26 The Offence of Acting Contrary to Measures to Contain Contagious Disease (TPC ART. 195) threat,111 intentional injury112 or intentional killing, depending on the nature of the act. In this case, since these crimes will be committed as a reaction to the wrongful act of the official, there is no obstacle to the implementation of the provisions of unjust provocation in the case of the perpetrator.113 C. Element of Unlawfulness One of the essential elements of the crime is that the act should be unlawful. If the act is not unlawful or if there is a reason that renders the act lawful, the crime will not occur.114 In order to talk about unlawfulness, two conditions must coexist. The first of these is that the act is in contradiction and conflict with the rules of law, and the other is that there is no reason that eliminates the illegality, in other words, there is no other rule that allows the act to be done by the legal order.115 Although it is evaluated that the reasons for lawfulness in the general provisions section of the TPC No. 5237 can find an application area in terms of the offence of acting contrary to the measures regarding 111 “When the defendant was taken to the hospital for a forensic report to be prepared, although the plaintiff M.N. stated that they would write all the complaints of the defendant in the report, the defendant repeated to the plaintiff that he could not use his arm at all and stated that he wanted to write this point in the report, but the defendant did not sit on the stretcher to be examined, so they could not examine the defendant, then the defendant said to the plaintiff “I sacrificed my arm, I will have no mercy on you, I will take revenge”, and since the defendant committed this act with the intention of preventing the plaintiff from performing the duty, it was decided to establish a conviction for the crime of resistance to prevent the performance of duty instead of threatening,”18th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No.2015/19047, Decision No.2015/1279, 12.05.2015; Keklik, p. 280, fn. 93. 112 “...in his defense, the defendant stated that he did not have any wrongful act until he came to the police station, that one of the police officers kicked his foot and pushed him because he crossed his legs while the procedures were being carried out at the police station, and that he hit the police officer; in the face of the fact that the forensic reports available in the file confirm the defense of the defendant, a verdict of conviction was given for the crime of resistance to prevent the performance of duty in writing, as a result of an erroneous evaluation in the crime qualification, without considering that the action constitutes the crime of intentional injury to a public official under unjust provocation.” 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No.2013/809, Decision No.2014/4286, 16.04.2014; Keklik, p. 279, fn. 86. 113 Kahraman, p. 754. 114 Centel/Zafer/Çakmut, p. 280. 115 Centel/Zafer/Çakmut, p. 281.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1