24 The Offence of Acting Contrary to Measures to Contain Contagious Disease (TPC ART. 195) acted intentionally (TPC Art. 30/1). Pursuant to this provision of law, if the person misjudges the boundaries of the quarantined area, it should be accepted that the person’s intent to commit an offence has been eliminated due to the error in the material conditions of the offence.105 Since there are no qualified cases in the offence of acting contrary to measures regarding contagious diseases, it is not possible for the perpetrator to make a mistake in qualified cases (TPC Art. 30/2). A person who makes an unavoidable mistake about the realization of the conditions of the reasons that remove or reduce criminal liability will benefit from this mistake (TPC Art. 30/3). For example, if the mistake of the public official who thinks that they are authorized to enter or leave the quarantine zone in accordance with the provision of the law is inevitable, their act will not be considered as a violation of the quarantine measures, and they will benefit from their mistake. A person who makes an unavoidable mistake as to whether their act constitutes an injustice shall not be punished (TPC Art. 30/4). For example, a person who, despite knowing the quarantine measures, takes the cattle to graze or goes outside the quarantine zone to irrigate the land, not knowing that their act constitutes an injustice should be considered as an acceptable mistake. Article 31 of the TPC No. 5237 on minority (TPC Art. 31), mental illness (TPC Art. 32), being deaf-mute (TPC Art. 33) and being temporarily unable to perceive the legal implications and consequences of the act committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs or having a significant decrease in the ability to direct their behaviour in relation to this act (TPC Art. 34) can also be applied to the offence of acting contrary to measures regarding contagious diseases.106 On the other hand, the offence of acting contrary to the measures regarding contagious diseases should be evaluated in terms of the provisions of unjust provocation regulated in Article 29 of the TPC. In order to be able to claim unjust provocation, there must be an unjust act arising from the victim and causing rage or severe pain in the 105 Kangal, p. 443. 106 Kangal, p. 443.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1