In short
The right to telephone calls in prison is a limited means of contact with relatives, inside a registered line fixed by the institution and inside its written rule. It is not an unlimited right to call, and it does not stand in for a family visit or for a face-to-face meeting with a lawyer. The period and the article number are not tied to a figure in this text. No conclusion is reached before the institution's writing, and the decision about that person, have been seen.
A telephone call is understood when the registered number, the line the institution allows, and the rule applied to that person are read together. A number whose holder is not on the list is not called as if it were on the list. A claim about a charge or a quota also comes out of the institution's document. This text does not write a quota. A limit that is not in the document is not filled in with a sentence remembered later. If the list and the institution's writing conflict, the conflicting line is not closed with a general ban.
The registered line and the institution's rule
The numbers to be called are notified to the institution and enter the institution's record. A line that is not on the record is not written as contact with a relative. The institution's written rule shows which contact is open. If the rule and the practice served on the person conflict, the two documents are read side by side. The conflict is not closed with a sentence of general prohibition. The minutes may also show, separately, whether the contact took place.
A registered line does not mean that every call is free. The institution applies the frame in its own writing. That frame is not frozen in this text as a number of minutes or days. The period is read from the institution's document. When there is no document, a frequency is not invented, and an article number is not added either. The application separates which rule was shown.
A visit is not a copy of the telephone
A face-to-face meeting with the family sits in the family visit record. The distinction between an open visit and a closed visit sits in the open and closed visits record. The telephone is not put in place of those visits. The visit day is not treated as completed by telephone. A restriction on the telephone does not mean that the visit has of itself been lifted as well. Each step is read from its own document.
The prohibitions looked for during a visit sit in the visit prohibitions record. A prohibition is not declared to be a ban on visits without being attached to the telephone minutes. The petition does not dissolve the two steps in the same sentence. The decision shows which right was restricted, by the name in the document. If there is no name, a restriction is not assumed.
A meeting with a lawyer is a separate safeguard
A face-to-face meeting between a convicted prisoner, or a person in pre-trial detention, and defence counsel sits in the meeting with a lawyer record. The telephone is not a substitute for that meeting. The counsel's line and the relatives' line are not treated as the same list. The institution does not of itself carry a rule it applied to a relative's number over to the meeting with counsel. Which line was used is read from the record in the document.
A claim that the meeting was listened to depends on a concrete writing of the institution. Without that writing, one does not conclude that every call was listened to. If the writing is there, the period and the article number are still not added from this text. The claim is read as limited to the scope of the decision in hand. A ban outside that scope is not of itself written into the petition.
The restriction decision is read from the document
A claim that the telephone was limited for a disciplinary or security reason is read from the decision about that person. If there is no decision, a limitation is not assumed. If there is a decision, which contact it covers comes out of the text of the decision. The decision does not of itself take the family visit, or the meeting with a lawyer, inside the same ban. The three steps are three documents.
A lawyer in Ankara separates, from the institution's decision, the fact that the office being in Çankaya does not change the competent authority. The office in Çankaya does not choose the penal institution, or the place a complaint will go. The name of the district does not stand in for the place where the institution is. The competent authority is read from the step's own rule. The office address does not produce a period or an article number.
Where the telephone record is read from
The right to telephone calls in prison is read from the institution's written rule and from the decision about that person. The telephone is not put in place of a family visit or a meeting with a lawyer, and the period is not fixed in this text. An article number is not written, and a disciplinary decision is not of itself widened to a ban that is not in the document.
Conclusion
The right to telephone calls in prison is a limited contact inside a registered line and the institution's rule. A visit and a meeting with a lawyer are separate doors. The period and the article number are not written. The frame sits on the criminal law page. The basis is the text of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271.