Lawyers confirm severe torture in Halfeti district

Lawyers confirm severe torture in Halfeti district

The Human Rights Center of the Gaziantep Bar Association has confirmed torture allegations reported last week from Sanliurfa’s Halfeti district, announcing the ill-treatment by police was worse than thought, online news portal Gazete Duvar reported on Monday.

According to the report released by the association which investigated the incident at the scene and talked to alleged torture victims, the detainees including women were heavily beaten, insulted, given an electric shock and forced to sign false testimonies.

The detentions in Bozova and Halfeti districts in the south-eastern province of Sanliurfa took place after a police officer was killed in a counter-terrorism operation targeting the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants in Halfeti on May 18.

In the wake of the operation police from the Counter Terrorism Unit blamed some nearby residents for supporting the PKK militants and detained at least 54 people.

The PKK which is deemed as a terrorist organization by Ankara has waged a decades-long insurgency in the predominantly Kurdish southeastern part of Turkey for self-rule.

Shortly after, maltreatment reports started to come from the Sanliurfa Bar Association. In solidarity with Sanliurfa’s bar, the Gaziantep’s bar charged an eight-lawyer group to investigate the torture allegations.

According to the association’s report, the detainees were tortured during the detentions as well as interrogations and were handcuffed from behind, and laid down on the ground and kept waiting for hours in that position

The report also found there were indications of serious torture on the detainees’ bodies such as physical injury marks, bruises, and cuts on their faces, legs and bodies and some detainees were given electric shocks on their genitals

  • Some of the damning finds in the report are that detainees were tortured by squeezing their testicles;
  • a woman detainee could not recount the torture she was subjected to
  • an old man of around 60 years was having difficulty walking and moving due to heavy torture
  • the detainees’ complaints of torture were not taken into consideration by prosecutors
  • police officers threatened the detainees they would harm their family members unless they signed false testimonies
  • were prohibited from seeing a doctor.
  • The report stated that unlawful restrictions were imposed on lawyers who wanted to provide the detainees with legal advice, despite the end of the 24- hour period of restricted access to lawyers, many of them was not allowed to meet with their clients. Those who could visit the detainees were allowed for only five minutes under police surveillance; and
  • lawyers’ requests for transferring the detainees from the police station where they were tortured to another place were rejected.

The association completed the report by calling on the authorities to take a series of actions regarding the torture incident.


Turkey seeks extradition of UK barrister over Twitter activity. Ozcan Keles accused of spreading propaganda, in latest targeting of Erdoğan critics

A British barrister who has given evidence to parliament is facing possible extradition to Turkey on terrorism charges over his Twitter activity.

Ozcan Keles, who is of Turkish descent and holds UK citizenship, appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Monday accused of spreading propaganda online.

The attempt to remove him is the latest in a series of high-profile extradition actions in the British courts against critics or opponents of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.


Bar Association Report: Former diplomats sexually abused with batons and tortured

Former Turkish diplomats arrested over terrorism charges claim they have been tortured as well as sexually abused with police batons, Ankara Bar Association reported.

Former Turkish diplomats arrested over terrorism charges claim they have been tortured as well as sexually abused with police batons, Ankara Bar Association reported.

According to the report, the ex-diplomats were endured torture such as sexual harassment with batons, threats of rape, reverse handcuffing, harsh beatings, being knocked unconscious, and being forced to completely undress.

Arrest warrants were issued last week for 249 former employees for Foreign Ministry. It has been claimed that some of the detainees were exposed to systematic torture in Ankara Police Headquarters so that “they would sign the petition for making use of effective remorse law and become informants.” Ankara Police, on the other hand, denied the allegations in a press statement and stated that 130 attorneys saw the suspects 545 times.

The exact number of detainees is not known under the file with a confidentiality order on it. It is believed that the number exceeds 100 including those who have been arrested or surrendered since May 20.

According to the information the BBC Turkish has garnered, the detention order of detainees, who have been detained for a week, has been extended until Friday through a court order. Statements started to be taken from the detainees today.

All of the female detainees except one have been released. The claims about torture in detention surfaced on Saturday when the women were released.

HDP lawmaker Gergerlioğlu submitted a written question

HDP Kocaeli lawmaker Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu announced the claims of torture in Ankara Police Headquarters the other day from his Twitter account. Then Mr. Gergerlioğlu submitted a written question regarding the issue to be answered by Vice President Fuat Oktay.

Speaking to the BBC Turkish, Gergerlioğlu said most of the detainees had been dismissed through emergency decrees and there were claims that 20 suspects were exposed to brutal torture.

In his press statement, he urged the Interior Ministry and Ministry of Justice to take action about the claims.

“I’m told that they said they’d rape him with a truncheon unless he talked”

Moreover, the attorneys contacted by the BBC Turkish requested that “the names of their clients, who will be detained until Friday,” should not be mentioned in the news story “for their safety.”

An attorney told about the torture inflicted on his client as follows:

“They bring him in for questioning on Saturday night, take him downstairs, and then blindfold him. They strip him naked and handcuff him in the back. They keep him on his knees with his head on the ground. They oil his anus, brush a truncheon around it, and tell him they’ll insert it unless he talks. “

“They tell him that the procedure will continue unless he talks until Friday when detention will be over and they demand they want a statement for effective remorse. When my client gets worse there, they stop torturing. When he gets up at night to go to the toilet, he collapses. He passes out once again in the morning during breakfast. Whereupon they take him to the hospital.”

The attorney says that his client was examined at the hospital but was too afraid to tell the doctor about the torture because he was accompanied by officers.

“When my client said he’d been tortured, I didn’t think about anything like it and asked “Roll up your t-shirt so I’ll see it.” I thought it was beating and I could take a photograph. But when he told these, I got speechless. There isn’t any physical sign or mark because the torture had been performed by a professional team.”

According to the statements from 3 different attorneys who spoke to the BBC Turkish, at least 6 persons were exposed to “the activity or threat of rape with truncheon” and at least 20 persons to torture in a room other than the prison cell.

“They are demanded to be informants through torture.”

Another attorney says that the torture started with the release of female detainees and some of the suspects who were taken to court for an extension of detention “limped” because of the torture inflicted on them.

“I’m told that some were raped with a truncheon, and others were threatened again as the top of a truncheon was oiled and moved around the anal area. After these instances of torture, one said he’d take advantage of effective remorse and sign whatever they wanted. To those he did not take advantage of effective remorse, they said, ‘You have time until Friday. If you don’t talk, we’ll do all kinds of torture on you.’”





Subject: The report regarding the meetings and inspections performed by Ankara Bar Association Center for Attorney Rights, Penal Institutions Board and Center for Human Rights into claims about torture in the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes which appeared on the press and exposed to public on 26 May 2019.


Initially, a message was shared on Kocaeli Lawmaker Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu’s account on Twitter, the micro-blogging site, on 26 May 2019 that “there are claims of torture in Ankara Police Headquarters.” In later hours and days, claims of “beating to unconsciousness, harassment and forcing to watch those who were being tortured, the fact that acts of torture that were incompatible with human dignity were inflicted in at least four cases, the acts were performed by persons coming to Ankara Police Headquarters from outside who identified themselves as MIT; a diplomat who was beaten to unconscious was hospitalized; doctors did not write any report regarding the incident; the torture continued and it was openly stated that it would get worse; attempts were made to get statements through torture ” appeared on the media, thus revealed to the public about some 100 people identified to be Foreign Ministry Staff dismissed through emergency decrees who were kept in custody in Investigation Department of Financial Crimes.”

The attorneys who provided legal assistance for the persons in custody submitted complaints to the center and boards of our bar association regarding the claims of ill-treatment and torture.

Besides complaints about torture, complaints have been submitted regarding the fact that the colleagues who went to see their clients under their duty of defense were forced to sign an affidavit in accordance with orders from the prosecutor’s office, but in violation of the provisions of the CMK, that said, “I declare and undertake that I will take the power of attorney regarding my representing the person I will see for the investigation file … and present it to Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office so that it is included in the investigation file (Attachment-1 Order letter from the prosecutor’s office and the record demanded to be signed).

Our Bar Association’s Center for Attorney Rights, Penal Institutions Board and Center for Human Rights made appointments for the on-site inspection of the claims of ill-treatment and torture and well as the claims that the attorneys were demanded to hand in an affidavit for presenting the power of attorney, which is a violation of CMK provisions, and the appointed colleagues went over to the Ankara Provincial Police Headquarters Investigation Department of Financial Crimes on 27 May 2019 to hold interviews and carry out inspections.

The Trip to Investigation Department of Financial Crimes and the Happenings

  • Coercion into taking an affidavit for presenting the power of attorney

The officials from Center for Attorney Rights of our bar association went over to the department first. As a result of the meetings regarding the order from the prosecutor’s office about taking an affidavit from attorneys for presenting the power of attorney, which violates the provisions of the CMK, the practice of taking an affidavit was discontinued by the chiefs in the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes.

  • Interviews with the persons whose names were reported for suffering ill-treatment and torture

After the discontinuation of the practice of taking an affidavit as a result of the meetings held by the Center of Attorney Rights of our bar association, a second panel comprising members of Penal Institutions Board, Center for Human Rights, and Center for Attorney Rights who visit the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes held a meeting in a closed room with the six persons whose names had been reported regarding the claims of ill-treatment and torture, and statements were officially recorded and signed in the company of the persons who suffered ill-treatment and torture. (The names of the persons interviewed are kept confidential in this report.)

Established by the written statements and as a result of the interviews, the findings regarding the claims of ill-treatment and torture are as follows:

  • All the 6 persons who were interviewed stated that they had been taken to meetings under the pretext of “interviews,” where they were forced to become informants and suffered threats and insults. All the 6 persons who were interviewed stated that they were taken out for an interview more than once, they were put under psychological stress during the interview, and they could identify the persons who carried out the interviews if they saw them.
  • 5 of the 6 persons who were interviewed stated that they suffered ill-treatment and torture outside the interviews. 1 person with whom an interview was held stated that he did not personally suffer ill-treatment and torture but heard about the claims of ill-treatment and torture from the persons with whom he shared a cell and from other persons when they were taken together to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace during the time extension procedures. No discrepancy was found between the names of persons whom this person heard to have suffered ill-treatment and torture and the names of the persons who declared that they suffered ill-treatment and torture
  • According to the common statements of the 5 persons who stated that they had suffered ill-treatment and torture; these persons were taken out of their cells where they were held in custody (one on Saturday night, another the night between Saturday and Sunday, and the other three Sunday night), they were taken to the section on the ground floor of Ankara Provincial Police Headquarters Investigation Department of Financial Crimes (one person said he was taken without handcuffs, while four said they were handcuffed in the back), they were put in through a door with the sign “No Entrance” on it on the narrow hallway at the entrance of the department, the persons who put them in the dark room left, the persons whose faces they could not identify because of the dark first forced them against the wall, blindfolded them (The uncuffed person stated that he was the first to be handcuffed in this room), then forced them to kneel, made them crawl for a while, hit them on the head with truncheons, threatened that they would be raped unless they talked, and the persons in the dark room brushed truncheons on their bodies.

After these events, 3 said they were stripped completely naked, one said he was stripped waist down, one said his trousers were stripped half down; and then 4 persons, the completely and waist-down naked ones, were handcuffed in the back, put in fetus position, had truncheons brush their anal areas; they were subjected to threats and insults all the while; they were given one to two minutes after which they were told “We now move into the next stage” and a substance which they thought to be oil or lubricant was poured on their anal areas and truncheons were brushed around their anal areas. In addition, 1 person stated that they tried to take his trousers off, which they managed to lower halfway, he forced them back up, and he was tortured by having the truncheon brushed over his body and clothes.

  • The 5 persons who said they had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture were asked whether the persons who performed the ill-treatment and torture were one of the persons whose face they saw and voice they heard in the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes and they replied that these were different persons. When asked if they used any expression that might reveal their identity, four of the persons said no such expression was used but one stated that he heard them say, “We came from outside; we’re a professional team.
  • The 5 persons who said they had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that they were accompanied by a police officer during the daily examination of the doctor and they could not tell the doctor about what they experienced because they feared for and were worried about their safety of life.
  • 1 person who said he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that before the ill-treatment and torture defined as the second stage one person asked him whether he was married and when he said he was he was told “Look, you won’t be able to sleep with your wife and you’ll wake up at night and cry.”
  • 1 person who said he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that he got bruises on his knees due to the crawling (the bruises were seen and photographed by the visiting commission) and declared to the doctor on his first examination the day after the torture, but when the doctor verbally declared that he had written in the report as bruises the female officer who was present during the examination panicked, got hold of her mobile phone, and wrote something to someone, and he was then taken out of the room and he was not shown the completed version of the report and they were later transferred to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace for procedures of extending detention time, and the same doctor wrote in the report that there was no mark of battery or coercion in the examination they were taken after the extension decision, and he had no idea about the fate of the other report.
  • 1 person who said he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that he was told before they started ill-treatment and torture that “We rape with truncheons here; you must’ve heard about it. It’s all true,” and then he was subjected to the ill-treatment and torture explained above.
  • 1 person who said he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that he did not say anything to his friends when he returned to the cell after the experience; all he could say was that there was torture, and then he went to sleep; when he wanted to go to the toilet when he woke up he passed out; 112 medical team came in, checked his blood pressure and then left; he also passed out in the morning after the events; and he had not slept for 48 hours.
  • 1 person who said he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture stated that when they were taken before the Criminal Judgeship of Peace he said to the Criminal Judge of Peace that he had been subjected to ill-treatment; the judge answered, “Is it just you? Why doesn’t anyone else have it;” whereupon another person who stated that he had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture said, “I’ve subjected to torture too.” 2 persons in the same trial stated that the judge said, “I’m not a doctor; this isn’t my job; Go tell it to the doctor.”


When our colleagues who were appointed by the central office and boards of our bar association informed the officials at the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes about the names of the persons with whom they wanted to interview, they were told that statements were taken from 3 of these persons since they wanted to take advantage of the provisions of effective remorse and they were then released. The files of these persons had been reviewed and no finding about ill-treatment or torture had been reported in their files. Similarly, the reports of the persons with whom interviews were conducted and about whom the findings above are confirmed had been reviewed and it was reported that there was no sign of battery or coercion. The persons with whom the interviews that revealed the findings were made named the 3 persons who took advantage of the effective remorse and were released and stated that they heard from others who went to the interviews and from still others whom they met at the Criminal Judgeship of Peace when they were transferred to the courthouse for the time extension order for detention that they were subjected to ill-treatment and torture like they were. As stated in the ECHR as well as other international conventions, the presence of the doctor’s report per se is not a sign that no ill-treatment or torture was experienced. When the accounts that reveal the findings above are evaluated as a whole, (it can be seen that) the persons were illegally taken to doctor’s examination in company of a police officer. The accounts of the persons who were heard do not contradict one another. When the accounts are evaluated as a whole, they confirm the fact that these persons were subjected to torture and ill-treatment in a way that would not leave any mark of battery or coercion.

Article 17/3 of the Constitution, which stipulates a ban on torture, reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or mal-treatment; no one shall be subjected to penalties or treatment incompatible with human dignity.”

In addition, Article 3 of the ECHR is as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Moreover, Article 1 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that

“For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.”

These provisions ban torture and ill-treatment in international and national norms.

Furthermore, Article 4 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is as follows:

“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”

International norms stipulate that torture should be defined as crime and penal sanctions should be enforced. Turkey is one of the state parties in the abovementioned convention.

Article 94 of the Turkish Penal Code, titled Torture, is as follows:

“(1) A public officer who performs any act towards a person that is incompatible with human dignity, and which causes that person to suffer physically or mentally, or affects the person’s capacity to perceive or his ability to act of his own will or insults them shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of three to twelve years.

(2) If the offence is committed against:

  1. a) a child, a person who is physically or mentally incapable of defending himself or a pregnant women; or
  2. b) a public officer or an advocate on account of the performance of his duty, a penalty of imprisonment for a term of eight to fifteen years shall be imposed.

(3) If the act is conducted in the manner of sexual harassment, the offender shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years,

(4) Any other person who participates in the commission of this offence shall be sentenced in a manner equivalent to the public officer.

(5) If the offence is committed by way of omission there shall be no reduction in the sentence.”

In our Turkish Penal code, the crime of torture entails penal sanctions. In this respect, considering the findings above, an investigation must be launched against the concerned parties and not also the persons who ignore the crime of torture and commit the crime of torture but also anybody else who attacked the physical and mental entity of others must be identified and punished.

Therefore, the law stipulates that

  • Considering the fact that the law enforcement officers who carried out the investigation into the detainees could be the suspects of a probable investigation of torture or ill-treatment, they should be suspended from the investigation so that torture and ill-treatment against the detainees can be prevented and the investigation can be carried out effectively;
  • Although daily doctor’s examinations must be conducted in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, to which Turkey is a party, necessary instructions must be submitted for examination procedures to be conducted in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol because law enforcement was kept present during examination in violation of the protocol;
  • All the suspects kept in custody in Ankara Provincial Police Headquarters Investigation Department of Financial Crimes must be brought before the prosecutor’s office immediately without getting their statements completed at the police headquarters;
  • An investigation must be launched ex-officio for the identification of the persons who committed the crime of torture; an effective investigation must be conducted so that material facts can be revealed and any spoliation of evidence can be forestalled; units and members of Provincial Gendarmerie must be used as per Articles 160/2 and 164 of the CMK no. 5271, and units and members of the police must not be appointed directly in this investigation;
  • All the raw camera footages from 20 May 2019 when the detention procedures were started to 28 May 2018 must be collected immediately starting with those of the different places of detention where the suspects were kept at Ankara Provincial Police Headquarters, the camera footages that show the entrances and exits of the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes as well as all the camera footages inside the Investigation Department of Financial Crimes, and the moments when the detained suspects were being taken away for interviews and torture so that the suspect law enforcement officers can be identified; because it is known that camera recordings were previously erased after their preservation for 30 days in similar applications due to claims of law enforcement officers’ battery and torture against both attorneys and suspects, legal obligations must be fulfilled for all pieces of evidence to be collected and protected;
  • Considering the fact that the law enforcement officers who carried out the investigation could well be the suspects of a probable investigation of torture or ill-treatment, the staff who were assigned to the said operations must be suspended until the investigation into claims of torture and ill-treatment is completed;
  • Considering the fact that a judge who learns about a claim of torture and ill-treatment is obliged to take action and that the Criminal Judge of Peace did not take any action although the persons declared to him that they were subjected to torture, the Criminal Judge of Peace who issued an extension on detention period must be identified and necessary legal action must be taken against him.

In this respect, we bring to the public attention the fact that we are ready to present Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office with the records and documents drawn up by the members of our bar association in the boards and central office in case or when they are demanded and we as Ankara Bar Association will continue the legal struggle to the very end so that torture and ill-treatment can be eliminated.

Hukuka aykırı delil(!) ByLock

Bilindiği gibi dünyanın bir çok yerinde insan hakları ihlalleri devletler eliyle yapılmaktadır. Türkiye özelinde de özellikle son 3 yıldır binlerce kadın-erkek, yaşlı-çocuk, hamile-hasta ayrımı yapılmaksızın tutuklanmaktadır.

Tutuklanan kişiler arasında daha önce toplumda tanınan gazeteci, yazar, akademisyen, aktivist, hukukçu, diplomat, işadamı, eğitimci, bürokrat ve hatta sporcular dahi bulunmaktadır. Mevcut Erdoğan rejimi bu kişileri terör veya darbecilikle suçlarken en büyük delil olarak, IAJ (Uluslararası Yargıçlar Birliği) tanımlaması ile WhatsApp benzeri bir iletişim programı olan ByLock programını kullanmayı kabul etmiştir.

Derneğimiz, sayısı 200 binleri bulan bu mağdur kitlesi için hukuki çalışmalar başlatmıştır. Bu çalışmaların en başında ByLock kullanıcılarının kişisel verilerinin saklandığı (Baltic/Cherry Server, Litvanya) Litvanya’da adli makamlara  suç duyurularında bulunmuştur.

Aynı zamanda üyelerimiz tarafından ByLock kullanıcı kişisel verilerini depolayan Baltic/Cherry Server’a mailler ile bu bilgilerin Türk İstihbarat Teşkilatı tarafından nasıl alındığı sorulmuştur. Bununla beraber Litvanya Parlementosu Hukuk Düzeni Komitesine Türkiye adli makamları ile bu konuda bir adli yardımlaşma yapılıp yapılmadığı sorulmuştur.

Gelen cevaplara göre;

  1. Litvanya Savcılığı, yazdığı karar metninde kısaca; 200 binden fazla kullanıcının kişisel verisinin Türk makamlarınca resmi/hukuki bir yolla alınmadığı, muhtemelen Baltic Server dan Claudia Martins sahte adlı bir müşteri kılığında hacklenmiş olabileceği belirtilmiştir.
  2. ByLock kişisel verilerinin saklandığı Baltic/Cherry Server’dan gelen cevapta ise hiçbir adli veya istihbari bir kuruma bilgi verilmediği belirtilmiştir.
  3. Litvanya Parlementosu Hukuk Düzeni Komitesi de yine ByLock konusunda Türk makamları ile adli yardımlaşma yapılmadığı ifade edilmiştir.  

Bu durumda; Türk adli makamları daha önceki AİHM kararlarına ve kişisel verileri koruyan kanunları yok sayarak binlerce kişiyi istihbari olarak ele geçirdiğini kabul ettiği yasal olmayan ve suç olmayan bir veri ile tutuklayarak insan haklarını ihlal etmiştir/etmektedir.

Aşağıda yönetim kurulumuz adına Av. Fatih Şahinler’in kısa hukuki değerlendirmesinde detaylı görüleceği gibi istihbari veriler delil olarak kullanılamaz ve hüküm verilemez. ByLock iddiası ile verilen tüm kararlar kanuni ve bilimsel değildir.

Kısaca; Yukarıda belirttiğimiz evraklar sitemize orijinal ve onaylı olarak konulmuştur. Bu belgeleri tüm dünya kamuoyuna ilan ederek mağdur olan kişilerin avukatları aracılığı ile mahkemelerine ibraz edebileceğini duyururuz. Hakları çiğnenen tüm mağdurlar için sonuna kadar hukuki mücadelemiz sürecektir.

HRD Yönetim Kurulu

Ceza yargılamalarında somut gerçeğe ulaşmak için 5271 Sayılı CMK’nın 217/2.maddesinde “Yüklenen suç, hukuka uygun bir şekilde elde edilmiş her türlü delille ispat edilebilir.” hükmüne yer verilmiştir. Fakat bu her türlü delil ifadesi sınırsız değildir. Anayasa’nın 38/6.maddesinde “Kanuna aykırı elde edilmiş bulgular, delil olarak kabul edilemeyeceği” düzenlenmiş; buna paralel olarak CMK’nın 206/2-a maddesinde de

(2) Ortaya konulması istenilen bir delil aşağıda yazılı hâllerde reddolunur:

a) Delil, kanuna aykırı olarak elde edilmişse. 

Hükmü ile yargılamayı yapan mahkemeye, delillerin hukuka uygun olup olmadığını, değerlendirme ve hukuka aykırı elde edilmiş olan delilleri reddetme görevi verilmiştir. Bu nedenle hukuka aykırı bir biçimde elde edildiği anlaşılan delillerin, hükme esas alınmaması gerekmektedir.

Anayasanın 38/6, 5271 Sayılı CMK’nın 217/2 ve 206. maddelerindeki bu açık ve emredici düzenlemeler nedeniyle, hukuka uygun bir biçimde elde edilmemiş olan hiçbir bilgi ve bulgu, ceza muhakemesinde delil olarak kullanılamaz, hükme esas alınamaz.

Sitemize eklemiş olduğumuz karar tercümesinden anlaşılacağı üzere şu anda ceza yargılamalarında delil olarak kabul edilen ByLock verilerinin yasalarımıza belirtilen kurallara aykırı olarak elde edildiğini apaçık göstermektedir. Dijital verilerin ne şekilde elde edileceği ve delil niteliği kazanacağı 5271 Sayılı CMK’nın 134. Maddesinde, iletişimin tesbiti ve denetlenmesi yoluyla elde edilen bilgilerin ise 5271 Sayılı CMK’nın 135. Maddesinde düzenlenmiştir.

Ekte bahsettiğimiz kararı dileyen ve ihtiyacı olan herkesin mahkemelere Anayasanın 38/6, 5271 Sayılı CMK’nın 217/2, 206, 134 ve 135. Maddelerine açıkça aykırılığını belirten bir dilekçe ekinde ve ayrıca sözlü olarak mahkemelere sunmalarının faydalı olacağını ümit ediyoruz.


Madde 134 – (1) Bir suç dolayısıyla yapılan soruşturmada, başka surette delil elde etme imkânının bulunmaması halinde, Cumhuriyet savcısının istemi üzerine şüphelinin kullandığı bilgisayar ve bilgisayar programları ile bilgisayar kütüklerinde arama yapılmasına, bilgisayar kayıtlarından kopya çıkarılmasına, bu kayıtların çözülerek metin hâline getirilmesine hâkim tarafından karar verilir.

(2) Bilgisayar, bilgisayar programları ve bilgisayar kütüklerine şifrenin çözülememesinden dolayı girilememesi veya gizlenmiş bilgilere ulaşılamaması halinde çözümün yapılabilmesi ve gerekli kopyaların alınabilmesi için, bu araç ve gereçlere elkonulabilir. Şifrenin çözümünün yapılması ve gerekli kopyaların alınması halinde, elkonulan cihazlar gecikme olmaksızın iade edilir.

(3) Bilgisayar veya bilgisayar kütüklerine elkoyma işlemi sırasında, sistemdeki bütün verilerin yedeklemesi yapılır.

(4) İstemesi halinde, bu yedekten bir kopya çıkarılarak şüpheliye veya vekiline verilir ve bu husus tutanağa geçirilerek imza altına alınır.

(5) Bilgisayar veya bilgisayar kütüklerine elkoymaksızın da, sistemdeki verilerin tamamının veya bir kısmının kopyası alınabilir. Kopyası alınan veriler kâğıda yazdırılarak, bu husus tutanağa kaydedilir ve ilgililer tarafından imza altına alınır.



Madde 135 – (1) (Değişik cümle: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./17.mad) Bir suç dolayısıyla yapılan soruşturma ve kovuşturmada, suç işlendiğine ilişkin kuvvetli şüphe sebeplerinin varlığı ve başka suretle delil elde edilmesi imkânının bulunmaması durumunda, hâkim veya gecikmesinde sakınca bulunan hallerde Cumhuriyet savcısının kararıyla şüpheli veya sanığın telekomünikasyon yoluyla iletişimi tespit edilebilir, dinlenebilir, kayda alınabilir ve sinyal bilgileri değerlendirilebilir. Cumhuriyet savcısı kararını derhâl hâkimin onayına sunar ve hâkim, kararını en geç yirmidört saat içinde verir. Sürenin dolması veya hâkim tarafından aksine karar verilmesi halinde tedbir Cumhuriyet savcısı tarafından derhâl kaldırılır.

(2) Şüpheli veya sanığın tanıklıktan çekinebilecek kişilerle arasındaki iletişimi kayda alınamaz. Kayda alma gerçekleştikten sonra bu durumun anlaşılması hâlinde, alınan kayıtlar derhâl yok edilir.

(3) Birinci fıkra hükmüne göre verilen kararda, yüklenen suçun türü, hakkında tedbir uygulanacak kişinin kimliği, iletişim aracının türü, telefon numarası veya iletişim bağlantısını tespite imkân veren kodu, tedbirin türü, kapsamı ve süresi belirtilir. Tedbir kararı en çok üç ay için verilebilir; bu süre, bir defa daha uzatılabilir. (Ek cümle: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./17.mad) Ancak, örgütün faaliyeti çerçevesinde işlenen suçlarla ilgili olarak gerekli görülmesi halinde, hâkim bir aydan fazla olmamak üzere sürenin müteaddit defalar uzatılmasına karar verebilir.

(4) Şüpheli veya sanığın yakalanabilmesi için, … mobil telefonun yeri, hâkim veya gecikmesinde sakınca bulunan hallerde Cumhuriyet savcısının kararına istinaden tespit edilebilir. Bu hususa ilişkin olarak verilen kararda, … mobil telefon numarası ve tespit işleminin süresi belirtilir. Tespit işlemi en çok üç ay için yapılabilir; bu süre, bir defa daha uzatılabilir.

(5) Bu Madde hükümlerine göre alınan karar ve yapılan işlemler, tedbir süresince gizli tutulur.

(6) Bu Madde kapsamında dinleme, kayda alma ve sinyal bilgilerinin değerlendirilmesine ilişkin hükümler ancak aşağıda sayılan suçlarla ilgili olarak uygulanabilir:

a) Türk Ceza Kanununda yer alan;

1. Göçmen kaçakçılığı ve insan ticareti (Madde 79, 80),

2. Kasten öldürme (Madde 81, 82, 83),

3. İşkence (Madde 94, 95),

4. Cinsel saldırı (birinci fıkra hariç, Madde 102),

5. Çocukların cinsel istismarı (Madde 103),

6. Uyuşturucu veya uyarıcı Madde imal ve ticareti (Madde 188),

7. Parada sahtecilik (Madde 197),

8. Suç işlemek amacıyla örgüt kurma (iki, yedi ve sekizinci fıkralar hariç, Madde 220),

9. (Ek alt bend: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./17.mad) *1* Fuhuş (Madde 227, fıkra 3),

10. İhaleye fesat karıştırma (Madde 235),

11. Rüşvet (Madde 252),

12. Suçtan kaynaklanan malvarlığı değerlerini aklama (Madde 282),

13. Silahlı örgüt (Madde 314) veya bu örgütlere silah sağlama (Madde 315),

14. Devlet Sırlarına Karşı Suçlar ve Casusluk (Madde 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337) suçları.

b) Ateşli Silahlar ve Bıçaklar ile Diğer Aletler Hakkında Kanunda tanımlanan silah kaçakçılığı (Madde 12) suçları.

c) (Ek bend: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./17.mad) Bankalar Kanununun 22 nci Maddesinin (3) ve (4) numaralı fıkralarında tanımlanan zimmet suçu, *1*

d) Kaçakçılıkla Mücadele Kanununda tanımlanan ve hapis cezasını gerektiren suçlar.

e) Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Kanununun 68 ve 74 üncü Maddelerinde tanımlanan suçlar.

(7) Bu Maddede belirlenen esas ve usuller dışında hiç kimse, bir başkasının telekomünikasyon yoluyla iletişimini dinleyemez ve kayda alamaz.


Madde 206 – (1) Sanığın sorguya çekilmesinden sonra delillerin ortaya konulmasına başlanır. (Ek cümleler: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./29.mad) Ancak, sanığın tebligata rağmen mazeretsiz olarak gelmemesi sebebiyle sorgusunun yapılamamış olması, delillerin ortaya konulmasına engel olmaz. Ortaya konulan deliller, sonradan gelen sanığa bildirilir.

(2) Ortaya konulması istenilen bir delil aşağıda yazılı hâllerde reddolunur:

a) Delil, kanuna aykırı olarak elde edilmişse.

b) Delil ile ispat edilmek istenilen olayın karara etkisi yoksa.

c) İstem, sadece davayı uzatmak maksadıyla yapılmışsa.

(3) Cumhuriyet savcısı ile sanık veya müdafii birlikte rıza gösterirlerse, tanığın dinlenmesinden veya başka herhangi bir delilin ortaya konulmasından vazgeçilebilir.

(4) (Madde metninden çıkarılan fıkra: 25/05/2005-5353 S.K./29.mad)


Madde 217 – (1) Hâkim, kararını ancak duruşmaya getirilmiş ve huzurunda tartışılmış delillere dayandırabilir. Bu deliller hâkimin vicdanî kanaatiyle serbestçe takdir edilir.

(2) Yüklenen suç, hukuka uygun bir şekilde elde edilmiş her türlü delille ispat edilebilir.

C. Suç ve cezalara ilişkin esaslar

MADDE 38- Kimse, işlendiği zaman yürürlükte bulunan kanunun suç saymadığı bir fiilden dolayı cezalandırılamaz; kimseye suçu işlediği zaman kanunda o suç için konulmuş olan cezadan daha ağır bir ceza verilemez.

Suç ve ceza zamanaşımı ile ceza mahkûmiyetinin sonuçları konusunda da yukarıdaki fıkra uygulanır.

Ceza ve ceza yerine geçen güvenlik tedbirleri ancak kanunla konulur.

Suçluluğu hükmen sabit oluncaya kadar, kimse suçlu sayılamaz.

Hiç kimse kendisini ve kanunda gösterilen yakınlarını suçlayan bir beyanda bulunmaya veya bu yolda delil göstermeye zorlanamaz.

(Ek fıkra: 3/10/2001-4709/15 md.) Kanuna aykırı olarak elde edilmiş bulgular, delil olarak kabul edilemez.

Ceza sorumluluğu şahsîdir.

(Ek fıkra: 3/10/2001-4709/15 md.) Hiç kimse, yalnızca sözleşmeden doğan bir yükümlülüğü yerine getirememesinden dolayı özgürlüğünden alıkonulamaz.

(Ek fıkra: 3/10/2001-4709/15 md.) (Mülga: 7/5/2004-5170/5 md.)

(Değişik: 7/5/2004-5170/5 md.)Ölüm cezası ve genel müsadere cezası verilemez.

İdare, kişi hürriyetinin kısıtlanması sonucunu doğuran bir müeyyide uygulayamaz. Silahlı Kuvvetlerin iç düzeni bakımından bu hükme kanunla istisnalar getirilebilir.

(Değişik: 7/5/2004-5170/5 md.)Uluslararası Ceza Divanına taraf olmanın gerektirdiği yükümlülükler hariç olmak üzere vatandaş, suç sebebiyle yabancı bir ülkeye verilemez.

Av. Fatih Şahinler

International women’s day 2019: More than 17.000 innocent women in Turkish prisons

Turkey has developed into an “open-air prison”: more than 17,000 women were illegally arrested after the alleged coup attempt of 15 July 2016 and are exposed to inhuman prison conditions.

Some of these women are pregnant, about to give birth, or are placed in overcrowded prisons with their babies and children.

Torture, sexual abuse, poor access to health care, ignoring visitor rights, no educational opportunities for children and much more are becoming more common.

“The International Women’s Day is the most important rally for women’s suffrage, which can record the history of the movement for the emancipation of the women to this day.” Clara Zetkin, 1911


Today we celebrate International Women’s Day. The main demands of the founders of Women’s Day are now fulfilled, at least in Europe. Nevertheless, much remains to be done in matters of women’s rights. Equal opportunities in working life, equal pay for equal work, improving the situation of migrant women, combating violence against women and against forced prostitution or trafficking of women are some of the issues that we need to address vigorously.

In countries in which the rule of law is endangered and democratic values ​​are not anchored in the respective society, there is a great need for action. One of these countries is Turkey, where women are wronged. Fundamental rights and freedoms, the rule of law and democracy have largely been suspended in Turkey since the declaration of the state of emergency in July 2016. The termination of the state of emergency has not changed anything since the regulations of this state continues to apply.

Turkey has developed into an “open-air prison”: more than 17,000 women were illegally arrested after the alleged coup attempt of 15 July 2016 and are exposed to inhuman prison conditions. Some of these women are pregnant, about to give birth, or are placed in overcrowded prisons with their babies and children. Torture, sexual abuse, poor access to health care, ignoring visitor rights, no educational opportunities for children and much more are becoming more common. This approach is both a violation of universally recognized ethical principles, as well as a violation of international conventions, to which Turkey is legally obliged to comply.

We call on all women’s rights activists, NGOs and the European Parliament to take action against this practice by the Turkish government to stop the witch hunt against innocent women. In addition, international organizations should have the opportunity to identify, investigate, and help to stop the massive human rights abuses in Turkey and bring to account those who violate the applicable law.

Köln, 8th March 2019

Human Rights Defenders e.V.

Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 January 2019,
at the 1335th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between the member States, in particular by promoting the adoption of common rules in legal matters;

Considering the necessity of providing practical guidance for the handling of electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings to courts and other competent authorities with adjudicative functions; professionals, including legal practitioners; and parties to proceedings;

Considering that these guidelines seek to provide a common framework rather than a harmonisation of the national legislation of the member States;

Considering the need to respect the diversity in the legal systems of the member States;

Acknowledging the progress made in the member States towards the digitisation of their justice systems;

Noting, nonetheless, obstacles to the effective management of electronic evidence within justice systems, such as the lack of common standards and the diversity and complexity of evidence-taking procedures;

Highlighting the need to facilitate the use of electronic evidence within legal systems and in court practices;

Recognising the need for member States to examine current deficiencies in the use of electronic evidence and to identify the areas where electronic evidence principles and practices could be introduced or improved;

Noting that the aim of these guidelines is to provide practical solutions to the existing deficiencies in law and practice,

Adopts the following guidelines to serve as a practical tool for the member States, to assist them in adapting the operation of their judicial and other dispute-resolution mechanisms to address issues arising in relation to electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings, and invites them to disseminate these guidelines widely with a view to their implementation by those responsible for, or otherwise handling, electronic evidence.

Purpose and scope

The guidelines deal with:

–                    oral evidence taken by a remote link;

–                    use of electronic evidence;

–                    collection, seizure and transmission of evidence;

–                    relevance;

–                    reliability;

–                    storage and preservation;

–                    archiving;

–                    awareness-raising, review, training and education.

The guidelines are not to be interpreted as prescribing a specific probative value for certain types of electronic evidence and are to be applied only insofar as they are not in conflict with national legislation.

The guidelines aim to facilitate the use and management of electronic evidence within legal systems and in court practices.


For the purposes of these guidelines:

Electronic evidence

“Electronic evidence” means any evidence derived from data contained in or produced by any device, the functioning of which depends on a software program or data stored on or transmitted over a computer system or network.


“Metadata” refers to electronic information about other electronic data, which may reveal the identification, origin or history of the evidence, as well as relevant dates and times.

Trust service

“Trust service” means an electronic service which consists of:

a.     the creation, verification and validation of electronic signatures, electronic seals or electronic time stamps, electronic registered delivery services and certificates related to those services; or

b.     the creation, verification and validation of certificates for website authentication; or

c.     the preservation of electronic signatures, seals or certificates related to those services.


The term “court” includes any competent authority with adjudicative functions in the performance of which it handles electronic evidence.

Fundamental principles

It is for courts to decide on the potential probative value of electronic evidence in accordance with national law.

Electronic evidence should be evaluated in the same way as other types of evidence, in particular regarding its admissibility, authenticity, accuracy and integrity.

The treatment of electronic evidence should not be disadvantageous to the parties or give unfair advantage to one of them.


Oral evidence taken by remote link

1.            Oral evidence can be taken remotely, using technical devices, if the nature of the evidence so permits.

2.            When deciding whether oral evidence can be taken remotely, the courts should consider, in particular, the following factors:

–           the significance of the evidence;

–           the status of the person giving evidence;

–           the security and integrity of the video link through which the evidence is to be transmitted;

–           costs and difficulties of bringing the relevant person to court.

3.            When taking evidence remotely, it is necessary to ensure that:

a.    the transmission of the oral evidence can be seen and heard by those involved in the proceedings and by members of the public where the proceedings are held in public; and

b.    the person being heard from a remote location is able to see and hear the proceedings to the extent necessary to ensure that they are conducted fairly and effectively.

4.            The procedure and technologies applied to the taking of evidence from a remote location should not compromise the admissibility of such evidence and the ability of the court to establish the identity of the persons concerned.

5.            Irrespective of whether evidence is transmitted via a private or a public connection, the quality of the videoconference should be ensured and the video signal encrypted to protect against interception.

Use of electronic evidence

6.            Courts should not refuse electronic evidence and should not deny its legal effect only because it is collected and/or submitted in an electronic form.

7.            In principle, courts should not deny the legal effect of electronic evidence only because it lacks an advanced, qualified or similarly secured electronic signature.

8.            Courts should be aware of the probative value of metadata and of the potential consequences of not using it.

9.            Parties should be permitted to submit electronic evidence in its original electronic format, without the need to supply printouts.

Collection, seizure and transmission

10.          Electronic evidence should be collected in an appropriate and secure manner, and submitted to the courts using reliable services, such as trust services.

11.          Having regard to the higher risk of the potential destruction or loss of electronic evidence compared to non-electronic evidence, member States should establish procedures for the secure seizure and collection of electronic evidence.

12.          Courts should be aware of the specific issues that arise when dealing with the seizure and collection of electronic evidence abroad, including in cross-border cases.

13.          Courts should co-operate in the cross-border taking of evidence. The court receiving the request should inform the requesting court of all the conditions, including restrictions, under which evidence can be taken by the requested court.

14.          Electronic evidence should be collected, structured and managed in a manner that facilitates its transmission to other courts, in particular to an appellate court.

15.          Transmission of electronic evidence by electronic means should be encouraged and facilitated in order to improve efficiency in court proceedings.

16.          Systems and devices used for transmitting electronic evidence should be capable of maintaining its integrity.


17.          Courts should engage in the active management of electronic evidence in order, in particular, to avoid excessive or speculative provision of, or demand for, electronic evidence.

18.          Courts may require the analysis of electronic evidence by experts, especially when complex evidentiary issues are raised or where manipulation of electronic evidence is alleged. Courts should decide whether such persons have sufficient expertise in the matter.


19.          As regards reliability, courts should consider all relevant factors concerning the source and authenticity of the electronic evidence.

20.          Courts should be aware of the value of trust services in establishing the reliability of electronic evidence.

21.          As far as a national legal system permits, and subject to the court’s discretion, electronic data should be accepted as evidence unless the authenticity of such data is challenged by one of the parties.

22.          As far as a national legal system permits, and subject to the court’s discretion, the reliability of the electronic data should be presumed, provided that the identity of the signatory can be validated and the integrity of the data secured, unless and until there are reasonable doubts to the contrary.

23.          Where applicable law provides special protection for categories of vulnerable persons that law should have precedence over these guidelines.

24.          As far as a national legal system so provides, where a public authority transmits electronic evidence independently of the parties, such evidence is conclusive as to its content, unless and until proved to the contrary.

Storage and preservation

25.          Electronic evidence should be stored in a manner that preserves readability, accessibility, integrity, authenticity, reliability and, where applicable, confidentiality and privacy.

26.          Electronic evidence should be stored with standardised metadata so that the context of its creation is clear.

27.          The readability and accessibility of stored electronic evidence should be guaranteed over time, taking into account the evolution of information technology.


28.          Courts should archive electronic evidence in accordance with national law. Electronic archives should meet all safety requirements and guarantee the integrity, authenticity, confidentiality and quality of the data as well as respect for privacy.

29.          The archiving of electronic evidence should be carried out by qualified specialists.

30.          Data should be migrated to new storage media when necessary in order to preserve accessibility to electronic evidence.

Awareness-raising, review, training and education

31.          Member States should promote awareness of the benefits and value of electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings.

32.          Member States should keep technical standards related to electronic evidence under review.

33.          All professionals dealing with electronic evidence should have access to the necessary interdisciplinary training on how to handle such evidence.

34.          Judges and legal practitioners should be aware of the evolution of information technologies which may affect the availability and value of electronic evidence.

35.          Legal education should include modules on electronic evidence.



HRD has issued a new Report on Bylock which is used as a tool by Erdogan Regime to incriminate people

ByLock is not an application that is used in the so-called coup attempt on 15th July 2016 as the Erdogan Regime and the media claims. Because this application was closed five months before the coup attempt, in March 2016.

How did a digital communication application, become a material of for the Erdogan regime the justification for arresting more than 60 thousand people in Turkey?

President Erdogan, who claimed to have learned the so-called coup attempt on 15th July 2016 (15/7) from his brother-in-law during the attempt, declared the supporters of Gülen movement as the perpetrators of the coup, whom he considered being responsible for the 17th /25th December 2013 Corruption and Bribery operations.

The “Erdogan Regime” dismissed approximately four thousand judges and prosecutors of their duties on 17th July 2016, right afterwards of the coup attempt, with the claim of being coup plotters and arrested many of them in order to establish his own judicial system.

Later on, he had thousands of people arrested. Among them journalists, teachers, doctors, lawyers and businessmen. The common characteristic of these people was being opposed to the Erdogan Regime.

Those arrests are generally justified by reasons such as writing critical columns, depositing money to a legal bank, sending their children to the schools allegedly having ties to Gülen movement and being members to legal unions and foundations.

Erdogan and his judiciary, who knew that these claims are not enough to justify the arrests, needed a new excuse to strengthen the claims why they have arrested the opposition.

Within this need, they made the perception that the “ByLock” application have been used in 15th of July Coup Attempt only by Gülen supporters. They made people believe that the ByLock application is classified, incognito and only known by the members of Hizmet Movement, installed differently to the devices and encrypted.

After they made this perception accepted by the society, the lists of names which were prepared by  unknown people in unknown dates from the National Intelligence Agency (MIT), which has no authority and function as a law enforcement agency, were sent to the units of judiciary and then accepted as concrete evidence for the alleged crimes of being a member to a terrorist organization by judiciary without questioning.

ByLock application is not an application that is used in the so-called coup attempt as the Erdogan Regime and the media claims. Because this application was closed five months before the coup attempt, in March 2016.

ByLock application was not an application that only had been used by Hizmet Movement members secretly, because it was an application that was downloaded more than 600.000 times from Google Play Store and App Store worldwide. The Bylock application, which is presented as an enigmatic, encrypted application was even simpler than the applications such as WhatsApp, Viber, Line and Tango.

But as a result of this perception, approximately 17.000 women along with their 668 babies were arrested in Turkey with the accusations of using ByLock. The number of total arrests is around 60 thousand and it is increasing. The members of judiciary who questioned this process with suspicion are either expelled or dismissed from their duties. Therefore, it was seen as a necessity to prepare this Report, aiming to show that all the announcements and procedure of judiciary and National Intelligence Agency, under the control of the Erdogan Regime, regarding ByLock are in fact to create a groundless perception.

World Justice Project’s research team has issued Rule of Law Index 2017- 2018

The WJP Rule of Law Index measures rule of law adherence in 113 countries and jurisdictions worldwide based on more than 110,000 household and 3,000 expert surveys. Featuring primary data, the WJP Rule of Law Index measures countries’ rule of law performance across eight factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice.

Download report (PDF) or
Explore the interactive data 

“The Platform for an Independent Judiciary in Turkey” has drafted a letter about Turkey

“The Platform for an Independent Judiciary in Turkey” has drafted a letter about Turkey

On the occasion of the Human Rights Day 2018, the Platform for an Independent Judiciary in Turkey , composed of the four major European associations of judges ( The Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ) , The European Association of Judges , Judges for Judges and The “Magistrats Europeens pour la Democratie et les Libertes” (MEDEL) drafted a letter about Turkey ,inviting all governmental leaders and parliaments to support Turkey to re-install the rule of law and to follow its obligation to respect fundamental human rights.

Read with source:

10 December 2018, Press Release regarding human rights violations in Turkey

With a press release in front of European Court of Human Rights, HRD members and volunteers drew attention to the human rights violations in Turkey.
Human Rights Defenders invited the European Court of Human Rights to take an effective initiative.


70 years ago, on the 10th of December 1948, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Both, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “European Convention on Human Rights” envisages and embraces the basic and fundamental rights and freedoms of people, which should be under the protection of the States and above all of them, of the United Nations.

As we observe the 70th Anniversary of this significant and historical Day, we unfortunately do witness that this protection is not granted to everyone, and those who should serve this goal are acting inconsequently. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which we apply to, does not fulfill its function in accordance with its purpose of establishment. The Court did not develop court practices within its range of authority to prevent human rights’ violations and ignores millions of “human rights violations” which can even be seen with bare eyes.

In Turkey, human righs violations today became massive, and each day these violations become irretrievable. The Turkish Government, or rather the notorious “Erdogan Regime” as it is now, has become a despotic rule, comparing to the much promising State which it was a half a decade ago, had strong relations with European Union. The Turkish Government, turned its back on reforms related to human rights and further democratization efforts starting from December 2013 swiftly and became a literal dictatorship after 15 July 2016. Right now, it is impossible to talk about even the very existence of fundamental rights and freedoms. Everything is at the mercy of one person, and the basic human rights are unfortunately ignored.

These human rights violations in Turkey are reflected in several international reports such as “2017 report of Human Rights Watch”, “2017 report of Office of The United Nations High Commissioner For Human Rights”, “the 2018 report of Amnesty International”, “the 2018 report of the Platform of Peace and Justice regarding the children rights’ violations in Turkey”, “the 2018 report of European Parliament”.

Although, that in those international reports, as well as the some verdicts such as the verdict of the local court in England and thousands of petitions written by the victims of the Erdogan Regime it is expressed that THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT AS FAIR TRIAL, the ECHR ignores the facts and turns a blind eye on the human right violations in Turkey.

So, what exactly is happening in Turkey in terms of human rights violations? In Turkey, the rights which are ensured by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated. Such as:

1- In Turkey, the most fundamental right of people, “the Right to live” is taken away,

  • -In Eastern and South Eastern provinces, tens of villages and towns are destroyed, tens of thousands of Kurdish people were forced to leave their homes
  • -Trustees are assigned to the provincial offices that are affiliated to the Ruling Party to ignore the will of the local people
  • -In prisons, thousands of convicts and prisoners’ right to live is taken away, by systematic tortures and depriving their rights of healthcare
  • -The people of the “Hizmet” movement and any other civil society organizations which seem to be opposing are targeted by hate speeches and witch hunts, therefore, their right to live is taken away from them.
  • -Tens of politicians of the opposition, hundreds of journalists are kept in prisons because of their political believes.

2- The “Right to Work” is stolen.

  • -With decree-laws, more than 130.000 people (whose victimhood is explained detailly in the 2018 report of Amnesty International) are dismissed from public duties, of them 33.500 teachers, 7.000 health workers, 31.500 security workers, 6.000 academics, 39.000 public servants, 13.000 soldiers.
  • -More than 100.000 employees from the companies (schools, universities, study houses, hospitals, foundations, federations, unions, media institutions) which are closed by confiscation or assigning trustees are dismissed from their jobs. They are prevented to find other jobs in different places by the State further. They are left to a “civil death”.
  • -The workers are working under extreme and worst conditions (e.g. the construction of Istanbul airport) and unfortunately many workers are facing death every day. Child workers are being employed and current unions cannot say any critic.

3- In Turkey, the Right of Property of people is arbitrarily taken away.

  • -In Eastern and Southeastern provinces, the houses and lands which were evacuated because of the suspect of terror are confiscated and people were prevented to return to their homes
  • -All the assets of the institutions and persons of Hizmet movement are usurped and made available to the supporters of the regime.
  • -With arbitrary decisions, the environment is being damaged, and the ecologic balance is destroyed, the lands of people are confiscated with low costs (e.g. the project of Kanal Istanbul)

4- The “Right of not being subject to torture” of people is being violated

  • -Torture, which conflicts with human dignity became again a routine in Turkey. All the opposition receives systematic torture. (This situation is indicated clearly in the March 2018 report of the UN Human Rights)
  • -More than half of all journalists who are in prison in all over the world, 259 people, are in Turkish prisons right now. These people are treated as terrorists and tortured.

5- The “Right to assembly and demonstration” is being violated.

  • -Hundreds of NGO’s are closed and their assets confiscated including unions (e.g. AksionIs and Cihansen)
  • -The fundamental right of democracy to demonstrate and meet is cancelled by the governors who became the political tools of the government

6- In Turkey, the “Right to fair trial” is consciously destroyed

  • -4500 prosecutors and judges who constitute one third of all current judges and prosecutors in Turkey are exported from the duty. Nearly all of them are issued arrest warrants
  • -Currently 3500 prosecutors-judges and 1500 lawyers in Turkey are in prisons.
  • -The verdict of ECHR is not applied (e.g. the Selahattin Demirtaş decision of ECHR)
  • -The verdicts of the Constitutional Court are not applied by the local courts (e.g. the decision of the Constitutional Court about journalist Mehmet Altan and Şahin Alpay)
  • -The people who are labeled as “spies, terrorists” are evacuated in few days when states got involved (pastor Brunson, journalist Deniz Yucel etc.) but the convicts who suffer from cancer are not even sent to the any medical treatment.
  • -The judges who are supposed to be neutral and independent do not consider it harmful to announce their political beliefs, which are mostly in line with the ruling Erdagan Regime.
  • -The bill of indictments is not prepared. The people stay in prisons for months but cannot even learn the accusations against them. (Osman Kavala is kept in prison for a year without preparing his bill of indictment)
  • -There are arbitrary long imprisonments. The judges are afraid to evacuate people.
  • -743 babies are kept in prisons along with their mothers.
  • As the reassurance of all fundamental rights and freedoms, the “RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL” is removed, there is no guarantee for any rights in Turkey now.

Today, the only HOPE against the crimes of hate, discrimination and torture committed by the oppressive regime in Turkey is the existence of law. The notorious “Erdogan Regime” commits crimes against the universal principles of law by its acts of crimes against humanity. It deprived the Republic of Turkey which was loyal to the international agreements it has signed from law and democratic values. This should not be allowed.

The ECHR in Europe, which was established to protect the human rights was an institution that set an example to the world. But the court is criticized by prestigious legal experts and institutions because of the decisions it made and the decisions it didn’t make. This delay of ECHR to decide is expressed in international conferences and meetings often. Letters are sent to the court by renowned law circles and the attitude of the court is examined in universities by being subjects to theses. The ECHR cannot hide behind the excuse of not exhausted domestic remedies anymore. About tens of files which are issued in 2014, processed in all phases and finalized, for which there is no option of domestic remedies now, the court hesitates to decide. Its hesitation to decide in many files in which the human right violations are proved makes the impression as if it negotiated with the “Erdogan regime” in the world. And this strengthens the critics saying that the ECHR stopped being an independent and neutral court and became a political institution. All the reputation of the court gained in years is somehow being destroyed. The ECHR cannot run away from its responsibility regarding what is happening in Turkey and its attitude will definitely remembered in history. We as the volunteers of “Human Rights Defenders” call the ECHR to take responsibility about what is happening in Turkey in accordance with its historical mission and previous acts and to fulfill its duty.

The ECHR SHOULD NOT BECOME PARTNERS IN CRIME of the crimes committed by the “Erdogan Regime”. We as the volunteers of “Human Rights Defenders” warn ECHR and invite them to fulfill their duty on the occasion of “World Human Rights Day”.

“Human Rights Defenders” closely follows the human rights violations in Turkey. It carries the files of the victims to the international authorities such as the ECHR, UN Human Rights Committee and UN Committee against Torture to continue its legal struggle. Even there are sufferings left because of the victimizations, the law will eventually prevail, the ones who sided with law will eventually prevail.

As the volunteers of “Human Rights Defenders”, we would like to arouse attention of the institutions of International Law, the ECHR being first, to the human rights violations in Turkey on the occasion of 10th December World Human Rights Day. We are calling those institutions to duty and asking them to take effective initiatives in order to say STOP to the unlawfulness in Turkey.

Respectfully announced to the public: 10.12.2018


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial