In his presentation at the symposium titled “The Accumulation of Turkish Criminal Law in One Hundred Years of the Republic: Social Impacts, Achievements, Rights and Violations” organized by the Istanbul Bar Association on March 1, 2026, criminal law scholar Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer delivered a far-reaching critique of the current state of criminal justice and the rule of law in Turkey.

Prof. Dr. Sözüer opened his remarks with a striking assessment: “Turkey Is in Conditions That Cannot Even Be Named”. According to Professor Sözüer, unpredictability and arbitrariness have replaced legal certainty.

Addressing the frequently used concept of “enemy criminal law,” he rejected its adequacy in describing the present situation. He asserted that correct term to call the current situation is “off-the-record law” and elaborated:

“Turkey is in an environment where Constitutional Court decisions are not implemented and where people who must be released pursuant to Constitutional Court decisions are kept in prison through the commission of a crime. Turkey is in conditions where journalists are arbitrarily detained even though they have made no statement containing incitement to danger or crime, no encouragement, no provocation, no insult. We are in conditions where opposition media outlets are seized and made to carry out government propaganda. Every law, every legal regulation, every constitutional arrangement has aspects that may be criticized. That happens in an ordinary order. But Turkey is in conditions that cannot even be named. Some constantly say, “Enemy criminal law is being applied in Turkey.” Even in enemy criminal law there is at least a classification of enemy. In other words, you are an enemy; you belong to a class. In Turkey, even that does not exist. I call this off-the-record law. There is an application in Turkey whose conditions — when, against whom, and how it will be applied — are not defined.”

“Decisions Are Given in Advance”

Describing courtrooms and trials, Sözüer said although there is a judge, a prosecutor, a lawyer in trials, decisions are given in advance, prior to hearing. He compared this practice to totalitarian regimes and introduced the term: “‘Tunnel-vision trial’ — that’s why I say this. Decisions are given in advance.”

Just like in the hearing we attended. There is a judge, there is a prosecutor, there is a lawyer; the decision has already been given. The judge did not even believe the evidence he himself had collected, read out the decision, and ran away. As in totalitarian regimes. That is why I say “tunnel-vision trial.” Decisions are given in advance.

From Torture to Irrelevance of Evidence

Professor Sözüer explained that in the past authorities were using torture to obtain evidence like confessions, yet he added that the Turkish judiciary no longer needs any evidence to detain or convict someone.

“Torture used to be carried out to make you confess. But now you do not need to confess. Because evidence is no longer necessary — neither for your detention nor for your conviction. We are faced with such a situation. How can such a regime be named? Therefore, to sit and say that this law should be like this or that law should be like that is actually exactly what this regime, what such regimes, desire. It creates the impression that a democratic process is functioning.”

Executive Dominance and the Political Nature of the Crisis

According to Sözüer, the root cause of the widespread human rights violations in Turkey lies not in the country’s legal framework but in the unchecked power of the executive and its dominance over the judiciary.

In his view, there is little need to amend or reform existing laws and regulations, many of which—he noted—are drafted in language and standards comparable to, and in some cases even stronger than, those found in European Union countries.

Instead, Sözüer argues that the real issue is how the law is applied.

“The executive decides according to political conditions and accordingly resorts to methods of misusing criminal law instruments,” he said.

For Sözüer, the crisis therefore cannot be explained by deficiencies in the criminal code itself. “The problem we are facing is not related to the criminal codes,” he concluded. Rather, he argues, the deeper issue is structural. “The real problem is Turkey’s departure from a legal regime and its orientation toward arbitrary practices in areas stripped of law.”

“In conditions where executive power is not supervised and where the executive dominates everything, it has no meaning to propose amendments to this or that law. Because the executive decides according to political conditions and accordingly resorts to methods of misusing criminal law instruments. The non-implementation of the Can Atalay decision is like this; the non-implementation of the Tayfun Kahraman decision is like this. The conviction of people who did not use force or violence and who exercised their constitutional rights is also like this. Therefore, if we are looking for a remedy, we must find it against this. In a process where the executive dominates everything and criminal law is misused solely to remain in power and maintain that power, what we must do is solve the problem of this political regime. That is separation of powers. If separation of powers does not exist, amendments we make in criminal law, detention, or seizure have no meaning. Because with a single anonymous witness, all your assets may be seized and you may be sentenced to all kinds of penalties.”

The Fundamental Solution: Separation of Powers

Sözüer concluded that the core issue is the absence of effective separation of powers: “If separation of powers does not exist, amendments we make in criminal law, detention, or seizure have no meaning.” He warned: “With a single anonymous witness, all your assets may be seized, and you may be sentenced to all kinds of penalties.”

He closed with a systemic diagnosis:

“If we are looking for a remedy, we must find it against this. In a process where the executive dominates everything and criminal law is misused solely to remain in power and maintain that power, what we must do is solve the problem of this political regime.”

Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog