Taksirle öldürme suçunun düzenlendiği 5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu (TCK) md 85/2’de taksirli bir fiille birden fazla kişinin ölümüne ya da bir veya birden fazla kişinin ölümü ile birlikte bir veya birden fazla kişinin yaralanmasına neden olan failin birinci fıkraya nazaran daha fazla ceza ile cezalandırılacağı düzenlenmiştir. Doktrinde söz konusu hükmün hukuki niteliği tartışılmıştır. Yargıtay CGK, 2013/9-104 Esas, 2014/216 Karar ve 29.4.2014 tarihli kararda oy çokluğu ile TCK md 85/2’de bahsi geçen suçların (taksirle öldürme ve taksirle yaralama) neticelerinin ikiye bölünerek TCK md 22/6’daki şahsi cezasızlık sebebinin bunlardan yalnızca biri hakkında uygulanmasının mümkün olmadığı sonucuna ulaşmıştır. Aksi görüşte olan kurul üyeleri ise taksirli hareketi neticesinde eşinin ölümüne ve altı kişinin yaralanmasına neden olan failin taksirle öldürme suçu bakımından şahsi cezasızlık sebebinin uygulanarak cezalandırılmaması ve şikâyetin gerçekleştiği yaralama suçundan cezalandırılması gerektiğini ileri sürmüşlerdir. TCK md 85/2’de kanun koyucu bileşik suç benzeri bir duruma yer vermiştir. Hükümde bahsi geçen suçların yeniden bağımsız suç tipleri olarak değerlendirilmesi mümkün olmadığından hükmün bir bütün olarak uygulanması gerekir. Aksi yönde bir uygulama hem kanun koyucunun hükmü koyma amacına aykırı olur hem de adaletsiz sonuçların doğmasına neden olur. Bu nedenle şahsi cezasızlık sebebine ilişkin hükmün taksirle yaralama suçu bakımından şikâyet şartı gerçekleşmediğinden bahisle sadece taksirle öldürme bakımından uygulanmasının yerinde bir uygulama olmadığı düşüncesindeyiz. Çalışmada mezkûr karar tahlil edilerek karardaki ve doktrindeki tartışmalar ışığında TCK md 85/2’nin hukuki niteliğinin ortaya konulması ve bu bağlamda TCK md 85/2’nin taksirle işlenen suçlarda şahsi cezasızlık sebebi bakımından uygulanabilir olup olmadığı sorununun çözüme kavuşturulması amaçlanmıştır.

This paper is divided into two main parts. In the first part, criminal procedural models named as inquisitorial and adversarial procedural systems and the convergence of them are analysed with a comparative perspective. In the second part, our focus will be on the criminal procedural system of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In this paper, the principal criminal procedural systems, which are adversarial system based on common law and inquisitorial system based on civil law, are examined in international courts, especially in the ICC, on a global scale concerning transitions between those traditions. Our purpose is to find an answer to the following question: To what extent is there a “drift” towards more inquisitorial justice at the ICC? To answer this question, one needs to begin with taking a closer look at the concepts of adversariality and inquisitoriality. Our aim is not only to examine the criminal procedural systems, but also to ascertain a functional and effective model considering domestic approaches. The paper puts forward to claim that a more effective criminal procedure model could be created in the cooperation of constituents in international criminal procedure. The unification of constituents in the criminal proceedings demonstrate that the court is not a battleground as in adversarial-common courts; on the contrary, the constituents in the proceedings act with a team spirit. Eventually, it seems that such a criminal procedure at the international level could be exercised within an inquisitorial tradition, which is seen as a more functional model taking into account particularly political and social global developments.

-

This paper covers a review of the article written by Damaska1 which contains a great deal of critical analysis on the desired legal foundation of the International Criminal Court and doings of the court in reality since 2002. Our aim is to try to pay our attention to the real International Criminal Court and to answer the question of what the Court did so far. As will be seen through the paper, the role of the court in restorative justice discipline mentioning the retributive and/or restorative character of this permanent international criminal court will be discussed. It is, of course, not so far away to release the complementarity principle labelled in the Rome Statute. In this regard, the associations between the complementarity and the sovereignty will be explored giving example from reality such as Libya and Syria, and the principle will be also seen as a stabilizer-mechanism and a well-balanced tool between the sovereignty and universal jurisdiction. As a consequence, it can be said that regarding all points posted below, just being in existence is not enough.

The issue of honor killings, which is under a great deal of writings and sayings in recent our days, has been a controversial and much disputed subject within the concept of the tradition. Not only ‘tradition motifs’ but cultural and religious bases have carry importance in this sense. According to traditional beliefs, honor is intimately connected with female sexuality and the only way to restore familial honor once it is damaged by a woman’s sexual misconduct is by killing the guilty woman. On one hand, some contend that it would be necessary to assess the effects of Islamic religion, on the other some find associations between honor killings and traditional and cultural practices without religious contexts. The issue has grown in importance in light of recent legal efforts such as the current Turkish criminal procedure created some victim-offender mediations integrating the criminal process. These explanations have thrown up important following questions: to extent to which the principles of criminal justice can be integrated into the Restorative Justice system and is it a suitable justice intervention? By considering new attempts including educative and informative legal and social programs, an effective and desirable Restorative Justice process can have an opportunity to be established regarding the patriarchal community structure in modern Turkey.