir:<\/li>\n
  5. \u0130lk kategori<\/strong> nitelik olarak fonksiyoneldir ve ayn\u0131 ki\u015finin yarg\u0131sal usulde farkl\u0131 roller almas\u0131ndan veya yarg\u0131lamada yer alan ki\u015filerle hiyerar\u015fik ve ba\u015fka nitelikte ili\u015fkiler kurmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. b. \u0130kinci kategori<\/strong> ise ki\u015fisel niteliktedir ve ilgili davada yarg\u0131c\u0131n davran\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan kaynaklan\u0131r (Kyprianou\/K\u0131br\u0131s, para. 121). \u0130lk kategori her zaman objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkindir, ikinci kategori ise objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilgilendirebilece\u011fi gibi s\u00fcbjektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa da ili\u015fkin olabilir.<\/li>\n
  6. \u0130lk kategoride yer alan en tipik vakalar; davan\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda karar verecek olan yarg\u0131c\u0131n usul\u00fcn \u00f6nceki a\u015famalar\u0131nda davayla ilgili ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 rol\u00fcn objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 etkileyip etkilemedi\u011finin g\u00fcndeme geldi\u011fi vakalard\u0131r<\/strong>. Bu vakalarda a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kl\u0131 olarak, ayn\u0131 ki\u015finin taraf oldu\u011fu davada, ayn\u0131 yarg\u0131c\u0131n usul\u00fcn \u00f6nceki ve sonraki a\u015famalar\u0131nda karar vermesi s\u00f6z konusudur. Davan\u0131n esas\u0131na bakan bir yarg\u0131c\u0131n usul\u00fcn bir a\u015famas\u0131nda davaya bakm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 otomatik olarak o yarg\u0131c\u0131n tarafs\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furmaz. Burada belirleyici olan yarg\u0131c\u0131n davan\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir inceleme yap\u0131p, karar verip vermedi\u011fidir.<\/strong> \u00d6nceki a\u015famada davan\u0131n esas\u0131na, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7lulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmemi\u015f olan yarg\u0131c\u0131n sonraki a\u015famada da bulunmas\u0131 tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ilkesini ihlal etmez. (Padovani\/\u0130talya, no. 13396\/87, 26.2.1993, para. 28; Fey\/Avusturya, no. 14396\/88, 24.2.1993, para. 30-36; Sainte-Marie\/Fransa, no. 12981\/87, 16.12.1987, para. 32-34). Bununla birlikte, Hauschildt vakas\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun tutuklulu\u011funun devam\u0131na \u201csu\u00e7lulu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde \u00e7ok ileri derecede belirlilik<\/em>\u201d oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle karar veren yarg\u0131c\u0131n kovu\u015fturmada da yer almas\u0131 objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihlal etmi\u015ftir (Hauschildt\/Danimarka, para. 51-52).<\/li>\n
  7. Hukuk davalar\u0131nda usul\u00fcn daha \u00f6nceki bir a\u015famas\u0131nda davan\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131nda yer alm\u0131\u015f olan bir hukuk\u00e7unun bu temsilden 9 y\u0131l sonra Anayasa Mahkemesi \u00fcyesi olarak anayasa \u015fikayetini dinleyen panelde yer almas\u0131 tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin \u015f\u00fcphenin me\u015fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (Meznaric\/H\u0131rvatistan, no. 71615\/01, 15.7.2005, para. 33-36).<\/li>\n
  8. Ceza davalar\u0131nda da bir hakim e\u011fer usul\u00fcn bir a\u015famas\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7lulu\u011funa dair fikir bildirmi\u015fse, davan\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirmesi objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k kural\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edecektir. \u00d6rne\u011fin ki\u015fi hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davada Ba\u015fsavc\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rev alm\u0131\u015f bir ki\u015fi o davan\u0131n haz\u0131rlanmas\u0131nda di\u011fer savc\u0131lar \u00fczerinde yetkiye sahipse, kovu\u015fturma s\u0131ras\u0131nda san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayn\u0131 ki\u015finin yarg\u0131\u00e7 olarak yer almas\u0131 halinde yarg\u0131 makam\u0131n\u0131n tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan objektif anlamda \u015f\u00fcphe duymas\u0131 normal ve me\u015frudur (Piersack\/Bel\u00e7ika, no. 8692\/79, 01.10.1982, para. 31; hukuk davalar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bkz. Toziczka\/Polonya, no. 29995\/08, 24.7.2012, para. 41-44). Castillo Algar\/\u0130spanya ba\u015fvurusunda, ba\u015fvurucunun mahkumiyetine karar veren heyetteki iki yarg\u0131\u00e7 usul\u00fcn daha \u00f6nceki a\u015famas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan su\u00e7lamaya kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz\u0131n\u0131 incelemi\u015ftir. Bu itiraz\u0131 reddederken \u201caskeri bir su\u00e7un i\u015flendi\u011fine dair yeterli delil bulundu\u011funu\u201d<\/strong> belirten hakimlerin, kovu\u015fturmada yer almas\u0131 A\u0130HM\u2019e g\u00f6re objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihlal etmi\u015ftir (no. 28194\/95, 28.10.1998, para. 48). Karako\u00e7 vd\/T\u00fcrkiye ba\u015fvurusunda, tutuklama karar\u0131yla mahkumiyet karar\u0131n\u0131n hemen hemen ayn\u0131 ifadelere dayanmas\u0131<\/strong>, h\u00fckm\u00fc veren mahkemenin objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k g\u00fcvencesini sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6stergesi olmu\u015ftur (no. 27692\/95, 15.10.2002).<\/li>\n
  9. Her ne kadar, A\u0130HM \u00f6n\u00fcndeki davalarda a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kl\u0131 olarak yarg\u0131c\u0131n ayn\u0131 ki\u015fiye ili\u015fkin ayn\u0131 eylemle ilgili usul\u00fcn \u00f6nceki a\u015famalar\u0131nda verdi\u011fi kararlar ba\u015fvuru konusu olmu\u015fsa da, ba\u015fkalar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda verilen \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131n tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 etkiledi\u011fi \u00f6rnekler de mevcuttur<\/strong>. \u0130lke olarak, bir hakimin benzer ve fakat ilgisiz su\u00e7larla ilgili karar vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 veya san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7 orta\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fka bir ceza davas\u0131nda yarg\u0131lam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 tek ba\u015f\u0131na tarafl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 kan\u0131tlamaya yeterli de\u011fildir (Kriegisch\/Almanya, no. 21698\/06, 23.11.2010). Bir yarg\u0131 sisteminde yarg\u0131\u00e7lar su\u00e7 ortaklar\u0131n\u0131 farkl\u0131 davalarda yarg\u0131lamak zorunda kalabilir. Bununla birlikte, Devletlerin yarg\u0131 sistemlerini 6. maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131na uygun bir \u015fekilde organize etmek zorunda olduklar\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Poppe\/Hollanda, no. 32271\/04, 24.3.2009, para. 23).<\/li>\n
  10. \u0130lk kategorideki davalarda, yarg\u0131\u00e7 ayn\u0131 davan\u0131n \u00e7e\u015fitli a\u015famalar\u0131ndaki rol\u00fc nedeniyle oldu\u011fu gibi ba\u015fka davalardaki rol\u00fc nedeniyle de objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yitirmi\u015f olabilir. Bir ki\u015finin a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir davada kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n avukat\u0131 olan ki\u015finin e\u015f zamanl\u0131 bir ba\u015fka davada ayn\u0131 ki\u015finin davas\u0131n\u0131n hakimi olmas\u0131 halinde de her iki davan\u0131n konusu farkl\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen ba\u015fvurucunun hakimin tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u015f\u00fcphe etmesi me\u015fru g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (Wettstein\/\u0130svi\u00e7re, no. 33958\/96, 21.12.2000, para. 45-49). Ayn\u0131 zamanda \u00fcniversite hocas\u0131 olan yarg\u0131c\u0131n maa\u015f ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fcniversitenin taraf oldu\u011fu davada yarg\u0131\u00e7l\u0131k yapmas\u0131 durumunda da objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k kural\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenebilecektir (Pescador Valero\/\u0130spanya, no. 62435\/00, 17.6.2003, para. 27; Blesa Rodriguez\/\u0130spanya, no. 61131\/12, 1.12.2015, para. 44).<\/li>\n
  11. Ceza davalar\u0131nda, e\u011fer daha \u00f6nce verilen kararlar, sonraki davada yarg\u0131lanan ki\u015finin su\u00e7lulu\u011funa ili\u015fkin \u00f6nyarg\u0131lara da yer veriyorsa bu karar\u0131 veren hakimin sonraki davada yer almas\u0131 6. maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131 ihlal edecektir<\/strong> (Pope\/Hollanda, para. 26). Ferrantelli ve Santangello\/\u0130talya vakas\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular \u00e7ocuk mahkemesinde yarg\u0131lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ki cinayeti beraber i\u015fledikleri iddia edilen G.G.\u2019nin mahkumiyetine karar veren Caltanisetta \u0130stinaf Mahkemesi Ba\u015fkan\u0131 S.P, daha sonra ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n mahkumiyetine karar veren Caltanisetta \u00c7ocuk \u0130stinaf Mahkemesi\u2019ne de ba\u015fkanl\u0131k etmi\u015ftir. Bu ikinci kararda, ilk karara da at\u0131flar yap\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u0130stinaf Mahkemesi\u2019nin 5 \u00fcyesinden biri olan S.P\u2019nin her iki kararda da yer almas\u0131 A\u0130HM i\u00e7in objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlali a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (no. 19874\/92, 07.08.1996, para. 54-59). Rojas Morales\/\u0130talya vakas\u0131nda, ba\u015fvurucunun karar\u0131nda yer alan iki hakim daha \u00f6nce ba\u015fvurucunun su\u00e7 orta\u011f\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131nda karar vermi\u015f ve bu kararda ba\u015fvurucunun ad\u0131 uyu\u015fturucu ka\u00e7ak\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 organizat\u00f6r\u00fc ve su\u00e7 \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fc \u00fcyesi olarak bir ka\u00e7 kez ge\u00e7mi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, bu durumu 6. maddenin ihlali i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr (no. 39676\/98, 16.11.2000, para. 33). \u00d6nceki a\u015famalarda kullan\u0131lan dil de tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k kural\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. Tutuklamaya itiraz\u0131 inceleyen bir heyetin \u201c\u015f\u00fcphe\u201d yerine \u015f\u00fcphelinin \u201ceylemleri ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi\u201dni s\u00f6ylemesi davan\u0131n esas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme oldu\u011fundan ayn\u0131 heyetin esasa ili\u015fkin karar\u0131 verirken tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda me\u015fru bir \u015f\u00fcphenin olu\u015fmas\u0131na neden olur (Davidsons ve Savins\/Letonya, no. 17574\/07, 7.1.2016, para. 55).<\/li>\n
  12. Kurul olarak verilen kararlarda yarg\u0131\u00e7lar\u0131n az say\u0131da bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n usulde daha \u00f6nceki derecelerde karara kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131, tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihlal etmeyebilir. Bununla birlikte, e\u011fer daha \u00f6nceki karara kat\u0131lan \u00fcyelerin say\u0131s\u0131 yeni heyette de \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu olu\u015fturuyorsa veya \u00f6zel ko\u015fullar mevcutsa kurulun bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n daha \u00f6nce esasa ili\u015fkin karar vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ihlal edebilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin Fazl\u0131 Aslaner vakas\u0131nda, Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 31 \u00fcyesinden sadece 3 tanesi Daire karar\u0131nda oy kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ne var ki, bu \u00fcyelerden biri Genel Kurula ba\u015fkanl\u0131k etmi\u015f, ayr\u0131ca bu 3 \u00fcyenin oylamaya kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu bir neden g\u00f6sterilememi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, bu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda 3 \u00fcyenin dahi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc daha \u00f6nce belli etmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ilkesini ihlal etmeye yeterli oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (Fazl\u0131 Aslaner\/T\u00fcrkiye, no. 36073\/04, 4.3.2014, para. 35-42).<\/li>\n
  13. Ki\u015fisel nitelikli davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n sorguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ikinci kategorideki davalarda ise yarg\u0131c\u0131n usul\u00fcn bir a\u015famas\u0131ndaki ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 karar de\u011fil ve fakat davayla ilgili di\u011fer davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131 g\u00fcndeme gelmektedir. Buscemi\/\u0130talya vakas\u0131nda, Mahkeme ba\u015fkan\u0131 ulusal bir gazetede ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda olumsuz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dikkate alan A\u0130HM, ba\u015fvurucunun Mahkemenin tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin endi\u015felerinin me\u015fru oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir (no. 29569\/95, 16.9.1999, para. 68). Lavents\/Letonya ba\u015fvurusunda da yarg\u0131\u00e7 bas\u0131na verdi\u011fi deme\u00e7lerde \u201ckarar\u0131n mahkumiyet mi, k\u0131smen beraat mi oldu\u011funu\u201d bilemeyece\u011fini s\u00f6ylemi\u015f, ba\u015fvurucunun hala t\u00fcm su\u00e7lamalar hakk\u0131nda su\u00e7suz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmesinin kendisini \u015fa\u015f\u0131rtt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. A\u0130HM, gerek\u00e7elerinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak b\u00f6yle bir ifadenin 6. maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131n\u0131n gerekliliklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funun a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (no. 58442\/00, 28.11.2002, para. 119). Hakimlerin yarg\u0131lamada kulland\u0131klar\u0131 dil de tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin \u015f\u00fcphe yaratabilir, bu nedenle yarg\u0131\u00e7lar kulland\u0131klar\u0131 dile ili\u015fkin de azami \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermek y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r (Vardanyan ve Nanushyan\/Ermenistan, no. 8001\/07, 27.10.2016, para. 82). Bir hakimin bir ba\u015fka hakimi desteklemek i\u00e7in 9 y\u0131l \u00f6nce kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler, A\u0130HM\u2019in desteklenen hakimin taraf\u0131 oldu\u011fu bir davada destekleyen hakimin tarafs\u0131z kalamayaca\u011f\u0131na dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f geli\u015ftirmesine neden olmu\u015ftur (Morice\/Fransa, no. 29369\/10, 23.4.2015, para. 79-90). Bu nedenle, hakimlerin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zlerin, i\u00e7inde bulunduklar\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131 da dikkate alarak, yarg\u0131sal denetimi nas\u0131l etkileyebilece\u011fi her bir vakada ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 incelenmelidir.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    A\u0130HM \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131ndaki \u0130lkelerin BAK Yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131na Uygulanmas\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Biz bu i\u00e7tihad\u0131n test edilmesi i\u00e7in \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin ilk karar\u0131yla sonra ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir karar\u0131 esas ald\u0131k. Her iki davadaki iddianame, son m\u00fctalaa ve h\u00fck\u00fcm b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc inceledik. \u00c7\u0131kan sonu\u00e7, Kyprianou karar\u0131nda A\u0130HM taraf\u0131ndan belirlenen iki durum a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da yukar\u0131da verilen A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihad\u0131ndaki t\u00fcm \u00f6rneklerden daha a\u011f\u0131r bir tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ihlali oldu\u011fu oldu<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    2. Bilindi\u011fi gibi \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metni \u00f6nce 1128 ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan imzalanm\u0131\u015f, daha sonra destek imzalar\u0131 ile toplam imza say\u0131s\u0131 2212\u2019ye ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130stanbul Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 imzac\u0131lar aleyhine toplu bir dava a\u00e7mak yerine her bir imzac\u0131 i\u00e7in ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7ma yoluna gitmi\u015ftir. Bu davalar \u0130stanbul\u2019daki farkl\u0131 a\u011f\u0131r ceza mahkemelerine d\u00fc\u015fmekle birlikte tam olarak ka\u00e7 imzac\u0131ya bug\u00fcne kadar dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinmemektedir. Fakat, iddianameler Kas\u0131m 2017\u2019den beri g\u00fcndelik olarak haz\u0131rlanmaya devam edilmektedir.<\/li>\n
    3. \u0130ncelemeye ald\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z kararlardan bir tanesini veren \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi de bu mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lanan farkl\u0131 san\u0131klar\u0131n davalar\u0131n\u0131n birle\u015ftirilerek yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131 talebini reddetmi\u015f, her bir imzac\u0131y\u0131 ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 yarg\u0131lamaktad\u0131r. \u015eu ana kadar \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan 10 farkl\u0131 \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metni imzac\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7in 1 Y\u0131l 3 Ay hapis cezas\u0131 verilmi\u015f, 8 kararda h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 geri b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f (\u0130.\u00d6., 23.02.2018, E.P., 23.02.2018, V.P, 04.04.2018, M.T., 04.04.2018, A.R.A.A.C., 09.04.2018, I\u0307:E.K., 09.04.2018, E.K., 09.04.2018, S.\u0130.G, 09.04.2018, S.B., 09.04.2018, Y.G.A, 12.04.2018), 2 kararda ise h\u00fck\u00fcm a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (F.\u00dc, 04.04.2018, B.E., 05.06.2018). Ayr\u0131ca, 29 farkl\u0131 \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metni imzac\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n da yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi\u2019nde halen devam etmektedir.<\/li>\n
    4. Bunun sonucu olarak mevcut davalardaki \u201csu\u00e7 ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d iddias\u0131 A\u0130HM\u2019deki \u00f6rneklerden farkl\u0131d\u0131r. Farrantelli ve Santengello ve Rojas Morales kararlar\u0131nda yarg\u0131lanan ki\u015filerin eylemleri farkl\u0131d\u0131r ve fakat ayn\u0131 su\u00e7a kat\u0131lmalar\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. Buna ra\u011fmen A\u0130HM, bu davalarda ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131ndaki karar\u0131 veren mahkemenin \u201csu\u00e7 ortaklar\u0131\u201d ile ilgili kararlar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucular hakk\u0131nda da su\u00e7lulu\u011fa ili\u015fkin \u00f6nyarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011funu dikkate alarak objektif tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/li>\n
    5. BAK yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131nda ise durum \u00e7ok daha a\u011f\u0131rd\u0131r. <\/strong>\u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 dahil 10 farkl\u0131 \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metni imzac\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7in 1 Y\u0131l 3 Ay hapis cezas\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Bu kararlarda \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi kelimesi kelimesine ilk karar\u0131ndaki ifadeleri kullanmaktad\u0131r. 10 ayr\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmakla birlikte t\u00fcm\u00fcnde su\u00e7 konusu eylem, iddianame, savc\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fctalaas\u0131 ve nihai karar yaz\u0131m hatalar\u0131na kadar tamam\u0131yla ayn\u0131 niteliktedir. \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d metninin propaganda oldu\u011funa bir kez karar vermi\u015f bir heyetin ayn\u0131 su\u00e7lamay\u0131 defalarca ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve devam eden di\u011fer 29 yarg\u0131lamada da bu \u015fekilde karara ba\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla art\u0131k ortada tarafs\u0131z bir mahkeme olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi bir yarg\u0131lamadan da bahsetmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir<\/strong>. Karar\u0131n kes\/yap\u0131\u015ft\u0131r \u015feklinde kaleme al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 bu durumun a\u00e7\u0131k bir g\u00f6stergesidir.<\/li>\n
    6. Yukar\u0131da g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi A\u0130HM i\u00e7tihad\u0131 bir \u00e7ok durumda ilk kararda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klayan tek bir yarg\u0131c\u0131n bile ikinci kararda yer almas\u0131n\u0131 tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlali i\u00e7in yeterli g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f, \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun \u00f6nceki kararda yer almas\u0131 halinde ise mutlaka ihlal bulmu\u015ftur. \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131nda 9 di\u011fer ayn\u0131 kararda imzas\u0131 bulunan heyetle, B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131\u2019n\u0131n karar\u0131n\u0131 veren heyet ayn\u0131d\u0131r. Benzer \u015fekilde, devam etmekte olan di\u011fer 29 yarg\u0131laman\u0131n da mahkeme heyeti ayn\u0131d\u0131r.<\/li>\n
    7. Kyprianou karar\u0131nda ikinci kategori olarak belirlenen yarg\u0131c\u0131n tutumuyla ilgili olarak da mevcut vakada tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Buscemi ve Lavents kararlar\u0131nda hakimin bas\u0131na verdi\u011fi deme\u00e7lerde san\u0131\u011f\u0131n su\u00e7lulu\u011funu ima etmesi bile tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ihlali i\u00e7in yeterli olmu\u015ftur. Ger\u00e7ekten de \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi heyetinden biri, bir deme\u00e7 verse ve bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in akademisyenlerin \u201cs\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n\u201d oldu\u011funu ve cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6ylese ilgili davada tarafs\u0131z karar verebilece\u011fini varsaymak imkans\u0131z hale gelecektir. Mevcut olayda ise heyet san\u0131\u011f\u0131n eyleminin su\u00e7 oldu\u011funu ima etmekle kalmam\u0131\u015f, birebir 9 di\u011fer ayn\u0131 vakada a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fi gibi ayn\u0131 ve en a\u011f\u0131r ifadelerle yarg\u0131 karar\u0131nda bu eylemin su\u00e7 oldu\u011funu tespit etmi\u015ftir<\/strong>. Bu durumun Buscemi ve Lavents\u2019teki bas\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131ndan \u00e7ok daha a\u00e7\u0131k bir tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ihlali oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesizdir.<\/li>\n
    8. Heyetin tutumu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan kararda kullan\u0131lan dilin de tarafs\u0131zl\u0131k ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131k ilkeleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan irdelenmesi gerekir. Vardanyan ve Nanushyan ve Davidsons ve Savins kararlar\u0131nda yarg\u0131\u00e7lar\u0131n kullanaca\u011f\u0131 dilin ne kadar \u00f6nemli oldu\u011fu vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Oysa, \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifadeler tamamen \u00f6nyarg\u0131 i\u00e7eren, dava konusu eylemle de\u011fil, san\u0131\u011f\u0131n ki\u015fili\u011fi ile ilgili olan nitelikler ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \u201cBunun yan\u0131nda s\u00f6zde sorumluluk sahibi ayd\u0131n bir akademisyen olarak…”<\/em><\/strong> (s.18),<\/p>\n

      “... s\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n, bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131, demokratik, sorumluluk sahibi ve tarafs\u0131z akademisyen kimli\u011fi ile hi\u00e7 bir \u015fekilde ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131…” <\/em><\/strong>(s. 18),<\/p>\n

      “…s\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n akademisyen kimli\u011fi ile ba\u011fda\u015fmamaktad\u0131r.” <\/em><\/strong>(s. 18)\u201d<\/p>\n

      \u201cs\u00f6zde sorumluluk<\/em><\/strong> sahibi ayd\u0131n bir akademisyen<\/strong> olarak bar\u0131\u015fa katk\u0131 olsun diye bildiriyi imzalad\u0131m diyen san\u0131\u011f\u0131n sanki olaylar\u0131n sorumlusu devletmi\u015f gibi sadece devlete \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 yapmas\u0131<\/strong>, ayn\u0131 mahiyette bir bildiri veya \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131y\u0131 PKK\/KCK silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne yapmay\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemesi<\/strong>, ya da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek istememesi<\/strong>, s\u00f6zde PKK\/KCK’n\u0131n \u00f6z y\u00f6netim ilan\u0131n\u0131n \u00fclkede b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeye yol a\u00e7abilecek bir hareketin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 olabilece\u011fini veya ayr\u0131\u015fmaya y\u00f6nelik siyasi sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 olabilece\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnerek bu y\u00f6nde bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma, bildiri veya bir \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 yapmay\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemesinin<\/strong> s\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n, bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131, demokratik, sorumluluk sahibi ve tarafs\u0131z akademisyen kimli\u011fi<\/strong> ile hi\u00e7 bir \u015fekilde ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmaya yer vermeyecek kadar a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r<\/em>\u201d (s. 21)<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi karar san\u0131ktan \u0131srarla \u201cs\u00f6zde<\/strong>\u201d s\u0131fat\u0131yla bahsetmektedir. \u201cS\u00f6zde\u201d s\u0131fat\u0131 T\u00fcrk\u00e7ede \u201casl\u0131nda \u00f6yle olmayan\u201d \u201c\u00f6yle olmamakla birlikte \u00f6yleymi\u015f gibi davranan\u201d anlam\u0131na gelmektedir. Bir ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n konusu ki\u015finin karakteri, hayat\u0131 veya kariyeri de\u011fildir. Ceza davas\u0131n\u0131n konusu bir eylemin su\u00e7 olu\u015fturup olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi san\u0131klar\u0131n su\u00e7 i\u015flemesiyle hi\u00e7bir ilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde onlar\u0131n \u201cs\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n\u201d, \u201cs\u00f6zde akademisyen\u201d oldu\u011funa kanaat getirmi\u015ftir. Dahas\u0131 bug\u00fcne kadar verilmi\u015f 10 karardan da g\u00f6r\u00fclebilece\u011fi \u00fczere bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f Mahkeme heyetinin t\u00fcm Bar\u0131\u015f \u0130mzac\u0131lar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan vicdani kanaatidir. Bu kanaatini Mahkeme, devam eden 29 ayn\u0131 dava da sonu\u00e7land\u0131\u011f\u0131nda s\u00fcrd\u00fcrecektir.<\/li>\n
      2. \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin kimin ayd\u0131n, kimin akademisyen oldu\u011funa karar vermeye ehil bir bilim heyeti olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Nitekim, heyet haklar\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulan akademisyenlerin herhangi bir eserini incelemi\u015f de de\u011fildir. Bu ifade sadece belli bir grup insana kar\u015f\u0131 duyulan kin, \u00f6fke ve garezin dile getirilmesi niteli\u011findedir.<\/li>\n
      3. Bu hususu, ayn\u0131 zamanda mahkemenin ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da analiz etmek gerekir<\/strong>. BAK akademisyenleri hakk\u0131nda idari ve adli soru\u015fturmalar Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan\u2019\u0131n bu akademisyenleri hedef g\u00f6steren konu\u015fmalar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Erdo\u011fan da bu konu\u015fmalar\u0131nda akademisyenleri \u201cs\u00f6zde\u201d s\u0131fat\u0131yla tan\u0131mlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yarg\u0131laman\u0131n siyasi niteli\u011fine bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin hukuk d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir \u015fekilde ayn\u0131 ifadeyi kullanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve t\u00fcm yarg\u0131lanan imzac\u0131 akademisyenlere 1 Y\u0131l 3 Ay \u015feklinde ayn\u0131 hapis cezas\u0131n\u0131 vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 bir tesad\u00fcf say\u0131lamaz. Nitekim, \u0130stanbul 36. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi\u2019nde tamamlanan 3 yarg\u0131lamada da imzac\u0131 akademisyenlere 1 Y\u0131l 3 Ay hapis cezas\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir ve bundan sonraki yarg\u0131lamalarda da farkl\u0131 mahkemelerin 1 Y\u0131l 3 Ay hapis cezas\u0131 verece\u011fi bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/li>\n
      4. Bu incelemeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesinin, BAK yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, Kyprianou karar\u0131nda belirtilen iki tip anlam\u0131nda da tarafs\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z da say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. <\/strong><\/li>\n
      5. Bununla birlikte, eylemin ayn\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve fakat farkl\u0131 davalarda g\u00f6r\u00fclen BAK vakas\u0131nda hakim say\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ayn\u0131 heyetin farkl\u0131 ki\u015fileri ayn\u0131 eylem nedeniyle yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir. Ger\u00e7ekten de A\u0130HM de Poppe\/Hollanda karar\u0131nda bir yarg\u0131 sisteminde yarg\u0131\u00e7lar\u0131n su\u00e7 ortaklar\u0131n\u0131 farkl\u0131 davalarda yarg\u0131lamak zorunda kalabilece\u011fini kabul etmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte, ayn\u0131 kararda A\u0130HM Devletlerin yarg\u0131 sistemlerini 6. maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131na uygun bir \u015fekilde organize etmek zorunda olduklar\u0131n\u0131n da alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmi\u015ftir (Poppe\/Hollanda, no. 32271\/04, 24.3.2009, para. 23). Bir ki\u015finin vicdani kanaatini ayn\u0131 eyleme ili\u015fkin ba\u015fka bir davada \u00f6nceden ortaya koymu\u015f, imzac\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a d\u00fc\u015fmanl\u0131k besleyen bir heyet taraf\u0131ndan yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n me\u015fru oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek bu \u00f6devin a\u00e7\u0131k bir ihlalini olu\u015fturacakt\u0131r.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Giri\u015fte belirtildi\u011fi gibi T\u00fcrkiye yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n tarafs\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yitirdi\u011fine, hatta bazen taciz arac\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair[4]<\/sup><\/a> uluslararas\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctler ve STK\u2019ler taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f \u00e7ok say\u0131da inceleme bulunmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131 bunu yaparken, b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ka\u011f\u0131t \u00fczerinde bir yarg\u0131laman\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kurallara uygun davran\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 intiba\u0131n\u0131 uyand\u0131rmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte, hukukla bu kadar oynand\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ne kadar dikkat ederseniz edin yap\u0131sal bozukluklar\u0131n saklanmas\u0131 imkans\u0131z hale gelir.<\/p>\n

        Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyenlerin yarg\u0131lanmas\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131ndan itibaren siyasi bir kampanyan\u0131n par\u00e7as\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 ve di\u011fer siyasilerin \u201cs\u00f6zde ayd\u0131n\u201d ve \u201cs\u00f6zde akademisyen\u201d olarak tan\u0131mlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 akademisyenler hem idari hem de adli soru\u015fturmalar\u0131n muhatab\u0131 olmu\u015f, bilim insanlar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bu sistematik sald\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131 tutars\u0131z kararlarla bezenmi\u015ftir. Ceza yarg\u0131lamalar\u0131n\u0131n da bu s\u00fcre\u00e7ten farkl\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beklemek \u00fctopik olurdu. Bununla birlikte, her \u015feyi k\u0131l\u0131f\u0131na uydurmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan yarg\u0131 mekanizmas\u0131n\u0131n yine de bu kadar a\u00e7\u0131k bir hataya d\u00fc\u015fmesini sadece tarafs\u0131zl\u0131kla de\u011fil ayn\u0131 zamanda bilgi eksikli\u011fi ve adalet ilkesiyle uyumsuzlu\u011fuyla a\u00e7\u0131klamak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr san\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n

        Bu nedenle B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 ve di\u011fer akademisyenleri teker teker yarg\u0131layarak zor duruma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken kendi kuyusunu kazan \u0130stanbul Yarg\u0131 te\u015fkilat\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve tarafs\u0131z olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tekrar tekrar vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu ve verece\u011fi BAK imzac\u0131lar\u0131 ile ilgili kararlarla g\u00f6stermektedir.<\/p>\n

        [1]<\/a> http:\/\/www.hurriyet.com.tr\/prof-busra-ersanliya-1-yil-3-ay-hapis-cezasi-40858379<\/a><\/p>\n

        http:\/\/www.cumhuriyet.com.tr\/haber\/turkiye\/989402\/Baris_Akademisyeni_Prof._Dr._Ersanli_ya_hapis_cezasi.html<\/a><\/p>\n

        [2]<\/a> Bir \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 rapor aras\u0131ndan bkz. \u00f6rne\u011fin T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Yarg\u0131n\u0131n Ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na M\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin Venedik Komisyonu Bildirisi, 20 Haziran 2015, http:\/\/venice.coe.int\/files\/turkish%20declaration%20June%202015.pdf<\/a>.; Avrupa Konseyi Yolsuzlu\u011fa Kar\u015f\u0131 Devletler Grubu (GRECO) T\u00fcrkiye De\u011ferlendirme Raporu, 16.10.2015. Ayr\u0131ca Ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc Hal sonras\u0131nda yarg\u0131ya ili\u015fkin ele\u015ftiriler i\u00e7in bkz. http:\/\/www.ipcs.org\/article\/military-and-defence\/post-coup-turkey-implications-for-judicial-independence-5103.html<\/a>; http:\/\/data.worldjusticeproject.org\/#\/groups\/TUR<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        [3]<\/a>Kerem Alt\u0131parmak\/Yaman Akdeniz (2017), Bar\u0131\u015f \u0130\u00e7in Akademisyenler, (\u0130stanbul: \u0130leti\u015fim); Y. Akdeniz & K. Alt\u0131parmak, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Can \u00c7eki\u015fen \u0130fade \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc:OHAL\u2019de Yazarlar, Yay\u0131nc\u0131lar ve Akademisyenlerle \u0130lgili Hak \u0130hlalleri, English PEN (London), Mart 2018, https:\/\/www.englishpen.org\/wp- content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Turkey_Freedom_of_Expression_in_Jeopardy_TUR.pdf<\/p>\n

        [4]<\/a> Yarg\u0131 tacizi kavram\u0131 Avrupa Konseyi \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 Komiseri Nils Muzinieks taraf\u0131ndan \u201cT\u00fcrkiye\u2019de ifade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve medya \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin Memorandum\u201dda kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Memorandumum T\u00fcrk\u00e7esi i\u00e7in bkz. https:\/\/www.coe.int\/tr\/web\/commissioner\/-\/urgent-measures-are-needed-to-restore-freedom-of-expression-in-turkey<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Otomati\u011fe Ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyen Kararlar\u0131 ve Kendi Kuyusunu Kazan \u0130stanbul Yarg\u0131s\u0131 Kerem Alt\u0131parmak & Yaman Akdeniz 13 Haziran 2018 Bu yaz\u0131n\u0131n PDF s\u00fcr\u00fcm\u00fcne buradan ula\u015fabilirsiniz 05 Haziran 2018 g\u00fcn\u00fc \u0130stanbul 32. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in Akademisyenlerden Prof. Dr. B\u00fc\u015fra Ersanl\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir mahkumiyet karar\u0131 verdi.[1] Karara g\u00f6re, Profes\u00f6r Ersanl\u0131 Bar\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in akademisyenler (\u201cBAK\u201d) inisiyatifinin \u201cBu Su\u00e7a Ortak Olmayaca\u011f\u0131z\u201d…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1631,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[211,142,78],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-baris-icin-akademisyenler","category-kerem-altiparmak","category-yaman-akdeniz"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/BAK.png?fit=1300%2C652&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7wjA8-ry","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1708"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1709,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1708\/revisions\/1709"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/privacy.cyber-rights.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}