Turkey: Urgent call to UN Special Rapporteurs to address the prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders in Turkey

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

• Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders
• Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism
• Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
• Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association
• Special Rapporteur on minority issues

URGENT ACTION: Prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders who are members of Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) on 28 January 2026 in Türkiye.

Dear Mandate Holders,

1. We write to express our deep and urgent concern regarding the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) following a decade-long trial before the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court.

2. On 28 January 2026, in proceedings dating back to 2016, the trial court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders, on terrorism-related and expression-based charges, imposing lengthy prison sentences. The prosecutions and resulting convictions appear to be based predominantly on lawyers’ lawful professional conduct - including prison visits, contact with clients, legal correspondence, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - rather than any credible evidence of criminal conduct. These mirror prior patterns of targeting lawyers for their professional activities. TUAD activists were likewise targeted solely for their legitimate human rights work, including documenting prison conditions, publicly reporting on human rights violations, and advocating for the protection of prisoners’ health and dignity, activities that fall within the protected scope of human rights defence.

3. The convictions follow proceedings marked by serious due process concerns, including extensive reliance on surveillance evidence obtained through wiretapping and technical monitoring measures authorised by judges who were later dismissed or prosecuted in connection with alleged links to the Gülenist organisation, as well as the routine rejection of defence challenges without reasoned judicial assessment. These practices raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international standards protecting the professional independence of lawyers and the lawful activities of human rights defenders.

4. In light of the gravity of these concerns, we respectfully request your urgent intervention. We urge you to call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and to terminate all criminal proceedings against the lawyers and human rights defenders concerned, in accordance with international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We further invite you to urge the authorities to cease all forms of judicial harassment and undue interference with the legal profession and with human rights defence, and to ensure that lawyers and human rights defenders can carry out their lawful activities freely, independently, and without fear of reprisal.

BACKGROUND AND SYSTEMIC CONTEXT

5. Since the attempted coup of July 2016, Türkiye has experienced a sustained deterioration of the rule of law and judicial independence, accompanied by widespread persecution of lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the authorities have systematically targeted members of the legal profession and civil society through arbitrary arrests, prolonged pre-trial detention, and criminal prosecutions based on vague and overly broad terrorism provisions, particularly Articles 314 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and Article 7(2) of the Law on Anti-Terrorism. These measures have been repeatedly criticised by international bodies for their lack of foreseeability, their misuse against lawful expression and association, and their chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights.

6. This pattern has been facilitated by profound structural damage to judicial independence, including the mass dismissal and replacement of judges and prosecutors, expanded executive control over judicial appointments, and the routine disregard by domestic courts of binding judgments of the ECtHR. As documented by UN mechanisms and regional bodies, these developments have enabled the instrumentalization of criminal law against lawyers and human rights defenders perceived as critical of state policies, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, political opposition, prison conditions, and allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

7. For instance, in March 2019 the Istanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court sentenced 18 lawyers to a combined total of 159 years, 1 month, and 30 days in prison on terrorism-related charges linked to the outlawed Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C). The defendants included lawyers from the People’s Law Office (HHB) and the Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD), many of whom had been providing legal representation in politically sensitive cases. Human rights organisations and bar associations condemned the verdicts as unjust and politically motivated, stressing that the convictions were based on lawyers’ professional activities rather than any demonstrable criminal conduct. They further warned that the proceedings reflected serious due process violations, political interference in the judiciary, and the systematic criminalisation of legal defence work, undermining the independence of the legal profession in Türkiye.

8. Another illustrative example of the criminalisation of legal defence work took place in Ankara in 2017. In June of that year, 52 lawyers were charged with “membership of a terrorist organisation” under Article 314 of the TPC. The prosecution alleged that their professional association, the Law and Life Association, formed part of the Gülen organisation, despite a police report finding no evidence of criminal activity. The indictment relied on routine legal activities such as assigning cases, representing clients linked to the Gülenist organisation, and making public statements on due process as purported proof of “aiding terrorism”. Human Rights Watch condemned the proceedings, warning that treating legal representation as evidence of criminality “threatens the very core of fair trial rights” and undermines the independence of the legal profession.

9. According to reports, more than 1,500 lawyers have been prosecuted in Türkiye since 2016, hundreds have been detained, and many have received lengthy prison sentences. These prosecutions frequently rely on evidence obtained from lawyers’ professional activities, including prison visits, client communications, participation in hearings, and public advocacy on human rights and rule of law.

10. These concerns are reflected in reporting by international media and civil society organisations concerning large-scale police operations carried out in April 2023 in Diyarbakır and other predominantly Kurdish southeastern provinces. According to media reports, Turkish police detained more than 100 individuals - including lawyers, journalists, political actors and civil society representatives - in coordinated raids targeting organisations allegedly linked to the PKK. Reports indicated that the raids involved searches of lawyers’ offices, media outlets and NGO premises, and that the total number of detainees may have reached approximately 150.

11. A series of other ongoing cases further illustrates the entrenched and continuing nature of these practices. In the context of the Gezi Park proceedings, domestic courts have repeatedly refused to give effect to binding ECtHR judgments requesting the release of human rights defender Osman Kavala. Trial courts and the Court of Cassation repeatedly failed to give effect to multiple rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering the release of opposition MP Can Atalay on the basis of his parliamentary immunity and have continued to detain Gezi Park co-defendant Tayfun Kahraman despite a Constitutional Court judgment finding violations of his rights.

12. Parallel concerns arise in relation to the continued imprisonment of human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı, following the arbitrary and punitive refusal of his conditional release. In late 2024, the authorities also initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association in response to a public statement addressing alleged human rights violations in Syria attributed to Turkish security forces. Earlier, in October 2022, prominent forensic expert and human rights defender Şebnem Korur (Fincancı) was detained and prosecuted for her professional assessment on the allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkish military forces. Although she was released after a period of detention, she was subsequently convicted on charge of “propaganda for a terrorist organisation”, in proceedings later criticised by UN experts as incompatible with international standards.

13. International human rights monitoring mechanisms has further highlighted the systemic nature of these practices. In its concluding observations adopted in November 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) expressed serious concern about persecution, harassment, intimidation, and reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, Kurdish activists, environmental defenders, opposition politicians, academics, and civil society members perceived as critical of the government. The Committee also raised alarm over the alleged use of arbitrary detention and politically motivated prosecutions to suppress dissent, noting that this climate of intimidation has forced some organisations to close or curtail their activities and has driven many individuals into self-censorship or self-imposed exile.

CONVICTION OF ÖHD LAWYERS AND MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS FROM TUAD

14. On 28 January 2026, the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court delivered its judgment in a criminal case initiated in 2016 against lawyers affiliated with the ÖHD, members and staff of the TUAD. At the conclusion of nearly ten years of proceedings, the court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders on terrorism-related and expression-based charges and imposed
custodial sentences ranging from several months to multiple years of imprisonment. The convictions concerned 10 ÖHD lawyers and 20 TUAD members, while a limited number of co-defendants were acquitted15. Among the convicted lawyers were Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan. The convictions were based on Article 314(2) of the TPC (“membership of an armed organisation”), Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law (“propaganda”), and, in one instance, Article 299 of the TPC (“insult to the President”).13Custodial sentences imposed on the lawyers ranged from 1 year and 3 months to 7 years and 6 months, with several lawyers receiving multiple cumulative sentences under different provisions. The remaining convictions concerned TUAD members or those affiliated with the organisation.

16. The conduct relied upon by the prosecution and the trial court as evidence of criminal liability consisted of lawful professional and human rights activities. In the case of the ÖHD lawyers, this included prison visits, confidential communications with clients, legal correspondence, participation in court hearings, trial monitoring, public statements, and professional coordination with colleagues. In the case of TUAD members, the evidence related to activities such as documenting prison conditions, monitoring prisoners’ health - particularly during hunger strikes - issuing public statements on rights violations and providing support to prisoners’ families. None of these acts involved incitement to violence, coercion, or participation in unlawful conduct.

17. According to reports, the prosecution was built almost exclusively on unlawfully obtained surveillance material, including wiretapping and technical monitoring measures extended over prolonged periods in breach of procedural safeguards, as well as recordings obtained from within TUAD premises and during lawyer–client meetings in prisons. Defence requests to exclude this evidence were repeatedly rejected, notwithstanding that several of the surveillance authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation. authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation.

18. Throughout the trial, defence lawyers raised serious and persistent concerns regarding violations of fair trial guarantees. These included the reliance on intelligence material disconnected from any criminal act, the absence of an individualised assessment of each defendant’s conduct, the conflation of lawful association membership with criminal liability, and severe restrictions on the defence’s ability to effectively challenge evidence. The length of the proceedings, combined with the mechanical attribution of liability based on professional or associative ties, deprived the defendants of a genuine opportunity to contest the accusations against them.

19. The convictions of TUAD members and affiliates further raise grave concerns regarding the criminalisation of human rights defenders’ work. TUAD’s activities - focused on prison monitoring, prevention of ill-treatment, and advocacy for prisoners’ rights - fall directly within the protected sphere of human rights defence under international law. Prosecuting and sentencing individuals for such activities not only violates their individual rights to freedom of expression and association, but also undermines independent oversight of detention conditions, increasing the risk of torture and ill-treatment and weakening safeguards for some of the most vulnerable individuals in custody.

20. Taken together these violations take place within a broader context of weakened judicial safeguards, increasing executive influence over the courts, and restricted access to case files. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect a broader pattern of judicial harassment aimed at silencing lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in sensitive work, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, detention, and allegations of state abuse. These practices have a profound chilling effect on the legal profession and civil society, deter lawyers from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, and erode access to justice for detainees. They are incompatible with international standards governing the role and protection of lawyers and human rights defenders, as discussed in the section below.

TURKEY’S OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Rights of Lawyers and Rule of Law

21. Under international and regional human rights law, the rights of lawyers - including their rights to liberty and security, freedom of expression and association, and the independent exercise of their profession - are protected by a coherent body of standards. These include the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), paragraph 7 of UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/33, Recommendation No. (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, and, most recently, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. Taken together, these instruments recognise the legal profession as a cornerstone of the administration of justice and an indispensable safeguard for the rule of law.

22. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers are entitled to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed under international human rights law insofar as they relate to their professional functions. Principle 16 obliges States to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their duties “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”, and without being subjected to sanctions or prosecution for actions taken in accordance with recognised professional duties and standards. Principle 23 further guarantees lawyers’ rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and association, including the right to participate in public debate on matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights, without suffering professional or criminal repercussions.

23. These guarantees are reinforced and developed at the regional level by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which was adopted in response to increasing reports of harassment, criminalisation, and undue interference with lawyers’ professional activities in Council of Europe member States, including Türkiye. The Convention affirms States’ obligations to protect lawyers from identification with their clients or causes, to safeguard the confidentiality of lawyer–client communications, and to ensure that lawyers are not subjected to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions for carrying out their professional duties in accordance with the law and professional standards. It further emphasises that attacks on the legal profession undermine access to justice and the effective protection of human rights.

24. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers for routine professional activities - including client representation, prison visits, confidential communications, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - constitute a direct violation of these standards. By treating lawful legal work and expression as evidence of criminal liability, the authorities have interfered with lawyers’ freedom of expression and association, undermined their professional independence, and breached Articles 14 and 19 of the ICCPR, as well as Article 6 of the ECHR. Such measures not only punish individual lawyers but also deter others from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, thereby denying current and future defendants’ effective access to legal representation.

B. Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Legitimate Civil Society Activity

25. TUAD members and activists fall within the definition of human rights defenders, as their activities are directed at the protection of the rights of prisoners and their families, including through prison monitoring, documentation of detention conditions, public reporting, and advocacy aimed at preventing abuse and safeguarding human dignity. These activities are expressly protected under international human rights law, including the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders”).

26. Article 9 of the Declaration affirms the right of everyone to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms”, while Article 11 obliges States to ensure the right to the lawful exercise of one’s occupation or profession. Articles 5 and 6 further protect the rights of human rights defenders to form associations, to communicate with the public and international bodies, and to disseminate information on human rights issues. These guarantees are reinforced by Article 12 of the Declaration, which requires States to take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders against intimidation, harassment, retaliation, and other arbitrary actions arising from their legitimate activities. They are further underpinned by Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR and Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR which protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association.

27. The prosecution and conviction of TUAD members for activities such as documenting prison conditions, supporting prisoners’ families, issuing public statements, and advocating for prisoners’ rights therefore constitute a clear violation of Türkiye’s obligations under international law. Criminalising such conduct not only interferes with the individual rights of the defenders concerned but also undermines independent oversight of places of detention and weakens safeguards against abuse. These measures are incompatible with the State’s duty to create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can operate freely, without intimidation, harassment, or fear of criminal sanction.

28. Taken together, the prosecution and convictions of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation to suppress lawful professional and human rights activities. This practice represents a serious breach of Türkiye’s international obligations, erodes the rule of law, and contributes to a climate in which legal defence and human rights work are treated as illegitimate or criminalised, rather than recognised as essential components of a democratic society.

ACTIONS REQUESTED

29. In light of the above, we respectfully request that the Special Rapporteurs take the following urgent actions:

(a) Call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and sentences imposed on ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members and to ensure their immediate acquittal, including in respect of the lawyers Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan;

(b) Seek detailed information from the Government of Türkiye regarding the use of surveillance and intelligence evidence authorised by judicial officials who were later dismissed or convicted, and its compatibility with international fair trial standards, including safeguards relating to legality, necessity, proportionality, and effective judicial scrutiny;

(c) Urge the authorities to end all forms of harassment, including judicial harassment, against the individuals concerned and against lawyers and human rights defenders more broadly, and to guarantee that they are able to carry out their professional and lawful activities freely, independently, and without intimidation or improper interference;

(d) Raise, as a matter of priority, concerns regarding the criminalisation of legal defence work and prisoners’ rights advocacy, including through joint communications, given the cross-cutting implications for judicial independence, freedom of expression and association, and the protection of human rights defenders;

(e) Call on the authorities to immediately cease the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and related criminal provisions against lawyers and human rights defenders who expose, document, or challenge human rights violations, including those committed by security forces;

(f) Urge Türkiye to take concrete measures, in law and in practice, to safeguard judicial independence, prevent undue interference with judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, and ensure compliance with binding judgments of the ECtHR;

(g) Remind the Government of Türkiye of its binding international obligations, including under the ICCPR, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and relevant Council of Europe standards, and of its duty to ensure that criminal, administrative, or counter-terrorism measures are not used as tools of retaliation against lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in politically sensitive or human rights-related work.

30. We would be grateful to be informed of any action taken on this communication and of any response received from the Turkish authorities, and we kindly request acknowledgment of receipt of this submission.

Signatories

1. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Conseil des Barreaux Européens, CCBE)
2. European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH)
3. Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği, IHD)
4. Human Rights Fundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı, TİHV)
5. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
6. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
7. International Observatory of Lawyers at Risk (OIAD)
8. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
9. Rights Initiative Association (Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği)
10. Social Policy, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Association (SPoD)
11. The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW)
12. Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi)
13. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders