25 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2023 Hüseyin ACAR perpetrator and the perpetrator must be under the influence of this condition at the time the offence is committed. Within the scope of Article 195 of the TPC, the measures taken by the competent authorities regarding the quarantine of a place cannot be qualified as an unjust act.107 Therefore, it will not be possible to benefit from the provisions on unjust provocation if the person does not comply with the measures taken by the competent authorities on the grounds that it leads to rage or severe pain (TPC Art. 29).108 According to Kangal, the perpetrator who does not comply with the measures taken in response to the situation where the person in charge of implementing the quarantine measures taken by the competent authorities exceeds the limits of their duty or causes the wrongful act by acting arbitrarily will be able to benefit from the unjust provocation remission.109 According to Kahraman, when the person in charge of implementing the quarantine measures taken by the competent authorities acts arbitrarily while implementing the measures, unjust provocation remission should not be applied in case of contradicting the measures as a reaction to the unfair practices of the official. This is because the reaction to unjust provocation must be directed against the person who committed the unjust act. Although the excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary practices of the official cause the wrongful act, in order to benefit from unjust provocation, the reaction must be directed at the official. However, if the reaction is directed towards the quarantine measures taken by the competent authorities, it will not be possible to benefit from the provisions of unjust provocation, as the reaction will be directed towards a third party. The reaction towards the unjust practices of the official may constitute the crimes of insult,110 107 Kangal, p. 444. 108 Bayzit, p. 883; Kangal, p. 444. 109 Kangal, p. 444. 110 See. “Establishing a conviction for the crime of resistance to prevent the performance of duty in writing on insufficient grounds without discussing whether all the words and actions were based on the intent to insult”; 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No.2013/8093, Decision No.2014/12058, 02.12.2014; Ramazan Keklik, “Görevi Yaptırmamak İçin Direnme Suçu”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Y. 2015, C. 19, S. 4, p. 287, fn. 122
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1