How Long Does Judicial Supervision Last? (CMK 110/A)

In criminal procedural law judicial supervisionis an important protective measure introduced as an alternative to detention. However, since this measure ultimately restricts a person's freedom, it cannot be applied indefinitely. In Turkish law, the duration of judicial supervision in Article 110/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure , and this provision provides a critical guarantee for the protection of personal liberty.

Judicial supervision should not be indefinite

Like arrest, judicial supervision to prevent the suspect or defendant from fleeing, to prevent the destruction of evidence, and to ensure the security of the trial . The purpose of the measure is to ensure the proper conduct of the trial, not to punish. Therefore, judicial supervision can only continue for the necessary period; indefinite or indefinite applications that extend beyond the trial process are contrary to personal liberty.

Amendment of Article 110/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 110/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly limits the duration of judicial control measures. Accordingly:

• Judicial control measures are determined by applying the provisions regarding the duration of detention by analogy.

• Therefore, the maximum periods stipulated for detention during the investigation and prosecution phases are also binding in terms of judicial supervision.

• Thus, a suspect or defendant cannot be held under judicial supervision for indefinite periods.

This regulation aims to prevent judicial supervision from turning into "extended detention" in practice.

Removal and Extension of Judicial Supervision

Judicial control measures by the judge or court ex officio or upon the request of the suspect/defendant . Furthermore, Article 111/2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, obligations may be modified or mitigated.

Whether judicial supervision should continue should be reviewed at regular intervals. If, at the current stage of the case, there is no longer a risk of escape or tampering with evidence, continuing the measure would be unlawful. Nevertheless, arbitrarily extending judicial supervision is contrary to both Article 19 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Constitutional Court and the ECHR Perspective

The Constitutional Court has frequently emphasized "proportionality" and "justification" in its decisions on individual applications . In particular, prolonged travel bans and strict signature requirements, when extended without justification, have been deemed a violation of the right to personal liberty and security .

The European Court of Human Rights similarly finds violations when judicial control measures are unnecessarily prolonged . According to the Court, every restriction must be based on a legitimate aim, be necessary, and applied proportionally.

Conclusion

Article 110/A of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is an important provision that protects personal liberty by limiting the duration of judicial supervision. Accordingly:

• Judicial supervision is limited to the maximum detention periods during the investigation and prosecution phases.

• The measure cannot be extended unduly and should be lifted when it is no longer necessary.

• Judicial authorities must maintain judicial supervision with concrete justifications ; otherwise, it will constitute a violation of personal liberty.

In conclusion, judicial supervision is not an indefinite restriction, but merely a temporary and proportionate measure. When applied lawfully, it both ensures public safety and protects the fundamental rights of the individual.

                                                                                                                                             Law Faculty Student Ada Ceren KENDİGELEN