- In 55% of the 33 trials monitored in January, the hearings started late; the trial was disrupted right from the entrance.
- In 61% of the hearings, the courtroom conditions were problematic; small and airless courtrooms effectively eliminated public access.
- In 8 out of every 10 hearings, law enforcement was present; plainclothes police officers put pressure on the trial atmosphere.
- 79% of the cases were still in the first five-hearing stage; no progress was made on the merits.
Throughout January 2026, 33 trials were monitored within the scope of freedom of expression and press freedom. In these trials, 67 defendants were prosecuted. The monitored case files revealed serious problems regarding how the trials were conducted. The late start of hearings, frequent postponements, inadequate courtroom conditions, and heavy law enforcement presence showed that the right to a fair trial is systematically undermined in practice.
Hearings started late, trials were disrupted
18 of the 33 hearings monitored in January (55%) started late. Only 15 hearings started on time. The most common justification for late starts was the workload of the courts. Some hearings were delayed for hours due to other cases being prioritized or the court panel arriving late. In one hearing, it was recorded that although there was no case before or after, the hearing was arbitrarily delayed.
This picture revealed that, for defendants and their defense counsels, a predictable trial order does not exist and that trials are being conducted in an unplanned manner.
Courtrooms were small, airless, and closed to the public
In 20 of the monitored hearings (61%), physical problems were experienced in the courtrooms: in 11 hearings the courtroom was small, and in 11 hearings it was reported to be airless. In six hearings, it was recorded that the words of defendants, witnesses, and lawyers could not be heard.
In some cases, although the hearing was moved to a large courtroom, family members of the defendants, journalists, and national-international observers were not allowed into the courtroom with the justification of “no space.” Some hearings were also reflected in the report where piles of case files in sacks were stacked in front of the audience benches. These practices showed that hearings were conducted in violation of the principle of publicity.
Law enforcement presence shaped the trial atmosphere
In 14 hearings (78%), unusual law enforcement presence was observed inside or around the courtroom: in 11 hearings plainclothes police officers, in 4 hearings uniformed police officers were present in the courtroom or corridors. In one hearing, it was recorded that an armed plainclothes police officer entered the courtroom.
In some hearings, police officers asked observers when the hearing was postponed; in some case files, even though the judge said “there is no security issue,” law enforcement personnel insisted on remaining in the courtroom. This picture revealed that the courtrooms turned into a suppressive atmosphere.
Concerns regarding the attitude of judges and prosecutors
In 4 of the 14 hearings for which responses were obtained (29%), it was reported that the judge or prosecutor displayed unequal treatment between the defendants and complainants. In some case files, it was stated that the judge protected the complainant police officers, and in some hearings, allegations of torture against complainant police officers were not recorded in the official transcript. These practices indicated that the principles of impartiality and equality of arms in trials were undermined.
Hearings were postponed, files left in limbo
25 of the hearings (83%) were postponed. The most frequent justification for postponement was the preparation of the prosecutor's opinion. Requests for additional time for the defense, changes of judge, and forced appearance of complainants and defendants also stood out as reasons for postponement.
79% of the cases remained within the first five hearings; one out of every five cases had been ongoing for a long time. This situation seriously eroded the right to trial within a reasonable time.
Merits of the files: Who was tried, what was used as evidence
88% of the cases monitored in January were held in Istanbul and Diyarbakır. 64% of the prosecuted individuals were journalists. They were followed by lawyers, activists, human rights defenders, and students.
The most frequently used evidence in indictments were news contents, social media posts, and live broadcasts. These types of evidence were used 17 times (52%). Meetings and demonstration activities were used as evidence 11 times. Law enforcement reports and secret witness statements also played a decisive role in many files.
Profile of complainants: State power became a party to the case
In the monitored case files, the President, ministers, university rectors, high-ranking judicial officials, and 14 police officers were listed as complainants. The direct involvement of actors representing state power in the cases where journalists were prosecuted raised serious questions about whether the trials were conducted fairly and equally.
Legal developments that stood out in January
Some significant developments followed by the MLSA Legal Unit and featured in the bulletin also drew attention in January:
French journalist Raphaël Boukandoura was detained for two days without justification while following a statement about developments in Syria; he was released following MLSA’s legal application.
Journalist Elif Akgül was acquitted in the long-running HDK case. Akgül had spent about three months in prison last year in connection with this file.
For cinematographer Koray Kesik, the first hearing date in the trial related to the banned documentary Bakur was set for April 2026.
In the hearing of the case filed after T24 reporter Can Öztürk was detained by being choked while covering a student protest, serious violations of the right to a fair trial were identified.
The trial of Swedish journalist Joakim Medin, prosecuted on “terrorism” charges, was postponed.
The first hearing was held in the case filed against the banning of the Kurdish-language film Rojbaş.
MLSA brought the regulation known in the public as the “censorship law” to the European Court of Human Rights.
Journalist Fırat Epözdemir and members of the Istanbul Bar Association were acquitted in the cases filed against them.
In the trial of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members held in Istanbul, 28 defendants were sentenced to prison.
Conclusion
The trials monitored in January 2026 revealed that the right to a fair trial is most severely undermined in court practice. The late start of hearings, inadequate physical conditions, heavy law enforcement presence, and frequent postponements painted a picture of a trial process incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 36 of the Constitution, and the fundamental principles of the Criminal Procedure Code. These findings once again demonstrated that the problems related to the right to a fair trial are not exceptional but structural.
