Illegally obtained evidence (exclusionary rule) in civil procedural law.

When would a judgment be fair? Would it be fair when the illegally obtained but relevant and reliable evidence was considered or excluded due to its illegal nature? That is the crux of the value of the illegally obtained evidence problem. Different legal systems give different answers to this question. The whole acceptance approach asserts that all relevant evidence, regardless of how they have been obtained, should be considered to find the truth. The total exclusion approach claims that if the evidence was obtained illegally, it should not be submitted to the jury, or the continental law judge should not assess its outcomes while delivering a judgment even when the evidence is relevant. The flexible approach proposes excluding evidence if a fundamental right has been breached while it was obtained. However, in all other circumstances, the judge must decide whether to exclude or consider the evidence. Articles 2, 36, 38, and 138 of the Turkish Constitution, Article 217 of the Criminal Procedural Law, and Article 189 of the Civil Procedural Law prove that Turkish legislator favors the total exclusion approach. The exclusionary rule in Turkish Civil Procedure is a part of the Turkish public order and, thus, cannot be applied differently by the courts or the parties in dispute. This thesis proposes that whenever a judge considers applying the exclusionary rule, she/he should run a four-step test to reach a fair and just conclusion. Such a test may provide some flexibility to applying the strict exclusionary rule and prevent possible unjust results to some extent.