Özet:

One of the most important types of evidence used in criminal procedure law to reveal the material truth is the witness. Witnesses are individuals who have acquired a certain impression by perceiving the concrete event with their five senses. For this reason, the statements of the witnesses about the concrete event that they perceived with their five senses are taken. Due to the verdict of the accused as a result of the witness statements, the reliability of the statements they have given must be ensured in certain ways. The right to question witnesses is regulated in subparagraph d of paragraph 3 of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to this regulation, the accused has the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him. As a rule, the interrogation of allegation and defence witnesses is done before the court. However, in some exceptional cases, witnesses cannot or do not appear before the court. In such cases, the right of the accused to a fair trial may be violated. The European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court have set certain criteria as to whether the defendant's right to a fair trial is violated if the witnesses are not interrogated before the court. In this study, the right to interrogate a witness is discussed in the context of the decisions given by the European Court of Human Rights and the Turkish Constitutional Court and in line with the criteria determined.

Anahtar Kelimeler: