This study delves into one of the theoretical foundations limiting judicial discretion in statutory interpretation: "customary semantic requirements" and their role in generating conflicting judicial opinions. The core issue is the tension between judges' interpretive freedom and the necessity of adhering to societal common sense. The absence of a clear framework for this adherence leads to jurisprudential inconsistency and the repeated violation of litigants' rights.

Employing an analytical-descriptive approach, this research conducted a systematic case study of over 50 rulings issued by preliminary and appellate criminal courts between 2012 and 2022.

The findings confirm that the neglect of customary requirements and the exclusive reliance on the "judge's personal conviction" (ilm-e qazi) without objective research-based support is a key variable in creating contradictory verdicts and destabilizing the judicial system. As an innovative solution, this article proposes the establishment of a specialized "public advisory body" as a form of localizing public participation mechanisms. The function of this body is to extract and provide "evidence-based advisory opinions" on the recognition of customary concepts, instances, and conditions through valid scientific methods.

This proposal, fully executable within the legal framework of the "Directive on Public Institutions' Participation (2019)," enhances the reliability of verdicts by objectifying judicial reasoning. Furthermore, it fosters convergence in judicial interpretations, thereby advancing the realization of fair trial standards and reducing erroneous convictions.