İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009    Tam Metin (PDF)

Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme

Recep Kahraman

Ceza muhakemesi hukukunda bir suçun işlenmesinden sonra, olaya ilişkin olarak birtakım bilgilerin elde edilebilmesi adına araştırma yapılabilmesi mümkündür. Şüpheli olmayan kişilerden bilgi almak suretiyle iddia konusu olaya ilişkin ayrıntılar elde edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Şüpheli belirlendikten sonra ise soruşturmanın önünü açmak, yönünü belirlemek ve delillerin toplanmasına katkı sağlamak amacıyla şüphelinin ifadesi alınmaktadır. İfade alma işleminden önce şüpheli, hakları konusunda bilgilendirilir ve bu haklardan yararlanabilir. İfade alma sürecinde susma hakkı gibi şüpheliyi koruyan düzenlemeler mevcuttur. Şüpheli lehine olan bu düzenlemeler adil yargılanma hakkını güvence altına almaktadır. Ancak uygulamada bazı görevliler, ifade almanın yanı sıra şüpheli ile hukuka aykırı alternatif görüşmeler de yapmaktadır. Şüpheli bilinmesine rağmen resmi tutanağa bağlanmaksızın, şüpheliden bilgi alındığı görülmektedir. Bu görüşme, ifade alma işleminin koşullarını taşımadığından uygulamada ön görüşme diye ifade edilmektedir. Ön görüşme, yasal olmayan bir sürecin parçası olup şüpheli, hukuk düzeni tarafından korunan haklarını kullanamamaktadır. Ön görüşme sırasında şüpheliye hakları hatırlatılmamakta ve şüphelinin iradesi sakatlanmaktadır. Ön görüşme sırasında elde edilen bilgiler; daha sonra ifade alma aşamasında soru haline getirilerek şüpheliye sorulmaktadır. Görüşme aşaması şüpheli lehine bir güvence içermemekte, ifade almanın teknik ve hukuki usullerine uygun yürütülmemektedir. Ön görüşmenin güvenilir bir üçüncü kişi kullanılarak yapılması da görüşmenin hukuka aykırılığını ortadan kaldırmamaktadır. Bu nedenle, kolluğun şüpheli ile yapmış olduğu ön görüşme sırasında elde etmiş olduğu bilgiler yasak delil olarak kabul edilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yasak Delil, Ön Görüşme, Ön Sorgu, Ifade Alma, Güvenilir Kişi
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009    Tam Metin (PDF)

A Procedural Oddity in the Investigation Stage in Turkish and German Practise: Preliminary Interview with the Suspect

Recep Kahraman

In criminal procedure law, research may be conducted to obtain some information regarding the act after a crime has been committed. The details regarding the act in question are sought by obtaining information from the persons who are not the suspect. The statement of the suspect is taken to help the investigation, to determine the course of it and to contribute to the collection of evidence after the suspect is identified. Before the statement-taking process, the suspect is reminded about his rights and can benefit from these rights. There are regulations that protect the suspect, such as the right to remain silent during the statement-taking process. These regulations in favour of the suspect guarantee the right to a fair trial. However, in practise, in addition to statement taking, some officers also conduct unlawful alternative interviews with the suspect. It is seen that the information is obtained from the suspect without being recorded in the official report even though the suspect is known. This interview is called a preliminary interview in practise because it does not meet the conditions for statement taking. The preliminary interview is a part of an illegitimate process, and the suspect cannot use his rights protected by the rule of law during the preliminary interview. During the preliminary interview, he is not reminded of his rights, and his will become defective. The information obtained during the preliminary interview is addressed to the suspect as questions during statement taking. The interview does not constitute an assurance in favour of the suspect and it is not conducted in accordance with the technical and legal procedures of statement taking. The fact that the preliminary interview was conducted with a reliable third party does not eliminate the unlawfulness of the interview. Therefore, the information obtained during the preliminary interview by the law enforcement officer with the suspect should be considered forbidden evidence.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Forbidden Evidence, Preliminary Interview, Preliminary Interrogation, Statement Taking, Reliable Person

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


In criminal proceedings, the law enforcement officers may conduct an investigation to obtain information about the crime. The statement, taken by asking questions to the person who is not the suspect to determine and clarify the crime, may be expressed as information retrieval. Investigation and research activities under the name of information gathering are conducted to find evidence of crime in cases where the suspect is not known. This is lawful because of the investigation stage and the effectiveness of the law enforcement in criminal procedure law. After the suspect is identified, his official statement is taken in accordance with legal requirements.

The suspect is the person who is suspected of committing a crime and against whom an investigation has been opened by the investigative bodies. According to the general opinion accepted in doctrine and judicial decisions, a person has the capacity of the suspect when investigative bodies take action to clarify the crime and take measures.

In practise, it has been seen that information is obtained from the suspect without recording although the crime has been revealed and the suspect has been identified. The informal information gathering in question is called a preliminary interview because the requirements for statement taking stipulated in the legislation are not complied with.

Although the suspect is identified, the law enforcement officer conducts an informal interview with him instead of taking the statement officially. This communication method becomes a rule in practise. The interview with him without complying with the requirements for statement taking can be exemplified as the significant problems seen in law practise in the investigation stage. The aim of this study is to identify the legal nature of the preliminary interview by a law enforcement officer with the suspect after a crime has been committed and to determine whether the information obtained is within the scope of forbidden evidence.

In criminal procedure law, an investigation is opened when the suspicion of a crime emerges. A face to face interview with the suspect could be beneficial to obtain criminal evidence during the investigation. In this regard, taking the statement of the suspect is a significant investigation procedure to obtain criminal evidence and to determine the course of the investigation. Also, it is the reasoning process in which the suspect can use his right of defence for the first time. Therefore, he should be reminded of his rights before taking the statement, and the law enforcement should prevent his will from becoming defective during statement taking. In this regard, the preliminary interview by the law enforcement officer with him is called secret statement taking and considered as unlawful because it does not constitute an assurance in favour of the suspect. The statement taking, a technical and legal procedure, is conducted in the law enforcement unit by being recorded. Preliminary interviews, on the other hand, are made at the crime scene or while being taken to the law enforcement units or hospital, and the statement of the suspect is not recorded.

The suspect’s will become defective can be shown as reason for the preliminary interview is forbidden evidence. The psychological or actual pressure caused by the unrecorded and informal interrogation prevents the suspect’s free will. This violates the fair trial principle. The principle prohibits investigative bodies from using any means to reach the truth and also prevents the suspect’s being suppressed and compelled to testify against himself and used as a means to obtain evidence. In a lawful statementtaking procedure, it should be stated to the suspect that he is free to make a statement about the accusations against him and that this right is protected by law before being interrogated. It is emphasised with freedom of giving a statement that the personal rights of the suspect are more important than the purpose pursued by the criminal investigation. However, the legal rights of the suspect were not reminded during the preliminary interview. Therefore, the suspect, whose free will is made defective, is compelled to accept the accusations against himself. A preliminary interview may also be made with a third party due to the fear that he will not tell the truth before the law enforcement. The third party’s being present during the preliminary interview does not prevent the suspect’s will from becoming defective. Therefore, it is unlawful to obtain some statements from him with the help of a reliable third party.

This preliminary interview by the law enforcement officer with the suspect is an unlawful procedure, and a conviction cannot be obtained based on the statement. The statement taken during the preliminary interview should be considered forbidden evidence even if later confirmed in court by the accused. However, the statement taken after the preliminary interview can be considered a lawful evidence. If the suspect is explained that the statement in the preliminary interview is forbidden evidence and his rights are reminded before his statement is taken officially, the subsequent statement can be considered legitimate.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Arslan M, Die Aussagefreiheit des Beschuldigten in der polizeilichen Befragung (Duncker&Humblot 2015). google scholar
  • Artkamper H und Schilling K, Vernehmung (VDP 2010). google scholar
  • Baumann J, “Sperrkraft der mit unzulassigen Mitteln herbeigeführten Aussage“ (GA 1959) 33-44. google scholar
  • Beulke W, “Die Vernehmung des Beschuldigten, einige Anmerkungen aus der Sicht der ProzeBrechtswissenschaft“ (StV 1990) 180-185. google scholar
  • Beulke W and Swoboda S, Strafprozessrecht (CF Müller 2020). google scholar
  • Bosch N, Aspekte des nemo-tenetur-Prinzips aus verfassungsrechtlicher und strafprozessualer Sicht. Ein Beitrag zur funktionsorientierten Auslegung des Grundsatzes „nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare“ (Duncker & Humblot 1998). google scholar
  • Brunhöber B, “Für ein Grundrecht auf ein faires Verfahren in der strafprozessualen Praxis“ (2010) (12) ZIS 761-770. google scholar
  • Centel N ve Zafer H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Beta 2020). google scholar
  • Degener W, “§ 136a StPO und die Aussagefreiheit des Beschuldigten” (1992) GA 443-469. google scholar
  • Demirbaş T, Soruşturma Evresinde Şüphelinin İfadesinin Alınması (Seçkin 2015). google scholar
  • Gau P J, Die rechtswidrige Beweiserhebung nach § 136a StPO als Verfahrenshindernis (Tenea 2006). google scholar
  • Gökpınar M, “Şüphelinin Kolluk Tarafından Aldatılması” (2023) 31 (2) SÜHFD 665-701. google scholar
  • Graf JP, Strafprozessordnung: Kommentar (CH Beck 2019). google scholar
  • Jager C, Beweisverwertung und Beweisverwertungsverbote im Strafprozess (CH Beck 2003). google scholar
  • Karaaslan R, “Soruşturma Organları Hesabına Hareket Eden Özel Kişilerin Eylemlerinin Kamu Makamlarına Atfedilebilirliği - İfade Almada Yasak Usul Olan “Aldatma” Örneği Üzerinden Bir İnceleme” (2021) 25 (2) AHBVÜHFD 555-621. google scholar
  • Koca M, “Ceza Muhakemesinde Hukuka Aykırı Delilleri Değerlendirme Yasağı“ (2000) 4 (1-2) AÜEHFD 105-146. google scholar
  • Kramer B, Grundlagen des Strafverfahrensrechts (Kohlhammer 2014). google scholar
  • Kraschutzki H, “Die Abgrenzung zwischen verbotener Tauschung und erlaubter Lis im Rahmen des § 136a StPO an Hand ausgewahlter Fallbeispiel unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des so genannten Telefonmithörens durch Polizeibeamte” in: Grenzüberschreitende Polizeiarbeit, Martin Möllers (Hrsg.) (2005) 11-31. google scholar
  • Löffelmann M, Die normativen Grenzen der Wahrheitserforschung im Strafverfahren (De Gruyter Recht 2008). google scholar
  • Mahlstedt T, Die verdeckte Befragung des Beschuldigten im Auftrag der Polizei (Duncker & Humblot 2011). google scholar
  • Meraklı S, “İfade Alma-Sorgu Kuralları ve Bu Kurallara Aykırılık Halinde Elde Edilen Beyanların Hukuki Değeri“ Feridun Yenisey’e Armağan Cilt I (2014) Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayını 15491633. google scholar
  • Meyer GoBner L und Schmitt B, Strafprozessordnung: Kommentar (CH Beck 2020). google scholar
  • Moormann H, Die informatorische Anhörung im Ermittlungsverfahren (1989). google scholar
  • Otto H, “Grenzen und Tragweite der Beweisverbote im Strafverfahren“ (1970) GA 289-305. google scholar
  • Özbek VÖ, Doğan K ve Bacaksız P, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Öztürk B, Nazari ve Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Petzsche A, “Belehrungspflichten vor der ersten Vernehmung: Verwertbarkeit von SpontanauBerungen revisited” (2021) 133 (2) ZSTW 502-521. google scholar
  • Roxin C, “Zum Beweisverwertungsverbot bei unterbliebener polizeilicher Belehrung über das Aussageverweigerungsrecht” (1992) (18) JZ 918-925. google scholar
  • Rogall K, “Die erste Vernehmung des Beschuldigten“ (2015) (9) RechtsBrücke 157-173. google scholar
  • Schaal IM, Beweisverwertungsverbot bei informatorischer Befragung im Strafverfahren (Tenea 2002). google scholar
  • Schumann A, Verhör, Vernehmung, Befragung (Mohr Siebeck 2016). google scholar
  • Şahin C, Sanığın Kolluk Tarafından Sorgulanması (Yetkin 1994). google scholar
  • Şahin C ve Göktürk N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku I (Seçkin 2021). google scholar
  • Turhan F ve Aksan M, “Ceza Muhakemesinde Şüphelinin İfadesinin Alınması ve Sorguya Çekilmesine İlişkin Hükümlerin Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi” (2020) 24 (2) AHBVÜHFD 289-331. google scholar
  • Ünver Y ve Hakeri H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Adalet 2020). google scholar
  • Vetter M, Verteidigerkonsultation im Ermittlungsverfahren (Duncker & Humblot 2018). google scholar
  • Yenisey F ve Nuhoğlu A, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Zöller MA, “Beweisrechtliche Probleme beim Einsatz Verdeckter Ermittler“ (2014) (2) CHKD 85-103. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Kahraman, R. (2024). Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 82(4), 1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


AMA

Kahraman R. Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2024;82(4):1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


ABNT

Kahraman, R. Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 82, n. 4, p. 1343-1377, 2024.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Kahraman, Recep,. 2024. “Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82, no. 4: 1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


Chicago: Humanities Style

Kahraman, Recep,. “Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82, no. 4 (Mar. 2025): 1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


Harvard: Australian Style

Kahraman, R 2024, 'Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 1343-1377, viewed 10 Mar. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Kahraman, R. (2024) ‘Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 82(4), pp. 1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009 (10 Mar. 2025).


MLA

Kahraman, Recep,. “Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 82, no. 4, 2024, pp. 1343-1377. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


Vancouver

Kahraman R. Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 10 Mar. 2025 [cited 10 Mar. 2025];82(4):1343-1377. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009


ISNAD

Kahraman, Recep. “Türk ve Alman Uygulamasında Soruşturma Aşamasında Bir Usul Garabeti: Şüpheliyle Yapılan Ön Görüşme”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 82/4 (Mar. 2025): 1343-1377. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0009



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim24.06.2022
Kabul24.11.2024
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma31.12.2024

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.