Petition For Appeal Against Continued Detention
ANKARA ( )HEAVY PENAL COURT
(To be sent)
ANKARA ( ) HEAVY PENAL COURT
FILE NO: 2021/…
Continued Detention
Appellant Defendant :
ADDRESS :…
DEFENDANT :
ADDRESS :
TELEPHONE :
Accused Offence :
Manufacturing and Trafficking in Drugs or Stimulants in accordance with Article 188 of the Turkish Penal Code
Decision on Continued Detention
Date Issued : ../../2021
SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST :
It is about our objections against the “Continuation of Detention” decision of your court dated ../../2021 and our request for release.
OUR EXPLANATIONS
In the hearing minutes of your court dated ../../2021:
“Considering the existence of concrete evidence showing the existence of strong suspicion of crime, the lower and upper limits of the punishment of the crime attributed to the defendant, the acceptance that the excessive amount of the punishment is in the nature of concrete facts that arouse the suspicion of escape, hiding or fleeing, and the possibility of destruction, concealment or alteration of evidence, and the fact that the crime attributed is one of the catalogue crimes specified in Article 100/3-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, taking into account the legal opinion that the judicial control measure will be insufficient, in accordance with Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In accordance with Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been decided to continue the detention of the defendant A….B…. and to reject his request for release”.
We submit our objections against this decision within the time limit as follows.
The conditions in Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been fulfilled. The defendant has no suspicion of escape. He has a fixed residence. The client lives with and cares for his family at his residence address. The client helps his father, who is a market trader. Decision to continue the detention of the client, who contributes to the livelihood of his family in this way, not only binds his freedom, but also greatly damages the life of the client’s family.
The client is struggling with drug addiction; he has no income and nowhere to go. He is not in a position to flee and has no intention of doing so. He wants to get rid of the offence charged against him.
The accused cannot tamper with the evidence. All evidence related to the accused offence has been seized and taken into custody. The client does not have a situation such as tampering with evidence, but even if such a situation is thought to exist, the fact that there is not even a piece of evidence that can be tampered with reveals that the client is being detained for no reason.
In addition, the conditions in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the provisions of Article 19/3 of the Constitution, which were taken into consideration while deciding on the continuation of the detention, have not been met for the defendant.
Arrest is the last measure. The judicial control institution under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be applied first. The ECtHR also mentions in its jurisprudence that arrest should be applied as the last measure; it states that arrest should not be resorted to if the benefit provided by arrest can be achieved with another measure.
While the court should not have ruled for arrest without first applying judicial control, a direct arrest warrant was issued for the client. However, the client has neither the suspicion of flight nor the possibility of tampering with the evidence. It is against the procedure and the law to bind the freedom of the client, who cannot do these even if he wants to, for no reason.
In the case, although the client did not have any commercial activity, an arrest warrant was issued against him. It is also obvious that the continuation of the detention will create irreparable situations for the client in the future. As a result of a great injustice and for no reason, a decision has been taken to continue the detention.
The client did not supply any drugs to the witness who was treated as a user. Both the client and the witness are drug addicts and have occasionally used the drugs in question together, but the client has never supplied drugs to the witness or anyone else for any price.
There was an argument between the client and the witness; after the argument, the witness secretly took the drugs that the client had reserved for him to use and left the house. When he was caught by the police, he panicked and said that he had taken the drugs from the client. However, this is not the case. The witness gave such a statement completely out of fear and the tension of the argument he had with the client. Client has never supplied drugs to the witness or to anyone else. The offence attributed to the client is nothing but slander.
In line with all these explanations, the decision on the continuation of the detention of the client should be cancelled and the defendant should be released.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST :
For all the reasons explained above and to be taken into consideration ex officio,
1. To lift the decision on the continuation of the detention given within the scope of the File No. 2021/… of the Ankara ( ) High Criminal Court and to decide on the release of the defendant A….B….,
2. If your court is of the contrary opinion, the decision on the continuation of the arrest should be converted into a judicial control in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code 109 et seq,
3. In case our request is rejected, we request that our file be sent to the competent authority for a decision to be made in line with our evacuation request. 15/10/2021
Appeal against the Decision on Continued Detention
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.