Two remarkable violation decisions from the Constitutional Court: It emphasized both the right to life and freedom of expression

The Constitutional Court (AYM) made remarkable violation decisions in the Official Gazette yesterday. In this context, the Supreme Court ruled that S.D.'s right to life was violated due to the lack of an effective investigation into the shooting incident.

HE WAS INJURED WHILE PREVENTING A GUN CONFLICT

S.D.; In 2013, at a restaurant where he worked as a musician, H.C. and restaurant owner Z.A. He was seriously injured with a gunshot in the mouth/face area while trying to prevent an armed conflict between the two. In the conflict, H.C. While he was losing his life, Z.A. was also injured. While a public lawsuit was filed regarding the incident, S.D.'s injury was not added to the case and a decision of non-prosecution was made. At this stage, camera recordings were not examined. However, in the actual criminal case, after S.D. claimed that the bullet that injured him came from Z.A.'s gun, Z.A. A lawsuit was filed against him for injury and the trial was concluded.

THE INCIDENT BECAME A SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL 11 YEARS LATER

In its decision, the Supreme Court said; He stated that the investigating authorities showed a serious lack of care by not examining the camera recordings in depth immediately after the incident. Despite the applicant's statements and objections that Z.A. shot him, the fact that the public lawsuit in this regard was filed only 11 years after the incident was accepted as clear evidence that the appropriate speed was not acted upon and the process was not carried out effectively. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated. For this reason, the high court ruled on violation and decided to pay 200 thousand TL non-pecuniary damages to S.D.

KARATAY'S BANNING PENALTY IS RETURNED BY THE Constitutional Court

In addition to this decision, the Constitutional Court, dietitian Prof. Dr. It also decided on the one-month temporary ban from profession given to Canan Karatay due to her vaccine statements in the media. Supreme Court; It decided that this punishment violated freedom of expression. Karatay, who started a legal fight against the sentence given by the Istanbul Medical Chamber and approved by the Turkish Medical Association, made an individual application to the high court when he received a rejection response from the local court and the Council of State. In his application, Karatay argued that, as a scientist, he informed the public and could not be punished. Following the application, which was found to be justified, the Constitutional Court ruled for a violation, stating that the article of law on which the penalty was based did not draw a specific and predictable framework and did not contain any guarantee against arbitrariness. The file was sent to Ankara 14th Administrative Court for a retrial.