MHP's Yildiz warns courts on evidence and witness statements

Ahmet Taş | Wise News Press

ANKARA, TURKEY — Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Deputy Chairman Feti Yildiz has issued a striking assessment regarding criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the reliability of evidence and direct witness testimonies are fundamental to justice.

Addressing the legal concepts of "proof" and "establishment of facts" on his social media account, Yildiz reminded judicial authorities that simply reading a witness's previous statement cannot replace a direct and proper hearing in a courtroom. The experienced politician and lawyer pointed out the risks of distorted memories over time, calling for strict adherence to procedural principles.

The crucial role of reliable evidence

Evaluating the legal depth of the terms "proof" (ispat) and "establishment" (sübut), Yildiz stated that the establishment of a fact is the process where an allegation gains certainty through solid evidence. He noted that in criminal cases, proving a defendant's guilt forms the absolute foundation of the final verdict.

Highlighting the responsibilities of the courts and prosecutors in this process, Yildiz stated that the capacity of the evidence presented by public prosecutors to illuminate the event is of great importance.

"Proof in criminal proceedings means obtaining a reliable explanation from a reasonable source. It expresses the conviction of the judge, established free from doubt and bound by law, under the guidance of judicial principles, reason, and science," Yildiz explained.

Reading prior statements is not enough

Dedicating a significant portion of his statement to witness testimonies and courtroom procedures, Yildiz warned that as the time gap between the event and the hearing increases, flaws such as forgetting or distortion can occur in verbal evidence. He drew attention to the principle of "immediacy and orality" in criminal procedure.

Yildiz underlined that asking a witness if their previously read statement is still valid does not constitute a proper hearing. He explicitly stated that if the evidence of an incident consists solely of a witness's statements, that specific witness must be heard in court. The MHP Deputy Chairman added that the reading of a written statement or a protocol from a previous hearing can never replace direct testimony.

A call for judicial conscience

Yildiz noted that the law strictly prohibits substituting documentary evidence for verbal testimony, ensuring that the judge directly interacts with the evidence and evaluates it at its source. This rule also grants the parties the opportunity to ask direct questions and debate the evidence transparently.

Touching upon the role of defense counsels, Yildiz reminded that a defense attorney is not a fully authorized proxy representing the defendant, but rather a legal subject providing assistance. He concluded his comprehensive legal evaluation with a moral reminder, stating, "Let us not forget... The beginning of everything is a clear conscience."

www.wisenewspress.com