Presumption of innocence and the standard of proof
Read together, Article 38 of the Constitution and Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) require that a conviction rest on reaching sufficient certainty from the whole of the evidence that was lawfully obtained and debated at the hearing. The seriousness of the accusation, media attention or the social standing of the parties does not take the place of evidence. Conversely, the absence of certain physical findings in a file does not prove with certainty that the offence was not committed.
Grounds for acquittal under CMK Article 223
CMK Article 223/2 sets out different grounds for acquittal. That the act charged is not defined as an offence by law, that it is established that the defendant did not commit the offence, that the elements of the offence have not materialised and that it is not established that the act was committed are not one and the same legal ground. The court must state clearly the factual and legal reasoning for whichever ground it relies on.
Mandatory elements of a reasoned conviction
The court must establish separately the material and mental elements of the offence, its legal characterisation, any aggravated forms, the basic range of the penalty and any increases. It must explain why the victim’s statement was believed, why each decisive claim of the defence was rejected and what the medical and digital evidence shows. If the legal characterisation of the offence changes, the right to an additional defence is observed separately within the framework of CMK Article 226.
Contradictory statements and the case law on acquittal
In its judgment of 19.12.2023, E.2023/4703, K.2023/8631, the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Ceza Dairesi) considered the vague and contradictory nature of the victim’s statements together with the sufficiency of the other evidence, and assessed an acquittal on the ground that there was no conclusive proof. This approach does not mean that any contradiction automatically leads to an acquittal; it means that guilt cannot be accepted as established without resolving a decisive contradiction.
How an acquittal relates to the victim’s statement
An acquittal may mean that the defendant’s commission of the offence could not be regarded as established to the statutory standard of proof; this result does not necessarily mean that the victim knowingly made a statement contrary to the truth. An allegation of false accusation (iftira) is examined separately, with its own statutory elements. The victim’s personality rights and procedural safeguards must be protected independently of the outcome of an acquittal.
Review of reasoning on appeal
In an appeal (istinaf) or cassation (temyiz) review, the following must be examined together: whether the court answered the decisive claims, whether the evidence was lawful, the contradictions in the scientific reports and the calculation of the resulting sentence. An objection should not stop at the level of “the decision is wrong”; it must show which item of evidence affects which legal element.
Distinguishing an offence not committed from an offence not proven
A court’s definitive finding that the offence was not committed and a finding that the available evidence is insufficient for a conviction are different legal grounds. Which sub-paragraph of CMK Article 223/2 is applied may produce different consequences in later proceedings or for the victim’s rights. A clear acquittal reasoning matters not only for the defendant but also for the victim’s legal position.
Aggravated forms in the reasoning of a conviction
Accepting the basic form of an offence as established does not automatically mean that an aggravated form has also materialised. Concrete evidence is needed for each decisive element, such as the victim’s age, the intensity of the act, the penetration of an organ or object, or abuse of influence. The operative part of the judgment must be consistent with the reasoning and with the provisions applied. Any uncertainty in a scientific report must be addressed expressly by the court.
Reasoning that answers the opposing view
The court may not be required to give a lengthy answer to every secondary detail raised by the defence, but substantial claims capable of changing the judgment cannot be left unanswered. The decisive evidence pointed out by the victim’s counsel must also be assessed. A reasoned decision is not a repetition of one party’s account; it must show why the decision is legally accepted. This review makes it possible to assess the judgment on appeal and in cassation.
The grounds for acquittal under CMK Article 223 are not the same
That the act charged is not an offence in law, that it is established that the defendant did not commit the act, that the elements of the offence have not materialised and that it is not established that the defendant committed the act are legally different grounds. Stating the acquittal paragraph correctly matters not only for the defendant but also for the victim’s later applications and assessments of compensation.
Basic and aggravated elements in the reasoning of a conviction
Accepting the basic form of an offence as established does not mean that the age, the penetration of an organ or object, a relationship of influence or another ground for increase has also been proven. The evidence relied on for each element and its counterpart in the calculation of the penalty must be shown separately. The procedures that protect the victim must be balanced with the possibility of the defence to debate the evidence; a judgment cannot be built by merely repeating the investigation summary.
The opposing approach to doubt and decisive contradictions
In its judgment of 19.12.2023, E.2023/4703, K.2023/8631, the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Ceza Dairesi) assessed contradictory statements and the other evidence and discussed the legal criteria relating to the outcome of acquittal. Decision record. By contrast, in some files a consistent victim statement together with independent evidence may serve as the basis for a conviction. These two possibilities cannot be reduced to a single fixed formula of proof.
Separating an acquittal from an accusation of false accusation
An acquittal may show that the defendant’s guilt could not be proven with the certainty needed for a conviction. This does not of itself produce a finding that the victim necessarily made a knowingly false statement or committed a separate offence. False accusation (iftira) and other independent allegations must be assessed separately, with their own material and mental elements.
Comparing the operative part of an acquittal with its reasoning
An acquittal decision that says merely “insufficient evidence” and one that regards it as definitively established that the act was not committed rest on different results. The court must show which sub-paragraph of CMK Article 223/2 it applied and why. The indictment, the records, the reports for and against, the victim’s statement and witness accounts must be assessed together; the result in the operative part must not conflict with the reasoning.
Decisive defence arguments in a conviction
Objections capable of changing the judgment, such as that the offence did not materialise, that the age was known differently, that a digital account belonged to someone else or that a scientific report is uncertain, must not be left unanswered. A lengthy explanation of every secondary claim may not be needed, but it must be possible to understand why a substantial defence was not accepted. The same approach applies to the victim’s counsel’s assessments of evidence and requests that affect the outcome of the decision.
Which ground for acquittal applies under CMK Article 223?
That it is established that the defendant did not commit the act charged, that the statutory element of the offence is absent and that it is not established that the defendant committed the act are different grounds for acquittal. In choosing the right sub-paragraph of CMK Article 223/2, the court must show which element of the offence it regards as not having materialised or as unproven, and why. If the reasoning rests merely on an abstract reference to “doubt”, the reviewability of the decision may be weakened. There must be no contradiction between the legal ground of the operative part and the facts discussed in the reasoning.
The effect of a contradictory victim statement and opposing evidence on the judgment
In its judgment of 19.11.2024, E.2021/10411, K.2024/9817, the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Ceza Dairesi) found that the contradictory accounts given at different stages and the file as a whole did not provide the certainty sufficient for a conviction. The case-specific nature of the judgment must be kept in mind: any minor difference in detail is not automatically a ground for acquittal. Where there is a contradiction on which the decision is based, however, the reasons why it was or was not overcome must be explained by reference to the evidence for and against. Decision.
Acquittal, false accusation and liability for compensation are distinct
One cannot move directly from an acquittal to the conclusion that the victim necessarily made a knowingly false accusation. The constituent elements of the offence of false accusation and possible liability for compensation require separate examination. Similarly, a conviction does not of itself determine the amount of the heads of loss in a civil action. The criminal court’s standard of evidence and the conditions of civil liability must not be confused. This distinction is necessary for the protection of both the presumption of innocence and the victim’s personality rights.
Conclusion
In assessments of the reasoning of acquittals and convictions in sexual offences, the relationship between the statutory elements of the offence or measure concerned and the concrete evidence must be established clearly. The reasoning of the court’s decision must address the decisive points of the prosecution and the defence, and the legislation applicable on the date of the offence must be taken into account. Protection of the victim and the guarantees of a fair trial are not opposed to each other; they are complementary obligations of a state governed by the rule of law.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the principle that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant apply?
Where a reasonable doubt that cannot be removed and that affects the judgment remains as to proof of the offence.
Does an acquittal mean that the victim made a false accusation?
No; the elements of the offence of false accusation are examined separately.
Must a judgment show why all of the evidence was accepted?
The decisive evidence and the opposing objections must be discussed with reasons.
Can an acquittal be appealed?
The authorised parties may apply, if the conditions provided by law are met.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (relevant articles and general provisions)
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (relevant provisions on evidence and procedure)
- Güneş & Güneş — Index of offences under the Turkish Criminal Code and special laws
- Court of Cassation 9th Criminal Chamber (Yargıtay 9. Ceza Dairesi), 19.12.2023, E.2023/4703, K.2023/8631