Right to a Fair Trial

Presumption of Innocence

The principle that the accused benefits from the doubt

Every individual has the right to a fair trial when faced with a legal dispute or accused of a misdemeanor. This means that the case must be heard within a reasonable time, before an impartial and independent court, and in public. A right to a fair trial in a criminal sense does not exist unless there is an accusation of a crime and a threat of punishment.

According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the accusation of a crime must be in the criminal realm. If a disciplinary penalty is also imposed for a crime committed, that disciplinary penalty is not considered to be in the criminal realm.

The presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 6/2 of the ECHR and included within the right to a fair trial, states that "a person, even if accused of a criminal offence, is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Article 36 of the Constitution also stipulates that everyone has the right to a fair trial, including the right to present their case and defense. The purpose of a trial is essentially this: to reach the material truth. To reach the material truth, a person accused of a crime cannot be required to prove their innocence. The presumptions used in proving the crime must not be of a nature that would violate the presumption of innocence. This is also consistent with the principle of a trial within a reasonable time. Because the main goal is to achieve the desired outcome from the trial, the principle is that the trial should be neither too fast nor too slow. Therefore, the presumption of innocence is one of the most important elements of the right to a fair trial. It provides a vital space for achieving the other elements of the right to a fair trial.

In criminal proceedings, the aim of reaching the material truth is not one where anything goes, but rather one that aims for outcomes achieved in the light of the right to a fair trial. The goals sought in modern criminal procedure are the investigation of truth, respect for human dignity, and the reduction of the risk of punishing the innocent. The crucial point here is to prevent individuals from being treated as guilty before their guilt is proven.

One of the consequences of the presumption of innocence in the field of criminal procedure is that the defendant benefits from the doubt. This principle originates from the presumption of innocence. We can also say that for a person to be convicted, it must be proven with 100% certainty that they committed the crime in question. If the judge cannot overcome their doubt with 100% certainty, they will consider that matter not proven and will make their decision accordingly. Therefore, if this doubt cannot be dispelled, the defendant is acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Any existing doubt must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. In other words, if the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defense, the presumption of innocence is violated. In general, Supreme Court decisions also emphasize that for a conviction to be issued against a defendant in criminal proceedings, there must be "conclusive and sufficient evidence, free from all doubt." To make a decision based on even a high probability, to convict the defendant, means to render a judgment based on assumption without reaching the truth, which is the greatest aim of criminal proceedings. In criminal procedure as a whole, thought follows a path from doubt to certainty. In criminal proceedings, doubt is only doubt based on evidence.

The Principle of Benefit of the Doubt for the Defendant; Damage to Property; Supreme Court Decision; Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly

2006/9-337 E, 2007/69 K.

“…The crime of damaging property is a crime that can only be committed intentionally, and in the file, there is no evidence other than the complainant's claim that the defendant cut down or destroyed the walnut tree with the intention of damaging someone else's property. Furthermore, considering that the ownership of the tree is disputed, and that it is not even included in the plot drawn up after the inspection in the lawsuit to prevent encroachment, doubt arises as to whether the defendant acted intentionally. One of the most important principles of criminal proceedings, whose aim is to uncover the material truth, is the principle of "the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant" (in dubio pro reo). The essence of this principle is that any doubt that arises in a matter that must be considered due to its importance in punishing the defendant in a criminal case should be evaluated in favor of the defendant. The local court's decision to acquit the defendant by evaluating the doubt in his favor is correct.”

Trainee Lawyer Hüseyin Bayraktar