In short
Attendance by video is not the same act as being in the courtroom. The request and the record are separate. The request does not open the connection by itself. The record writes who connected from where, and in which interval. A connection that was not written is not treated as attendance. Device setup, and a route of missing the hearing, are not on this page.
Acceptance stands on the record line
SEGBIS is the sound and image of the hearing being transmitted from the institution's system. The accused or defence counsel may ask to attend by this route instead of being in the courtroom. The request stands in the petition or in the word that passed into the record. Before the court accepts, the place of the hearing has not changed. Acceptance wants a separate interim decision or a record line. The day the petition was filed is not the day of acceptance. If there is no acceptance line, the connection is not treated as opened. Being told orally that it is all right does not stand in for the interim decision.
For a detained accused, the connection may be made from the institution where they are. The name of the institution is read from the paper about the detention or about where they are. If there is no name, the institution is not filled with a building that is remembered. This setup does not make the free accused's home a studio. For a free accused, the point is the place the court accepted. While there is no acceptance, it is not said I connected from home. If the acceptance writes a courthouse or an institution, the place that was written is put in place of the home address. The courtroom and the hour stay on the summons paper for the person who will go to the courtroom and for the counsel who will stand in the courtroom. The reading of that paper is in the article on a hearing summons. The courtroom on the summons does not fall away while there is no acceptance line.
A summons that comes in the capacity of a witness is not the accused's request for video. The witness's own paper is in the article on a witness summons. The accused's witness list does not stand in for this request either. The list is in a separate article. That a name is on the list does not mean that person was heard by video. The hearing is read from the attendance line on the hearing record.
The act that stays incomplete on the screen
A document shown in the courtroom may not fall on the screen with the same clarity. The witness's face may not be read the same on the screen as it is in the courtroom. The person says at that moment that they could not follow the document or the account. Saying it is needed for it to pass into the record. A complaint that did not pass does not spoil the attendance entry by itself afterwards. Whichever sentence the complaint passed into the record with, that sentence is read. While there is no sentence, a claim of "I did not see the document" does not erase the attendance line. If the name of the document that was shown is written on the record, the name is carried from that line. If there is no name, which paper was shown is not guessed.
Attending by video is not having done the same of every act in the courtroom. Identity is verified by the officer at the connection point. This page does not give the steps of that verification. If a record to be signed is in the courtroom, the word on the screen does not pass in place of the signature by itself. Where which paper was signed is read from the record. If the place of the signature is blank, the gap is not filled as if it had been said from the screen. If the word that was said passed into the record, it stands in the state in which it passed. A word that did not pass is not pasted in place of the signature.
If more than one person appears from the same connection, and the record separates who spoke, that separation is read. If it does not separate, the petition writes that the separation is not on the record. A separation that is not there is not completed afterwards by adding a name. The authority that accepted the connection in Ankara is the court in the heading of the record. An image opened in another courtroom is not the record of this heading.
A confidential meeting is not the hearing line
If the accused connects from the institution while counsel is in the courtroom, the open hearing line is not a private conversation. If confidentiality is wanted, it is asked for separately. The request does not mix into the hearing record. If there is no separate record, the meeting is not treated as held. A meeting treated as held is not treated as having completed the defence either. Whether the request was accepted is read from a separate line. While there is no acceptance line, it is not said we met. If the interval in which the meeting was held is written, the interval is carried from that writing. If there is no interval, a period is not added.
This separation does not tell which button opens the device. A room, a password, and an application name are not in this text. There is also no route of knowingly dropping the connection in order to miss the hearing. A connection that did not drop, if it stands on the record as attendance, is not read as absence. The result of a connection that never opened stands in the writing of absence. The open line closing does not mean the confidential meeting was held. The two acts want separate records. If one of the records is absent, the other is not read in its place.
Counsel being ready in the courtroom does not mean the accused was ready by video either. The accused's attendance is read from the line on which their own name passes. Counsel's name is not put in place of the accused's line. If there is no accused line, it is not said the accused attended. The lawyer's statement does not pass in place of the accused's examination by itself. Whether the examination was made is seen from the question and answer lines on the record.
A dropped connection is not a setup guide
If the connection is cut, the cut is written in the record. The court may adjourn the hearing because of the cut. An adjournment does not arise by itself on every drop. If the record says attendance continued, it is read as continued. A sentence of "I did not attend" does not erase this line. If the hour of the cut is written, the hour is taken from that line. If there is no hour, an hour is not invented. If it is written that the hearing continued after the cut, the interval in which it continued is read separately. The interval is not melted into a single sentence as if the cut had never happened.
A setup instruction is not given. Which programme will be installed, which room will be set aside, and how the connection will be concealed are not the subject of this page. A claim of a fault is tied to the cut entry on the record. While there is no entry, it is not said there is a fault. Even if there is, this saying it exists does not mean the hearing was never held. What was done is read from that page of the record. If a new day was given, the new day is on the adjournment line on the record. While there is no line, it is not said the hearing was adjourned. An adjournment does not write the courtroom and the hour of the next summons by itself either. If the new summons is a separate paper, that paper is read.
The attendance interval is not the whole hearing
If the record writes at which hour the connection opened and closed, the interval is from those lines. The interval may be shorter than the hour the hearing began. A short interval does not have the person treated as having attended the whole of the hearing. If the interval was not written, it is not said they connected for the whole hearing. If the opening hour of the hearing and the hour of the connection differ, the two are read separately. The difference stands in the petition as two hours. If one of the hours is faint, the faint one is not completed.
If the connection was opened only for counsel and not for the accused, and the record writes this separation, the separation is kept. A sentence of attended in the accused's name is not produced from counsel's line. If the accused was kept waiting at the institution but did not connect, and this state stands separately on the record, it is written with the sentence in which it stands. If it does not stand, it is not added as kept waiting. Keeping waiting is not attendance by video. If the request was written for one hearing, the request does not cover the next hearing by itself. If there is no acceptance line at the next hearing, the old request is not treated as that day's attendance. Each hearing's record carries its own attendance line. If it does not carry the line, it is not said they stood by video for that hearing.
If the place that was accepted is an institution, the name of the institution is carried as it is written on the record. If the name is abbreviated, the abbreviation is not expanded. If the explanation stands on the institution's letterheaded paper, it is read from that paper. While there is no paper, the institution's full trade name is not added. A claim that the sound was not heard is tied to the same rule. If the word that it was not heard passed into the record, the sentence that passed is read. If it did not pass, the attendance line is not rewritten as heard or not heard. If the court asked that the connection be made again and this request stands on the record, the request is carried from its own line. While there is no request, it is not said the connection was renewed. If the connection was made again, and the second interval is written separately on the record, it is read separately. If it is not written, a single cut is not multiplied as two attendances. If the second interval has no hour, the hour is not copied from the first interval. If the hearing read a document in this interval, and the name of the document that was read stands beside that interval, it is carried as it stands. If the name is on another page, the page is written. If there is no page, the document is not completed as read in this interval. If the hour attendance ended and the hour the hearing closed do not stand on the same line, the two are not joined. If the closing hour is not on the record, it is said it is not there. If the accused's last word was taken in this interval, the word that was taken is the sentence on the record. While there is no sentence, it is not said the last word was spoken.
Conclusion
The request stands in the file, and attendance stands separately on the record. It is not said there is attendance by video before the two join. A record that has joined does not have every act in the courtroom treated as done. A document that could not be shown, and a confidential meeting that could not be held, are not completed inside the open line. While the drop is not on the record, a sentence of "I did not attend" does not erase the entry. The frame is on the criminal law page. The basis is the provisions on attending by sound and image of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.