Güncel Tartışmalar Ekseninde Tahkimde Tanık Delilinin Güvenilirliği

Year 2022, Volume: 42 Issue: 2, 643 - 743, 30.12.2022

Abdullah Harun Korkmaz

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2022.42.2.1161112

Abstract

Tanık delili yüz yıllardır olduğu gibi bugün de gerek özel hukuk gerekse de ceza yargılamalarında kullanılmaktadır. Türk medenî yargılama usulündeki “senetle ispat” kuralının aksine özellikle milletlerarası tahkimde tanık deliline yoğun bir şekilde başvurulmaktadır. Bazen belgelerle ispat imkânı olmayan ihtilaflı noktaları ispatta, bazen belge olsa da içeriği tek başına anlaşılmayan durumlarda, bazen de uyuşmazlığın arka planını ortaya koymada tanıklar önem kazanmaktadır. Fakat tanık delili bu yaygın kullanımına rağmen birçok sakıncayı da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu sakıncalı noktalar tanıkların ceza hukukundaki önemi sebebiyle on yıllardır inceleniyor olsa da son yıllarda aynı sakıncaların milletlerarası tahkim bağlamında da geçerli olabileceği fikrine dikkat çekilmiştir. Özellikle Milletlerarası Ticaret Odası (ICC) tarafından düzenlenen bazı etkinliklerde bu noktaya parmak basılmış ve milletlerarası tahkim câmiasında bu yönde bir sorgulama vâki olmuştur. Pek çok yazar gerek tanıkların hafızasının yanılabilir olması gerekse de doğru söyleyip söylemediklerinin tespit edilmesi konusundaki sakıncaları değerlendirerek bu delil türünün en doğru şekilde kullanımı için öneriler sunmuştur. Çalışmada öncelikle bu değerlendirme ve tartışmalardan hareketle tanık delilinin ne kadar güvenilir olduğu üzerinde durulmuştur. Tanık delilinin belli başlı sakıncalı yönleri ortaya konduktan sonra bunlara karşı başvurulabilecek yöntemlere yer verilmiştir. Belirtmek gerekir ki çalışmada ICC’nin tanıkların hafızasına dair yayınladığı raporun yanı sıra nispeten eski sayılabilecek bazıları da dahil olmak üzere pek çok farklı araştırmadan istifade edilerek bütüncül bir bakış açısı sunulmaya gayret edilmiştir.

Keywords

Hukuk, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Tahkim, Tanık, Güvenilirlik, Hafıza, Delil, Dürüstlük, Fact Witnesses, Witness Credibility, International Arbitration, International Chamber of Commerce, Prove by Deed

Credibility of Fact Witnesses in Arbitration in Light of Current Debates

Abstract

Fact witnesses have been used in both private and criminal legal proceedings for centuries. Fact witnesses are frequently used in international arbitration, contrary to the rule of “proving by deed” (or in a general sense, written evidence) that is prevalent in Turkish civil procedural law. Witnesses gain importance when no documents are available to prove the disputed point, when a document is present but it is not self-explanatory, or when the background of the dispute needs to be understood. Despite the widespread use of fact witnesses, several drawbacks accompany them. These undesirable points have been examined for decades due to the importance fact witnesses have in criminal proceedings, however, the idea that the same drawbacks are also considerable for international arbitration have become somewhat common in recent years. This view has been particularly emphasized at certain events the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) organized, and many in the international arbitration community have taken a doubtful approach toward fact witnesses. Some authors have evaluated the possible drawbacks of witnesses’ memory as well as the possibility of testing their truthfulness in an attempt to come up with suggestions for overcoming them. This study first questions the credibility of fact witnesses in light of these evaluations and discussions then provides a number of methods that can be used to compensate for these drawbacks after highlighting some of the main problematic aspects of fact witnesses. The study makes use of several pieces of research, including the recently published ICC report (2020) regarding the memory of fact witnesses as well as some older articles, and seeks to present a holistic perspective on this matter.

Keywords

Fact Witnesses, Witness Credibility, International Arbitration, International Chamber of Commerce, Prove by Deed

References

• 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process, https://arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2012/, Erişim tarihi: 25.07.2022.
• Akhtar S vd, ‘The ‘common sense’ memory belief system and its implications’, (2018) 22(3) The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 289-304.
• Akıncı Z, ‘Prag Kuralları ve Milletlerarası Tahkim’ (2020) 40(1) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 481-495.
• Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim (5th edn, Vedat 2020).
• Albright TD and Garrett BL, ‘The Law and Science of Eyewitness Evidence’ (2021) 102 Boston University Law Review 511-629.
• Albright TD, ‘Why eyewitnesses fail’ (2017) 30(114) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 7758-7764.
• American Psychological Association, The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests), https://www.apa.org/topics/cognitive-neuroscience/polygraph, Erişim tarihi: 20.07.2022.
• Atalay O, Pekcanıtez Usûl – Medenî Usûl Hukuku, C. II, (15th edn, On İki Levha 2017).
• Aygül M, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Tahkim Usulüne Uygulanacak Hukuk ve Deliller (2nd edn, On İki Levha 2014).
• Benton TR vd, ‘Eyewitness Memory is Still Not Common Sense: Comparing Jurors, Judges and Law Enforcement to Eyewitness Experts’ (2006) 20(1) Applied Cognitive Psychology 115-129.
• van den Berg AJ, ‘Organizing an International Arbitration: Practice Pointers’ in Lawrence W. Newman and Richard D. Hill (eds) The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (Juris 2004).
• Bernstein DM and Loftus EF Loftus, ‘How to Tell If a Particular Memory Is True or False’ (2009) 4(4) Perspectives on Psychological Science 370-374.
• Bond Jr. CF and DePaulo BM, ‘Accuracy of Deception Judgments’ (2006) 10(3) Personality and Social Psychology Review 214-234.
• Born G, Day A and Virjee H, ‘Empirical Study of Experiences with Remote Hearings: A Survey of Users’ Views’ in Maxi Scherer, Niuscha Bassiri and Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab (eds) International Arbitration and the COVID-19 Revolution (Kluwer Law International 2020).
• Born G, Day A and Virjee H, ‘Remote Hearings (2020 Survey): A Spectrum of Preferences’ (2021) 38(3) Journal of International Arbitration 292-308.
• Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2020).
• Bradshaw R, ‘Deception and detection: the use of technology in assessing witness credibility’, (2021) 37(3) Arbitration International 707-720 (Detection).
• Bradshaw R, ‘Witness Credibility and the (Un)Reliability of Demeanour Evidence’ (2022) 40(1) ASA Bulletin 46-60 (Demeanour Evidence).
• Braun KA, Ellis R and Loftus EF, ‘Make my memory: How advertising can change our memories of the past’, (2002) 19(1) Psychology and Marketing 1-23.
• Carlson M, ‘The Examination and Cross-Examination of Witnesses’ in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed) Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times (Kluwer Law International 2011).
• Cartwright-Finch U, ‘Human Memory and Witness Evidence in International Arbitration’ in Tony Cole (ed) The Roles of Psychology in Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer 2017).
• Dastin J, Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G, Erişim tarihi: 14.07.2022.
• Demir-Gökyayla C, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde İspat Hakkı ve Sınırlarına Uygulanacak Hukuk’, (2020) 40(2) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 729-773.
• DePaulo BM and. Pfeifer RL, ‘On-the-Job Experience and Skill at Detecting Deception’ (1986) 16(3) Journal of Applied Social Psychology 249-267.
• DePaulo BM, Stone JI and Lassiter DG, ‘Deceiving and Detecting Deceit’ in Barry R. Schlenker (ed) The Self and Social Life (McGraw-Hill 1985).
• Erickson B, Lind EA, Johnson BC and O’Barr WM, ‘Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: the Effects of ‘Powerful’ and ‘Powerless’ Speech’ (1978) 14(3) Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 266-279.
• Fraser B, ‘The Role of Language in Arbitration’ in James L. Stern and Barbara D. Dennis (eds) Decisional Thinking of Arbitrators and Judges. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators (BNA Books 1981) 19-44 (Language in Arbitration).
• Genn H, Assessing Credibility, 2011 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/genn_assessing-credibility.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 16.07.2022).
• Guyer JJ, Fabrigar LR, and Vaughan-Johnston TI, ‘Speech Rate, Intonation, and Pitch: Investigating the Bias and Cue Effects of Vocal Confidence on Persuasion’ (2019) 45(3) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 389-405.
• Hanzlíková D and Skarnitzl R, ‘Credibility of native and non-native speakers of English revisited: Do non-native listeners feel the same?’ (2017) 15(3) Research in Language 296-297. Benzer başka araştırmalar hakkında bilgi için bkz Hanzlíková, Skarnitzl 285-298.
• Harris RJ, ‘Answering Questions Containing Marked and Unmarked Adjectives and Adverbs’ (1973) 97(3) Journal of Experimental Psychology 399-401.
• Hastorf AH and Cantril H, ‘They Saw a Game: A Case Study’ (1954) 49(1) The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 129-134.
• Henry O, ‘One Dollar’s Worth’ in David Stuart Davies (ed.) Short Stories from the Nineteenth Century (Wordsworth Classics 2004).
• Hosman L, ‘Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles and Their Relationship to Perceived Dominance and Control’ in Rainer Schulze and Hanna Pishwa (eds) The Exercise of Power in Communication (Palgrave Macmillan London 2015).
• Howe ML and Knott LM, ‘The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences’ (2015) 23(5) Memory 633-656.
• Howe ML, ‘Memory development: Implications for adults recalling childhood experiences in the courtroom’ (2013) 14(12) Nature Reviews Neuroscience 869-876.
• Howe ML, ‘Memory lessons from the courtroom: Reflections on being a memory expert on the witness stand’ (2013) 21(5) Memory 576-583.
• ICC Commission Report on the Accuracy of Fact Witness Memory in International Arbitration, https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-arbitration-and-adr-commission-report-on-the-accuracy-of-fact-witness-memory-in-international-arbitration/, Erişim tarihi: 02.06.2022.
• Ito H vd, ‘Eyewitness Memory Distortion Following Co-Witness Discussion: A Replication of Garry, French, Kinzett, and Mori (2008) in Ten Countries’, (2019) 8(1) Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 68-77.
• Jenkins J, International Construction Arbitration Law (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021).
• Johnson CE ‘An Introduction to Powerful and Powerless Talk in the Classroom’ (1987) Faculty Publications School of Business, Paper 26.
• Jores T vd, ‘A meta‐analysis of the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on witness recall’ (2019) 33(3) Applied Cognitive Psychology 334-343.
• Karns TE vd, ‘Collaborative recall reduces the effect of a misleading post event narrative’ (2009) 11(1) North American Journal of Psychology 17-28.
• Kassin SM and Fong CT, “I'm Innocent!”: Effects of Training on Judgments of Truth and Deception in the Interrogation Room, (1999) 23(5) Law and Human Behavior 499-516.
• Khodykin R, Mulcahy C and Fletcher N, A Guide to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2019).
• Kmiec KD, ‘The Origin and Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism"’ (2004) 92(5) California Law Review 1441-1477.
• Lareau MA and Sacks HR, ‘Assessing Credibility in Labor Arbitration’ (1989) 5(2) The Labor Lawyer 151-193.
• Lee K, Can you really tell if a kid is lying? (https://www.ted.com/talks/kang_lee_can_you_really_tell_if_a_kid_is_lying, Erişim tarihi: 14.07.2022).
• Lev-Ari S and Keysar B, ‘Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility’ (2010) 46(6) Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1093-1096.
• Lingard N, ‘Report on the Session Matters of Evidence: Witness and Experts’ in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed) Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2015).
• Loftus EF and Palmer JC, ‘Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory’ (1974) 33(5) Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 585-589.
• Loftus EF and Zanni G, ‘Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question’ (1975) 5(1) Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 86-88.
• Loftus EF, ‘Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report’, (1975) 7(4) Cognitive Psychology 560-572 (Leading Questions).
• Loftus EF, ‘Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory’, (2005) 12(4) Learning & Memory 361-366.
• Loftus EF, ‘Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory’ (2005) 12(4) Learning & Memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) 361-366.
• Loftus EF, Eyewitness Testimony (Harvard University Press 1980).
• Loftus EF, Miller DG and Burns HJ, ‘Semantic Integration of Verbal Information into a Visual Memory’ (1978) 4(1) Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning and Memory 19-31.
• Mann S, Vrij A and Bull R, ‘Detecting True Lies: Police Officers' Ability to Detect Suspects' Lies’ (2004) 89(1) Journal of Applied Psychology 137-149.
• Miles W, ‘Remote Advocacy, Witness Preparation & Cross-Examination: Practical Tips & Challenges’ in Maxi Scherer, Niuscha Bassiri and Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab (eds) International Arbitration and the COVID-19 Revolution (Kluwer Law International 2020).
• Miller N, Geoffrey Maruyama, Rex Julian Beaber and Keith Valone, ‘Speed of Speech and Persuasion’ (1976) 34(4) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 615-624.
• Minzner M, ‘Detecting Lies Using Demeanor, Bias, and Contexts’ (2008) 29 Cardozo Law Review 2557-2581.
• Mittenthal R, ‘The Search for Truth: II. Credibility—A Will-o'-the-Wisp’ in James L. Stern and Barbara D. Dennis (eds), Truth, Lie Detectors, and Other Problems in Labor Arbitration, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of National Academy of Arbitrators (BNA Books 1979).
• National Research Council, The Polygraph and Lie Detection (The National Academies Press 2003).
• Özkaya-Ferendeci HÖ, ‘Yeni Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’ndaki Belge Terimi ve İspat Hukukundaki Yeri’, (2014) 16(Özel Sayı 2014), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 813-830.
• Pape S, ‘Witness Evidence, The Science of Memory and Sequestration’ in Carlos González-Bueno (ed) 40 under 40 International Arbitration (Dykinson, S.L. 2021).
• Rose R, 12 Angry Men (Penguin Classics 2006.
• Scherer M, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?’ (2019) 36(5) Journal of International Arbitration 539-574.
• Skaff C, ‘The Human Psyche’s Effect on Arbitral Witness Accuracy’ (2021) 13 Arbitration Law Review 1-16.
• Smit RH, ‘The Future of Science and Technology in International Arbitration: The Next Thirty Years’ in Stavros Brekoulakis, Julian D. M. Lew and Loukas Mistelis (eds) The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2016).
• The Ipsos' Global Trustworthiness Index 2021 (https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-trustworthiness-index-2021, Erişim tarihi: 21.07.2022).
• Vredeveldt A vd, ‘When discussion between eyewitnesses helps memory’, (2017) 22(2) Legal and Criminological Psychology 242-259.
• Vrij A and Fisher RP, ‘Unraveling the Misconception About Deception and Nervous Behaviour’ (2020) 11 Frontiers in Psychology 1-8.
• Wade KA and Cartwright-Finch U, ‘The Science of Witness Memory: Implications for Practice and Procedure in International Arbitration’ (2022) 39(1) Journal of International Arbitration 1-28.
• Wade KA, Garry M, Read JD and Lindsay DS, ‘A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories’ (2002) 9(3) Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 597-603.
• Westin-Hardy A, The Psychology of Witness Evidence and its Role in Tribunal Decision-Making (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/11/29/the-psychology-of-witness-evidence-and-its-role-in-tribunal-decision-making/, Erişim tarihi: 01.07.2022).
• Wu Z, Singh B, Davis LS and Subrahmanian VS, ‘Deception Detection in Videos’ (2018) 32(1) Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1695-1702.
• Yarmey AD, The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony (The Free Press 1979).
• Yeo A and Yu CS, ‘Cultural Considerations in Advocacy: East Meets West’ in Stephen Jagusch, Philippe Pinsolle and Alexander G. Leventhal (eds) Global Arbitration Review: The Guide to Advocacy (5th edn, Law Business Research 2021).
• Zeitchik S, A Utah company says it revolutionized truth-telling technology. Experts are highly skeptical., https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/15/lie-detector-eye-movements-converus/, Erişim tarihi: 20.07.2022.