- Violations concerning fair trial guarantees were also identified in the cases monitored this week.
- Journalists in the case file were tried, the complainant was heard at an interim hearing without notifying the defendants and their lawyers; the defense’s opportunity to ask questions was eliminated. In more than one court, panel delays were experienced; small and unsuitable courtrooms and the inability to hear the proceedings were recorded as problems in terms of conducting hearings properly.
- It was observed that the defense was interrupted and, in one file, that the prosecutor presented the opinion on the merits while the defendant was not in the courtroom.
- Preventing observers from taking notes and limitations regarding courtroom conditions drew attention in terms of the publicity and transparency of the trials.
In the hearings monitored this week, allegations of violations regarding fair trial guarantees accompanying trials within the scope of freedom of expression became the determining heading.
In Istanbul, in the file in which Halk TV journalists are being tried, it was understood that the expert in the position of complainant had previously been heard at an interim hearing without notifying the defendants and their lawyers; objections were raised in terms of the principles of “adversarial proceedings” and “directness” on the grounds that the defense’s opportunity to confront the complainant face to face and ask questions was eliminated. While the court accepted the complainant’s request to intervene, it rejected the request for recusal of the judge and ruled to send the file to the on-duty High Criminal Court for examination. The details of the discussion in the file were included in our news report.
In Istanbul, at the first hearing of the case in which academic Aslı Aydemir is being tried on the charge of “resisting to prevent the performance of duty,” both the management of the hearing and the physical conditions became the subject of discussion. In addition to the courtroom being small and airless and conditions making it difficult to hear the speeches, observations were recorded that the defendant and her lawyer were frequently interrupted and regarding the judge’s manner of address. The court accepted the complainant’s request to intervene; it established an interim decision regarding reports and expert examinations and adjourned the hearing to June 23, 2026. The details regarding the hearing were included in our news report.
In other files of the week, panel delays and the unsuitability of courtrooms came to the fore again as a recurring problem. At the 14th hearing of the Umut Trial in Ankara, the trial started late due to the panel’s delay, while it was conveyed that the courtroom was small and airless and that observers and journalists were not allowed to take notes with phones and computers. The court decided to write to the General Directorate of Security to ask whether the vehicle attributed to the fugitive defendant is found in police records and adjourned the hearing to July 14, 2026.
The heaviest outcome of the week was given about manager Ayşe Barım, who is being tried within the scope of the Gezi case. The Istanbul 26th High Criminal Court sentenced Ayşe Barım to 12 years and 6 months in prison in terms of the charge of “aiding an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey.” The news regarding the decision was published with the headline “12 years and 6 months in prison for Ayşe Barım: The court applied the ‘aid’ provision.”
The third hearing of the case in which journalist Ercüment Akdeniz is being tried from the HDK investigation started approximately one hour later than it should have. Witness Ali Deli said that he did not know Akdeniz and that he did not see him at the meeting that is the subject of the accusation. The defense requested the lifting of the judicial control decision, stating that the foreign travel ban had turned into a punishment.
In the trials against journalists, similar measures and adjournments were monitored in different cities. In the file of journalist Mehmet Üçar, who is being tried at the Batman 2nd High Criminal Court on the allegation of “being a member of an organization,” time was requested for the defense; while a foreign travel ban measure was applied, the hearing was left to April 3, 2026.
In the case of journalist Perihan Kaya, who is being tried at the Tatvan 1st Criminal Court of First Instance on the charge of “insulting a public official,” the hearing was adjourned to May 20, 2026, on the grounds that the execution of the previously issued arrest warrant about the defendant should be awaited.
In the file in which journalist Öznur Değer is being tried at the Midyat 1st Criminal Court of First Instance on the charge of “insulting a public official,” the hearing was adjourned upon the lawyer’s excuse request; the new date was determined as June 26, 2026. This appearance revealed a picture that needs to be monitored in terms of trials in which journalists are defendants being spread over a long period and producing uncertainty.
In the Şiar Rişvanoğlu case, seen at the Adana 11th High Criminal Court among the files in which lawyers are defendants, it was recorded that the first hearing was seen with a temporary panel due to the panel being on leave and that the hearing was delayed. It was stated that the witness statement conveyed as one of the basic bases of the file was withdrawn before the court; the court lifted the judicial control measures and adjourned the hearing to Feb. 16, 2026.
Writer Gökhan Yavuzel, whose defense is undertaken by MLSA, was acquitted in two cases in which he was tried on the charge of “insulting the president” on the grounds of his social media posts and expressions in his YouTube program.
The second hearing of the case in which a total of 66 people, together with Zişan Gür who was detained while following the Saraçhane protests, are being tried lasted 25 minutes. Due to the inadequacy of the courtroom, the hearing was taken to the Istanbul 17th High Criminal Court courtroom. The hearing started 15 minutes late due to workload.
The prosecutor presented the opinion on the merits about Feyza Nur Çalıkoğlu after a break and while the defendant was not in the courtroom; he requested punishment. The court gave additional time to the defense but did not establish a ruling about the request to hear the lawyers named in the news report as witnesses.
The headings such as repeated panel delays, courtroom inadequacy and interruption of the defense in more than one file this week formed a common framework showing how fair trial standards are affected in hearing practice.
Other developments
In its third-party opinion submitted to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR regarding the Osman Kavala case, MLSA stated that ECHR decisions in Turkey are “formally recognized but not implemented in practice.” In the opinion, it was emphasized that the Kavala file goes beyond being an individual violation and points to a structural problem that damages the Convention system.
The lawsuit filed by MLSA yielded results: The ban on the Kurdish film Rojbash was lifted. In the lawsuit filed about the Kurdish film Rojbash, which was effectively banned by the decision of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism as “not suitable for commercial circulation and screening,” the Ankara 3rd Administrative Court ruled that the ban was unlawful. The decision given as a result of the lawsuit carried out with the legal support of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) constitutes an important precedent in terms of freedom of expression in the field of cinema.
Two investigations were launched against journalist Alican Uludağ upon his posts regarding the building in Gebze where four people died and upon the complaint of Court of Cassation member and former Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor Yüksel Kocaman. A lawsuit was also filed against Uludağ on the grounds of his post that Berk Akand, who was sentenced to 18 years and 9 months in prison in the Şule Çet case, “was released.”
