The sentence imposed and the time in the penal institution are different things
Under the TCK, the final sentence determined by the court is not the same as the period that must be spent in the penal institution for conditional release. Conditional release, supervised release and release upon entitlement are separate concepts. During enforcement of the sentence, good conduct, disciplinary decisions, aggregation decisions and different judgments may affect the outcome.
Related guide: Offences against Sexual Inviolability: TCK Articles 102–105, Elements of the Offences, Penalties, Evidence and Court of Cassation Case Law.
Article 107 of Law No. 5275 and sexual offences
Article 107/2 of Law No. 5275 contains different ratios for the general rule and for particular groups of offences. The provision provides for different paragraph distinctions for certain sexual offences. For acts such as those under TCK Articles 102/2 and 103, the special regime of Article 108/9 is also important. The equation “sexual offence = a single enforcement ratio” is legally wrong.
The special regime of Article 108/9 of Law No. 5275
A special enforcement order comes into play for TCK Articles 102/2 and 103 and for the other offences specified in the law. A definite period should not be given without comparing the specific type of offence, the paragraph, the date of the event, whether the convict is an adult or a child, and the texts of the law at different dates. The presence of different acts in the same judgment may affect aggregation and the calculation of conditional release.
The 2026 amendments and application over time
By Law No. 7593 of 8 August 2026, an amendment was made to Article 107/5 of Law No. 5275, and the exceptions under which certain institutional days of a child convict are counted double were rearranged for some offences. This amendment makes the type of offence important especially in calculating the time of a convict under fifteen. The temporal application of enforcement norms must be assessed together with the date of the specific event and the transitional provisions.
Supervised release and cases of ineligibility
Under Article 105/A of Law No. 5275 and other special provisions, supervised release is subject to separate conditions. The time that must be spent in the institution, good conduct and special restrictions must be examined. The date of conditional release and the date of transfer to supervised release are not the same. The law may contain special rules of ineligibility for certain offences and persons.
Documents required for the calculation
The judgment bearing a finality endorsement, the date of the offence, the TCK articles and paragraphs, the final sentence, the pre-trial detention to be credited, recidivism status, the aggregation decision and the calculation of the enforcement prosecutor’s office must be examined together. Routes of application to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) are assessed according to the specific act and notification. A definitive calculation that could cause a loss of rights must not be made on the basis of a single ratio found on the internet.
The date of the event and the temporal dimension of enforcement law
In applying enforcement provisions, the date of the offence, the date on which the judgment became final, the start of enforcement and a later change in the law are separate facts. It must not be assumed that the most recent text applies directly to a past act without examining the entry-into-force and transitional provision of each amendment. Where a file contains more than one act and different offence dates, the calculation may be affected by separate rules.
Recidivism, aggregation and credit for detention
Several final judgments, the convictions forming the basis of recidivism, time spent in pre-trial detention and credit operations may change the time-to-serve calculation. The final sentence imposed by the court must be compared with the müddetname (sentence calculation sheet) drawn up by the enforcement prosecutor’s office. If an error is suspected, the judgment and the item of the calculation that is wrong must be shown with specific documents.
The special enforcement position of a child convict
It is not correct to apply the general adult enforcement ratios automatically to child convicts. The provisions specific to child convicts and the offences for which the 2026 amendments introduce an exception must be examined. The convict’s age on the date of the act and the age during the period spent in the penal institution may not serve the same function. For this reason, in the enforcement calculation concerning children, the file and the date of the legislation are separate headings.
General and special conditional release provisions
The general ratio in Article 107 of Law No. 5275 and the special groups of offences in Article 108/9 must not be confused. The official Ministry of Justice case-law record shows that TCK Articles 102/2, 103 and 104/2–3 fall within Article 108/9 and that there is a provision on the special conditional release ratio for fixed-term prison sentences. Official judicial record. However, in applying the ratio, the status of the perpetrator, the date of the offence, the law in force on the date of the event and the transitional provisions must also be examined.
The distinction between supervised release and conditional release
The date of conditional release, transfer to the supervised release measure and release upon entitlement are different from one another. The application of Article 105/A of Law No. 5275, its conditions and its exceptions cannot be applied automatically to all offences by a general mathematical formula. Good conduct, the time to be spent in the institution, recidivism, discipline and transitional provisions must be assessed together.
The 2026 amendment and its applicability to the date of the event
By Law No. 7593, some provisions of Law No. 5275 concerning child convicts and Article 107 were amended. A definite ratio should not be applied to a specific file without researching for which offences and which age groups these amendments introduce exceptions, together with the dates of the act and of enforcement. The current official text and the transitional provisions are a mandatory part of review by a lawyer.
Reviewing the müddetname, recidivism and credit for detention
In the enforcement calculation, the final judgments, the sentence aggregation decision, the convictions forming the basis of recidivism, the time spent in pre-trial detention, the credit decisions and the disciplinary processes under way must be compared. It must be possible to see clearly which ratio the müddetname applies to which judgment. If there is a dispute, the application to the enforcement judgeship and the conditions of the relevant remedy should be tied to the specific calculation.
The order of steps in checking the müddetname
First, the final sentence imposed and the legal article of the offence are checked; then the date of the offence, finality and credit; then recidivism, aggregation and the special enforcement ratio. Lastly, the dates of supervised release, conditional release and release upon entitlement are calculated separately from one another. Where there is more than one judgment in the same file, the connection between the legal regime of each judgment and the overall result must be clearly shown.
Basing an enforcement application on specific grounds
In objecting to the müddetname or to the ratio applied, rather than merely saying “the period is wrong”, the legal text used, the paragraph, the date of the event and any transitional provision in the convict’s favour must be identified. Credit for pre-trial detention, the time spent in the penal institution and the decisions on good-conduct assessments must be verified against separate documents. The conditions of the enforcement judgeship and of the relevant application route should be examined on the basis of the current applicable law.
The time to be served cannot be derived from the final sentence alone
In the enforcement calculation, the date of the offence, the precise statutory characterisation of the offence, the date of the judgment, the date of finality, the aggregate sentence, the scope of detention and credit, recidivism and the special enforcement provisions are separate data fields. The conditional release ratio and the supervised release measure are not the same provision. Giving the result “this many years will be served” without determining these elements may cause a significant loss of rights in cases where the periods of the act and of the judgment differ. Where there are several judgments, the special regime of each offence and the aggregation decision must also be examined separately.
Articles 107–108 of Law No. 5275 and transitional provisions
For certain offences against sexual inviolability, the special provisions of Law No. 5275 on conditional release and recidivism may apply. The assessment of a more favourable law or of a transitional article by date of the offence must be made separately from the general enforcement ratio. A definite ratio should not be given before the entry into force of the 2026 amendments and the groups of cases to which they apply have been verified against the current consolidated text of the law. Whether enforcement is continuous or carried out in different institutions, and good-conduct and disciplinary decisions, may also have consequences depending on the specific circumstances.
Application and document review in case of an error in the müddetname
In checking the müddetname, the judgment of conviction, finality, credit decisions, the aggregation decision, recidivism information, enforcement records and the calculation table must be compared. It must be clearly shown which legal article and which date of the event the objection claims to have been wrongly applied. The conditions for applying to the enforcement judgeship and for other remedies are assessed according to the nature of the specific act. The calculation printout of the penal institution does not by itself make all legal facts verified.
Related articles: Conditional Release (Koşullu Salıverilme): Requirements, Enforcement Ratios and Application; Objection to the Müddetname and Correction of the Enforcement Calculation: How Is the Release Date Verified?.
Conclusion
In assessing enforcement and the time-to-serve calculation in sexual offences, the relationship between the statutory elements of the offence or procedural act and the concrete evidence must be clearly established. The reasoning of the court’s decision must address the decisive points of the prosecution and the defence, and the law applicable on the date of the event must be observed. Protection of the victim and the guarantees of a fair trial are not opposed to one another but are complementary obligations of a State governed by the rule of law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does everyone serve the same ratio in sexual offences?
No; the TCK paragraph and the special provisions of Law No. 5275 are decisive.
Does good conduct alone secure release?
No; other statutory periods and conditions are required.
Does the 2026 enforcement amendment apply to every convict?
No; its application is examined separately by type of offence, person and time.
Which documents are needed for a definitive calculation?
The final judgment, the date of the offence, and the sentence and enforcement/credit records.