چكيده لاتين
Criminal procedure law is not merely a set of formal rules for detecting crimes and prosecuting offenders, but rather a fundamental instrument for safeguarding the rights of the nation and ensuring individuals’ fundamental rights within the process of criminal justice. Its foundations lie in the Constitution, particularly in the principles guaranteeing liberty, human dignity, the right to defense, and the presumption of innocence. Therefore, any interpretation of the provisions of criminal procedure must be guided by these fundamental rights and aim at achieving a fair trial. One of the central challenges in this field is the emergence of a dual interpretation of the law. On one side stands an authoritarian interpretation that views criminal procedure as a means to preserve public order and security—often expanding concepts such as “flagrant offense” or “security necessity” to widen the scope of state intervention. On the other side lies a rights-oriented interpretation that, based on the constitutional rights of the nation, insists on limiting punitive interventions and protecting the dignity of the accused. This duality of interpretation has profound implications for criminal justice. The former approach, while seemingly promoting efficiency and rapid crime detection, risks undermining public trust and the legitimacy of the judiciary in the long run. The latter, by maintaining a balance between state authority and individual freedom, strengthens the foundations of true justice. This research proceeds from the assumption that the proper implementation of criminal procedure law depends on an interpretation that places the rights of the nation at its core and prevents the law from becoming an instrument of power. An interpretation consistent with fundamental rights ensures the protection of principles such as presumption of innocence, access to counsel, freedom from arbitrary searches, and respect for privacy—thus giving a more human face to criminal justice. Ultimately, criminal procedure law must be applied through a unified and balanced interpretation—one in which the fundamental rights of individuals are not obstacles to justice but its very essence. Such an approach constitutes a crucial step toward realizing fair trial guarantees and establishing a criminal justice system grounded in legality and human dignity.
In the present study, using a descriptive-analytical approach and relying on reliable library documents and data, the concepts have been carefully analyzed. The research method has been organized in such a way that, in addition to accurately describing the theoretical foundations, it also provides the possibility of critical and in-depth analysis of them and presents a clear, reasoned and methodical picture of the issues. The results of the present study show that the criminal legislator has taken important steps in the
implementation of some of the nationʹs fundamental rights and has been able to create a structure close to the international standards of criminal procedure; however, the limitation of some of the nationʹs fundamental rights - such as the right to access a lawyer in security cases during the preliminary investigation stage - has weakened this achievement and caused discrimination in the implementation of the nationʹs rights. .
