February 2026 – MLSA Fair Trial Monitoring Report

Throughout February 2026, 37 hearings within the scope of freedom of expression and press freedom were monitored by the MLSA Trial Monitoring Unit. In these files, at least 364 people appeared before a judge. The monitored proceedings revealed that the right to a fair trial was most often impaired in court practice itself.

Short sessions, repeated adjournments, delays, courtroom capacity problems, interventions in the defense, and in some files the presence of law enforcement created an appearance of proceedings incompatible with the rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 36 of the Constitution. The February data showed that problems concerning the right to a fair trial were not isolated, but had become a continuous practice.

Hearings were short, limited progress on the merits

Of the 24 hearings whose duration was recorded in February, 10 (42%) lasted 1–15 minutes. Four hearings (17%) were completed in 16–30 minutes, and four hearings (17%) lasted between 30–60 minutes.

By contrast, 6 hearings (25%) lasted more than 60 minutes; 3 of these (12.5%) continued for more than two hours.

This picture showed that in many files, proceedings advanced through short sessions closed without moving to the merits, by granting time for the opinion on the merits, remedying deficiencies, or carrying out procedural transactions. For example, the Suruç commemoration case, which held its 19th hearing, and the “Umut Case,” which held its 14th hearing, were again adjourned.

Hearings started late

Of the 15 hearings whose delay period was recorded:

• 5 (33%) started with a delay of 1–15 minutes,
• 5 (33%) with 16–30 minutes,
• 4 (27%) with 30–60 minutes,
• 1 (7%) with more than 60 minutes.

Delays were mostly explained by the court’s workload or the panel arriving late. This situation caused parties, especially in multi-defendant files, to wait for long periods in courthouse corridors and showed that proceedings were not conducted in a planned manner. For example, it was recorded that the 14th hearing of the case concerning the murders of Uğur Mumcu, Ahmet Taner Kışlalı, Muammer Aksoy and Bahriye Üçok, heard at the Ankara 5th High Criminal Court and known to the public as the “Umut Case,” started later than scheduled due to the delay of the court panel.

Courtrooms were inadequate, publicity restricted

In February, especially in multi-defendant files, courtroom capacity created serious problems.

• In the case in which 168 women and LGBTI+ individuals, including students, who were detained on the grounds that they gathered in Taksim on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on Nov. 25, were on trial, it was recorded that the courtroom was small and airless.
• In the file in which a total of 66 people, including journalist Zişan Gür who was detained while covering the Saraçhane protests, were on trial, it was stated that courtroom capacity was insufficient.
• In the case heard in Ankara in which 23 people were on trial on the charge of “opposition to Law No. 2911” for attending the commemoration of the anniversary of the 2015 Suruç massacre, it was noted that the courtroom was small and airless and that there were problems with the SEGBİS connection.

In some hearings it was recorded that defenses could not be heard. In the hearing of the case filed against academic Aslı Aydemir, who was arrested on the grounds that she reacted to the attack on LeMan’s office in Beyoğlu, on the charge of “resisting to prevent the performance of duty,” it was noted that “what was said in the courtroom could not be heard.”

In the file of lawyer Şiar Rişvanoğlu, who is being tried in Adana, the use of mobile phones was not permitted.

These practices raised question marks in terms of the publicity of hearings and openness to public scrutiny.

Judicial attitude and the right to defense

In February, intervention in the defense was recorded in some files. In the Aslı Aydemir file, it was stated that the judge addressed the defendant as “you” in an informal manner and frequently interrupted the defense.

In the Saraçhane file, it was recorded that the lawyer’s defense on the merits was limited with the warning “get to the merits.”

In the “expert witness case,” it was stated that because the complainant was heard in an interim session, the defendants’ right to ask questions was effectively eliminated, and therefore a motion for recusal of the judge was filed. Journalists Barış Pehlivan, Halk TV Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş, Halk TV Coordinator Kürşad Oğuz, Halk TV presenter Seda Selek and Halk TV Responsible Manager Serhan Asker are being tried on the charges of “publishing recorded conversations through the press and broadcast” and “recording non-public conversations between persons” on the grounds that they broadcast their conversation with expert witness Satılmış Büyükcanayakın, whose name was disclosed by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.

These examples sparked debate in terms of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.

Police presence affected the hearing atmosphere

In some hearings, the presence of law enforcement drew attention. In the file in which journalist Yıldız Tar and writer İbrahim Elçi are being tried in Ankara on the charge of “membership in an armed terrorist organization,” it was recorded that the request to remove armed police officers from the courtroom was rejected.

In the file of Ayşe Barım, who is being tried due to the Gezi protests, it was noted that riot police and plainclothes police were present; in the Saraçhane and Suruç files, uniformed and plainclothes police were in the courtroom or nearby.

In collective and political files, increasing security measures led to the perception of a suppressive hearing atmosphere.

Stage of proceedings: where are the files?

Of the 36 files monitored:

• 19 files (53%) were at the 1st–2nd hearing.
• 8 files (22%) were at the 3rd–5th hearing stage.
• 6 files (17%) were between the 6th–10th hearings.
• 3 files (8%) were at the 11th hearing and above.

This distribution showed that more than half of the files were still at the initial stage, while some cases had spread over years. For example, the Suruç commemoration case was at its 19th hearing; the Umut Case was at its 14th hearing.

This distribution shows that some proceedings have not been able to move forward beyond the initial stage, while others have spread over years. While the closing of files in initial sessions through procedural transactions indicates that proceedings are not conducted effectively and in a planned manner; files at the 11th hearing and above create a risk in terms of the right to be tried within a reasonable time. This picture reveals that the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 36 of the Constitution raises debate in terms of both speed and predictability.

Decisions

In the hearings monitored in February:

• 2 acquittal decisions were rendered.
• 2 conviction decisions were issued.
• One of the convictions was a prison sentence of 12 years and 6 months, the other was 1 year, 5 months and 15 days.

The acquittal decisions were rendered for journalist Feyza Nur Çalıkoğlu, who was tried at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance on the charge of “organization propaganda,” and for academic Emrah Gülsunar, who was tried at the Istanbul 51st Criminal Court of First Instance on the charge of “inciting to commit a crime through the press.”

The first of the conviction decisions was the 12 years and 6 months prison sentence given by the Istanbul 26th High Criminal Court to manager Ayşe Barım on the charge of “aiding an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey.” The second conviction was the 1 year, 5 months and 15 days prison sentence given by the Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court to CHP Youth Branch Chair Cem Aydın on the charge of “insulting a public official.”