Does the fact that the judge who rendered the final conviction decision was also the person who decided on the defendant’s detention during the investigation phase violate the “right to a trial by an impartial tribunal”?

The judge conducting the trial may also be the person who decided on “the suspect’s detention or various procedural measures related to the suspect” during the investigation phase of that case. According to the ECHR, the mere fact that a judge issued a decision on the suspect’s arrest or other investigative measures during the investigation period does not, by itself, justify concerns about that judge’s objective impartiality. This is because the questions a judge must answer when deciding on detention are different from the questions they must answer when rendering a judgment at the end of the trial. When deciding on detention or another measure, the judge briefly evaluates the evidence in the file to determine whether the reasons for suspicion of crime put forward by the law enforcement or prosecutor’s office exist at first glance. At the end of the trial, however, the judge must thoroughly evaluate whether the evidence presented to and debated before the court is sufficient to conclude that the suspect’s guilt has been proven. In this context, establishing suspicion of a crime and establishing guilt are different things. Here, if the judge goes beyond establishing suspicion of a crime and makes assessments that the person committed the alleged crime and expresses this in the decision, then doubts regarding the judge’s objective impartiality may be justified. This is because this situation implies that the judge is convinced of the guilt of the person under suspicion of crime and has expressed their opinion in advance. The judge would have resolved the issue they should resolve when rendering a judgment, already when making the detention decision. In other words, the distinction between the grounds for detention and the grounds for conviction disappears. Thus, the suspect’s right to a trial by an impartial tribunal, as stipulated in Article 6/1 of the Convention, would be violated.(Karakoç and others/Turkey, 2002, pr.59-60; Nortier/Netherlands, 1993, pr. 35) A text suggestion.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary in ECtHR and Constitutional Court Individual Applications?

The fact that the judge who rendered the final conviction decision was the same person who decided on the defendant’s detention during the investigation phase does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the “right to a trial by an impartial tribunal”. According to the ECtHR, the fact that a judge decided on an arrest or another measure during the investigation process does not automatically give rise to doubt regarding objective impartiality. This is because the questions asked during the detention phase are entirely different from the questions that need to be answered during the conviction phase.

In a detention order, the judge considers whether there is sufficient prima facie suspicion presented by the prosecution or law enforcement. However, when rendering a judgment at the end of the trial, the court must evaluate all evidence discussed before it in detail and determine whether the defendant’s guilt has been proven. Therefore, the assessment of suspicion and the assessment of guilt are entirely different from each other.

However, according to ECtHR jurisprudence, if the judge, when deciding on detention during the investigation phase, begins to express an opinion that the crime has been committed, i.e., goes beyond the level of suspicion and states their conviction regarding guilt, then a reasonable doubt regarding objective impartiality may arise. In this situation, the distinction between the grounds for detention and the grounds for conviction effectively disappears, and the defendant’s right to an impartial tribunal under Article 6/1 of the ECHR is considered violated (Karakoç and others/Turkey, 2002, pr.59-60; Nortier/Netherlands, 1993, pr.35). A writing suggestion.

At This Point, the Importance of Expert Lawyer Support Increases

For a highly technical issue, such as the violation of a judge’s impartiality, to be successfully raised in individual applications to the ECtHR and AYM (Constitutional Court);

it depends on the correct interpretation of case law,

paying attention to the fine distinctions of decisions made during the investigation and prosecution phases,

the correct identification of the line between “suspicion” and “conviction” in the judge’s statements,

the flawless application of admissibility and evidentiary criteria.

This area is much more complex and requires expertise than a common human rights violation claim.

Therefore, the preparation of individual applications should be carried out by expert lawyers who are well-versed in ECtHR and AYM jurisprudence.

2M Law Office, with its experience in individual application law,;

identifying violations of judicial impartiality,

establishing connections to case law,

preparing the application in accordance with admissibility criteria,

developing strong constitutional and conventional arguments

by providing professional support in these matters, increases the success rate of the application.