T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u0130HSAN TAHA DEM\u0130RC\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33812)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Kemal \u00d6ZEREN<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u0130hsan Taha DEM\u0130RC\u0130<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye kay\u0131npederinin taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in izin verilmemesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan T\u00fcrko\u011flu 1 No.lu L Tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumunda h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olarak bulunmaktad\u0131r. Kay\u0131npederinin 1\/6\/2021 tarihinde vefat etmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 2\/6\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
3. Kahramanmara\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riskini ve bu kapsamda al\u0131nan tedbirleri gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Kahramanmara\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (\u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi) itiraz etmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu;6 ay \u00f6nce an\u0131lan salg\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7irdi\u011fini ve h\u00e2len ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131k oldu\u011funu, gerekli tedbirleri alarak taziyeye kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanabilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi 4\/6\/2021 tarihinde yine COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda al\u0131nan tedbirler nedeniyle itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Kahramanmara\u015f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi) itiraz etmi\u015ftir. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi karar\u0131n\u0131n usule ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011funu belirterek itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Nihai karar\u0131 15\/6\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenen ba\u015fvurucu 6\/7\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
6. \u00d6deme g\u00fcc\u00fcnden yoksun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan ba\u015fvurucunun adli yard\u0131m talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu, kay\u0131npederinin vefat\u0131 nedeniyle taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ve e\u015fine destek olmas\u0131n\u0131n aile b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve ailenin korunmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem arz etti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Bununla birlikte ba\u015fvurucu COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek talebinin reddedilmesinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc ve makul olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zira bu d\u00f6nemde mahk\u00fbmlar\u0131n mahkemelere ya da hastanelere gerekli tedbirler al\u0131narak g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclebildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. Hakl\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerinin yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan irdelenmedi\u011fini ve talebinin reddedildi\u011fini vurgulayan ba\u015fvurucu \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n, e\u015fitlik ilkesinin ve gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde; somut ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lacak incelemede Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi bildirilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. Ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik m\u00fcdahalenin 13\/12\/2004 tarihli ve 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Ceza ve G\u00fcvenlik Tedbirlerinin \u0130nfaz\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 94. maddesinin (1) ve (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kralar\u0131nda yer alan d\u00fczenlemeler gere\u011fince kanuni temelinin oldu\u011fu ve infaz kurumunun g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015feklinde me\u015fru amac\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk [GK], B. No: 2016\/8080, 26\/12\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 45-50). Bununla birlikte temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninin gereklerine uygun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in zorunlu bir toplumsal ihtiyac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 ve orant\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekir (Ferhat \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/15428, 17\/7\/2018, \u00a7 45; Abuzer Uzun [2. B.], B. No: 2016\/61250, 13\/6\/2019, \u00a7 38).<\/p>\n
12. Anayasa’n\u0131n 19. maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc ve tutuklular\u0131n \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na birtak\u0131m s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n getirilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, hukuka uygun olarak ceza infaz kurumunda tutulman\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz ve do\u011fal bir sonucudur. Bu ba\u011flamda idarenin tutuklu ve h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fclerin \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na m\u00fcdahale konusunda takdir yetkisinin daha geni\u015f oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilmelidir. Burada m\u00fchim olan ceza infaz kurumunun g\u00fcvenli\u011finin sa\u011flanmas\u0131 amac\u0131 ile h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesi hakk\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil bir dengenin sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7 56). \u00d6l\u00fcm, insan hayat\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131lan ac\u0131 olaylardan biridir. Bir\u00e7ok k\u00fclt\u00fcrde \u00f6len kimsenin tan\u0131d\u0131klar\u0131 bir araya gelerek \u00f6l\u00fcm nedeniyle duyulan ac\u0131 ve \u00fcz\u00fcnt\u00fcy\u00fc payla\u015f\u0131r. \u00d6lenin geride kalan aile bireyleri ziyaret edilerek kendilerine maddi ve manevi destekte bulunulur. \u015e\u00fcphesiz bu ac\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6l\u00fcm an\u0131ndan itibaren en yo\u011fun derecede ya\u015fayan ve deste\u011fe en \u00e7ok ihtiya\u00e7 duyanlar aile bireyleridir. Bu nedenle \u00f6lenin aile bireylerine taziye ziyaretinde bulunulmas\u0131, aile bireylerinin de taziyeleri kabul\u00fc k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fcm\u00fczde \u00f6nemli bir yer tutmaktad\u0131r. Kanun koyucu bu insani d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden ve k\u00fclt\u00fcrel olgulardan hareketle 5275 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da yak\u0131nlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc h\u00e2linde h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye mazeret izni verilmesini d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. Kanun’daki izin s\u00fcreleri g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde kanun koyucunun iznin kapsam\u0131n\u0131 sadece defin i\u015flemi ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 tutmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, definden sonra yap\u0131lan taziye ziyaretlerini kabul etmeye ve aile bireylerinin bir arada kalarak birbirlerine destek olmalar\u0131na imk\u00e2n tan\u0131may\u0131 da ama\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmelidir (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7 61). Cenazeye veya taziyeye kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131 imk\u00e2n d\u00e2hilinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmezse bu duruma ili\u015fkin zorunluluk h\u00e2llerinin somut olgu ve olaylara dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekir (Rasul Kocat\u00fcrk, \u00a7 62).<\/p>\n
13. Ba\u015fvuruya konu olan olayda, ceza infaz kurumunda bulunan ba\u015fvurucunun vefat eden kay\u0131npederinin taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lma talebinin Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riski gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterilerek reddedildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan ise ba\u015fvurucunun itirazlar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda esasa ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
14. Bu itibarla somut olay\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131nda Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k karar\u0131nda COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riskine ili\u015fkin genel a\u00e7\u0131klamayla yetinilmi\u015f, sosyal mesafe ve maske kullan\u0131m\u0131 gibi tedbirler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bununla birlikte Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k; ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in durumun gerektirdi\u011fi \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, ilgili personelin g\u00f6revlendirilmesi i\u00e7in alternatif \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmler denedi\u011fini ortaya koymam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu kapsamda idari ve yarg\u0131sal makamlar taraf\u0131ndan g\u00f6sterilen gerek\u00e7eler; ba\u015fvurucunun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 ile toplumun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda adil denge kurulmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ikna edici, ilgili ve yeterli unsurlara sahip de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun taziyeye kat\u0131larak ailesine destek olma imk\u00e2n\u0131ndan yoksun kalmas\u0131nda kamusal makamlar\u0131n talebin reddedilmesi \u015feklindeki m\u00fcdahalesinin \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (benzer de\u011ferlendirmeler i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Selvi [2. B.], B. No: 2020\/35123, 3\/4\/2024, \u00a7\u00a7 16, 17; Murat Kaymak\u00e7\u0131 [2. B.], B. No: 2020\/35000, 3\/4\/2024, \u00a7 14).<\/p>\n
15. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M<\/p>\n
16. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve 100.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
17. \u0130nceleme tarihi itibar\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve vefat\u0131n \u00fczerinden uzun bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7ti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. \u00d6te yandan ihlalin niteli\u011fi dikkate al\u0131narak ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Adli yard\u0131m talebinin KABUL\u00dcNE,<\/p>\n
B. \u00d6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
C. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. Ba\u015fvurucuya net 34.000 TL manevi tazminat \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE, tazminata ili\u015fkin di\u011fer taleplerin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve bilgi i\u00e7in Kahramanmara\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi (E.2021\/2950, K.2021\/2921) ile Kahramanmara\u015f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (2021\/936 D.\u0130\u015f) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 15\/4\/2025 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 15\/4\/2025 tarihli ve 2021\/33812 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR \u0130HSAN TAHA DEM\u0130RC\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/33812) Karar Tarihi: 15\/4\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM KARAR Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : Kemal \u00d6ZEREN Ba\u015fvurucu : \u0130hsan Taha DEM\u0130RC\u0130 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcye kay\u0131npederinin taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in izin verilmemesi nedeniyle \u00f6zel hayata ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, silahl\u0131 ter\u00f6r \u00f6rg\u00fct\u00fcne \u00fcye olma su\u00e7undan T\u00fcrko\u011flu 1 No.lu L Tipi Kapal\u0131 Ceza \u0130nfaz Kurumunda h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olarak bulunmaktad\u0131r. Kay\u0131npederinin 1\/6\/2021 tarihinde vefat etmesi \u00fczerine ba\u015fvurucu 2\/6\/2021 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle taziye t\u00f6renine kat\u0131lma talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. 3. Kahramanmara\u015f Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k) COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n neden oldu\u011fu bula\u015f riskini ve bu kapsamda al\u0131nan tedbirleri gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek ba\u015fvurucunun talebinin reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Kahramanmara\u015f \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fine (\u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi) itiraz etmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz dilek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu;6 ay \u00f6nce an\u0131lan salg\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7irdi\u011fini ve h\u00e2len ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131k oldu\u011funu, gerekli tedbirleri alarak taziyeye kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flanabilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi 4\/6\/2021 tarihinde yine COVID-19 salg\u0131n\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda al\u0131nan tedbirler nedeniyle itiraz\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 Kahramanmara\u015f 1. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesine (A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi) itiraz etmi\u015ftir. A\u011f\u0131r Ceza Mahkemesi, \u0130nfaz H\u00e2kimli\u011fi karar\u0131n\u0131n usule ve kanuna uygun oldu\u011funu belirterek itiraz\u0131n reddine karar …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n