Read More.. - High Council of Judges and Prosecutors

proper channels of communication preferably means of informatics, the duration of
investigation, means to seek evidence, agreements on the quality and quantity of operations
conducted by the police, written protocols about feedback from prosecutor’s office.
European Council in its Recommendation numbered (2000)19 stated that the prosecutors can
instruct judicial enforcement officers during their duties and determine to what kind of
incidents and personnel they should give priority; and they can control whether their
instructions are obeyed or not and when necessary they can impose sanctions.
The Circular letter is thought to resolve criticism that there are different implementations
about the relationship between Public Prosecutor’s Offices and judicial enforcement offices as
stated in Progress Reports and Independent Expert Visit Reports on the issues of the duties,
powers and responsibilities of judicial enforcement offices.
In the Circular letter; rules that shall be followed in phases of prosecutor’s office and judicial
enforcement offices in order to redress the problems that often occur in practice and to create
unity in the relations between public prosecutor’s offices and judicial enforcement offices
which are pointed out in the Report by Luca PERILLI.
Problematic areas nationwide in application are discussed under titles. Some of the titles are
the legal status and judicial responsibilities of highest rank judicial enforcement officers, The
influence of incident report on the secrecy of investigation, The scope of the investigations
carried out by Coast Guard Command.
On the other side, the principle that the oral orders or written instructions given by prosecutor
shall be written in a clear and guiding way in articles by establishing standards peculiar to any
type of investigation which are demanded to be searched by judicial enforcement offices, has
been adopted.
Public prosecutors are demanded to supervise judicial operations in order to provide
management of judicial services in an efficient and effective way through holding
coordination meetings for judicial enforcement office and carrying out various training
activities.
It is stated by drawing attentions to division of labour and specialization in enforcement office
that due care must be paid to the commissioning offices such as anti-organized crime and antismuggling,
anti-terrorism and public order which are structured for a certain objective in
enlightening crimes within these scopes.
The opinions of related office were received in writing and orally; and with a cooperative
understanding the problems were tried to be solved. Nevertheless, there are controversial issues
on terms of the highest rank judicial enforcement officer, evaluation report and judicial
enforcement responsible person/s.
Considering that the issues of filling in evaluation reports and sending them to administration
are related to the administrative duties of prosecutors in terms of about whom the reports
would be filled in and the content and method of this, they need to be evaluated in parallel
with the provisions of By-law issued by the Ministry of Justice and Interior and other
secondary regulations in accordance with article 167 of Criminal Court Law no 5271.
According to the circular letter, provincial security director and provincial gendarmerie
commander are the highest rank enforcement officers with the amendment in 2005 as clearly
explained in sixth paragraph of article 161 of Law no 5271, the highest rank enforcement
officers have judicial enforcement duties. Also, customhouse guard directors, smuggling
5/21