Brussels Law Office’s new report, “The Issue Of Impartiality In Terms Used In The Judicial Process” examines the accusatory and prejudicial terminology used in investigations and criminal proceedings in Türkiye, particularly in cases involving individuals alleged to be associated with the Gülen Movement.

Drawing on concrete examples from police records, prosecution documents, judicial decisions and hearing transcripts, the report demonstrates how language implying guilt is systematically used against individuals who have not been convicted by a final court judgment.

The report also documents concerns that neutral expressions used by suspects, defendants and lawyers may be altered in official records and replaced with accusatory terminology. According to the report, pressure to adopt an officially imposed narrative undermines the rights of the defence, freedom of expression, legal certainty and the principle of equality of arms.

These practices are assessed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, and Article 10, which protects freedom of expression. The report further emphasises that the consequences of prejudicial language extend beyond the courtroom by reinforcing social stigma, exclusion and an atmosphere of hostility.

Brussels Law Office calls for the abandonment of terminology that presumes guilt before judgment, the adoption of objective and legally neutral language by law-enforcement authorities, prosecutors and courts, the accurate recording of statements without alteration, and the alignment of judicial practices with international human rights standards.

Neutral language is not merely a matter of wording; it is a fundamental safeguard of the presumption of innocence, effective defence and the right to a fair trial.