Özet:

Prevention and discovery of organised crimes are quite difficult because of their complex, multidimensional and multidirectional nature. Therefore, certain undercover protection measures are adopted. Appointment of an undercover investigator is one of such measures. The procedure and principles for the appointment of an undercover investigator is quite questionable as it is a measure that restricts human rights and freedoms. However, this paper does not intend to analyse all aspects of the appointment of an undercover investigator but only limited to the issue of hearing him as an anonymous witness and in light of the relevant ECHR decisions. Although it was certain that undercover investigator could be heard as witness, the method and bases of this examination, and whether the identity of the undercover investigator could be held colfidential or the protection measures regarding witnesses were applicable remained controversial as the first version of the article 139/3 of Criminal Procedure Code did not contain any explicit provisions on these subjects. In 2018, a provision was added to the article 139/3 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law no 7078 regarding the witnessing of undercover investigator in the absence of those who have the right to attend hearings or in a special environment by changing voice or sight, and regarding the application of article 9 of the Witness Protection Law by analogy. However the appropriateness of the aforementioned provision is very controversial.

Anahtar Kelimeler: