In a criminal investigation, a person cannot be compelled to make a statement about the accusation against them; they may benefit from legal assistance and may request that evidence in their favour be gathered. Effective use of these rights depends on learning of the accusation, meeting a lawyer and keeping an accurate record of the statement. The first statement matters, but it does not alone and irreversibly determine the outcome of a case. The conditions under which the statement was taken, its lawfulness and its relationship with other evidence are also examined separately. [1, 2]
A police statement, a statement taken by the public prosecutor and judicial questioning are not the same act. For a police statement taken without defence counsel present, Article 148(4) of the CMK in particular provides a special safeguard. By contrast, for a statement obtained through pressure, threats or deception, there is a different and stricter prohibition on the use of evidence. Advice given without distinguishing these categories, such as "speaking is always better" or "one must always remain silent", overlooks the needs of the specific file.
This article addresses the rights of suspects and accused persons to make statements and to be questioned in Türkiye. The position of a witness, children and the need for an interpreter are also explained. General assessments of this kind must be applied together with the accusation and the documents of the specific case.
How does the difference between a statement and interrogation affect the defence?
Under Article 2 of the CMK, taking a statement means hearing a suspect about the offence under investigation by law enforcement officers or the public prosecutor. Interrogation, by contrast, is the questioning of a suspect or accused person by a judge or court. The colloquial expression "police interrogation" does not change this distinction in law. Questioning in a criminal judgeship of peace during an investigation may serve, for example, to assess an application for pretrial detention; it does not necessarily mean that a prosecution has been brought. [1, Arts. 2, 101]
| Act | Who carries it out | Decisive distinction for the defence |
|---|---|---|
| Police statement | Police or gendarmerie | Where no defence counsel is present, CMK Article 148(4) applies in addition. |
| Prosecutor's statement | Public prosecutor | The power to take a further statement on the same event and the evidential value of the earlier statement are assessed separately. |
| Interrogation | Judge or court | Whether the earlier police statement was confirmed, and the defence before the judge, become important. |
The title of a record is not sufficient on its own. Who took the statement, the person's status at that moment, the questions put and the participation of counsel must be examined together. Describing questions aimed at getting the suspect to accept the accusation as a "conversation" or "gathering information" does not by itself remove the defence safeguards. However, not every statement a person volunteers is automatically an irregular statement; the way in which the statement came about must be explained.
What should a person summoned to give a statement learn first?
The first question is whether the person has been summoned as a suspect, a witness or a complainant. The file number, the summoning unit, the date of the act and the subject of the summons should be learned as far as possible. Article 145 of the CMK provides that a summons for a statement or interrogation must clearly state the reason for the summons, and that a warning of compulsory appearance is given if the person does not attend. Where the conditions of Article 146 of the CMK are met, an order for compulsory appearance may be made. The right to remain silent is not a right not to attend a properly issued summons. [1, Arts. 145–146]
The legal character of a telephone call and a written summons may not be the same. It cannot, however, be concluded from this that every telephone call is unimportant: an existing apprehension or compulsory appearance order may be in place. The caller's identity as an authorised unit should be verified, and the file and the basis of the summons should be investigated through counsel. If there is a health or other obstacle, the excuse should be notified promptly and with documents; notifying an excuse does not mean that the act has been postponed.
The rule in Article 146(4) of the CMK, that a person brought in by compulsion must, where immediate appearance is not possible, be taken before the summoning judge, court or public prosecutor within twenty-four hours, excluding travel time, is not a general "time limit for giving a statement". The duration and supervision of police custody are subject to different provisions. Summons, apprehension, custody and pretrial detention must not be confused. [1, Arts. 91, 146]
A sound defence cannot be built without disclosure of the accusation and the rights
Under Article 147 of the CMK, identity is established; the offence alleged is explained; and the rights to legal assistance and to remain silent are notified. The suspect is given the opportunity to ask for concrete evidence that could clear them of suspicion to be gathered and to raise matters in their favour. Notification to the relatives of a person apprehended is also made within the relevant provisions. [1, Arts. 95, 147]
Stating only the article number of the law does not, in every file, provide the concrete information the defence needs. It must be understood which event, date, act or conduct is alleged. For example, if a money transfer is being asked about, leaving the account and the transaction undefined while expecting the person to disclose their entire financial history makes the defence more difficult. Counsel may ask for the accusation to be specified and for the document shown to be examined.
It is important that the record contains a printed section stating that rights have been notified; however, this alone does not prevent the question of whether genuine and comprehensible information was given from being raised. Where there is reading difficulty, a language problem, age, a health condition or an allegation of pressure, how these arose should be explained and linked with the interpreter's record, any medical certificate and the times of the act. Instead of a general statement that "my rights were not told to me", it should be shown which right could not be used and how.
How is the right to remain silent exercised, and what are its limits?
Article 38(5) of the Constitution prohibits compelling a person to make a statement incriminating themselves or their close relatives as specified by law, or to produce evidence to that effect. Article 147(1)(e) of the CMK requires that the person be informed that making no statement about the accusation is a legal right. Remaining silent is not an admission of the accusation. The burden of proof cannot be reversed by compelling the person to incriminate themselves. [1, 2] For further details, see the article on the right to complain and the offence of false accusation.
A person may remain silent from the outset, may exercise this right after beginning to make a statement, or may decline to answer certain questions. This choice must be clearly recorded in the record. The statement "I will not make a statement about the accusation before speaking to my lawyer" is a simple example of notice that may be used; it should not be seen as a ready-made defence text suitable for every file. Silence does not prevent the preservation of evidence in one's favour or the presentation of specific requests through counsel. The article on the right to meet a lawyer in prison may also be consulted on this subject.
Questions about identity fall outside this: Article 147(1)(a) of the CMK requires them to be answered correctly. Moreover, the right to silence is not a general power to prevent all lawful acts such as a properly conducted search, seizure or a bodily examination where its legal conditions are met. Refusing to make a statement and the lawfulness of another protective measure are examined separately. [1, Arts. 75, 116 et seq., 147]
Exercising the right to silence does not end the investigation. The prosecution may gather other evidence; if lawful independent evidence exists, it will be assessed. For the defence, the choice requires weighing the benefit of making a statement against the existing uncertainties. Rather than filling in events that are not remembered by guesswork, stating the uncertainty openly preserves verifiable information. The right of defence does not give permission to create or destroy evidence, or to falsely attribute a crime to someone else.
Does being summoned as a witness remove the protection against self-incrimination?
The position of a witness differs from that of a suspect. A witness may be under a duty to testify; however, Articles 45 and 48 of the CMK provide safeguards allowing a witness to refuse to testify or to answer certain questions. Compelling a person to answer questions that could incriminate them does not become lawful merely because the record describes them as a "witness". [1, Arts. 45, 48]
In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Yakup Güneş, B. No: 2019/15907, dated 19 March 2024, the Court considered the compulsion of a person, against whom a conviction had not yet become final, to testify in connected events. It held that there was no legal basis for the disciplinary detention applied because the person did not testify, given that the statements could be used in the present or in new accusations, and that the right to liberty and security had been violated. The decision does not state that every witness may refuse every question; it shows the importance of the link between a question and the danger of self-incrimination. [4, §§ 57–64]
Benefiting from legal assistance is not merely having the record signed
Article 149 of the CMK guarantees the use of defence counsel's assistance at every stage of the investigation and prosecution. Under Article 154(1) of the CMK, a suspect or accused person may meet their lawyer, without a power of attorney being required, in a setting where others cannot hear what is said. The meeting before a statement serves to understand the accusation, to assess the documents available and to make a conscious choice between silence and making a statement. [1, Arts. 149, 154]
The lawyer's role is not to recount events on behalf of the person. Observing the disclosure of rights, recording objections to unclear or misleading questions, requesting a break, identifying evidence in the person's favour and checking that the record accurately reflects what was said are all parts of legal assistance. Where several persons are represented by the same lawyer, the alignment of their interests must be examined separately under Article 152 of the CMK. One person's accusation of another may change that assessment.
In Beuze v. Belgium, B. No: 71409/10, dated 9 November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights explained the importance of effective assistance in private meetings with a lawyer and during questioning. Assessing together the restrictions on access to a lawyer and the safeguards in the proceedings as a whole, the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR. This approach shows that it is not enough merely to see the name of a lawyer in the record. [5, §§ 133–136, 193–195]
In which situations is the appointment of a lawyer mandatory?
For a suspect or accused person who states that they are not in a position to choose defence counsel, an appointment is made by the bar association on their request. For children who have no defence counsel, and for persons who, as described in Article 150(2) of the CMK, are so disabled that they cannot defend themselves, or who are deaf and mute, no request is required. Mandatory defence also applies in offences for which the lower limit of the penalty requires imprisonment of more than five years. The distinction between five years and more than five years is important; other grounds for mandatory defence may also exist. [1, Arts. 150, 156]
For example, where pretrial detention is sought, Article 101(3) of the CMK provides for defence counsel's assistance. After custody, Article 91(7) of the CMK is also taken into account in relation to being brought before a judge and questioned. A conclusion that a lawyer is "not compulsory" cannot be reached merely by looking at the penalty for the offence. Where mandatory defence applies, a person's statement that they do not want a lawyer does not remove this safeguard. An appointment by the bar association is not the same as a private retainer agreement; the consequences for fees and litigation costs are assessed separately under the relevant regulations.
Can a meeting with a lawyer be restricted for twenty-four hours?
Article 154(2) of the CMK contains a special provision for certain groups of offences against State security and the constitutional order, for offences under the Anti-Terrorism Law (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu), and for offences of manufacturing and trafficking narcotics committed within the framework of organisational activity. A meeting between a suspect in custody and a lawyer may be restricted for a period of twenty-four hours, by judicial order on the request of the prosecutor. No statement may be taken during this period. An oral instruction from the police does not in itself create such a power of restriction. [1, Art. 154(2)]
The restriction of access to the file and the restriction of meetings with counsel are different acts. The decision made, its legal basis, the starting time and its scope should be identified. Where a statement was taken during a restriction, the time of the act, the decision and the record of meetings with counsel should be presented together, and the unlawfulness should be argued on that basis.
Is it mandatory to give a statement without reviewing the file?
Defence counsel may review the investigation file and obtain copies of documents under Article 153 of the CMK. The authority may, on the prosecutor's request and by judicial order, be restricted in offences listed in the law where review would jeopardise the purpose of the investigation. However, the record containing the person's statement, expert reports and records of judicial acts at which the person is entitled to be present are excluded from that restriction. [1, Art. 153]
The fact that the whole file has not yet been seen does not automatically invalidate every statement. On the other hand, making a detailed statement without understanding the accusation and its basis may create serious uncertainty. Defence counsel should specify the request for access, the document not provided and its effect on the defence, and should ask for the time necessary for preparation and for the meeting. The suspect may also exercise the right to remain silent regarding the accusation. A request for postponement and the actual postponement of the act must be distinguished.
Hypothetically, if the suspect has been shown only a single sentence of a message, examination of the entire conversation and its date may be requested. An acceptance made without seeing the context of a document may later be given a different meaning. Conversely, where a reliable and existing record shows that the person was not at the scene, its immediate preservation may be requested to prevent its loss, independently of the choice to remain silent.
Prohibited methods of questioning and the consequence of an unlawful statement
Article 148 of the CMK prohibits methods such as torture and ill-treatment that impair free will, administering drugs, exhaustion, deception, force or threats; a benefit contrary to the law may not be offered either. A statement obtained by a prohibited method cannot be treated as evidence even if the person subsequently consents. The evidential safeguards in Article 38(6) of the Constitution and Articles 206(2)(a) and 217(2) of the CMK apply together with this prohibition. [1, 2]
Every insistent question, or the showing of a contradiction in the file, is not in itself deception. What matters is the method that vitiates the will and its connection with the statement. Guiding a person to believe in a non-existent piece of evidence, an unlawful threat to the family or a definitive promise of release that is beyond authority must be examined concretely. Explaining the real conditions of an effective repentance provision in the law is not the same as promising a definite outcome where that provision does not apply.
An allegation of pressure must identify the date, place, duration, the words or method used and the statement affected. It is important that complaints be recorded in a medical examination, and that any injuries, use of medication, sleeplessness and psychological effects be entered in the record. Preserving camera and entry and exit records, the lawyer's observations and earlier applications are also assessed. The absence of visible injuries does not by itself refute every allegation of pressure; however, documentation of the allegation and its consistency are important in the examination. [1]
An allegation of a prohibited method and the absence of a lawyer are separate legal grounds. The rule under Article 148(4) of the CMK that the statement is confirmed before a judge is not an approval mechanism that makes a statement obtained by torture or threats usable. Whether a subsequent statement was in fact given with free will is also separately examined.
When can a police statement taken without counsel not be relied on for judgment?
Under Article 148(4) of the CMK, a statement taken by the police in the absence of defence counsel may not be relied on for judgment unless it is confirmed by the suspect or accused before a judge or court. A record that the person did not want a lawyer during the statement does not remove this specific condition on its own. The subject of the rule is the police statement; it is not right to assess all statements taken by the prosecutor under the same rule. [1, Art. 148(4)]
Repeating an earlier police statement before the prosecutor is not identical to the confirmation before a judge or court that the law requires. The evidential value of a new statement lawfully taken by the prosecutor is discussed separately. Thus the prohibition on a police statement taken without counsel should be protected, and the conditions of a statement taken at a different stage should be separately reviewed.
In the decision of the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 10. Ceza Dairesi), dated 2 April 2024, E. 2023/22512, K. 2024/17328, the conviction for possession of narcotics for use was quashed. The defendant's police statement, made without counsel, had not been confirmed before a court. The reasoning also took into account that no narcotics were found on the defendant, that use had not been established by technical methods and that there was no sufficient conclusive evidence. The practical value of the decision lies in examining the sufficiency of the remaining evidence after the prohibited statement is set aside; not every file in which a statement was taken without counsel produces the same result. [6, III–IV]
In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Yusuf Karakuş and Others, B. No: 2014/12002, dated 8 December 2016, the decisive use in a conviction of statements taken during custody without access to a lawyer and not confirmed in court was examined. Concluding that legal assistance provided later did not remedy the initial harm, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair trial linked to the right to benefit from defence counsel's assistance. The events belong to the period of the former State Security Court; the historical restriction on access to a lawyer cannot be presented as the current general rule. [7, §§ 81–84]
Can a first statement be changed, and is a confession conclusive evidence?
A suspect or accused person may correct, supplement or retract an earlier statement. However, a later statement does not automatically remove the earlier record from the file. The reason for a change may be a wrong entry, a translation problem, pressure, forgetting or a document seen later. The sentence that has changed, the reason for the change and the evidence supporting the new statement must be clearly shown.
Article 213 of the CMK regulates the reading in court of statements given before a judge or court, and of police statements taken in the presence of defence counsel, where there is a contradiction. The safeguard of Article 148(4) for police statements taken without counsel is separately preserved. A signature on the record is not conclusive proof of guilt; equally, merely saying "I have withdrawn my statement" does not eliminate all the effects of a lawful earlier statement. [1, Arts. 148, 213, 217]
The circumstances in which a confession was made, the consistency of its details, its agreement with external facts and its relationship with other evidence are assessed. The defence should separate its objection to the truth of the earlier statement from its objection to the method by which it was obtained. The court must also justify why it attaches weight to a particular statement. Where there is no sufficient lawful evidence proving the accusation, the ground of acquittal under Article 223(2)(e) of the CMK may arise. [1, Arts. 217, 223, 230]
Scholarship has discussed the relationship between the evidential nature of a statement record as a document and its reading in order to clarify a contradiction. Pervin Aksoy İpekçioğlu, considering Articles 148(4) and 213 of the CMK together, explains that no unconditional value can be given to a police statement taken without counsel, and that reading out the record does not mean accepting the accuracy of its content. This debate requires avoiding the shortcut in practice of "there is a record, so the event has been proved". [8, pp. 72–77]
How is a statement record checked?
Article 147(1)(i) of the CMK requires the record of the place and date, the identity and status of those present, the procedural steps, the reading and signing of the record, and the reasons for any refusal to sign. The record must in particular preserve the degree of certainty expressed by the person. Writing "I do not remember" as "it did not happen", or writing "it may have been" as "I did it", changes the meaning. [1]
All pages and annexes should be read before signing. Where there is an error, it should be corrected with the correct sentence; if no correction is made, an objection and the reason for refusing to sign should be recorded. Not signing does not automatically render the act void, and signing does not mean that a claim of unlawfulness has definitely been abandoned. What is decisive is the concrete connection between the content of the record and the objection.
| Subject of check | Concrete examination | Record or request required |
|---|---|---|
| Accusation and document shown | Has the event and the whole document been understood? | Statement and request for review |
| Legal assistance | Was a preliminary meeting held and did counsel take part in the act? | Appointment and meeting times |
| Accuracy of the statement | Were the possibility, recollection and denial accurately written? | Correction or annotation sentence by sentence |
| Conditions of the act | Is there a need for breaks, medical care or an interpreter? | Examination, interpreter and break records |
| Signature and copy | Have all pages and annexes been seen? | Reason for refusal to sign and request for a copy of the record |
The use of technical recording facilities is governed by Article 147 of the CMK; it cannot be assumed that a video recording exists in every file. Where a recording exists, its preservation and examination under the relevant procedure may be requested. Where a need to take a further statement on the same event arises, under Article 148(5) of the CMK only the public prosecutor may carry out the act. The distinction in authority must not be disregarded under the heading "supplementary statement".
Children, interpreters and special defence needs
For a child, the presence of a lawyer is of particular importance. Article 15 of the Child Protection Law No. 5395 (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu) provides that the investigation of a child is carried out personally by the public prosecutor in the children's bureau. The appointment of defence counsel under Article 150 of the CMK does not depend on a request. The presence of a parent does not replace the assistance of a lawyer. The age of the child, their capacity to understand and the need for a social worker must also be taken into account. [1, 3]
In Salduz v. Türkiye, B. No: 36391/02, dated 27 November 2008, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered the use in a conviction of a police statement given by a juvenile applicant without a lawyer. It held that later legal assistance did not remedy the defect and found a violation of Article 6(1) in conjunction with Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR. The decision demonstrates the importance of legal assistance at the first stage of questioning and of the protection of children. [9, §§ 55–63]
For a suspect who does not know Turkish sufficiently to express themselves, the safeguards of Article 202 of the CMK on interpreters apply at the investigation stage. Being able to form a few everyday sentences is not the same as being able to understand the accusation and its legal consequences sufficiently. The need for an interpreter, and any error or misunderstood word in translation, must be concretely recorded. For needs relating to hearing, speech, cognitive capacity or health, appropriate assistance is also assessed so that the person can understand and express themselves. [1, Art. 202]
Why does every shortcoming in legal assistance not automatically produce a violation finding?
The evidential prohibition in domestic law and the review by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of the proceedings as a whole operate on different levels. The national court must apply the express safeguards of the CMK. In an individual application, the nature of the restriction, whether the statement obtained was used, subsequent safeguards and the applicant's concrete complaint are assessed.
In Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, B. No: 21980/04, dated 12 May 2017, the Grand Chamber examined the failure to provide access to a lawyer during approximately the first three days of custody. The majority found no violation of Article 6 of the ECHR, given that no evidence harmful to the applicant had been obtained during that period, that legal assistance was provided later and that the procedural safeguards were in place. The decision cannot be read as a general permission for questioning without a lawyer; it shows why the statement and the use of evidence in the specific file must be explained. [10, §§ 128–145]
In the decision of the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court in Orhan Patarya, B. No: 2019/42695, dated 20 May 2021, the supervision of lawyer meetings was examined under state of emergency conditions. Taking account of the limited number of meetings, the absence of any statement being taken during them, the fact that no evidence harmful to the applicant was obtained and the defence opportunities that followed, no violation was found. It should not be overlooked that the decision rests on Article 15 of the Constitution and on the extraordinary conditions of the period of emergency; it does not provide a general basis for recording lawyer meetings in ordinary times. [11, §§ 68–88]
With which documents and requests is an allegation of a rights violation raised?
An effective defence connects the problem in the act, the safeguard violated and the outcome sought. For example, for a statement taken without counsel, rather than only saying "my right of defence was violated", the date of the record, the absence of counsel, the record that it was not confirmed before a judge and the place where it was used in the reasoning of the conviction should be shown. The request then asks, under Article 148(4) of the CMK, that the statement not be relied on for judgment, followed by an assessment of the sufficiency of the remaining evidence.
| Allegation | Supporting documents | Request consistent with the allegation |
|---|---|---|
| A statement taken without counsel is being used | Statement and interrogation records, the reasoning of the decision | Not to be relied on for judgment under CMK Article 148(4) |
| Pressure or threats exist | Medical certificate, times of the act, complaint, existing records | Application of the evidential prohibition and effective investigation |
| The accusation or document cannot be understood | Access request, refusal or restriction decision | Explanation, review of the document and opportunity for preparation |
| The translation or the record is wrong | The sentence concerned, interpreter information, existing technical record | Correction, review of the record and re-performance of the act in accordance with the procedure |
There is no single independent "annulment action" or a single time limit that applies in every situation for a statement record. At the investigation stage, a concrete request may be made to the prosecution; once a case has been brought, objection is made to the use of the evidence and to the assessment in the reasoning. Objections to judicial decisions, appeal or cassation against a judgment, and an application relating to ill-treatment are different proceedings. Resorting to one does not automatically protect the time limit for another. [1, Arts. 206, 217, 230, 267 et seq.]
Where the law does not provide otherwise, the time limit for objecting to a judge's or court's decision is two weeks from learning of the decision. Under the current Articles 273 and 291 of the CMK, a two-week period from service of the reasoned judgment is provided for appeal and cassation, and the relevant remedy must be open. The transitional provisions and earlier regulation for decisions before 1 June 2024 are also examined separately. These periods should not be treated as periods within which an incorrect statement record may be waited for correction. [1, Arts. 268, 273, 291 and provisional Art. 6]
In the case of Yusuf Karakuş and Others, although a violation of the right of defence was found, the complaints of torture of some applicants were declared inadmissible because the routes of application had not been exhausted, and in other complaints there was a lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. Objecting to the use of an unlawful statement in a conviction and asking for an investigation of ill-treatment are therefore not the same application. The route and timing of each complaint must be followed separately. [7, §§ 93–108]
For further details, you may also see our article on the offence of false accusation through news and social media.
Conclusion
Effective defence in statements and interrogation begins with understanding the accusation; it continues with a real meeting with a lawyer, a conscious choice of statement and an accurate record. The right to remain silent protects a person from being compelled to incriminate themselves. If a statement is to be made, known facts, details not remembered and legal assessment must be kept distinct.
The consequences of a police statement taken without counsel and of a statement obtained by prohibited methods are different. For the former, the requirement of confirmation before a judge or court is decisive; for the latter, the prohibition on evidence, which does not lapse even with consent, is decisive. The strength of an objection lies less in repeating the name of a right than in showing which act is shown by which document and what legal outcome is sought. The defence's task at the first stage is to protect both the accurate statement and a usable objection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does going to a statement amount to accepting the accusation?
No. Complying with a summons and making a statement about the accusation are different things. A person may take part in the act and exercise the right to remain silent; not attending a properly issued summons may have separate consequences.
Can I remain silent until my lawyer arrives?
Yes. You may exercise the right not to make a statement about the accusation and have your request to meet a lawyer recorded. The duty to answer identity questions correctly continues.
Can I answer only some of the questions?
Yes. The record must correctly show which questions were not answered. Choosing which questions to answer does not remove lawful statements previously given.
What happens if I signed a statement that I did not want a lawyer?
This record does not mean that all safeguards have been waived. The conditions of mandatory defence, whether the choice was conscious and free, and Article 148(4) of the CMK for a police statement taken without counsel are each assessed separately.
Is repeating a police statement taken without counsel to the prosecutor sufficient confirmation?
Article 148(4) of the CMK requires confirmation before a judge or court. The lawfulness and evidential value of a new statement given before the prosecutor are assessed separately within their own conditions.
If the record is wrong, is it enough not to sign it?
It is not enough on its own. The wrong sentence, the correction sought and the reason for refusing to sign must be recorded. A written statement and the necessary requests should be submitted without delay, using the documents available where possible.
If I change my first statement, is the earlier record deleted?
No. The earlier record may remain in the file. The reason for the change and its evidential value are discussed; the special rules on a police statement taken without counsel and on prohibited methods also apply separately.
If the file is restricted, can I not meet my lawyer?
These two restrictions are not the same. Review of the file is governed by Article 153 of the CMK, and the guarantee of meetings by Article 154. No statement may be taken during the twenty-four-hour period in which meetings are restricted under the special conditions.
Is it enough for a child to have a mother or father present?
No. For a child without defence counsel, a lawyer is appointed without any request being required. The presence of a parent does not replace mandatory defence counsel.
Does later approval of a statement taken under pressure remedy the problem?
A statement obtained by a prohibited method cannot be treated as evidence even with consent. The conditions of any later statement, and whether it rests on free will, are examined separately.
Does a lack of legal assistance necessarily result in acquittal or release?
No. The consequence of the unlawfulness is determined by the safeguard applicable, the use of the statement, the remaining evidence and the conditions of the relevant decision. Acquittal, release and a finding of violation of rights are different assessments.
Is there a single time limit for objecting to a statement record?
No. Correction of the record, objection to evidence, objection to a judge's decision and the legal remedy against a judgment are each different. The applicable time limit must be determined separately, particularly by reference to the dates of the decision and of service.
Sources and legal bases
- Republic of Türkiye, Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2, 45, 48, 75, 91, 95, 101, 145–156, 202, 206, 213, 217, 223, 230, 267–273, 291 and provisional Art. 6. Current consolidated text.
- Republic of Türkiye, Constitution (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Arts. 17, 19, 36 and 38. Official text.
- Republic of Türkiye, Child Protection Law No. 5395 (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu), Art. 15. Current consolidated text.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Yakup Güneş, 19 March 2024, B. No: 2019/15907, §§ 57–64. Decision.
- European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Beuze v. Belgium, 9 November 2018, No: 71409/10, §§ 133–136, 193–195. HUDOC.
- Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 10. Ceza Dairesi), 2 April 2024, E. 2023/22512, K. 2024/17328, III–IV. Full text on UYAP.
- Constitutional Court First Section (Anayasa Mahkemesi Birinci Bölüm), Yusuf Karakuş and Others, 8 December 2016, B. No: 2014/12002, §§ 81–84, 93–108. Decision.
- Aksoy İpekçioğlu, Pervin, "The Importance and Evidential Value of a Statement Taken in Custody" ("Gözaltında Alınan İfadenin Önemi ve Delil Değeri"), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2008, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 51–82; in particular pp. 72–77. Article.
- European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Salduz v. Türkiye, 27 November 2008, No: 36391/02, §§ 55–63. HUDOC.
- European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, 12 May 2017, No: 21980/04, §§ 128–145. HUDOC.
- Constitutional Court General Assembly (Anayasa Mahkemesi Genel Kurulu), Orhan Patarya, 20 May 2021, B. No: 2019/42695, §§ 68–88. Decision.