In short
An interpreter for a foreign accused is written into the minute of the hearing at which the statement was taken, with the name and the language that was translated. If the interpreter's name is missing, the language of the statement cannot be read from that minute. This gap does not mean the statement was never said. A day and an article number are not written. A statement tactic, and misleading the interpreter, are not in this text.
If the name line is blank, the language is not read
The first trace looked for in the minute is the name of the person who translated. If the name box is blank, which language the statement was taken in cannot be built from that paper. A sentence said after the hearing, "there was an interpreter", does not fill the blank line. If Turkish sentences stand on the paper, those sentences stand. Their standing does not show by itself in which language they were built.
The accused being of foreign nationality does not have the translation line counted as full in every minute. The place that is read is not the nationality box. It is the translation box. If it was written that Turkish was sufficient at that hearing, the sentence that was written is read. A sufficiency that was not written is not completed as if it had been added later. If the sufficiency sentence is reported from another person's mouth, the reporter's name must also stand on the same paper. If there is no name, the sufficiency stays as rumour.
There can be more than one minute in the same file. A statement minute, an interrogation minute, and a hearing minute are separate papers. A name being written in one does not fill the blank box in the other. Each hearing is read from its own line. The translator of the earlier hearing is not carried to the later hearing before the name is written. Reading it as if it had been carried is treating a line that does not exist as existing.
The name being written does not build the language box by itself either. If the name stands, the translator is known. If the language is blank, which language was translated is not drawn from the name existing. If both boxes are full, the language of the statement is read from these two. If one is missing, the missing one is not completed with the box that stands. Filling the missing box with the nationality on the file cover is counting nationality and language as the same thing. Nationality does not say the language by itself.
The language box stands apart from the name box
The language box is a box separate from the name box. Writing the name and leaving the language blank, and writing the language and leaving the name blank, are not the same gap. In the first, the translator is known and the language is not known. In the second, a language appears written and the translator is not known. Neither builds the language of the statement by itself. For it to be built, both lines are looked for as standing on that hearing's paper.
The minute is kept in Turkish. If the language the accused spoke is another language, the sentence they understood and the sentence that was written are tied separately on the same paper. The tie is the language box itself. If there is no tie, the two texts are not accepted as the same. If a note in the accused's own language was attached, the note is read as part of the minute it was attached to. If the note belongs to another day, it is not stuck onto that day's paper. If there is no date, the note is not made a language box before it is known which hearing it belongs to.
Which word was conveyed wrongly is not listed on this page. If the mark is in a marginal note of the minute, it is read from there. If there is no note, a word is not invented. If it is said later that the translation stayed incomplete, this word is read only if it stands in the minute or on an objection line belonging to the same hearing. If the word is not in the minute, the language of the statement is not rewritten according to this word. Rewriting it would be putting a second statement in place of the minute.
If more than one language name was written, the names that were written stand. If which one is the principal language is stated separately on the line, that statement is read. If there is no statement, this text does not choose one language in the other's place. The choice is not made with a guess that is not in hand. If the language spoken inside the family and the language translated at the hearing were not written in the same sentence, they are not counted as the same language.
Whichever hearing's paper it is, that hearing is read
The statement belongs to the minute of the hearing at which it was taken. A later petition does not fill that hearing's translation box retrospectively. Writing in the petition that there was an interpreter does not make the blank box in the minute full. The petition is on its own date. The minute is on its own date. The dates are placed side by side. One does not produce the other's line.
A prosecutor or judge title does not show that the translation box was filled. The title shows before which authority the hearing was held. If the authority name stands, the authority is read from there. If there is no authority name, the authority is not completed from the file cover from memory. The translation box is still read from its own box. If it was not written that the authority and the translator are the same person, they are not counted as the same person. The clerk's signature is not the translator's signature either. The clerk line belongs to the person who wrote the hearing.
If there is more than one copy of the minute, a signed copy conforming to the original is looked for. If the name line was cut off on a photocopy, the cut copy does not prove that the name exists. If the full copy is in hand, the full copy is read. If the two copies conflict, the conflict is not removed by erasing one. Each copy is left with its own visible line. A line that is not visible is not said to have been on the original by being copied from the other copy. If an audio or video record is mentioned in the file, the mention does not take the place of the translation box. If a transcript of the record was written separately, the transcript is read from its own page. If there is no transcript, the minute is not completed from the record.
A relative's translation is not a document before the name is written
The translator can be an appointed interpreter, a relative, or another person. Whatever the capacity, the name must stand on the line. The word "my relative translated" does not take the place of a document before the name is written. Whether the relative also saw the event themselves, and whether translation and testimony were mixed, is also asked from that line. If there is no line, neither mixing nor not mixing is built from the minute.
The translator's signature is a separate trace. If there is no signature, the name line can stay incomplete. A missing signature is not a judgment that the statement was never made. What is not built is tying a language to a translation that has no name. If there is a signature and no name, the signature does not take the place of the name by itself. If there is a name and no signature, the name stands and the missing signature is seen separately. If both are missing, the translation box is blank.
The relative being a member of a profession does not fill the appointed-interpreter box before the name is written. If an oath or an appointment document stands in the file, that document is read with its own name. If there is no document, an oath is not treated as having been taken. The oath record does not close the gap of the language box. The language box is still looked for in the minute. If the name on the appointment document and the name in the minute differ, the two names stand like two persons. Which one translated at that hearing is not chosen from this page if the minute is silent.
The defence counsel's name and an identity card do not fill the translation box
Defence counsel is the name of the defence assistance. The interpreter is the name of the language. The translation box is not treated as full because defence counsel knows the same language. If the two tasks were written in the same person, the minute is read that way. If they were not written, one capacity does not complete the other. This page does not describe the path of choosing defence counsel. The choice is the subject of the defence record. The translation box is not the short name of that record.
A consular officer being in the room does not fill the translation box either. The notice line is the paper of the notification request. The notice is not the language of the statement. If the officer translated, this is read from there only if the name was written in the interpreter box. If it was not written, being in the room does not mean a translation was made. Whether the notice went is not read from the language box either.
A residence card, a passport, and a foreigner identity number show who the person is. These documents are not the translation box. Even if the card's term has ended, this state does not fill, or erase, the name line in the minute by itself. Non-extension of a residence permit is a separate notification. Refusal of a work permit is a separate notification as well. Neither builds the language of the statement. The ground of a refusal, or of non-extension, is not stuck on as the language spoken at the hearing.
A removal decision is not the translation line of the statement minute either. If the decision was served, objection to a removal decision is read from its own paper. The text of the administrative decision does not show in which language the accused made a statement. If it does not show it, this page does not add a language. The nationality wording in the decision does not take the place of the blank language box in the minute.
Misleading the translation is not the subject of this record
This text does not explain what the accused will say, which sentence will be had built for the interpreter, or how the translation will be misled. Committing the offence, and flight, are not here either. The subject is whether the name line and the language line stand on that hearing's paper. The language of the statement cannot be said before the line stands. If the line stands, this page does not judge whether the statement is true or false either. A judgment is not a guess outside the minute.
The path of removing a misunderstanding is not a tactic list either. A correction is read from there if it is written in the minute, or on a line tied to the same hearing. If it is not written, a correction is not invented from this page. A ready sentence pattern is not given to the reader. A pattern would take the place of the statement. The statement is the sentence that stands in the minute. How the sentence will be built, which word will be chosen, and how the translator will be misled are not written.
A foreigner's administrative status does not fill the translation box of the statement minute by itself. The frame in criminal procedure stands on the criminal law page, and the administrative foreigner record stands on the international law page. If the minute is in hand, the reading is made through contact over that paper. While there is no paper, the language is not completed from nationality.
Conclusion
If the interpreter's name is not in the minute, the language of the foreign accused's statement cannot be read. If the language box is also blank, the gap is added to the absence of the name. The defence counsel's name, an identity card, and an administrative decision do not close these gaps. Each hearing is read from its own paper. A later petition does not fill the earlier blank box. A statement tactic is not written. A period and an article number are not in this text. As to the statement, the basis is the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. Administrative status is read apart from the text of the Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.