Turkish journalist Tuğçe Yılmaz appeared in court on Monday over a news report about the experiences of two young Armenians, facing charges of “insulting the Turkish nation” under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. During the hearing, Yılmaz defended her work as a legitimate act of journalism and invoked the memory of Hrant Dink — an Armenian-Turkish journalist assassinated in 2007 — in her call for acquittal.
MLSA - The first hearing took place at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, where Yılmaz stood trial over an article published on independent news outlet Bianet, titled “Young Armenians from Turkey speak: A mourning that’s lasted 109 years.” The article explored the personal experiences of two Armenians living in Turkey. The case was filed 15 months after the article was published, prompting defense attorneys to highlight serious procedural and legal irregularities.
In her defense statement, Yılmaz said the case was initiated based solely on a complaint submitted via Turkey’s Presidential Communications Center (CİMER) by a single individual. “We don’t know this person’s mental state, and I believe he is racist,” she said. “But I was still detained while walking on the street because of this one complaint.” Citing the ongoing normalization process between Turkey and Armenia, she added, “It’s unacceptable to be prosecuted under Article 301 for this article during such a period,” and requested her acquittal, remembering Hrant Dink.
Lawyers denounce procedural violations and lack of legal basis
Defense attorney Deniz Yazgan reminded the court that Article 301 is not a charge that allows for detention. “Then why was a detention order issued?” he asked. Yazgan also stated that Yılmaz was being prosecuted solely for her journalistic work and that the mention of the term “Armenian Genocide” in the article does not constitute a crime by itself.
MLSA (Media and Law Studies Association) attorney Batıkan Erkoç opened his defense by questioning how the indictment was even accepted, arguing that anonymous complaints such as the one filed with CİMER are invalid under Turkish law. “According to the Petition Law and the Criminal Procedure Code, anonymous complaints are not legally valid,” he said.
Erkoç noted that the case was filed 15 months after publication, in violation of the Press Law’s deadlines, and therefore the legal basis for the case — the “condition for prosecution” — did not exist. “Even if my client had committed this offense, she could not legally be punished,” he said.
He also criticized the arrest warrant issued for Yılmaz on the grounds that she was “unreachable,” despite the fact that she was regularly reporting to a police station once a week and had signed in just a day before her detention. “This shows a complete lack of legal seriousness,” Erkoç said.
“The report presents two contrasting life experiences”
The defense also emphasized the nature of the article, which was based on interviews with two young Armenians living in Turkey. “Zepür spoke more hopefully, Aren more critically. The whole story is built around this contrast. It’s a journalistic achievement. This article should’ve won an award — not led to a trial,” said Erkoç.
He criticized the very foundation of the case, asking, “Is being Armenian an insult to Turkishness?” and argued that none of the statements in the article belonged to Yılmaz herself. He said the prosecution violated the principle of individual criminal responsibility: “How can a journalist be prosecuted for publishing interview-based reporting?”
Citing a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the Altuğ Taner Akçam case, Erkoç reminded the court that even launching an investigation over the phrase “Armenian Genocide” constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. “The ECHR found that even the investigation itself creates a chilling effect,” he said.
Prosecutor requests time; next hearing scheduled for April 2026
The prosecutor requested time to prepare the final opinion on the case, prompting an objection from Erkoç, who argued that the case lacked a legal basis and should be immediately dismissed. Nevertheless, the court accepted the prosecution’s request, sending the case file to the prosecutor’s office and adjourning the hearing to April 21, 2026, at 2:15 p.m.
