What is the Crime of Insulting Atatürk?
Although crimes of insult are generally committed against living persons, it is also recognized that insulting the memory of a deceased person constitutes a criminal offense. However, crimes committed against Atatürk are specifically regulated under Law No. 5816 on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk, which aims to protect his memory.
The crime of insulting Atatürk refers to any act—whether verbal, written, or in another form—that is intended to insult or defame Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Due to its nature, this crime can be committed with general intent, and the mere act of insulting or defaming by the perpetrator is sufficient for the crime to be constituted. Additionally, it should be noted that in order for the act of insulting Atatürk to be considered a crime, it must be committed publicly.
Penalty for the Crime of Insulting Atatürk
The penalty for the crime of insulting Atatürk is regulated under Article 1/1 of the Law on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk as follows:
“Anyone who publicly insults or curses the memory of Atatürk shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years.”
Accordingly, a person who publicly insults or curses Atatürk may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term ranging from 1 to 3 years. If this crime is committed via the internet (such as on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.), the offender will also be subject to the same legal provision.
Damaging Atatürk’s Statues, Busts, Monuments, or His Tomb
Crimes Committed Against Atatürk are addressed in the aforementioned law under two distinct categories. The first is insulting or cursing Atatürk, as previously explained. The second is the crime of damaging, breaking, defacing, or polluting statues, busts, and monuments representing Atatürk, or his tomb. This second type of offense is regulated under Article 1/2 of the Law on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk:
“Anyone who damages, breaks, defaces, or pollutes statues, busts, and monuments representing Atatürk, or his tomb, shall be sentenced to heavy imprisonment from one to five years.”
The continuation of the legal provision also states that individuals who incite others to commit the offenses described in the relevant article shall be punished as if they were the principal offenders, and no reduction in penalty shall be applied.
Aggravated Forms of Crimes Committed Against Atatürk
The aggravated circumstances—namely, situations that increase the severity of the penalty—in crimes committed against Atatürk are outlined in Article 2 of the Law on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk, as quoted below:
“If the crimes described in Article 1 are committed collectively by two or more persons, or in public or publicly accessible places, or through the press, the imposed penalty shall be increased by half.
If the crimes described in the second paragraph of Article 1 are committed by use of force or an attempt is made to commit them in this manner, the penalty shall be doubled.”
a. Committed by Two or More Persons
As mentioned, if the crime committed against Atatürk is carried out jointly by two or more individuals, the penalty imposed on the offenders is increased by half.
b. Committed in a Public or Publicly Accessible Place
In this aggravated circumstance, if the crime against Atatürk is committed in a public or publicly accessible place (such as a mosque, school, or public transportation), the offenders’ penalty is increased by half.
c. Committed through the Press
If crimes committed against Atatürk are carried out through the press (such as television, newspapers, magazines, etc.), the offender’s penalty is increased by half.
d. Committed by Using Force
If crimes committed against Atatürk are carried out by the offender using force, or an attempt is made to commit them in this manner, the penalty to be imposed is doubled.
e. Committed as a Recidivist Offense
If the crime of insulting Atatürk is committed as a recidivist offense, the penalty is increased by an amount ranging from 1/4 to 3/4.
Procedure for Trial in the Crime of Insulting Atatürk
In crimes committed against Atatürk, the competent court is the court of the place where the crime was committed, while the authorized court is the criminal court of first instance. In this regard, the parties may require a criminal lawyer, such as an Antalya criminal lawyer, to follow the relevant case.
Frequently Asked Questions
1.Can the Crime of Insulting Atatürk Be Converted into a Judicial Fine?
A judicial fine is a type of sanction that can be applied either alongside a prison sentence or on its own in response to a committed crime. Accordingly, in crimes committed against Atatürk, the prison sentence can be converted into a judicial fine, provided that the sentence is 1 year or less.
2.Can a Decision to Suspend the Pronouncement of Judgment (HAGB) Be Given for the Perpetrator of the Crime of Insulting Atatürk?
The decision to suspend the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) essentially ensures that the sentence imposed on the defendant does not result in any judgment or consequences within a specified supervision period. If the defendant, for whom an HAGB decision is given, fulfills certain conditions during the supervision period, the imposed sentence is annulled, and thus the case is dismissed.
Therefore, in crimes committed against Atatürk, if the prison sentence is 1 year or less, a decision of HAGB may be issued.
3.What is the Complaint Period for the Crime of Insulting Atatürk?
All crimes committed against Atatürk are investigated ex officio by the prosecutor’s office, so they are not subject to a complaint. The relevant crime can be investigated upon receiving a report or complaint, as long as it is within the statute of limitations.
4.What is the Statute of Limitations for the Crime of Insulting Atatürk?
The standard statute of limitations for crimes committed against Atatürk is 8 years. Therefore, it is possible for the crime to be investigated within 8 years starting from the commission of the offense; however, once the statute of limitations has expired, the investigation cannot be conducted.
Some Supreme Court Decisions Regarding the Crime of Insulting Atatürk
- “The case filed due to the defendant’s coarse and insulting words cannot be accepted under the provisions of Article 1 of the temporary provisions of Law No. 6352; therefore, it must be reviewed, not sent to the court that rendered the judgment under Article 2/1 of the temporary provisions of Law No. 6352. In accordance with the provisions of Article 138/1 of the Constitution, the criteria for determining and individualizing the penalty as stated in Article 61 of the Turkish Penal Code, and the principle of proportionality regulated in Article 3/1, considering the manner of committing the crime, the tools used, the time and place of the offense, the importance and value of its subject, the danger it caused, and the severity of the defendant’s fault based on intent, as well as the purpose and motive pursued; instead of passing a sentence that reasonably deviates from the minimum limit in a manner consistent with the law, conscience, and the case file, a penalty close to the upper limit was mistakenly imposed due to an error in determining the degree of the penalty. Since the defendant’s appeal objections are deemed valid for this reason, the judgment is overturned for this reason, although other aspects of the judgment are in accordance with procedure and the law…” (Supreme Court 16th Criminal Chamber, Judgment dated 12.11.2015, Case No. 2015/1293, Decision No. 2015/4057)
- “1- In the action where the defendant tore out the pages with pictures of Atatürk from books left in the common area used by the prisoners in the prison where the defendant is incarcerated, and threw them into the trash, the elements of the alleged crime were not properly considered, and the defendant was convicted in writing instead of being acquitted. According to the application: 2- It was not considered that the deprivation of rights related to custody, guardianship, and trusteeship, which is the legal consequence of a prison sentence, would end with conditional release only for the defendant’s direct descendants, in accordance with Article 53/3 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. Without making a distinction regarding the persons to whom these rights are related, the defendant was deprived of the rights listed in Article 53/1-c of the same law until conditional release. This is contrary to the law. Since the defendant’s appeal objections were found to be valid for this reason, the judgment is overturned for these reasons, and the decision was made unanimously on 07.10.2015.” (Supreme Court 16th Criminal Chamber, Judgment dated 07.10.2015, Case No. 2015/3689, Decision No. 2015/3032)
- “It has been accepted that the decision regarding the ‘suspension of the pronouncement of judgment’ in the defendant’s criminal record can be reported to the court in accordance with Article 231/11 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. Based on the trial conducted, the evidence gathered, the findings and judgment formed in accordance with the court’s prosecution results, the defendant’s appeal objections, which were found to be unfounded, are rejected. However, since Article 50/6 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) regulates the actions to be taken in case alternative measures are not complied with, it should be observed that if the alternative sanction, such as a judicial fine, is not fulfilled during the execution phase, implementation should occur under Article 106/3 of Law No. 5275. The failure to observe this provision and the improper limitation of the enforcement under Article 50/6 of the TCK is contrary to the law. Therefore, the judgment is overturned for this reason…” (Supreme Court 16th Criminal Chamber, Judgment dated 11.11.2015, Case No. 2015/4083, Decision No. 2015/3879)
- “It has been accepted that the correction of the date of the offense to 16.09.2014 in the reasoned decision’s title is a correctable clerical error. The defendant shared on a publicly accessible and viewable Facebook social media account with the extension… where the comment made by a person with the username ‘T.C. çapulçu…’ saying ‘Did you know that my father never missed a Friday prayer and prayed alone in Dolmabahçe Palace?’ along with another comment by a user with the username ‘…’ stating ‘If you had said he confessed every Sunday, we would have believed it more because Fridays are not prayed alone in the palace, but in the mosque with the congregation’ and a comment made by a user with the name ‘hür-davalı genç’ stating ‘The greatest slander to Atatürk is calling him a Muslim. May Allah guide them, I laughed so much,’ when taken together, the comments exceed the limits of heavy criticism and reach a point that insults Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s honor, dignity, and respect. Therefore, without considering that the elements of the crime attributed to the defendant were proven, the decision to acquit the defendant in writing is found to be contrary to the law. The judgment is overturned for this reason…” (Supreme Court 16th Criminal Chamber, Judgment dated 12.10.2015, Case No. 2015/4079, Decision No. 2015/3235)
- “On 27.04.2007, the defendants, who wanted to hang a banner on a bridge pier, used profanity and insulted the complaining police officers who asked if they had permission to hang the banner. They insulted the memory of Atatürk and injured police officers … and … with minor injuries that could be treated with simple medical intervention, as confirmed by the 27.04.2007 report and forensic examination. Despite this, in the statement of police officer … taken on 16.06.2008, more than a year after the incident, where he described what he remembered, his statements that partly contradicted the report were used as the basis for the judgment. Instead of convicting the defendants for the proven actions, an acquittal was decided in writing. Regarding the judgment for defendant … for the crime of resisting an officer in the performance of their duty: a) Since it was proven by forensic reports that defendant … committed the crime of resisting multiple public officials, the court failed to apply an increase in the penalty in accordance with Article 43/2-1 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). b) Considering that, under Article 106/3 of Law No. 5275, amended by Article 81 of Law No. 6545, in effect from 28.06.2014, a decision to work for the public may be issued if the judicial fine is not paid, the court’s decision to convert the remaining sentence to imprisonment for the non-payment of the fine, which restricts the enforcement authority, is contrary to the law. The appeals of the defense lawyer and the public prosecutor are deemed valid, and for these reasons, the judgment is overturned…” (Supreme Court 16th Criminal Chamber, Judgment dated 22.02.2016, Case No. 2015/1018, Decision No. 2016/1837)
Views: 1
