The judge who conducts the trial and delivers the conviction may also be the person who decided on “the detention of the accused or various procedural measures related to the accused” during the investigation phase of that case. According to the ECtHR, the mere fact that a judge issued a decision on the detention of the accused or another investigative measure during the investigation period does not, by itself and automatically, justify concerns regarding 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 delivering a verdict 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 a crime, as put forward by law enforcement or the prosecution, exist at first glance. At the end of the trial, however, the judge must thoroughly evaluate whether the evidence presented to the court and discussed before the court is sufficient to conclude that the accused’s guilt has been proven. In this context, the determination of suspicion of a crime and the determination of guilt are different things. Here, if the judge goes beyond merely establishing suspicion of a crime and makes assessments that the person committed the alleged crime, and expresses this in the decision, then doubt regarding the judge’s objective impartiality may be justified. This is because such a situation implies that the judge is convinced of the guilt of the person under suspicion of a crime and has already expressed their opinion. The judge resolves the issue that should be resolved when giving a verdict, when making a decision on detention. In other words, the distinction between the grounds for detention and the grounds for conviction disappears. Thus, the accused’s right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal under Article 6/1 of the Convention is violated.(Karakoç and Others/Turkey, 2002, pr.59-60; Nortier/Netherlands, 1993, pr. 35) Book recommendation.
Why is a Tuzla Lawyer’s Opinion necessary?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) strikes a careful balance when determining whether the assessment of a defendant by the same judge during both the investigation and prosecution phases constitutes a violation of the principle of objective impartiality. The fact that a judge who ordered the defendant’s arrest later delivers a judgment in the same case does not always constitute a violation. According to the ECtHR, the decisions made by the judge during the investigation phase are merely an assessment of “prima facie suspicion of guilt”. However, the decision to be rendered at the end of the trial must be based on a comprehensive and contradictory evaluation of evidence.
However, this distinction may not always be sufficient. If the judge explicitly states their conviction that the person is guilty in the arrest warrant, this could indicate that they cannot remain impartial during the trial. This is because the standard of “strong suspicion of guilt” required for an arrest warrant is different from the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” required for a conviction. If this difference is not taken into account, the impartiality of the court would be compromised.
For instance, in the ECtHR’s decisions in Karakoç and Others/Turkey and Nortier/Netherlands, the fact that the same judge signed both the arrest and conviction decisions was evaluated as giving rise to serious doubts regarding the impartiality of the trial.
In such cases, seeking support from a lawyer specialized in criminal procedure and human rights law, such as a Tuzla lawyer, Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, Aydınlı lawyer, or Çayırova lawyer, is of great importance for the protection of the right to a fair trial.
