One of the most controversial and confusing evidence in criminal proceedings,
\ntapes containing video or audio recordings. Many times, these tapes, regardless of who, where and how they were obtained, are considered illegal and are not allowed to be substituted. However, it is not possible to accept audio and video recordings as indifferent, unconditional, illegal evidence.
\nFirst, it should be noted that these records are document evidentiary1
\nand they represent the event, many times, indirectly. However, as with the tapes recording the moment of action, there is the possibility of direct representation, and even those with indirect representation can create valuable evidence.
\nWhether tapes containing video and audio recordings are evidence in accordance with the law
\nwhen examined, it is imperative that it be considered separately in many ways. These are matters that differ, such as whether the recording is confidential, whether it was obtained by public officials, whether the space is a public space, whether the recorded activity is public.
\nIt is useful to start the review with the possibility that it is a special person who performs the recording
\nit will be: if the private person registering and the interlocutor are unaware of the registration, the important issue is whether the person performing the registration is involved in the recorded activity. If a private person records a moment and activity in which he or she is involved, it is not possible to accept that this evidence is unlawful, even if the interlocutor is unaware of the recording. For example, a private person speaks to the interlocutor face-to-face or on the phone and records this conversation unannounced
\nreferences Here, the compliance of the evidence with the law should be examined from two separate points of view:
\nThe first is whether this act of registration constitutes a criminal offence. If
\nif registration relates to any activity in the private areas of other persons or, again, to private (and confidential) activities of third parties, even in the public sphere, the act of registration is illegal.
\nBecause the confidentiality of private life and communication, only to public officials
\nhe is not protected against, but against everyone. 12 Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. according to the article; \u201cno one may be arbitrarily involved in his private life, family, housing immunity or freedom of correspondence; no one may commit bad behavior against his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to be protected by law against this interference and bad behavior.\u201d 20 Of The Constitution. according to the article, \u201cEveryone has the right to demand respect for his private life and family life. The privacy of private life and family life cannot be touched\u201d. The provision in this article, \u201cexceptions required by Judicial Investigation and prosecution are reserved\u201d, was repealed by law 4709. Constitution
\n21. Article 22 protected housing immunity. everyone in the article
\nit has freedom of communication. Confidentiality of communication is essential, ” the provision said. As can be seen, the level of universal sophistication reached by humanity and the common mind that appears at this level have placed the personal life and communication of the individual under absolute protection. This protection can only be suspended if there is a strong suspicion of a crime, in order to restore social peace and tranquility disrupted by the crime, if there is no other way to obtain evidence and the decision has been made by the judge. Common mind, “to keep the possibility of Social Development open” in order to \u201crealize individual freedoms at the maximum level,
\nin this way, he established the balance between the purpose of\u201d protection”. In this case, a person who secretly enters the private life of any person, listens or records his private communication, no matter who he is, commits a crime if it is not based on a judge’s decision made in accordance with the law. A record made by this person cannot be evidence, nor can he declare the information obtained in this way as a witness; his statement in this regard is absolutely against the law. It is important to note that the violation of the law here is absolute.
\nIn contrast, as in our example, the registrar is involved in this activity
\nif he takes it, the record he makes includes his own field of activity. In other words, a person who records his own place on a camera, even if it is hidden, records his own phone call, does not secretly enter the private area of the third party. The activity of the third party is not confidential to the registrant. Of course, the disclosure of this record to third parties will not be of a legal nature. But the fact that we are studying leads to a violation of the right to make this record public
\nit is not whether he will open it, but whether there will be evidence in a criminal trial. The balance between the purpose of\u201d uncovering the material truth \u201cand the purpose of\u201d protecting the privacy of the private space ” will be broken in the interest of finding the material truth here. Otherwise, it will not be possible to apply to the Registrar’s testimony in connection with an incident in his or her area of activity.
\nHowever, acceptance of such a result is contrary not only to the law, but also to reason.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the most controversial and confusing evidence in criminal proceedings, tapes containing video or audio recordings. Many times, these tapes, regardless of who, where and how they were obtained, are considered illegal and are not allowed to be substituted. However, it is not possible…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n