The Oath Evidence is an oral statement from one of the parties confirming the accuracy of an incident involving the resolution of the case in front of the court in accordance with the procedure set out in the law, with the values considered sacred, and loaded with definite evidence.

According to HMK Article 225/1, the oath; As with all means of proof, the subject of the oath is cases that are important in terms of solving the case, are contentious and stem from the person himself, HMK.art 225/1

Facts that can save for the validity of a transaction on the parties freely, by law, two-sided explanations of willpower are not adequate, if no one’s to take the oath or honor and dignity to affect a criminal investigation or prosecution that will leave him facing the facts cannot be the subject of the oath (HMK.m.226).

The party who falls under the burden of proof may offer the oath. There are no legal consequences and benefits of offering an oath to a party who is not burdened with proof.

For the described reason, the plaintiff or defendant must clearly establish the relationship between the case and the evidence in terms of proving his claim or defense. In this regard, it is possible for the party to explicitly refer to the evidence of the oath.

If a party that does not explicitly apply for sworn evidence includes phrases such as “other evidence, all kinds of evidence, and other evidence” in its petition, there are various opinions on whether these phrases can be considered that the person concerned has applied for sworn evidence, and in this context, the judge’s burden of proof reminds the party that has the right to make an oath offer“. It is not possible for a judge to remind the parties of their right to offer an oath if they have used phrases such as ”other evidence, all kinds of evidence, and other evidence” when the provision of HMK md 136/2 is taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation on the Unification of Case Law adopted this issue with its decision No. 2015/2, Decision No. 2017/1 and dated 03.03.2017.

You can read others by clicking here.