A wiretap objection is either about the order or about the words. Only the first one removes the recording.

Turkish procedure treats the two complaints separately and gives them different remedies. Pleading them as one paragraph invites a single line of refusal.

The lawfulness objection is constitutional. Article 38 of the Constitution provides that findings obtained contrary to law cannot be accepted as evidence. CMK 217/2 states the same rule for the trial: the charge may be proved by any evidence obtained lawfully. CMK 206/2-a then requires the court to refuse evidence put before it where that evidence was obtained contrary to law. If you win this point, the recording and its transcript leave the file, and so does whatever was found only because of them.

The accuracy objection is evidential. If your position is that the Turkish text does not say what the speakers said, nothing is excluded. You are asking the court to stop treating the transcript as the evidence and go back to the recording with a fresh translation. That is a request under the expert provisions, not the exclusion provisions.

A tap leaves paperwork: a request, an order, a period, and a record of how it was carried out. The lawfulness objection is built from that paperwork rather than from argument about fairness. These are the points on which orders actually fail.

Two neighbouring measures have their own limits and are often folded into a tap in the indictment. Technical surveillance under CMK 140 reaches only activities in places open to the public and the workplace, runs three weeks with a one-week extension (further weekly extensions up to four weeks in total for organisation offences), and under CMK 140/5 cannot be applied in a person's home. Material picked up during interception that has nothing to do with the investigation may be kept under CMK 138/2 only where it raises suspicion of one of the offences on the Article 135 list.

CMK 137/2 describes how the Turkish text in your file was made. Recordings kept under an Article 135 order are transcribed by persons appointed by the prosecutor's office, and recordings in a foreign language are rendered into Turkish through an interpreter. Between the words spoken and the sentence the court reads there are two operations, and the person who performed the second one is usually neither named nor heard.

The failures repeat:

• Attribution. A line used by several people produces a transcript in which every voice becomes the defendant, with nothing recording how the speaker was identified.
• Slang and dialect. An ordinary word in your dialect is rendered with the term the investigation expects to find.
• Numbers. Quantities, prices and dates carry these cases. One mistranscribed figure changes what the conversation is about.
• Omission. The transcript summarises where the audio is unclear, and the summary then reads as certainty.

The answer starts with the material. Once the indictment is accepted, CMK 153/4 entitles defence counsel to examine the file and the evidence held and to take copies of every record and document free of charge. Ask for the audio, not the printout. Then use CMK 63 to seek a court-appointed expert on the recording, CMK 67/6 to put a scientific opinion from your own specialist before the court, and CMK 67/5 to require a reasoned decision within three days if that is refused. Where the court declines to summon the specialist you named, CMK 178 lets you bring that person to the hearing to be heard.

This is the same discipline that applies to a laboratory report — you attack the method rather than the conclusion — and it is set out for narcotics analysis on the forensic drug report page. It also sits beside a right you have in the room: under CMK 202/1 a defendant who cannot explain himself in Turkish has the essential points of the prosecution and defence translated by a court-appointed interpreter, and CMK 202/4 lets him give his oral defence in another language after the indictment is read and after the closing opinion, using an interpreter he chooses at his own cost. What the interpreter is and is not there to do matters here, because the same shortage of qualified translators produces both a weak transcript and a weak hearing.

Run the lawfulness objection when you can point at a document. An offence outside the CMK 135/8 list. Recording that continues past the last day allowed by CMK 135/4. A prosecutor's order that no judge approved within twenty-four hours. Technical surveillance conducted in a home against CMK 140/5. Chance material kept under CMK 138/2 for an offence that is not listed. Courts do not exclude because a tap was heavy-handed; they exclude on a defect the file itself shows.

Run the accuracy objection whenever the recording is what the charge rests on and the words admit of another reading. It is granted far more often than exclusion, and it changes what the court is looking at. In most foreign-national files both belong in the case.

Then keep them. CMK 230/1-b requires the reasoned judgment to discuss the evidence, state what was relied on and what rejected, and identify separately and expressly any unlawfully obtained evidence in the file. A judgment that convicts on a recording without answering the objection has a gap in it. CMK 289/1-i makes a judgment resting on evidence obtained by unlawful methods an absolute illegality, considered on appeal even if the notice does not raise it. The window is short: under CMK 273/1 the istinaf application is made within two weeks of service of the judgment with its reasons. How istinaf and temyiz work is set out separately.

Where intercepts sit in relation to the rest of the technical evidence — signal data, location records, covert investigators — is covered on the surveillance and wiretap evidence page.