Torture in Police Custody, Judicial Recognition, Medical Complicity, and Ultimate Acquittal Despite Overwhelming Court Testimony
Post–15 July Context: Torture Allegations and Systemic Denial of Safeguards
Following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, Türkiye entered a period characterised by mass arrests, prolonged police custody, denial of access to legal safeguards, and widespread allegations of torture and ill-treatment, particularly against persons accused of affiliation with the Gülen movement. The case of Eyüp Birinci, a geography teacher dismissed by emergency decree and taken into custody in Antalya on 24 July 2016, constitutes one of the clearest and most extensively documented examples of torture under total state control followed by entrenched judicial impunity.
The Victim: Eyüp Birinci Taken into Custody and Immediately Threatened
Eyüp Birinci was an ordinary schoolteacher. He was taken into custody on 24 July 2016 following a search of his home and was transferred to the Antalya Provincial Police Directorate, Anti-Smuggling and Organised Crime Branch (KOM). From the very outset of his deprivation of liberty, he was subjected to threats, intimidation, and physical violence. While being transported in a police vehicle, one of the arresting officers explicitly threatened him, stating that once they reached the police unit, he would “destroy his spleen.” This threat was not rhetorical but foreshadowed the severe abuse that would follow.
Once inside the police premises, Birinci was held in overcrowded detention conditions together with dozens of other detainees. During his custody, he was repeatedly taken from the cell for interrogation, blindfolded, with his hands tightly cuffed behind his back, and brought to interrogation rooms on the upper floors of the building. There, he was subjected to prolonged and repeated acts of torture, humiliation, and sexualised violence.
On the fifth day of police custody, after his body had been subjected to torture continuously for five days, Birinci physically collapsed. He was taken to hospital for emergency medical intervention, where he underwent surgery and subsequently remained under guard in the hospital detention ward for a further 21 days.
Torture in Custody: A Pattern of Degradation, Pain, and Sexualised Violence
According to his detailed statements given during the investigation and reiterated before the trial court, Birinci was forced to shout obscene slogans at the top of his lungs for extended periods while police officers deliberately opened doors so others could hear. Each time his voice weakened, officers stepped on his feet and knees, intensified the blows, and forced him to continue. He was repeatedly struck on the head and face with a hard object later identified as a tightly rolled bundle of newspapers, slammed against cupboards, and beaten until his nose fractured and bled profusely. He described being kicked and punched for hours, particularly to the ribs and abdomen, causing intense internal pain.
During later interrogations, the torture escalated further. Birinci was stripped completely naked, his genitals were violently squeezed, and he was threatened with permanent sexual harm and impotence. He was told that he would never again be able to face his family. He was laid face down while officers forced his arms backwards into unnatural positions, causing extreme pain, then turned onto his back, had his feet soaked with water, and was beaten repeatedly on the soles with a baton. He was beaten with a baton on his arms, neck, and body; the baton was forced into his mouth while water was poured and twisted inside, causing choking and intense fear. Throughout these acts, he was subjected to constant verbal abuse, threats of death, and threats directed at his wife and daughter, including statements that they would be brought to the police station and abused in front of him.
These acts were not isolated or spontaneous. They were carried out systematically over several days, often lasting hours at a time, and were clearly aimed at breaking his will and extracting information. The physical consequences were immediate and severe. Birinci repeatedly collapsed, vomited, was unable to eat or drink, and experienced worsening abdominal pain. On 28 July 2016, after another prolonged interrogation, he was forced down a staircase while being punched in the abdomen at every step and was then deliberately pushed from behind. Shortly thereafter, he became critically unwell, fainted, and was taken first to the prayer room and then to medical examination.
From Police Cell to Surgery: Internal Bleeding, Intestinal Rupture, and ICU
At this stage, another physician finally examined him properly and urgently ordered an ambulance, stating that Birinci was suffering from internal bleeding and faced a risk of death. Subsequent hospital examinations confirmed internal haemorrhage and intestinal rupture, necessitating emergency surgery and prolonged hospitalisation. He was operated and stayed in ICU 21 days.
Complaints Filed, Then Dismissed: The Non-Prosecution Decision
The victim and his spouse submitted very detailed and separate criminal complaints concerning the torture he had sustained, on 2 August 2016 and 24 August 2016 respectively. However, the Antalya Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of these complaints. On 15 August 2017, the prosecutor formally decided that there was no ground for prosecution regarding the allegation that the applicant had been assaulted by law enforcement officers.
Constitutional Court Recognition, Without Effective Preservation of Evidence
On 25 January 2018, Birinci lodged an individual application before the Constitutional Court of Türkiye. On 18 May 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that the procedural limb of the prohibition of ill-treatment, guaranteed under Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution, had been violated. The Court ordered that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Antalya Public Prosecutor’s Office for the reopening of the investigation in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation.
Reopening the Case: Indictment After the Constitutional Court Judgment
Following this decision, the Antalya Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment dated 14 June 2024 (Investigation No. 2021/51882 – Indictment No. 2024/20317), charging the defendants İbrahim Halil Kuşak, Muhsin Türkel, Süleyman Kundakçı, and Fevzi Yılmaz with offences under Articles 94/1, 95/1-d, 95/3, and 37/1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, and requesting their punishment pursuant to Article 53 of the Code.
Witness Statements in Open Court: Coherent, Consistent, and Corroborative
Crucially, these events were not supported solely by Birinci’s own account. Multiple detainees who had been held in the same police facility testified before the Antalya 3rd Heavy Penal Court, giving direct, detailed, and mutually corroborating accounts of his condition and treatment. These testimonies were given under oath in open court and together form a coherent and consistent body of evidence.
Witness Orkun Gürbüz, the physician who examined Birinci in the emergency department, stated as follows: “…he (Birinci) had been transferred to Antalya Education and Research Hospital … due to the deterioration of his condition. His general condition was poor. He had severe abdominal pain. He did not speak. Initially, an assistant colleague examined him. Because his condition was serious, he was sent to me as an emergency case. He was not in a position to speak. His life was in danger.”
Sadullah Topuz testified before the court that he shared the same cell with Eyüp Birinci for two to three days. He stated that Birinci was repeatedly taken for interrogation and that, on one occasion when he was returned late in the evening, he was unable to walk, barely conscious, with visible bruising and redness on his abdomen, ribs, feet, and body. Topuz stated that Birinci could not speak properly and was only moaning. He further testified that Birinci was removed from the cell due to his worsening condition and never returned.
Fevzi Akça testified that when he first saw Birinci, he was lying face down, unresponsive, with his clothes soaked in blood. Akça stated that Birinci later told him that he had been beaten by police officer Muhsin Türkel. Following another interrogation, Birinci returned in an even worse condition, unable to stand or drink water, and eventually lost consciousness. Akça testified that police officers panicked, removed Birinci, and took him away. He later encountered Birinci in prison, where Birinci confirmed that he had been tortured and had undergone surgery due to internal injuries.
İbrahim Özdemir testified that he saw Birinci with open facial wounds and visible injuries and that Birinci directly told him he had been beaten by police officer Muhsin Türkel. Özdemir stated that police later claimed Birinci had fallen down the stairs, but shortly thereafter he learned that Birinci had been taken to intensive care and never returned to custody.
Umur Tekin testified that Birinci returned from interrogation exhausted, with visible redness on his abdomen and difficulty drinking water, and was later removed by police due to his deteriorating health. Hamza Balcı testified that detainees were routinely returned from interrogation beaten and swollen, and that Birinci was taken for interrogation and did not return for an entire day, later learning that he had suffered internal bleeding and had been hospitalised.
Bahadır Dalkıran testified that Birinci complained of abdominal pain, showed visible redness, later lost consciousness, and that an ambulance was called. Osman Aslan testified that he saw Birinci covered in blood, with a bleeding nose and widespread bruises, and that police later stated he had been taken to intensive care.
Cevher Dağ testified before the court that he himself had been tortured by the same officers and that Birinci was beaten every time he returned from interrogation. On the last occasion, Dağ stated, Birinci’s hands were ice-cold, he was extremely weak, and he collapsed shortly after stating that he might be suffering from internal bleeding. Süleyman Hilmi Temiz testified that Birinci had facial wounds, blood coming from his mouth and nose, was continuously vomiting, and was unable to drink water.
Betrayal of Medical Ethics: Custody Reports Denying Abuse
While in custody, Eyüp Birinci was repeatedly examined by the same doctor, who issued reports stating no signs of torture and ill-treatment. That doctor, Dr. Fevzi Yılmaz, was not a junior or inexperienced physician. In his defence before the court, he stated that he was serving as a Professor (Prof. Dr.) at Antalya Education and Research Hospital at the time. Despite his senior academic status and professional responsibility, he conducted repeated examinations inside the police premises and either failed to carry out meaningful physical examinations or limited himself to superficial questions as to whether there was an immediate life-threatening condition, despite visible injuries, bleeding, swelling, and Birinci’s repeated complaints of pain. The emergency physician who later examined Birinci properly immediately identified internal bleeding and ordered urgent hospital transfer.
The involvement of a senior academic physician repeatedly certifying no sign of ill-treatment findings in respect of a detainee later found to have life-threatening internal injuries constitutes a central pillar of the impunity mechanism in this case. Medical authority was used to neutralise torture allegations at an early stage, delay intervention, and shield perpetrators.
Confirmed by International Monitoring: Findings of the CPT of the Council of Europe
The medical complicity and the formulaic denial of ill-treatment identified in the present case are not isolated phenomena, but rather form part of a structural problem repeatedly documented by international monitoring bodies. In several of its reports following visits to Türkiye, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) of the Council of Europe has explicitly found that medical examinations of detainees in police custody are frequently inadequate, superficial, and reduced to a mere formality.
According to the CPT’s findings, medical examinations in custodial settings are often conducted in the presence of police officers, without respect for medical confidentiality, without a thorough physical examination, and without proper documentation of injuries. The Committee has repeatedly emphasised that medical reports frequently rely on standardised, formulaic language, such as the blanket statement that there are “no signs of ill-treatment,” without any genuine clinical assessment having been carried out.
The CPT has further underlined that such formalistic medical examinations not only violate fundamental principles of medical ethics, but also play a central role in concealing torture and ill-treatment, thereby systematically contributing to impunity. In particular, the Committee has criticised the practice whereby injuries are either not recorded at all or are incorrectly attributed to accidental falls or self-inflicted causes, effectively undermining the possibility of any subsequent criminal investigation.
Against this background, the conduct of the physician prosecuted in the present case—who repeatedly issued “no ill-treatment” reports despite obvious injuries and severe complaints—appears not as an individual failure, but as part of a broader, structural pattern repeatedly criticised by the CPT. The clear convergence between the CPT’s findings and the facts of the Eyüp Birinci case demonstrates that medical examinations in police custody in Türkiye are, in many instances, deprived of their protective function and reduced to a purely formal exercise, thereby facilitating the persistence of torture and the absence of accountability.
Investigation Ends in Impunity: A Constitutional Finding Without Effective Safeguards
Despite this extensive evidentiary record, the domestic prosecution initially resulted in a decision of non-prosecution. This was later examined by the Constitutional Court of Türkiye, which delivered its decision on 18 May 2021, nearly five years after the events. The Constitutional Court found that Birinci had presented a credible and arguable claim of torture while under state control and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation, thereby violating the procedural limb of the prohibition of torture. However, the Court did not order any interim injunctions or concrete measures aimed at preserving evidence, such as securing CCTV footage or suspending implicated officers.
Prosecution Ends in Impunity: Acquittal Despite Overwhelming Evidence
Despite overwhelming witness testimonies and medical records, ultimately, on 9 January 2026, the Antalya 3rd Heavy Penal Court acquitted all defendants, including the police officers and the defendant professor. The court relied on the principle of the benefit of the doubt while disregarding the cumulative weight of consistent court testimony, medical findings, and the Constitutional Court’s conclusions. (Antalya 3rd High Criminal Court Case–Decision No: 2024/363 (Merits) – 2026/5)
Not an Isolated Failure: A Structural Pattern of Impunity
This outcome demonstrates that the Constitutional Court’s intervention, while declaratory, did not ensure accountability in practice. The Eyüp Birinci case is not an isolated instance but forms part of a broader structural pattern in which torture is acknowledged at a constitutional level yet remains unpunished at the criminal level, as seen in other cases such as that of Savaş Kasap.
Conclusion: A Complete Cycle of Impunity Under Total State Control Taken together, the Eyüp Birinci case illustrates a complete cycle of impunity: torture under total state control; detailed, consistent testimony given before a criminal court; medical complicity by a senior physician; delayed constitutional review without effective injunctive measures; and ultimate acquittal due to evidentiary gaps largely created by the authorities themselves. It demonstrates that domestic remedies, in practice, fail to provide effective protection or accountability in cases of torture involving law-enforcement officials
Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog