Right to reasoned decision in terms of human rights and legal argumentation

Interpreting the right to a fair trial, which is one of the fundamental human rights recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights, the implicit right of reasoned decision emerges as one of the implicit rights not explicitly stated in the relevant texts. However, the failure to provide sufficient reasoning in judgments can also lead to violations of human rights. The right to a reasoned decision means that court decisions should be justified and it is an obligation for decision-makers. The only way for the parties to understand that they have been heard in the judicial process is through reasoning. The right to a reasoned decision is an important and mandatory element in the legal system to ensure a fair trial process. However, in some cases, decision-makers may violate this right by inadequately justifying their decisions. Especially in our country, the significantly high workload of the judiciary, which is continuously increasing, distances reasoned decisions from rationality. In this context, our study focuses on violations of the right to a reasoned judgment and legal argumentation theories that approach reasoning from a theoretical perspective. In light of these explanations, the first section of the study examines the concepts of human rights and the right to a fair trial, which are the starting points of the right to a reasoned decision. In the second section, the fundamental elements of the right to a reasoned decision are identified, and situations where the right is violated are evaluated in the light of national and international law and higher court decisions. The third section examines legal argumentation theories that are considered to contribute to fulfilling the obligation of the right to a reasoned decision. This thesis emphasizes the importance of decision makers to fulfill the duty of reasoning rationally and especially tries to draw the attention of judges to this issue.