No inspections, no justice

İsmail Arı

Correspondent's Note:

I was imprisoned unlawfully and solely for practicing journalism. I wrote this report while detained in prison. No matter where I am, I will continue to stand with those who suffer injustice and lawlessness and who are fighting for justice.

***

The list of recommendations addressed to the Directorate of Probation under the Presidency of the Inspection Board of the Ministry of Justice included notable findings and warnings.

It was determined that the Directorate of Probation was not properly supervising those released from prison on probation or those under house arrest with the condition of not leaving their residence. Ministry officials noted that “convicts subject to house arrest who are not monitored electronically are not being supervised by probation officers assigned to the probation office, and the information regarding convicts subject to this obligation is not being forwarded to the relevant law enforcement units for supervision.”

FINDINGS LISTED

This situation was noted to be in violation of Article 85/3 of the Probation Services Regulation, which states: “Convicts not monitored via electronic means are inspected by probation officers assigned to the probation office at unspecified times during the period they are at home. It was emphasized that this violates the provision stating, ‘Information regarding convicted individuals subject to this obligation is also forwarded to the relevant law enforcement units for supervision."

The Ministry of Justice has listed the following striking warnings in accordance with the findings of the officials:

It was observed that an electronic monitoring intervention team had not been established from among the staff at the supervision office, and the relevant parties were warned.

It was determined that convicted individuals who have established their own businesses or are employed are not being regularly supervised.

It was determined that decisions by the Justice Commission regarding appointments and assignments of personnel to be employed in directorates were not submitted to the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Centers or the General Directorate of Personnel, as applicable, for Ministry approval.

It was observed that an individual subject to supervision was sent on leave without a leave permit, and that the necessary warning was not provided to the individual prior to their departure.

It was determined that a supervision plan was not prepared for a child involved in a crime, nor was it submitted to a judge for approval within the three-day legal deadline.

It was reported that, despite inmates being employed in groups for specific services at a public institution or a private organization serving the public interest, a probation officer was not present at the work site or at the head of the groups.

It was found that children under the age of 18 who had been involved in criminal activity, women with children aged 0–6, individuals aged 60 and older, and pregnant women with less than ten weeks remaining until delivery were employed in public service work.

It was determined that no request was made to the execution court to revoke the conditional release decision in cases where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime committed during the fulfillment of the obligation, or where the offender persistently refused to comply with the imposed obligations despite the judge’s warning.

It was observed that the judicial supervision measure was violated; although it was documented that the individual failed to comply with the judicial supervision measure requiring them to report to a police station once a week during working hours to sign in, no appropriate action was taken regarding this matter.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Denetim yok, adalet kayıp, published in BirGün newspaper on April 7, 2026.