This report examines the allegation that, in Turkey, powers relating to criminal law and criminal procedure have been diverted from their original purposes and used as a means to enforce political loyalty, restrict opposition and neutralise certain social groups, particularly in relation to certain opposition political actors, civil society representatives and religious communities. The report’s central thesis is that the problem is not merely a matter of isolated breaches of the law or erroneous judicial decisions; rather, there is a broader pattern of practice in which criminal charges are shaped not by the act itself or individual responsibility, but by affiliation, political stance and one’s relationship with those in power.The report’s key conclusion is as follows: when the law is used to compel individuals to demonstrate loyalty on the basis…

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2) on 25 August 2026. By 15 votes to 2, the Court set out three clear obligations for Türkiye: ⚖️ The ECtHR Grand Chamber ruled that Osman Kavala must be released as soon as possible. 🚫 It stated that Kavala’s conviction must be regarded as “null and void” under the European Convention on Human Rights. 🔄 The Court required Türkiye to eliminate all consequences of the conviction. This entails taking the necessary measures, including the reopening of the criminal proceedings. ⛓️ It described Kavala’s post-conviction detention as a deprivation of liberty resulting from a “flagrant denial of justice.” 📌 Violations found by the Court: 🕊️ Article 5: Right to liberty and security…

The report demonstrates that MASAK’s role in criminal investigations has, at times, evolved from that of an auxiliary body examining financial data into a mechanism that generates criminal allegations. MASAK’s primary function is to examine suspicious financial transactions, analyse money flows, and report matters requiring further investigation to the public prosecutor’s office. However, MASAK is neither a court nor a prosecutorial authority or an officially appointed expert body. It therefore cannot conclusively determine that a transaction constitutes a criminal offence, that funds are derived from criminal activity, or that an individual acted with criminal intent. The report identifies the following key concerns: “Suspicious transactions” reported by banks may be treated as evidence of a crime without being corroborated by independent evidence. Ordinary bank transfers, commercial payments, corporate relationships, and social…

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…

This report examines, from a rule of law perspective, the threat narrative that has become increasingly entrenched in Türkiye since 15 July 2016, the large-scale criminal investigations conducted during this period, and the resulting human rights concerns. The study focuses in particular on the latest operation launched on 13 July 2026 against 968 people in 81 provinces, assessing it as a recent example of the pattern of mass investigations and prosecutions pursued over the past decade. The report analyses key concerns including arbitrary arrest, detention and imprisonment; violations of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence; the broad and unpredictable application of counter-terrorism legislation; the retrospective use of lawful activities as incriminating evidence; and the failure to conduct individualised assessments. It also draws attention to the…