Home > Justice and Law News > As the IMM trial resumes, the 'unlawful detention' warning from the Ergenekon ruling comes to the fore

As the IMM trial resumes, the 'unlawful detention' warning from the Ergenekon ruling comes to the fore

Lawyer Hüseyin Buzoğlu stated that decisions to continue unlawful detention could be considered the crime of "deprivation of liberty."

12punto

As hearings in the IMM trial resumed today, a Supreme Court of Appeals ruling regarding the Ergenekon trial process has been brought back to the agenda. Lawyer Hüseyin Buzoğlu, one of the individuals tried during the Ergenekon process, pointed out that decisions made to continue unlawful detention could have consequences in terms of criminal law.

Buzoğlu recalled the Supreme Court of Appeals 8th Criminal Chamber's decision dated June 26, 2024, with file number 2018/7 and decision number 2024/43. The ruling stated that some judges who served during the Ergenekon investigation and trial process were sentenced to 20 years and 3 months in prison for the crime of "deprivation of liberty" due to their decisions to continue unjust detention.

IMM trial hearings have resumed.

EMPHASIS ON 'FORMULAIC JUSTIFICATION' IN SUPREME COURT RULING

The Supreme Court ruling criticized the failure to effectively examine detention statuses, the failure to consider the stage the case had reached, and the issuance of decisions based on repetitive justifications. The ruling listed the failure to individualize decisions regarding the continuation of detention and the failure to concretely explain why judicial control measures would not be sufficient as grounds for unlawfulness.

In the relevant section of the ruling, it was stated that the decisions regarding the continuation of the defendants' detention used "abstract, formulaic justifications that referred to previous decisions." The Supreme Court assessed that this practice constitutes a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution, which regulates the right to personal liberty and security.

Security barriers are seen in front of the courtrooms.

Buzoğlu's reminder came with the assessment that decisions regarding detention reviews in the IMM trial are significant in terms of the standard of legal justification. The Supreme Court ruling had emphasized that the grounds for detention must be addressed separately for each defendant and that the balance of proportionality in protective measures must be observed.