Constitutional and Legal Status of Prosecution Services in Turkic States: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

The article provides a comparative analysis of the constitutional-legal status of prosecution authorities in Turkic states within the context of historical development stages and modern normative regulation mechanisms. The primary objective of the research is to identify the similarities and differences regarding the position of the prosecution institute within the system of state power, its functions, organizational structure, and personnel policy in the constitutional models of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.

From a methodological standpoint, historical-legal and comparative jurisprudence approaches have been utilized in the article. Historical analysis demonstrates that the formation of the prosecution institute has followed various development trajectories in Turkic states: the foundations of this model, laid with the institute of "müdde-i umumilik" (public prosecution) during the Tanzimat era in the Ottoman Empire, evolved into a centralized oversight body in post-Soviet Turkic states under the influence of the Soviet legal system. The establishment of the national prosecution institute during the period of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is regarded as a significant precedent for modern Turkic states.

In the section on constitutional-legal analysis, it is determined that the status of prosecution authorities in the constitutions of Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan is regulated more comprehensively and in greater normative detail, based on the principle of a unified and centralized system. In these states, the prosecution acts as an independent legal institute performing key functions such as overseeing the implementation of laws, criminal prosecution, and the protection of state indictments. Conversely, in the Kyrgyz and Turkish models, the constitutional status of the prosecution is more general in nature; in Turkey, the prosecution is considered an integral part of the judicial power and is not distinguished as an independent institute.

The article also comparatively examines the powers, functional burden, and personnel policy of the prosecution authorities. Consequently, it is determined that the role of the prosecution in the state power mechanism is broader and more centralized in post-Soviet Turkic states, whereas in the Turkish model, the prosecution operates in a state of close integration with the judiciary. The involvement of the president, parliament, and other high state institutions in personnel policy and appointment mechanisms is ensured at various levels, serving to balance the principle of the separation of powers.

Overall, the article scientifically proves the existence of common legal principles and the formation of specific models aligned with national legal systems based on the comparative analysis of the constitutional-legal foundations of the prosecution institute in Turkic states. According to the author's conclusion, the exchange of experience and normative convergence in this field could create an important legal basis for the formation of a unified Common-Turkic legal space in the future.