- 67 people stood trial in September: Courtroom, security and access issues came to the fore
- A total of 67 people stood trial in 21 hearings monitored in September 2026.
- Nearly half of the hearings were delayed, while in some cases small and inadequate courtrooms, heavy security measures and restrictions preventing observers from accessing hearings raised concerns regarding the right to a fair trial.
As part of the Media and Law Studies Association’s (MLSA) trial monitoring work, 21 hearings were observed in September 2026. A total of 67 defendants stood trial in these hearings. Journalists made up a significant proportion of the defendants, while a case involving 37 Middle East Technical University (METU) students was also heard during the month.
Journalists constituted the largest group of defendants, while the multi-defendant student case also significantly increased the overall number.
Defendant profile
- Journalists: approximately 20 people
- Lawyers: 2 people
- Students: 37 people
- Other groups: academics, translators, sociologists, artists and other defendants
The hearings were held in courts in Istanbul, Ankara and Diyarbakır. MLSA monitored 13 hearings in Istanbul, four in Ankara and four in Diyarbakır.
Nearly half of the hearings started late
At least 10 of the 21 hearings monitored did not begin at their scheduled time. The main reasons for the delays were the courts’ workload, delays by the judicial panel, other cases being heard first and defendants being brought to court late.
In the case in which Deniz Göktaş was on trial, the hearing was delayed because he was brought late from prison due to rainy weather.
Delays of 30 minutes or more were also recorded in the cases involving Pınar Gayıp, Nadiye Gürbüz and Sezin Uçar, as well as Erol Önderoğlu, Şebnem Korur Fincancı and Ahmet Nesin.
The main reasons for late starts were:
- the court’s workload,
- other cases being heard first,
- delays by the judicial panel,
- defendants being brought to court late.
Months-long gaps between hearings
One of the issues that stood out in the hearings monitored in September in terms of the right to a fair trial was the long intervals between hearings. In many cases, the next hearing was scheduled two, three or even more than four months later. These delays are particularly significant in cases involving detained defendants, both in terms of concluding proceedings within a reasonable time and the continuation of pretrial detention.
In all 14 cases in which a new hearing date was set in September, there was a gap of at least 62 days before the next hearing. In nine cases, the interval exceeded three months, while in four cases it was more than 100 days.
The longest interval was recorded in the case of journalist Barış Pehlivan, who is on trial on charges of “slander” and “insult.” Following the Sept. 17 hearing, the next hearing was scheduled for Jan. 26, 2027, 131 days later.
In journalist Özüm Vurgun’s case, 124 days were left between Sept. 24 and Jan. 26, 2027, while lawyer Sezin Uçar’s case was adjourned for 117 days, from Sept. 24 to Jan. 19, 2027. The next hearings in the cases of journalists Nurcan Yalçın and Deniz Yücel were also scheduled 112 days later.
The first hearing of Pınar Gayıp, who was arrested as part of an operation targeting the Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP), was held on Sept. 14 and adjourned until Dec. 7. The interval between the first and second hearings is therefore 84 days.
Lawyer Sezin Uçar, meanwhile, will remain in prison for nearly four more months following her first hearing on Sept. 24. Her second hearing is scheduled for Jan. 19, 2027, 117 days later.
Long intervals between hearings were particularly notable in cases involving detained journalists. Journalist Nadiye Gürbüz, who has been in pretrial detention for seven months, had her first hearing on Sept. 15, after which the next hearing was scheduled for Dec. 8. The interval between Gürbüz’s hearings is also 84 days.
In these cases, courts largely based their adjournment decisions on reasons such as completing missing elements in the case file, awaiting documents and information, hearing witnesses or preparing the prosecutor’s opinion on the merits.
Small courtrooms and heavy security measures
One of the issues that stood out in September in terms of the right to a fair trial was the physical conditions of courtrooms.
In the case involving journalist Alican Uludağ, some observers were not allowed into the courtroom because it was small and overcrowded. It was also noted that Uludağ’s participation in the hearing from prison in Silivri via SEGBİS, Turkey’s judicial videoconferencing system, raised concerns regarding the principle of face-to-face proceedings.
In the case concerning the killing of journalist Hakan Tosun, the courtroom was reported to be small and poorly ventilated, and statements by the parties could not be heard clearly during the hearing. A request for a larger courtroom was denied. Police officers were reported to have intervened against observers seeking to follow the hearing, including pushing them with shields and using force for approximately 45 minutes.
At lawyer Sezin Uçar’s first hearing, a second courtroom was opened because the original courtroom was small and poorly ventilated. Some members of the press and public followed the hearing from the other courtroom via SEGBİS.
The courtroom was also too small to accommodate those attending comedian Deniz Göktaş’s hearing. Although the hearing was moved from the Criminal Court of First Instance courtroom to a larger High Criminal Court courtroom, overcrowding continued to cause problems.
Observers were denied access to some hearings
Monitoring records from September also documented problems with access to hearings for observers and journalists in some cases.
In the Hakan Tosun case, observers and journalists were subjected to intervention by security forces, while in the Alican Uludağ case, some observers were not allowed into the courtroom because of capacity constraints.
At Deniz Göktaş’s hearing, access to Istanbul’s Çağlayan Courthouse was reportedly restricted on the day of the hearing, with the crowd seeking to follow the case prevented from entering and journalists also experiencing difficulties gaining access to the courtroom.
A heavy police and gendarmerie presence was also recorded inside courthouses or around courthouse premises during some hearings in September. The presence of security forces was noted in observation forms for the hearings of Pınar Gayıp, Nadiye Gürbüz, Hakan Tosun, Sezin Uçar and Deniz Göktaş.
Two cases concluded in September
Courts issued rulings in two of the cases monitored in September.
Journalist Timur Soykan was acquitted in a case in which he was tried over social media posts under Articles 217/A and 214 of the Turkish Penal Code. The court announced its verdict at the Sept. 11 hearing after the case had previously been adjourned because of a change in the prosecutor.
In comedian Deniz Göktaş’s case, the court issued a mixed verdict of acquittal and conviction. Göktaş was acquitted of “praising crime and criminals” but sentenced to seven months and 15 days in prison for “insulting religious values” and to 11 months and 20 days for “insulting the president.”
As a result, one defendant was fully acquitted in the cases monitored in September, while another received a mixed verdict of acquittal and conviction. Proceedings in the remaining cases were adjourned to later dates.
Organization-related charges and journalistic activities cited as evidence in case files
Among the charges brought against journalists in the cases monitored in September, the most prominent were “membership in an organization,” “aiding an organization,” “making propaganda for an organization,” “insulting the president,” “insulting a public official” and “publicly disseminating misleading information.”
Evidence cited in the case files included news reports and reporting notes, social media posts, statements by secret witnesses, phone calls, law enforcement reports, Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) reports, financial transactions, participation in meetings and demonstrations, camera footage and possession of banned publications.
The most frequently cited types of evidence in the cases monitored in September included:
- News reports, reporting notes and journalistic activities
- Social media posts
- Statements by secret witnesses
- Law enforcement reports
- Phone calls and communications records
- MASAK reports and financial transactions
- Participation in meetings, demonstrations, marches and press statements
- Camera and MOBESE surveillance footage
- Detention records and crime scene records
- Possession of banned publications
- Information about defendants’ workplaces or political parties and associations to which they belonged
In particular, in cases involving journalists charged with membership in or aiding an organization, journalistic activities and information about the media outlets where they worked were also cited as evidence.
Monitoring of hearings in September showed that late starts, long intervals between hearings, inadequate courtroom conditions, heavy security measures and restrictions on observer and press access were among the most prominent issues affecting the right to a fair trial during the month.
