In an unprecedented move with potentially far-reaching consequences, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has formally communicated a group of pilot applications to the Turkish government, all alleging widespread torture, ill-treatment, and inhuman detention conditions in the aftermath of the failed 15 July 2016 coup attempt.
The communications, made between March and April 2025, cast a sharp light on what legal observers are calling systematic torture practices and entrenched impunity mechanisms within Turkish law enforcement, penitentiary, and judicial institutions.
Among the victims is Fevzi Kayacan, then president of the Konya Bar Association, who was imprisoned and later sentenced for membership in an armed terrorist organization. Despite the gravity of the allegations, Turkey’s Constitutional Court (AYM) rejected all these applications, citing either “manifestly ill-founded claims” or procedural barriers such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. These rejections, the ECtHR now suggests, raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of domestic remedies in Turkey and the country’s compliance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Communicated Cases: A Disturbing Pattern
The following communicated cases demonstrate a coherent and disturbing pattern of torture, denial of medical care, degrading treatment, and judicial inaction:
| Aslantepe v. Turkey (No. 47448/20), Sancılı v. Turkey (No. 3395/21), Bağdat v. Turkey (No. 10240/21) Inmates at Silivri L-Type Prison allege routine strip searches after family visits, with no legitimate security rationale. The ECtHR is asking whether such practices violate human dignity and Article 3. |
| Türkan v. Turkey (No. 392/21) Levent Türkan, detained post-coup, claims he suffered severe physical torture, including burns and beatings. Medical reports confirmed multiple injuries. The Court now questions whether Turkey initiated effective investigations into these grave claims. |
| Yaz, Toker, Akdeniz, Sakarya, Alpsoy, Mıngır v. Turkey (Nos. 17526/20 et al.) Six judges detained post-coup allege inhuman detention conditions, including deprivation of food and water, and degrading public handcuffing in court. Four also report being beaten. The Court will assess whether their treatment and lack of investigations breached Article 3. |
| Öngör v. Turkey (No. 965/21) A detainee reports electric shock, beatings, and nudity during detention in Şanlıurfa. A 2017 medical report confirms trauma. The ECtHR is examining the adequacy of the state’s investigation. |
| Şaraldı v. Turkey (No. 9233/23) A lawyer transferred from Denizli to Istanbul while handcuffed for 8 hours, then kicked and beaten. The ECtHR is probing the adequacy of medical documentation and investigation. |
| Çıtak v. Turkey (No. 2851/21) A military cadet detained on 15 July 2016 claims “hogtie” torture, beatings, and starvation. Medical reports document injuries. The ECtHR seeks clarity on whether such abuse occurred and was properly investigated. |
| Açıkmeşe v. Turkey (No. 11684/23) A prisoner in Bandırma was beaten over a football comment, then shackled half-naked in solitary confinement. The Court is probing disproportionate force and failure to investigate. |
| Yeşilkaya v. Turkey (No. 23659/23) Allegations include 15 days of physical and psychological abuse, particularly sexual threats. The ECtHR is evaluating whether such treatment, and poor detention conditions, meet the Article 3 threshold. |
| Kayacan and Ortaç v. Turkey (Nos. 55053/20, 14488/21) Two inmates, including a former bar president, were handcuffed during hospital treatment. The Court questions whether this was necessary and proportionate. |
| Candemir v. Turkey (No. 24765/20) The applicant was beaten by riot police after reporting exposure to tear gas. The ECtHR is now asking if Turkey failed to protect his rights under Article 3 and his right to access a court under Article 6. |
| Karakurt v. Turkey (No. 34506/21) A prisoner with a detached retina alleges delayed surgery led to 90% vision loss. The Court is assessing whether this delay amounted to inhuman treatment. |
| Karataş and Others v. Turkey (No. 30251/23) Several detainees allege beatings and verbal abuse during a 2016 raid. The ECtHR is reviewing whether the Turkish authorities properly investigated. |
| Fidan v. Turkey (No. 18776/21) Another post-coup detainee alleges hand trauma and ineffective prosecution. The ECtHR will assess whether domestic processes protected the applicant’s rights. |
A Justice System in Question
What all these cases have in common is not just the pattern of abuse but the Turkish Constitutional Court’s repeated rejection of these claims at the domestic level — often labeling them as “clearly unfounded.” The ECtHR’s pilot communication strategy suggests it considers these rejections problematic and possibly symptomatic of a broader systemic failure to safeguard fundamental rights.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) had already flagged similar patterns in their monitoring reports on Turkey. The ECtHR’s current actions, however, provide a formal legal framework that could lead to binding judgments with compensatory and structural reform obligations.
Implications and Next Steps
Should the ECtHR rule in favor of the applicants, Turkey could be required to open new investigations and prosecute implicated officials, both direct perpetrators and those who enabled the culture of impunity. These cases may also result in a pilot judgment that forces Turkey to adopt systemic reforms in its detention and judicial oversight practices.
For now, all eyes are on Strasbourg.
Categories: Recent Judgments, Torture and Impunity