# Prohibition forms from the corpus

Analysis of real fragments: the package identifier, the act, the form verdict
(exemplary / disputed / wrong form choice), and why.

## Law

### 1. Turkish Constitution, art. 14 — abuse prohibition (exemplary)

Package `tr.constitution` — Constitution of Türkiye (`RefrainFromAbuseOfRights`):

```law
rule AbuseOfRightsProhibition(subject: Person, right: FundamentalRight) strict {
    when person(subject);
    when fundamental_right(right);
    then prohibition RefrainFromAbuseOfRights {
        bearer subject;
        action right_abuse_activity(subject, right);
        window [@1982-11-09, infinity);
    };
```

Exemplary: the
article's vocabulary ("may not be used in the form of an activity…") matches the
prohibition form. The window runs from
the constitution's adoption date into infinity: a prohibition with no statute of limitations.
The breach is observed by the prohibition itself.

### 2. Kazakhstan Labour Code — prohibition with an open window (exemplary)

Package `kz.corpus.labour_code` — Labour Code of Kazakhstan
(`TerminateDuringIncapacity`): `window [since, infinity)` for `for since: Date`,
premise-bound. Exemplary: the most common corpus prohibition-window form —
a variable boundary instead of a literal.

### 3. Turkish Constitution — a series of prohibitions, arts. 14–65 (exemplary)

Package `tr.constitution` — Constitution of Türkiye:
`RefrainFromUnlawfulKilling`, `RefrainFromInstructingCourts`,
`RefrainFromNonBudgetClauses`; plus package `kg.constitution` — Constitution of
Kyrgyzstan (judiciary chapter): `RefrainFromInterferingWithJustice`. The series shows:
a prohibition is the default form for "the state/person may not…" wherever there is
an addressed party. Where there is no addressee, the
form would be disputed — a prohibition's addressee is mandatory.

### 4. Kyrgyz Constitution — non-interference with justice (exemplary)

Package `kg.constitution` — Constitution of Kyrgyzstan:
`then prohibition RefrainFromInterferingWithJustice`. A pair with the negative head of
the same act (`then not non_interference_with_justice_observed`,
see the [negation page](/constructs/negation-and-status/)): the prohibition addresses the actor ("do not interfere"),
the negation states ("compliance is absent") — separated by addressee.

## Adjacent forms

### 5. Warlpiri — taboo without prohibition (form boundary)

Package `custom.warlpiri.kinship` — Warlpiri kinship law: marriage
classes written as `constraint`, not `prohibition` (see the [constraint page](/constructs/constraint/)).
Verdict: not an error but a form boundary — a taboo names no party with a window, so a
prohibition with its mandatory addressee would be a stretch. The selection rule holds.

### 6. Explicit `goal forbearance` — almost never written (form boundary)

Explicit `goal forbearance` is rare next to `then prohibition`. Verdict: not
an error but evidence that the prohibition form won: the acts' vocabulary
("is prohibited") matches the written form, and explicit forbearance is written only
where the source's vocabulary demands the word "duty".