Article 182

(1) The hearing is open to all.

(2) In cases where general morality or public security is absolutely necessary, it may be decided by the court to make some or all of the hearing closed.

(3) The reasoned decision on the conduct of the trial is explained in a public hearing.

The general characteristics of the trial phase are clarity, conscience, dialogue and completion of the work at a hearing in all comparative criminal procedure legislation. Openness, negotiation, sovereign accusation in the dialogue procedure depends on the quality. The clarity of the hearing; it is both a guarantee of good justice and a general prevention of crime.

In cases where public morality and public security are absolutely required, the court may decide to show the reason for the hearing to be closed. The discretionary authority will be in court and will announce it at an open hearing. As regards the closed hearing, arrangements were made in Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hearings about children are closed. The representative of the institution may be present at the hearing if the child, his / her parents, his / her guardian, the social worker appointed by the court, the family and the institution which takes care of the child are considered.

The CEC adopted the principle of openness, as well as the principles of face-to-face and co-operation, dialogue and the completion of the work at a hearing. 141/1 of the Constitution, 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 6/1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. the opening of the proceedings is foreseen.

If there is the possibility of access to the place where the hearing was held, the clarity has been realized. Limitations due to the shortage of the courtroom or the security measures taken do not disturb the opening.

Openness takes place throughout the entire trial, negotiations between judges and voting are held in secret. In CMK, there are two closed forms, closed closure and forced closure.

a) Remedial Coverage (Privacy)
It is stated in the article CMK 182/2 that, in cases where public morality or public security is strictly necessary, part or all of the hearing may be closed. Appreciations belong to the court and are not compulsory. Only in this case the decision and sentence of my relationship is given in the open hearing. This is otherwise the reason for spoiling.

For example, the case concerning rape or the secrets of the state can be seen as confidential. The ECHR also stipulates that the trial shall be made confidential if personal lives are protected or the vulnerability is harmful.

b) Compulsory Closedness (Forced Secret Trial)
CMK 185

(1) If the accused is not eighteen years of age, the hearing shall be closed; the verdict is also disclosed at a closed hearing.

The article has ruled that the hearing and the provision shall be closed to prevent the exposure of the children. This closeness begins with the moment of commencement of the hearing and includes the provision. In this sense, the closedness of the trial is different from the cases in which it is admirable. If the population records are taken as the basis for the age of the defendant, the court may decide to obtain a report from the forensic medicine if the court acquires the impression that the defendant is older than the age of eighteen. If it is understood that the defendant has reached the age of eighteen, the decision to close the case is abolished and the hearing shall be open and the verdict shall be announced at an open hearing.

Since the procedural error of making the hearing closed is not possible, it should not be done and criticized due to the fact that it is not possible to remedy this. The aim mentioned in the article (those who have not completed the age of eighteen years) is the defendant, not the victim (the victim) of the crime. Due to the age of the victim, it is impossible for the hearing to be closed. When judging children, articles 4/1 and 22 of the Child Protection Law should be observed.

The openness of the hearing to the secret place does not require distortion, as it is not possible to compensate.

In the last session in which the defendant Yusuf Karedemir and Mehmet Özçelik completed their 18th birthday in the last session, the defendant Yusuf Karedemir and Mehmet Özçelik completed their 18th birthday in the last session of the session with the 26.9.2006 and the continuation of the proceedings. It is against the law to restrict the right to defend the defendants by clearing them to the open.

In violation of Article 185 of CMKK No 5271; The fact that the session dated 17.06.2005 about the defendant who has not completed the age of 18 years has to be made open is not considered as the reason of the distortion due to the fact that no such procedure was made in this session.

In Article 185 of the CMK, it is foreseen that the hearing of those who are not 18 years of age will be closed and the judgment will be explained in a closed hearing. M However, the sessions after the date of the age of eighteen must be made open, and in this case, the provision must be cleared. Violation of these rules is an absolute cause of corruption in accordance with Article 289 / h of CMK.

05.02.1988 about the defendant who was born, after the age of 18, and the evidence of the complain was found on 16.03.2006 with the session of the defendant in question on 30.05.2006 the day of the question of the secret of the secret of the session by acting in secret under Article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to restrict the right to the law. It is against.

In cases where the defendant is older than 18 years of age and required by general morality, he / she must be It is against the law that the verdict shall be secretly regulated by the decision of closure made in accordance with the Article of the Article 2 of the same article, without taking into consideration that the provision must be explained in a public hearing.

Decision on the Elimination of Openness

CMK 184

(1) In the cases referred to in Article 182, the hearing to be held on the request of the abolition of the clearance shall be made on request or closed to the court, if deemed appropriate.

Although the article has not been mentioned, the court can hear a hearing on the request of the Prosecutor, the defendant (as a matter of course) and the court. The court is left to the discretion of the court and the court can decide on this hearing. If the closure decision given for a part of the trial should include other stages, a decision must be made and announced clearly. Again, the decision on closure should be clearly read in the hearing at the hearing and the justification should be stated.

Writing the reasons and the reasons of closeness (secrecy)

CMK 186

(1) The decision to abolish the clearance shall be recorded in the minutes together with its reasons.

In the cases referred to in Articles 182 and 185 of the CMK, it may be decided to make the hearing closed. If it is decided to remove the opening according to Articles 184 and 185 of the CMK, its justification should be written. This article aims to prevent arbitrary practices. Since openness constitutes the basic character of the trial in terms of fair trial, and the elimination of clarity is only possible in cases where it is mandatory and required by law, it is agreed that the decision to abolish the clarification should be recorded in the minutes together with all the reasons.

Closed Trials

Cmk 187

(1) In a closed hearing the court may allow some persons to be present. In this case, they are warned that they do not disclose the issues that require the hearing to be closed, and this is written in the minutes.

(2) The content of the closed trial shall not be published by any means of communication.

(3) The content of the open hearing shall be capable of provoking national security or general morality or the dignity, dignity and rights of persons or inciting them to commit a crime; the court prohibits the publication of the content of the hearing, in whole or in part, in order to prevent them and, where necessary, to disclose the decision in a public hearing.

In closed hearings (in secret trial), they arranged for publication bans on which they could be present. The discretion of these cases belongs to the court. Explains the decision in an open hearing. This ensures that the ban covers all media organs. The broadcasting ban includes all communication tools in written, visual and audio quality. The closure of the trial brings with it the prohibition of extension. The court also does not need to impose a publication ban on this issue.

For open trials, a ban on publication may be imposed. If the court speaks to the national security or general morality or the person’s honor, dignity and rights to touch or to commit a crime, to prevent them, and to the extent required by this purpose, to prohibit the publication of a section or whole of the hearing and to declare this decision clearly. The appreciation of these cases is in court. In fact, the situations in question are acts that constitute a crime. A criminal offense under article 285 of the Turkish Penal Code.

The parties, lawyers, witnesses and experts may be present at the closed hearing. However, the judge or court may allow other persons to be present at a closed hearing, for example, by trainee judges and lawyers to monitor the closed trial. This decision is given by the delegation in the collective courts. In this case, the president of the court, they should be warned not to leak the inside of the spoken. They are recorded in the record. If the members of the aforementioned leakage of speeches, Article 285 of TCK will be applied. It must be said that this ban applies to everyone involved in the hearing. For example, the defendant, his defense counsel, his attorney, his deputy, even the judge and the public prosecutor shall be bound by this prohibition. The penalty shall be punishable in accordance with the former article and those who violate the new regulation shall be sentenced to imprisonment of one to three years.