Auditing of forensic communication in Turkish Law

The development of science and technology, as well as the advantages it provides to human and social life, and the fact that the developed communication tools are used for the purpose of crime, have directed the states to intervene in the activities carried out by these communication tools. On the one hand, it is necessary to establish a balance between freedom of communication and secrecy protected by national and international legislation, the inviolability and privacy of private life, the duty to prevent crime, to monitor and to commit crimes committed by the states. The sound functioning of the balance of freedom and security depends on the existence of a qualified legal regulation, which includes clear, detailed, anti-arbitrary guarantees. In Turkish law, unfortunately, until recently, the decisions of the communication were checked and implemented without any legal regulation. This was contrary to Article 8 of the ECHR, which was the party of our constitution, which regulates that the restriction of fundamental rights can only be made in accordance with the justifications and conditions stipulated by the law (AY 13, 20 and 22). This criticism into account and that the decisions of the ECHR convicted Turkey in the direction of the field before the legislator in çasömk' No. 1999 in 4422, then held if the measures detailed monitoring of communication in the 2004 Code of Criminal Procedure. These legal regulations are considered necessary and a step forward, but it is not enough, it is possible to say that some of the shortcomings. The records obtained as a result of the audit according to the law will be used in criminal proceedings and our records can be used in the judicial and disciplinary proceedings. Obviously, the records obtained as a result of the control given to the law or imposed by the law shall not be used in criminal proceedings and may not be used in any other branch of law. Again, due to this uncontrolled audit, the responsibilities of those involved in the decision-making and implementation process with the state may arise, and the person entitled to unjustified control may be entitled to compensation.