Week of Feb. 23: Freedom of expression trials and other developments

A total of 46 people were tried in nine hearings monitored during the week of Feb. 23–27. Social media posts, news content, expert reports, HTS records and secret witness statements were discussed as evidence in the hearings; defense statements and the prosecutor’s final opinions on the merits shaped the framework of interim rulings. In more than one file, hearings started late; some sessions were short and postponed to later dates. Monitoring notes included observations regarding the presence of law enforcement in some courtrooms, a SEGBİS connection problem in one file and interruptions during defense statements.

At the Ankara 17th High Criminal Court, journalist Yıldız Tar and writer İbrahim Elçi are being tried on charges of “membership in an armed terrorist organization.” The defense requested the lifting of judicial control measures and the removal of armed police officers from the courtroom; the court rejected the requests and adjourned the hearing to June 24, 2026. Details regarding the case are in the news report.

At the Istanbul 64th Criminal Court of First Instance, in the Saraçhane trial where 35 people, including journalist Engin Deniz İpek, are being tried on charges of violating Law No. 2911, the defense objected to the photo identifications in the expert report submitted to the file and emphasized that there was no concrete evidence; in his final opinion on the merits, the prosecutor requested punishment; the court stated that the next session would be the decision hearing and adjourned the file to March 4, 2026. Developments are in the news report.

At the Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court, in the file where ETHA reporter Züleyha Müldür and two defendants are being tried on charges of “membership in an organization” and “organizational propaganda,” secret witness G.T. stated that he did not remember Müldür; questioning was conducted over HTS records; the court lifted house arrest for two defendants, maintained the travel ban on Müldür and adjourned the hearing to May 14, 2026. Details are in the news report.

At the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, in the case where journalist Feyza Nur Çalıkoğlu is being tried on charges of “publicly disseminating misleading information,” two lawyers were heard as witnesses; the prosecutor requested punishment in his opinion; the defendant argued that the elements of the crime were not formed; the court ruled for acquittal. The ruling is in the news report.

At the Diyarbakır 5th High Criminal Court, in the file where journalist Abdurrahman Gök is being tried on the grounds of his professional activities and informant statements, the defense counsel drew attention to the long-standing travel ban; the court lifted the ban and adjourned the file to June 16, 2026. The development is in the news report.

In Diyarbakır, in the files against lawyers Necat Çiçek and Özüm Vurgun on charges of “membership in an organization,” secret witness and informant statements were included as evidence; the courts did not lift judicial control measures and postponed the hearings to later dates.

At the Istanbul 23rd Criminal Court of First Instance, in the case filed against journalist Zafer Arapkirli due to social media posts, after the prosecutor’s opinion, the defense requested time; the court adjourned the hearing to March 10, 2026. Information regarding the hearing is in the news report.

At the Istanbul 51st Criminal Court of First Instance, in the case filed against academic Emrah Gülsunar due to sharing a social media poll, the court ruled for acquittal. The ruling is in the news report.

It was announced that the 1 year and 8 month prison sentence given to journalist Orhan Bursalı was overturned by the appellate court and an acquittal decision was issued. The ruling is in thenews report.

Other developments

Journalist Alican Uludağ’s detention, questioning and arrest process were on the agenda throughout the week. It was reported that Uludağ, who stated in his posts and defense statement that the accusations directed at him were based on social media posts, was arrested on charges of “chain insult of the President,” that his lawyers objected to the arrest decision and that the process sparked debate in terms of fair trial principles. The evaluation regarding the process is in the analysis.

Calls regarding visits to and the release of imprisoned journalists Pınar Gayıp, Nadiye Gürbüz and Elif Bayburt were shared during the week. The joint statement is in the text.

It was reported that journalist Mehmet Ali Ertaş was detained and released after giving a statement via SEGBİS. The development is in the news report.

It was announced that seven journalists were sentenced to 18 days in prison each for taking photographs while monitoring the decision hearing of the Kobani trial. The ruling is in the news report.

Journalist Ali Barış Kurt, who continues to be held in prison despite being required to be released allegedly on the grounds that he “did not show remorse,” sent a message to MLSA stating that his release was prevented without any concrete justification. The statement is in the news report.

The indictment regarding the killing of journalist Hakan Tosun and the press conference held by lawyers were also among the week’s agenda items. Details are in the news report.

Findings regarding fair trial

In the hearings monitored this week, common issues drawing attention in terms of fair trial guarantees came to the fore. In more than one file, hearings started late due to the delay of the panel; in some sessions, it was recorded that defense counsel were interrupted during defense statements. In one file, a SEGBİS connection problem occurred, and in some courtrooms, the presence of uniformed and plainclothes law enforcement was observed.

In files where secret witness statements were presented as substantial evidence, the defense stated that the witness accounts were abstract and not suitable for scrutiny, emphasizing the principle of adversarial proceedings.

In files based on charges of “disseminating misleading information” and “membership in an organization,” the evaluation of social media posts and professional activities as evidence constituted the core of the defense statements.

Weekly data showed that the proceedings also sparked debate in terms of continuity and the principle of concluding trials within a reasonable time. In a significant portion of the nine monitored hearings, sessions started with delays averaging 20 to 40 minutes; some hearings were completed in as little as 10–15 minutes.

On the other hand, most of the sessions observed were second, third or even tenth hearings. Particularly in files conducted on charges of membership in an organization, it was observed that trials extended over years, judicial control measures continued for long periods and files were postponed without a decision on the merits. Despite short sessions, the lack of rulings and the adjournment of files to months later revealed that the problem of lengthy trials and the state of uncertainty continue for defendants.