Social media courts

When a criminal investigation begins, the first thing the public encounters is often no longer a prosecutor's statement or a court decision. First, footage of the detention is released. Then, information notes regarding the investigation begin to circulate. While the trial has not yet begun and the details of the file are not yet known, thousands of comments are made on social media, and definitive judgments are formed about the individual. 

The investigation recently conducted into Oğuzhan Uğur has also brought this debate back to the agenda. The assessment regarding the merits of the investigation naturally belongs to the judicial authorities. However, the fact that footage of the moment of detention reached millions of people in a short time and the way information regarding the investigation is reflected to the public is an issue that must be addressed separately in terms of the fundamental principles of criminal procedure.

In accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution, everyone is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven by a final court judgment. The presumption of innocence is not a principle to be applied only in the courtroom. From the very first moment of an investigation, it also closely concerns the statements of public authorities, the way news is presented, and the individual's position in the eyes of society.

At this point, the right not to be stigmatized also gains importance. At the end of a criminal investigation, a decision of non-prosecution may be made, or an acquittal may be issued. Despite this, detention footage and the news reports from the first day continue to exist in the digital environment for years. Even a simple search on the internet often makes it easy to access footage published before the acquittal decision. Being legally cleared and changing the perception formed in the public eye do not always happen at the same speed.

In many investigations closely followed by the public in recent years, we encounter a similar picture. Immediately after the detention process, various information and footage regarding the investigation begin to circulate. Although there are different assessments as to how this happens, the resulting outcome does not change. A strong public perception is formed about the individual before an indictment is even prepared. This situation spreads much faster, especially with the influence of social media.

Of course, there may be aspects of investigations that concern the public. The press's duty to inform is also one of the indispensable elements of a democratic society. However, a delicate balance must be established between the right to inform and personal rights. The constant circulation of detention moments and the successive sharing of information regarding the initial stages of an investigation make it necessary to re-discuss this balance.

Social media, on the other hand, takes this process to a completely different dimension. Thousands of comments are made based on a few seconds of footage. Without knowing the content of the file, assessments are made as if the accusations have been finalized. Sometimes an acquittal comes years later, but the perception formed on the first day continues to live on in the same way.

In criminal procedure, protective measures do not have the purpose of punishment. Detention and arrest are measures that can be resorted to under the conditions determined by law for the healthy conduct of an investigation. For this reason, the manner in which these measures are applied is as important as their application itself in terms of the rule of law. A procedure that protects an individual's dignity, reputation, and fundamental rights is an inseparable part of the right to a fair trial.

Regardless of how the Oğuzhan Uğur file concludes, it is clear that this debate is not limited to a single person. The same problems can be experienced in an investigation conducted against someone else today. Therefore, what really needs to be discussed is the extent to which the reflection of detention footage to the public and trials conducted via social media are compatible with the principles of the rule of law.

Justice is not achieved solely through court decisions. The method followed from the first moment of the investigation to the day the verdict is finalized is at least as important as the result. Trust in the rule of law is strengthened to the extent that an individual's fundamental rights can be protected even in their most difficult times.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir