The Example of Hypocrisy of the State
Devletin Riyakarlık Örneği
Ali ERDOĞAN
The fact that the applicant, who was 14 years old, was left alone at home due to the arrest of the newcomer family as a result of the incident in Bulgaria was remarkable. The ECHR and the domestic courts did not support the attitudes of law enforcement officers representing the state and found human rights violations there. According to the way the mother shook her head at the court and gave a statement through an interpreter, the court did not make a decision of violation for the period after 6 December by changing it’s opinion.
Child Neglect, Protection to Minors, Newcomers, Interpreter, Obligation of the State.
Bulgaristanda gerçekleşen olay neticesinde yeni gelen ailenin tutuklanması sebebiyle 14 yaşında olan başvurucunun evde tek başına bırakılması dikkat çekici unsurdur. AİHM ve yerel mahkemeler devleti temsil eden kolluk kuvvetlerinin tavırlarını desteklemez ve burada insan hakları ihlali bulurken, mahkemede tercüman vasıtasıyla ifade veren annenin başını sallama şekline göre görüşünü değiştirerek 6 Aralık sonrası dönem için ihlal kararı verilmemiştir.
Çocuk İhmali, Küçüklerin Korunması, Yeni Gelenler, Tercüman, Devletin Yükümlülüğü.
1. Introduction
Before everything starts, it is useful to indicate why this decision was chosen. We should not hesitate to discuss how much of the protection obligation can be fulfilled by the state, especially in this period when we observe that the state is increasingly empowered to make decisions on individuals. However, the difficulties of adapting to a legal system outside of the state where we have citizenship are very clear in the processes in which the boundaries between states are overcome by a thousand difficulties and the individuals are forced to migrate.
I will endeavor to create this work in order to open the debate on the fact that the European Court of Human Rights recently issued the case in order to draw attention to the situation described above under the two main roofs and also the situation of the newcomers.
2. The Facts
The applicant (Ms. Dzheren Annadurdievna Hadzhieva), born in 1988, lives in Varna and is originally a citizen of Turkmenistan and Russia. The applicant came to Bulgaria in 2001 with her parents and was granted a temporary residence permit in the summer of 2002. The reason to migrate is that the father of the applicant is part of a political movement in opposition to the political regime in Turkmenistan. Both her father and her mother have high and appreciated professions.1
On 22 October 2002 the Turkmen authorities accused the applicant's parents of $ 40 million of corruption and the Turkmen prosecutor requested for the extradition with the Bulgarian authorities.2
The applicant, who was 14 years old on December 4, 2002, was alone in the house and on the date 10 police officers came to the applicant's house and stated that they would arrest her parents. She then called her parents who were not at home.3
It is important to note here that the person who the police officers were in touch is a 14-years-old child. Although we do not know even though the police officers have the information about the applicant’s age by checking her ID, why it is not considered to call the Social Worker and Psychologist till her parents’ arrive.4 Overall, police officers -we can have so many examples about it here in Turkey- are known much better with the spreading fear on individuals than their heroism. Even though they do not accept this situation, it is in both international and national texts that it is necessary to get help from experts such as mentioned above in cases involving children today.
The applicant's parents were arrested by the police as soon as they arrived. One of the key subjects in the case, the lawyer who is the parents' friend and neighbor were present with them at the time.
On December 4, 2002, parents were taken into police custody and a 24-hour detention order was imposed. The next day, the Varna Regional Court ruled that the decision was not lawful and decided to terminate the detention immediately, but after the release it was detained for 72 hours with the order of the prosecutor due to extradition.5
After the hearing held on 6 December 2002, it was decided that the detention period should be 30 days and the mother and father were transferred to different prisons.6 However, there are some dialogues during the hearing that I think are important here. Namely; when her mother was asked by the judge via interpreter whether there was anyone who could take care of her child, her mother replied by shaking her head. She was trying to answer the question by saying no. But in Bulgaria the answer is yes or no, according to the way the shaking of the head is, and the judge understood that the answer is yes. As a result of taking this position in the record of the hearing, the government is trying to avoid fulfilling its obligations by arguing that it constitutes evidence.7
It should be argued here that despite the fact that the record of the hearing are controlled by the parties and the mistake is still open to the parties, it is about why it is not done by the mother. This situation, which is generally applied within the legal systems, how can be expected from the person who is being defended through an interpreter. Moreover, how can we expect in which the individual comes from a country with a rigid regime to be familiar by the legal system of the country, even though we have a general practice?
Even if the mother has answered yes, does the government have the chance of lagging behind by putting all responsibility on them for the groups that need support? In situations such as euthanasia, the state acts as it wishes, regardless of the individual's desire, by seeing in itself the right to live the individual. However, when it comes to the protection of a child as it seems, the government chooses not to do something and stay behind by thinking the lackness of obligations. There may be objections to the comparison of these two situations, but I think it is just one example of the state's hypocrisy. It is clear that there is no balance between the strong state and the weak individual. For this reason, whatever the individual does, the decision the state makes and the action it takes are final.
As a result, the judge did not take the necessary precautions by saying that the conditions in Article 152 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not occur after the reply from the mother.8
