In short
The confidentiality restriction is the reason the suspect cannot see the file with defence counsel. Until the restriction is lifted, UYAP looks empty. An empty screen does not mean the investigation was never opened. The route of getting around the restriction is not recounted in this article.
The place of the empty list on the screen
The place looked at on UYAP is the document list under the investigation or the file identity. If the list is empty, the screen means that it is not showing a content line at that moment. The emptiness is the result of the restriction at that moment. The emptiness is not evidence that the principal number does not exist. If the number is written on another paper, that writing is taken as the basis. If there is no writing, a number is not produced.
If an investigation number appears at the top of the screen and the list underneath stays empty, the two lines are read separately. The number is the identity of the file. The list is whether the documents appear. The identity standing while the list is empty does not mean the file was never opened. If the identity is not there either, the identity is not completed from the emptiness. The screen image shows the moment it was looked at. The image does not show that the restriction was lifted. If the same screen has filled the next day, the filling is the result of the new look. Yesterday's image does not erase today's list.
A file that does not open in the suspect's own access is not read from someone else's screen. Someone else's password is not an authorised look. The opening of a record for which there is no authority is not recounted. What is read is the line that appears in the person's own access, or in the file defence counsel is authorised for. If there is no line, a line is not added.
On an investigation screen that appears in Ankara as well, the authority is the prosecution office or the court in the heading of the paper. If the institution name on the screen and the heading of the paper in hand conflict, what is read is the heading of the paper. The screen does not make a province that is not written in the heading the competent one.
The restriction decision's own paper
The restriction may be put, in the investigation stage, by a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace. The name of the judgeship stands at the top of the decision. Under the name, the investigation number and the date of the decision are looked for. The lines that are read are the authority, the date, and the investigation the restriction was tied to. If the decision is not in hand, the empty screen does not complete these lines. The prosecutor's sentence "it is confidential, you cannot see it" is not a decision of the judgeship. The word does not stand in for the decision.
The operative sentence of the decision writes that the examination of the file was restricted. The sentence also writes which investigation it was tied to. If another number is not in this sentence, that number is not treated as restricted. If there is no sentence, a restriction is not assumed. An empty screen on its own does not produce a decision of the judgeship. If the decision and the screen stand together, the two are read side by side. If the numbers do not agree, the disagreement is not closed.
If an end is written in the decision, that writing is read. The end may stand as a date, or as by which act the restriction will be lifted. If there is no end, a day is not added. If the end date appears to have passed, the passing is confirmed with a new decision in hand. If there is no new decision, the end is not treated as lifted of itself. The signature is the signature of the judge who gave the decision. If the signature line is empty, a signature is not added.
The reasoning of the restriction may have been written with a sentence of the sound running of the investigation, or a similar sentence. The reasoning sentence does not recount the content of the documents. A document name is not drawn out of the reasoning. If the document name is not in the decision, it is not added. The reasoning is not a sentence of acquittal or of non-prosecution either. This decision does not build the result of the investigation.
The same door for defence counsel and the suspect
The restriction does not leave a window closed to the suspect and open to defence counsel. Defence counsel cannot examine the content of the file for this reason while the restriction stands either. Not being able to examine does not mean counsel was never appointed. The appointment is a separate writing. The counsel's name and the investigation number stand in the writing. If the number is the same as the number in the restriction decision, it is the same file. If it is different, the two files are not mixed.
Seeing the documents is separate. The appointment does not fill the list. Counsel is not treated as having opened the screen, while the restriction stands, by saying "I am appointed". A list that does not open does not show the invalidity of the appointment either. The two papers stand with their own result. The rights in the statement session are in the article before giving a statement. The day count of police custody is not drawn from this empty screen. If the statement minutes are in hand, the minutes are not read in the place of the restriction decision. The minutes are the record of the statement. The restriction is the record of the file not being seen.
The suspect may give counsel a copy of the restriction decision. The copy is a copy of the decision. The authority, the date, and the number are read in the copy. If the copy is incomplete, the missing page is not completed from memory. Counsel does not build the document list from the copy. The list appears on the screen, or in the file, after the restriction is lifted.
The list that opens after the restriction is lifted
The lifting of the restriction is an act of the authority that put the decision. The suspect does not apply a method that would fill the list. If the lifting is written in a new decision or in the file record, that writing is read. If there is a date of lifting in the writing, the date is read. If there is no date, a date is not added. If there is no writing of lifting, the list is not treated as filled.
The documents appearing after the restriction is lifted does not mean the investigation ended, or that an acquittal was given. The appearing is the moment access opened. The names of minutes, documents, and statements may stand on the list that opened. Each name is its own line. A record that is not on the line is not added. The list filling does not mean every document on the list gave rise to a result for or against. The result is looked for in the investigation decision or in the indictment. If that paper is not there, a result is not assumed.
When the list opens, the first thing looked at is whether the investigation number is the same as the number in the restriction decision. If it is not the same, the list of another file may be being read. If the number does not agree, the list is not tied as the file whose restriction was lifted. If there is agreement, the document names are read one by one. If there is a date beside the name, the date is read. If there is no date, the day of the document is not derived from the day the list opened.
A summons and a complaint not lifting the restriction
The remaining order of the investigation is in the article a prosecution investigation. A summons document is not read in the place of the restriction decision. The place of the summons is in the article a summons from the prosecution office. If a day and a place are written in the summons, those lines show when the statement was asked for. The summons does not open the document list. The suspect may not have seen the file while going to the summons. Not having seen it does not erase the summons itself. The two papers stand separately.
The complaint petition does not lift the restriction either. The place of the application is in the article I was complained of. If a copy of the complaint stands in the suspect's hand, that copy is the text the complainant wrote. The copy is not the whole of the investigation file. If the restriction keeps the other documents in the file closed, the copy does not stand in for those documents. Being the complainant does not open the list either. The list does not fill before the restriction is lifted.
If police minutes are in hand, the minutes are read with their own heading. The minutes are not a copy of the confidentiality decision. "The file is confidential" being written at the end of the minutes does not stand in for the decision of the judgeship. The decision of the judgeship is a separate paper. The sentence in the minutes stands only as the minutes' own record.
The screen image and the copy of the decision
If you have both the image of the empty screen and a copy of the restriction decision, put the two side by side. The date on the image is the moment the screen was looked at. The date of the decision is the day the restriction was put. The two dates do not have to be the same. If an investigation number is read on the image, this number is compared with the number in the decision. If the numbers are different, the image is not tied as the file of this decision. If there is no number on the image, the number of the decision is not written onto the image.
If a system sentence such as "no record was found", or a similar one, stands on the image, the sentence says that the list did not come at the moment it was looked at. The sentence does not say the investigation was not opened. The sentence is not the text of the restriction decision either. The operative sentence in the copy of the decision is taken as the basis. If the copy is a missing page, the missing page is not completed from the screen sentence. If there is no copy at all, only the image stands. The image alone does not produce an authority and a date.
If counsel's screen and the suspect's screen are empty at the same time, this is two looks showing that the restriction closed both. If one is full and one is empty, with which authority the full screen was opened is read from the record of that look. If there is no record, the full screen is not counted, on its own, as evidence that the restriction was lifted. The two images are kept with their own time. One does not stand in for the other.
Conclusion
An empty UYAP is the state of the confidentiality restriction on the screen. The suspect and defence counsel cannot see the file for this reason before the restriction is lifted. If the authority, the date, and the investigation number are not in the decision, these lines are not completed from the empty screen. The list that opens after the restriction is lifted does not mean the investigation ended. If the restriction decision, or the record of the empty screen, stands, the assessment is made on that record through contact. The general place of access to investigation documents is the criminal law page. The basis is the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code numbered 5271.