From all of the above, according to the Turk Rule, as well as the rulings mentioned in its framework andCriminal Appeal 5825/97 above, at the stage of negotiations for the conclusion of a state-witness agreement, the initiative test is a decisive test on the question of the admissibility of confessions given by a suspect, as evidence that can be used against him, so that to the extent that the initiative is of the investigators, it is presumed that the confession was not given out of free will and becomes inadmissible. To the extent that the initiative to obtain the status of a state witness is the suspect's, his confession will be admissible, since the fear that he may have made his confession involuntarily dissipates. In Criminal Appeal 5825/97, it was ruled that even when the initiative is the suspect's, it is not absolute, and it is possible that even if the initiative is the suspect's, "it is still possible that later on he was given promises or his free will was denied." These things mean that even when the initiative is the defendant's, the existence of free will must still be examined. I will add that even when it comes to the investigator's initiative, it is a presumption.
In our case, no agreement was signed, but what was ruled in the Tork ruling in relation to cases in which an agreement was signed, and the significance of the agreement, have significance, all the more so as will be detailed below. According to the Turk ruling, even after a state-witness agreement has been signed, this does not mean that confessions given on the basis of the agreement mean that they were given with a temptation that leads to the conclusion regarding the negation and invalidation of the will and their invalidation, but rather it must be examined separately from the fact that the confession was given by virtue of an agreement, it was given of good and free will, and the totality of the circumstances must be examined.
Thus, even a confession that is given after a state-witness agreement has been signed, and for some reason the agreement is revoked, and the suspect is prosecuted, even then it is possible that a confession he made in reliance on the agreement will serve as evidence against him, to the extent that the court reaches the conclusion, after examining the totality of the circumstances, that it was made of good will and freely.