In short
A foreign accused's right to defence counsel is not carried to a statute separate from a Turkish accused's right to defence counsel. The right is read from the defence-counsel record of criminal procedure. The difference that being a foreigner adds is the language line and consular notice. A tactic of choosing defence counsel is not in this text. A day and an article number are not written.
The right does not go to another statute because the person is a foreigner
Defence counsel is not treated as having been born from the foreigners statute because the accused is of foreign nationality. Defence assistance is the right to defence counsel in criminal procedure. The nationality box does not carry this right to an article of another statute. An article number is not poured out here either. The stay, border, and permit provisions in the foreigners statute are not read as the source of defence assistance.
The place this page separates is not that defence counsel is never present for a foreign accused. The place it separates is the language record of the statement, and consular notice in detention. The two records are not stuck in place of the right to defence counsel. If one is blank, the other will not have closed that gap. If both are full, the right to defence counsel is not treated as having fallen. The right is not narrowed by being tied to the existence of those two lines.
The reading between a Turkish accused and a foreign accused is not in the name of the right. It is in the side lines of the paper. One does not say the principal right is also absent because a side line is absent. The principal right is read from the place where the defence counsel's name and the request sentence stand. The side lines stand separately. Their standing separately does not make one the condition of the other.
The defence counsel's name is looked for in the minute
The minute should show the defence counsel's name, whether they were present, and the accused's request. If the name is blank, one does not say defence counsel was in the room. If it is written that the person did not want it, that sentence is read. A request that is not on the paper is not completed as if it had been added to the petition later. The name in a later petition is not written back into the blank box of the earlier minute.
The sentence that they were present and the name sentence are separate. If it says they were present and the name was not written, the question of who was present is open. If the name is written and that they were not present is marked separately, the mark is read. If there is no mark, absence is not produced from the absence of the name. If the two pieces of information are side by side in the minute, both are left. One does not swallow the other.
If there is more than one accused, each accused's defence-counsel line is looked for beside their own name. Another accused's defence counsel does not pass into this accused's box by themselves. If a shared name was written, the sharing is read from that sentence. If there is no sentence, a shared defence counsel is not assumed. If the list of representatives is on the file cover, the cover does not close the gap in the minute by itself. If the cover and the minute conflict, the conflict is not removed by being erased.
The appointment writing and the name that was chosen
If an appointment writing stands in the file, it is read from there. Being a foreigner is not written into this text as the condition of the appointment. A list of conditions is not lined up with article numbers. The list is in the appointment writing in hand. If there is no writing, a condition is not invented. If the appointment and the name the accused chose are not the same person, whichever the minute shows is the name that is read.
The chosen name and the appointed name can stand in the file at the same time. Their standing does not mean both were present at that hearing. The one who was present is on the hearing line of the minute. The writing shows that the appointment was made. The minute shows who was present at the hearing. One is not put in the other's place. If the date of the appointment writing differs from the date of the hearing, the dates are read apart. Being early or late does not declare a loss of right on this page.
If there is a sentence in which the accused wrote that they did not want it, that sentence stands. Not wanting it is not turned into a result that the right to defence counsel fell from the statute. The result is read from there only if it is written separately in the minute or in the decision. If it is not written, this text does not add a waiver. If the word waiver does not appear, the word is not produced. The name in the bar writing does not erase the accused's request sentence.
A language record and a notice note are not the defence box
The interpreter box is not the defence-counsel box. Defence counsel who knows the language is not treated as having become the interpreter before the translator's name is written. If the language of the statement, the translator's name, and the language line stand, they are read from that line. This page does not turn how that box is filled into a path of a statement. How the translator would be directed is not written either.
If one of the two boxes is blank, the other does not close the gap. If both are full, each is read with its own name. If two capacities were written for the same person, whatever the paper says is what stands. If the paper is silent, the capacities are not joined. Joining them would make defence assistance translation, and translation defence. The two tasks stay apart unless they are written expressly in the same sentence.
A consular officer is not the accused's defence counsel. Notice having been given does not mean defence assistance was given. The notice is not a release decision, and it is not an acquittal decision. This text does not promise an acquittal. The court does not read the consulate's writing as its own judgment. If the writing is in the file, it stands as a writing. The decision is the court's own text. If there is no text, a result is not built from the notice line. The notice line being blank does not erase the defence counsel's name either.
Administrative documents do not build the defence-counsel record
A residence card, a passport, and a work-permit document are not the minute of defence assistance. These documents show the person's stay or work record. The end day of the card is not written as the day defence counsel was present. Non-extension of a residence permit is the notification belonging to an extension request. The notification does not give birth to a defence counsel's name. Refusal of a work permit is a separate administrative writing as well. The ground of the refusal is not stuck onto the defence box.
A removal decision does not take the place of the defence-counsel record in the criminal file. If the decision was served, objection to a removal decision is read from its own text. Being the addressee of an administrative decision is not treated as having filled the defence-counsel line. If a lawyer's name appears in the decision, that name belongs to the paper it appears on. If it is not the same as the name in the criminal minute, the two names stand as two records. One is not treated as having corrected the other.
An administrative-detention document is not the defence-counsel line of criminal detention either. If the title is administrative, the title is read as administrative. If the title is criminal detention, the defence counsel's name is looked for in that detention minute. The two titles can stand on the same person. Their standing does not create a single defence paper. Each title asks for its own name line.
A selection tactic is not in this writing
Which lawyer will be chosen, how the bar appointee will be turned away, or how the choice will lengthen the investigation is not narrated. The choice is the request that appears in the minute. A preference that does not appear is not added later with a strategy sentence. Committing an offence, and flight, are not the subject of this record either. The words with which the request will be built are not given as a list.
The district where the office stands does not change the statute of the right to defence counsel. The competent authority is read from the summons paper and the title of the minute. If there is no title, an authority name is not chosen from this page. The place in criminal procedure is the criminal law page. A foreigner's administrative matters stand apart from the international law page. If there is a minute, the assessment is made through contact over that name line. While there is no name line, a result is not built from nationality.
If the chosen defence counsel's bar registration number stands in the minute, the number is from that line. If there is no number, a registration is not added beside the name from memory. If the spelling of the name and the spelling on the identity differ, the difference is not closed. The two spellings stand like two records. Which one is the same person is read from there if the minute writes it. If it does not, this page does not make a joining.
If there is a defence counsel's name on the summons paper, the name is on the summons's own line. If the name on the summons and the name in the hearing minute differ, both are left. The summons does not prove presence at the hearing by itself. Presence is the sentence of the hearing minute. If there is no sentence, the name on the summons is not read as having been in the room. If the service annotation belongs to the summons, the annotation does not fill the defence-counsel box.
Whether the power of attorney stands in the file is a separate trace as well. If there is a power of attorney, its own date and the scope sentence are read. If the scope mentions the criminal file, the mention stands as far as it was written. If there is no power of attorney, the appointment writing does not take the place of the power of attorney. If the appointment is not a power of attorney either, the two stay with separate names. Foreign nationality does not add a power-of-attorney condition to this text. The list of conditions is still not written. Building the list with article numbers would be treating a writing that is not in hand as existing.
Conclusion
A foreign accused's right to defence counsel does not go to a statute separate from a Turkish accused. The difference is in the language record and consular notice. The appointment writing and the name at the hearing are read apart. Residence, a work permit, and a removal decision do not fill the defence box. A path of selection is not written. A period is not frozen in this text. There is no article number either. Defence assistance is within the frame of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. Administrative foreigner status is read from the text of the Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, and it is not put in place of the right to defence counsel.