Protective Measures for Victim Security in Stalking Offences

Attorney Dr. Tolga Ersoy | Criminal Law | December 21, 2025

With the transformation of digitalization, urbanization, and gender-based violence models, the phenomenon of stalking emerges as one of the most insidious, persistent, and psychologically coercive forms of violence targeting the victim's private life. The perpetrator's attempts to control, monitor, coerce communication with, or establish proximity in a fear-inducing manner, whether in physical or digital environments, profoundly undermine both the victim's daily life order and their perception of personal security; consequently, stalking necessitates examination not merely as an issue of contact or threat, but as a continuous architecture of threat.

In Turkey, the recognition of stalking as an independent offence type under Article 123/A of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) in 2022 has strengthened its function within criminal law. Concurrently, protective measures such as exclusion orders, communication bans, removal from the shared residence, and similar provisions under Law No. 6284 have assumed a more prominent role in ensuring victim security. This study aims to analyze the dynamics of this offence type, the complementary effect of protective measures within the criminal law–protection law nexus, and the challenges encountered in practice. Furthermore, it seeks to holistically evaluate the real, measurable, and sustainable impact of these measures on victim security.

From a criminological perspective, the offence of stalking constitutes a persistent, repetitive behavioral pattern aimed at establishing an escalating control mechanism over the victim. The perpetrator systematically endeavors to monitor the victim's movements, establish contact, create proximity, or induce fear, utilizing either physical or digital spaces; when viewed as a whole, rather than as isolated acts, this endeavor generates psychological subjugation. This structural nature of the offence transforms stalking from a mere issue of communication or threat into a “behavioral violence model” that encompasses the victim's perception of time, space, and security. Therefore, stalking is defined not solely by the number or intensity of acts, but by the perpetrator's persistent conduct aimed at controlling the victim and undermining their autonomy.

Criminological data and field research indicate that a significant majority of stalking victims are women, and this situation is closely linked to gender-based power relations. The perpetrator's behaviors are often fueled by patriarchal codes such as intolerance to abandonment, possessiveness, fear of losing power, or the desire to re-establish control; this renders the phenomenon of stalking a less visible, yet equally destructive, form of violence against women. The persistent pressure endured by the victim can lead to outcomes such as anxiety, fear, helplessness, cognitive disarray, and social withdrawal, thereby limiting both their capacity for legal recourse and their ability to effectively pursue protective measures. Consequently, the victim profile in stalking cases often presents as psychologically debilitated, with impaired decision-making processes, and struggling to utilize protection mechanisms without professional support.

The normative relationship between TPC Article 123/A and Law No. 6284 demonstrates that criminal law and protection law operate as two complementary pillars along the “punishment–prevention” axis. The criminal norm typifies stalking and prescribes sanctions; however, the effect of these sanctions is directed towards the post-offence stage. In contrast, Law No. 6284 aims to immediately protect the victim, mitigate risk, and restrict the perpetrator. Therefore, there is no hierarchical conflict between the two regulations; rather, there is a functional integrity that enhances victim security. While criminal law constitutes a retrospective intervention, protection law offers a prospective security mechanism.

However, the criminal norm alone cannot protect the victim, as stalking is a risk process that must be prevented before it culminates in harm. At this juncture, measures such as exclusion orders, communication bans, and electronic monitoring strengthen the effectiveness of criminal investigations and their evidentiary capacity. The integration of a risk management approach into criminal law gains significance precisely at this point. When the perpetrator's behavioral pattern, level of dangerousness, and the victim's vulnerability are assessed holistically, both the investigation proceeds more robustly and the victim is prevented from being re-victimized. Thus, criminal law and protection law form a security system that operates not unilaterally, but through mutual interaction.

Article 5 of Law No. 6284 regulates various spatial protective measures, such as exclusion from the residence, prohibition from approaching places where the victim is located, and immediate removal from the shared dwelling. These measures are not merely about establishing a distance; they aim to frame the victim's daily life within a secure context. Essentially, the objective is to sever the pressure exerted by the perpetrator through physical contact or proximity with the victim. Consequently, spatial restriction is one of the primary and most expeditious tools employed in stalking cases.

The significance of spatial protective measures stems from the nature of stalking, which is fueled by a quest for control and proximity. As long as the perpetrator maintains contact with the victim, they tend to perpetuate their behavioral pattern. Severing physical access significantly reduces the risk. An exclusion order secures the victim's sphere of movement by preventing the perpetrator from approaching the victim's home, workplace, school, or frequently visited areas. In essence, the measure serves as a critical security barrier that effectively limits the perpetrator's ability to exert pressure.

However, significant challenges exist in practice. While exclusion orders are issued swiftly, law enforcement oversight is often insufficient. The inability to intervene immediately when the perpetrator violates the order leads to the victim being re-exposed to risk. In some cases, despite the protective measure in place, the victim is compelled to change their address. Yet, a fundamental principle of protection law is clear: the burden of the measure should fall upon the perpetrator, not the victim. The victim being forced to relocate, hide, or restrict their daily life contravenes the purpose of the measure.

A communication ban is one of the fundamental protective measures regulated under Article 5/1-ç of Law No. 6284. This measure aims to close all communication channels with the victim. This includes not only phone calls or SMS messages, but also emails, social media messages, WhatsApp communications, video calls, and all other digital means of contact.

In today's increasingly digitalized world, a narrow interpretation of communication bans significantly weakens the effectiveness of protection. Therefore, a broad interpretation of the provision is necessary, meaning its application should encompass all communication practices of the digital age. Otherwise, the perpetrator will continue to reach the victim by exploiting technical means.

The purpose of a communication ban is to sever the psychological pressure on the victim and prevent the perpetrator from continuing the stalking. Because stalking often progresses through digital contact. Even if the perpetrator does not send direct messages, they can tag the victim on social media, write using fake accounts, or use a third party as an intermediary. Such methods are particularly common among perpetrators experienced in identity concealment. Consequently, for a communication ban to be truly protective, its scope must be clearly and broadly defined.

Digital evidence plays a significant role in revealing the cumulative nature of the stalking offence. Because stalking is typically not limited to a single message; it consists of a series of repetitive, escalating behaviors that instill fear in the victim. Social media correspondence, screenshots, message logs, and IP information render this behavioral pattern visible. Therefore, the proper collection and preservation of evidence are as crucial as the implementation of communication bans. Otherwise, both the effectiveness of the measure and the strength of the criminal investigation are undermined.

In the event of a violation of protection orders issued under Law No. 6284, measures such as coercive detention, apprehension, and judicial control may be invoked. These measures are vital tools to prevent the perpetrator from approaching the victim and to mitigate the existing risk. Although coercive detention is short-term, it constitutes a sanction and aims to cease the perpetrator's behaviors. Apprehension, on the other hand, provides a more immediate intervention. Judicial control also allows for the perpetrator to be kept under supervision.

In stalking offences, protective measures are not a secondary option compared to criminal sanctions; on the contrary, they hold a primary and indispensable position for victim security. This is because the nature of the offence is continuous. The perpetrator often infiltrates the victim's daily life even before criminal proceedings commence. Therefore, the protection of the victim is an urgent necessity that cannot await the outcome of a criminal investigation. Exclusion orders, communication bans, and spatial protection measures are practical tools that immediately restrict the perpetrator's ability to exert pressure. Criminal law, conversely, often intervenes retrospectively. Hence, protective measures constitute the primary security mechanism in stalking cases.

An effective protection policy in stalking offences must rely not solely on punishment, but also on the early detection of the perpetrator's behavioral pattern. Sustaining victim security, in turn, require __DIR__ . '/../../footer.php'; ?>