18 The Offence of Acting Contrary to Measures to Contain Contagious Disease (TPC ART. 195) 2. Victim Although there is no specific victim of the offence of acting contrary to the measures regarding contagious diseases, the legal value intended to be protected by this offence is the health of each individual. Therefore, since the health of everyone living in the society is likely to be harmed, the victim of the offence is every single member of the society.70 Some authors in the doctrine express the victim of the offence as “the whole society in general”.71 Hafızoğulları/Özen, on the other hand, argue that the victim of the offence is not the society, but the “competent authority”, i.e. the public administration, whose quarantine measures are not complied with.72 However, the type of offence included in Article 195 is regulated under the section of offences against public health under the title of crimes against society within the system of the new Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237. Therefore, contrary to the former TPC No. 765, since it is no longer accepted that the relevant crime is committed against the public administration, the public official whose measures regarding contagious diseases are not followed should not be considered as the victim of the crime.73 3. Act (Offence) Article 195 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 defines the offence as “failure to comply with the measures taken by the competent authorities to quarantine the place where a person who has contracted or died from one of the contagious diseases is located”.74 Failure to comply with 70 Kangal, p. 437. 71 Çakmut, p. 546; Yaşar/Gökcan/Artuç, p. 6036. 72 “...However, unlike other crimes, the victim of the crime is not society. Since The core of the crime is “failure to comply with the measures taken by the competent authorities regarding quarantine”, and despite the legal issue, the victim of the crime is the “competent authority”, namely the public administration, whose quarantine measures are not complied with. This regulation, which is incompatible with the norm-making technique, indicates that the Historical Legislator did not have a consistent “system idea”. Hafızoğulları/Özen, p. 128. 73 See also, Kangal, p. 437. 74 According to the Court of Cassation, it should be clearly stated in the verdict which actions constitute a contradiction to the measures taken in the concrete case. “According to the facts, it is illegitimate to hold the defendant liable for the offence of acting contrary to the measures regarding contagious diseases without
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1