Following orders from the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Istanbul police arrested 40 individuals in the early hours of May 2024. Among them were 15 minors, aged 13 to 17, detained without legal representation or the presence of their parents. In the investigation, the prosecutor used the statements of minors that were obtained with coercion to charge 37 women, predominantly young university students and the mothers of minors, with terrorism. The first hearing of the trial will take place between 23 and 27 September at the Caglayan Courthouse in Istanbul.
Simply put, living the basic contours of life was deemed unlawful.
The core allegations? According to the exposition of the indictment, volunteering as English language tutors or religious mentors and organizing off-school social activities for students were cited as chief criminal activities by the prosecution. Simply put, living the basic contours of life was deemed unlawful.
This case highlights a disturbing but increasingly entrenched trend in Turkey, where ordinary actions are considered criminal behaviors, particularly in relation to the Gülen Movement. A closer analysis of the indictment, the legal proceedings, and the surrounding context reveals severe flaws in the charges, including unsubstantiated allegations, vague interpretations of the law, and a politicized judicial process.
Framing Digital Communication as a Crime
A significant part of the prosecution’s case revolves around the use of popular communication platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Instagram. The indictment repeatedly frames these tools as covert methods of communication. In one instance, a conversation between one of the accused and her spouse, where the accused asks her to “call on WhatsApp,” is cited as evidence of secretive, illicit activity.
This argument reflects the brazen criminalization of modern communication tools and methods. Encrypted messaging services are a standard feature of digital communication, used by millions worldwide daily. The assumption that merely using these apps is akin to criminal intent taints the entire judicial process, undermining the case’s credibility and charges. With the prosecution referencing the use of internet-based communication over 75 times as suspicious activity, the lack of specific incriminating content within these conversations weakens the case against the defendants. Simply put, no reasonable legal system should treat the mere use of these platforms as evidence of criminal behavior without further corroborating evidence in the content.
Moreover, the right to use encrypted communication is protected under international human rights law. Article 19 of the ICCPR and the UDHR affirm the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, both of which are reinforced by encryption. The UN has emphasized that States must protect encryption, and any interference with these rights must meet strict criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Criminalizing encrypted communication without meeting these standards violates the fundamental rights of privacy and free expression.
An indictment lacking evidence and full of assumptions
The accusation of using “operational lines” (operasyonel hat)—phone numbers allegedly not registered to the defendants—is another key part of the indictment. The claim is that suspects used these lines to conceal their affiliations with the Gülen Movement. However, here too, the evidence is thin.
Take the example of R.G., who is accused of using two such lines. Yet, her testimony directly contradicts this, as she claims to have used only one number, registered in her own name. Furthermore, no concrete evidence—such as call logs or surveillance recordings—was provided to substantiate the use of these so-called “operational lines.” In fact, surveillance on some of these lines was even discontinued due to a lack of incriminating evidence. This contradiction within the prosecution’s own investigation casts doubt on the legitimacy of the accusations.
Student Flats framed as “Operative Cells”
The student flats where these young women lived with their peers have been branded as “operative cells” by the prosecution.
The claim? These homes served as indoctrination centers and recruitment bases for the Gülen Movement. Evidence? None! Searches conducted in these houses yielded no incriminating materials, illegal documents, or propaganda items. Instead, authorities found typical student life items—laptops, textbooks, and personal devices.
Turkey’s Court of Cassation, the country’s highest court, sets clear legal criteria for what can be classified as an “operative cell.” According to the court, there must be concrete evidence of sustained illegal activity. The prosecution’s failure to present such evidence undermines the validity of the core charge. The ordinary, lawful lives of these students should not be conflated with terrorist activity.
Social Activities as Criminal Offenses: A Tenuous Link to Terrorism
Among the most perplexing allegations in the indictment were the accusations that the students were recruiting members into a terrorist organization by engaging in benign social activities. The prosecution points to instances where the students mentored younger children, organized trips to shopping malls, and even went bowling, framing these activities as part of a recruitment drive for the Gülen Movement.
Such a characterization is not only far-fetched but also illustrates the overreach of the Turkish authorities in their pursuit of perceived Gülenists. These activities bear no resemblance to recruitment attempt and do not the use violence, coercion, and illegal training. The mundane nature of these events—bowling games, mall outings, theological debates—hardly warrants being cast as a criminal. Moreover, theological talks, known as “sohbets,” are protected under international human rights law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which safeguards freedom of religion and assembly.
Lawyer Lale Demirkazan, who represents two women, a daughter and a mother, told on X: “My dear client, 18-year-old Ayişe Züleyha, a second-year student at Istanbul University Law Faculty, is one of the children who will be tried on 23-27 September in the fabricated case they call ‘Fetö’… The charges against them are: 1) staying in a student flat, 2) going to the cinema in the Perla Vista shopping centre, 3) ordering food from Yemeksepeti (an online app)!”
Financial Allegations Without Proof
The prosecution has also alleged that these student houses were financed by the Gülen Movement, a claim that further attempts to link the women to organized criminal activity. However, like many other parts of the indictment, this claim lacks evidence. There are no financial records, bank transactions, or suspicious wire transfers to support the accusation. Testimonies from the students and their families reveal that rent and other living expenses were covered by their parents—a typical arrangement for university students.
Without presenting documentation to substantiate the flow of funds from the Gülen Movement, the prosecution’s claims remain speculative at best. Financial allegations of this kind, especially without evidence, serve only to reinforce the politically motivated nature of this trial.
Weaponising the Legal Process
At the heart of this case is a broader issue: the criminalization of ordinary daily life. By criminalizing basic actions—using WhatsApp, tutoring students, attending social events—the Turkish authorities have constructed a framework of guilt by association. These activities are only deemed criminal because of the alleged affiliations of those involved with the Gülen Movement.
This pattern of retroactively framing lawful behavior as subversive is troubling. It points to a wider trend in Turkey’s judicial system, where legal processes have become tools of political repression. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly criticized Turkey’s use of Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminalizes membership in an armed terrorist organization, for its vague definitions and overly broad applications. The present case fits squarely within this problematic legal framework.
The Human Toll: Detention of Minors and Violations of Rights
While much of the indictment focuses on the university students, the most egregious violations of rights occurred with the detention of minors during the raids on May 7, 2024. Children between the ages of 13 and 17 were interrogated without legal representation or the presence of their parents, a direct violation of both Turkish and international laws protecting the rights of children.
These minors, some as young as 13, were subjected to psychological and physical mistreatment, held without explanation, and denied basic needs like food and water. Testimonies from the minors, such as ZB and ZB (two sisters), paint a picture of intimidation, with police officers mocking and threatening them. These actions constitute a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Turkey is a signatory, and further tarnish the legitimacy of the prosecution’s case.
Mass Arrests by the Numbers: The Scale of the Crackdown
Since the failed coup attempt in July 2016, the scope of mass arrests targeting Gülen Movement members has been staggering. According to a statement made by Turkish Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç in July 2024, over 702,000 individuals have been investigated on terrorism charges under Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC). Out of these, more than 330,000 people have been taken into police custody, and at least 100,000 individuals have been remanded into pretrial detention.
The mass arrests continue to this day. For instance, on May 14, 2024, a single day saw the arrest of 544 people as part of nationwide operations against the movement. Similarly, on May 30, 2024, another 90 individuals were detained in a coordinated police sweep. These mass arrest campaigns are part of an ongoing effort to eliminate perceived GM members from Turkey’s social, political, and economic spheres. The breadth and scope of the government’s counter-terrorism efforts suggest that Turkey is not merely pursuing those involved in the 2016 coup but is engaged in an expansive political purge of any suspected GM affiliates.
A Call for Solidarity with Victims
Lawyer Hatice Yildiz invited people to observe the trial and solidarity with the victims of this political trial.
Lawyer Yildiz posted: “I invite everyone who demands justice in this country to watch the hearing of the ‘Don’t even breathe’ case that will start on Monday 23 September at the 24th High Criminal Court in Istanbul.
Come and see with your own eyes how the daughters of this country, including one of my clients who is under arrest, are being accused of being members of an armed terrorist organisation on absurd charges.
The children, whose parents have been processed in this process, are considered terrorists when they talk to each other, eat, go to the cinema, in the face of a society that isolates them.
In short, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has called for the legal isolation of small children whose parents have been processed, as if social isolation were not enough’.“
Conclusion: A Case Built on Speculation
The indictment against these women and minors is built on speculative evidence, vague interpretations of the law, and a deeply flawed legal process. The reliance on circumstantial factors—such as the use of WhatsApp, social activities, and shared student housing—without proving any direct involvement in illegal activity weakens the case substantially.
At its core, this prosecution appears to be motivated by political considerations, using guilt by association as a means to target perceived opponents of the Turkish government. The case exemplifies the dangers of overreach in counterterrorism efforts, where ordinary citizens find themselves ensnared in legal battles for actions that, in any democratic society, would be protected under civil liberties.
This trial should serve as a warning of the broader implications for civil liberties in Turkey. If the courts continue to function as tools of political repression, the rule of law in Turkey will remain undermined indefinitely. The handling of this case, particularly the treatment of minors, points to a legal system struggling to uphold justice in the face of intense political pressure.
The trial, set to commence on September 23, 2024, will be closely watched as a test of Turkey’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. If this case is allowed to proceed on the current grounds, it will set a dangerous precedent in which social affiliations are criminalized and ordinary citizens live in fear of arbitrary prosecution.
Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog