Evidence of Oath is a verbal statement that confirms the veracity of an event related to the resolution of the case by one of the parties, in front of the court with the method specified in the law, with the values considered sacred, and which has the qualification of definitive evidence.
According to the article of HMK.m.225/1, oath; As with all means of proof, the subject of the oath is the contentious facts that are important for the solution of the case and originate from the person himself. HMK.m.225/1
Cases that the parties cannot freely dispose of, cases where two-sided declarations of will are not deemed sufficient by law for the validity of a transaction, cases that will affect the honor and dignity of the person who will take the oath or that will expose him to a criminal investigation or prosecution cannot be the subject of the oath (HMK.m.226) .
The party who bears the burden of proof may offer the oath. The offer of an oath by the party that does not bear the burden of proof has no legal consequences or benefits.
For the reasons explained, it should clearly establish the relationship between fact and evidence in order to prove the claim or defense of the plaintiff or the defendant. In this context, it is possible for the party to openly resort to evidence of oath.
If the party who does not openly resort to the evidence of the oath includes phrases such as “other evidence, all kinds of evidence, and other evidence” in his petition, whether these phrases will be deemed to have applied to the evidence of the oath, and in this context, whether the judge will be reminded of the “right to propose an oath” to the party whose burden of proof falls on him. There are various opinions on the point. When the provision of HMK 136/2 is taken into consideration, it is not possible for the judge to remind the parties of the right to offer an oath if he has used phrases such as “other evidence, all kinds of evidence, and other evidence”. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals has accepted this issue with its decision dated 03.03.2017 with the decision numbered 2015/2, 2017/1.
