In short
An interpreter at a statement to the prosecutor is the translation of the statement of a person who does not understand Turkish well enough. A signature placed without understanding later produces an argument of "I did not say that." The language barrier is had written on the record. No prison term is set out in this article. The interpreter is not the court's judgment.
How the language barrier is written
If a suspect, a witness, or a victim says they do not understand Turkish well enough, that need appears on the record. If it does not appear, a language barrier told later does not stand in for the record at the time of the session. Which language was spoken, whether a translation was made, and that the statement was understood in that language are separate lines. If one of the lines is empty, the others do not fill that gap by themselves.
The general course of a statement at the prosecutor's office sits in the statement at the prosecutor's office article. The face of the record sits in the statement record article. The subject of this page is the translation line. If capacities are mixed, the separation of suspect, witness, and victim sits in the difference of capacity article. Capacity does not by itself finish whether a translation is needed. The same language barrier may be read in all three capacities.
A relative and an official interpreter
An official or sworn interpreter is preferred. A relative of a party may not be suitable in every event. If the relative lived the event themselves, translation and testimony mix. The mix is not resolved without it being written on the record who translated. If the translator's name is absent, the words "my relative translated" do not stand in for the document. The document is the translator's name and the language in which the statement was taken.
If the translation was reflected wrongly, a correction is asked for before the signature. If the correction is entered on the paper, the sentence that was entered is what speaks. If it is not entered, a sentence said later conflicts with the written line. The conflict is not treated as absent. Even so, the conflict does not throw the whole record away in every file. If there is no second copy or audio recording, the deleted word is not invented. A word that was not invented is not written in place of the remaining signed sentences.
How the translation is separated
It is looked at whether the translation note and the signed Turkish record belong to the same statement. An interpreter being present does not by itself fix a prison term. The address of the Çankaya office does not change the prosecutor's office where the statement was taken, or the competent authority. The authority is read from the summons and the heading of the record.
Counsel is not an interpreter
Counsel sees to help with the defence. The interpreter translates the language. The two are not the same person. The interpreter line is not treated as filled because counsel knows the language. The separation sits in the defence counsel article. If counsel was not in the session, that absence is a separate line. If the interpreter is there and counsel is not, the two gaps are not written in each other's place.
A refusal to sign and a language barrier are not the same note either. If the person says they understood the text but did not sign, the refusal is written separately. If it was not written, a refusal is not assumed. If they did not sign because they did not understand, the failure to understand is also written separately. If the two sentences are squeezed onto one line, which of them was said is lost. The petition marks which line remained incomplete. The mark does not erase the opposing account.
The sentence that was understood
The record is kept in Turkish. If the language the person understands is another, the sentence they understood and the sentence that was written may not be the same. Whether they are the same is read from the translation note. If the note says "it was translated" and does not write which language, what is incomplete is not the outcome but the language line. If service arrived in Turkish, whether the service was understood is a separate question too. Service does not change the content of the statement. The judgment is built from the line debated at the hearing.
Preparation sits in the before giving a statement article. Preparation does not by itself prove that the translation was reflected correctly. The proof is the translation line on the session record. If the line is absent, a translation in memory is not treated as a document. A judgment is not built from a line that is not there.
If the translator's signature is absent, the translation note remains incomplete. An incomplete note does not mean the statement was never made. If the statement stands on the Turkish line, that line is read. If it is not also written that the line that was read is the same as the language that was understood, sameness is not assumed. A sameness that was not assumed is not built as an allegation in the petition. If it is to be built, which word was translated wrongly is marked. Without a mark, the allegation stays general and the whole record is not erased.
Conclusion
An interpreter at a statement to the prosecutor is the record of the language in which the statement was understood. A relative's translation is not enough in every file. An Ankara lawyer does not take the translation and the signature as the same line. The frame is on the criminal law page. There is no promise of an outcome.
The basis is the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.