The purpose of personal reasons for lifting criminal responsibility for offences against the judicial bodies or court, refraining from testimony because of his relationship with the suspect or the accused and witnesses who are exempt from taking an oath in connection with the crime that is the subject of investigation or prosecution are the same. The aim is to protect human dignity by implementing the principle of nemo tenetur.

The Constitutional Court annulled the provision of law in the crime of not reporting the crime, as there is no regulation preventing the punishment of the relatives of the principal of the antecedent crime as a requirement of the nemo tenetur principle. Thereupon, the legislator added a personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility for this crime. In this regulation, the legislator referred to the people who have the right to refraining from testimony and established a connection point to this right and personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility, which have the same purpose of regulation in the Turkish Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Constitutional Court annulled the crime of not reporting the crime due to a regulation that the legislator did not make, when he should have done it. It is debatable whether the Constitutional Court has the power of annulment in case of absolute legislative omission.

Even if the law was not amended, the direct applicability of the nemo tenetur principle or , by analogy the applicability of personal reasons for lifting criminal responsibility for offences against the judicial bodies or court to the crime of not reporting the crime are other problems. First problem has been examined according to the assumptions that the reflections of the principle are justification, factors affecting capacity of acting with fault and the personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility. In one of the results of this examination, the fact that Turkey has a European type constitutional judiciary has been decisive.

An inequality has arisen by the reference made to those who can benefit from personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility for the crime of not reporting the crime. Because this reference is applied for the first time. This inequality is that the different scope of those who can benefit from personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility in the crime of not reporting the crime and in the other offences against the judicial bodies or court. In order to solve this inequality, it has been evaluated whether reference can be made to to individuals who have the right of refraining from testimony as a common provision in the personal reason for lifting criminal responsibility related to offences against the judicial bodies or court.