A new system needed

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Sunday that he will not obey or respect the Constitutional Court's decision that declared that the imprisonment of two journalists amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights. The international community will probably think that Erdoğan is interfering with the judiciary and will criticize his statement.

What would be wise to discuss, however, is Turkey's current judicial system. The two journalists were jailed for a report on alleged illegal arms transfers to Syria. They claimed weapons were being sent there by Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MİT). Because of this report, they were accused of espionage aimed at undermining Turkey internationally. A local court prepared the indictment that seeks aggravated life sentences for them.

The two journalists protested against their imprisonment and asked the Constitutional Court to intervene, using their right to individual application. Just like the European Court of Human Rights, the Turkish Constitutional Court received these applications to decide whether or not these people's fundamental human rights had been violated. In this particular case, the highest court in the country ruled that there was a violation and ruled for their release from pre-trial detention. Despite being freed from prison, their trial will continue and we will have to wait for the verdict.

Some people argue if these journalists had the right to publish such a sensible report. This kind of discussion is in fact an international one when you remember what happened during the WikiLeaks revelations, or more recently, when the FBI asked Apple to provide confidential information about one of its customers.

Some other people say this report indeed divulged state secrets, but how is one to decide whether or not the journalists published it in order to deliberately harm the country's vital interests?

Another debate is more technical, with regard to if it really was necessary to keep these two journalists in prison while waiting for trial?

The Constitutional Court's ruling did not answer all these questions, but instead provoked new debates. Moreover, according to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court can only give a procedural viewpoint about ongoing cases. In other words, it should only discuss, in this particular case, whether or not these two men should be kept in prison while awaiting trial. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court's ruling was also about the essence of the case, and the high judges almost bypassed the local court, clearly indicating that the publication of the report is protected by the freedom of expression.

It is not surprising that ordinary people in Turkey do not trust the judiciary anymore and are always suspicious of verdicts. From murder cases to rape, from coup plot cases to party closures, people do not trust any decision given by judicial authorities.

It is known that in Turkey verdicts are often given with political reflexes. I remember a survey carried out by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) in which most judges said that if national interests are at stake, their priority will be to protect them. They, of course, did not clarify how to be sure what the country's true national interests are.

Today we are no longer discussing these journalists' actions, or the limits of the freedom of press, but about the entire judicial system. It is obvious that we need a new system, given that the current one if full of problems.