DGM System Should not Stay Same

"The lifting of State Security Courts (DGM) will have no meaning if new regulations bring about another trial method, which, again, limits the rights of defendants. The parliament, by lifting article 143 of the Constitution, has ended the existence of DGMs."

Specialty courts?

Prof. Dr. Ulku Azrak also talked about the possibility of setting up specialty courts to replace DGMs, as voiced by Justice Minister Cemil Cicek a while ago.

Azrak said there were a number of specialty courts like trade courts within the courthouse.

"For that reason, setting up specialty courts for issues that would normally be handled by DGMs would not be against the system," said Azrak.

"The important thing here is not continuing with the trial system that was implemented at the DGMs. That DGM trial system was not that secure and limited some of the rights of the defendants. If they continue with this same trial system at the specialty courts to be set up, the amendments will have no practical value," he adds.

Prof. Dr. Ulku Azrak said Turkey got the idea of DGMs from France.

However, according to Azrak, although France set up DGMs temporarily during the Algerian crisis, DGMs in Turkey turned out to be permanent.

Azrak added that the new regulations should not have limiting provisions on defendant rights.

"Although, through amendments, military judges stopped serving at DGMs, complaints about these courts continued. The main reason for these complaints was the limiting provisions on defendant rights. This is the most important issue, not whether the judges are military or civilian. If the specialty courts to be set up to replace DGMs have the same trial system as DGMs, the Constitutional amendment will have no meaning."

Prof. Dr. Ulku Azrak said that the fact that DGMs have been lifted should be taken into account in trials that are still continuing at such courts. (YS/BB)