CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 5 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC176A5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:7pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB48221D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67EF6F4D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000 } .s69A27D15 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .sBFF0F0D0 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s3BE5F201 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .sFF657FD2 { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s1DE56E2F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s33B337 { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s3A4CBDAC { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sB19A71B8 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sCE1B7FE { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s5336AA44 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s6FDE9054 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s25C0B3F0 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s5DF21E18 { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s57998E00 { width:3.12pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s169B04D6 { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sE3C63D4B { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; color:#000000 } .s9F2AE49E { margin-top:8pt; margin-right:28.35pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sAB6F5181 { width:172.62pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sC20E0228 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sED81A20D { width:184.67pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s38E45E17 { width:3.2pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD6BDC061 { width:234.15pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s634E41A8 { width:256.03pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sE2C5D066 { width:164.66pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB711C2B8 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE23EE5C3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial } .s270A254F { margin-left:-2pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD101F7F4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92386F3A { width:34.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s122D198C { width:145.1pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA2F8E2C6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFBF16837 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s973C4529 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF YASAK v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 17389/20)   JUDGMENT Art 43 • Government’s request to reconsider the referral decision of the Grand Chamber panel rejected • Appropriateness of the decision not to be assessed by the Grand Chamber • Case, in so far as declared admissible, automatically referred to the Grand Chamber to be decided afresh Art 35 § 3 (a) • Application not amounting to an abuse of the right of application Art 7 • Nullum crimen sine lege • Nulla poena sine lege • Conviction for being member of armed terrorist organisation without any assessment of the applicant’s mens rea of the offence • Enumeration of the principles of the requirement of individualised liability – nulla poena sine culpa • Domestic courts’ failure to establish the mens rea required under domestic law, through an individualised and contextual assessment of criminal liability strictly limited to the temporal framework of the offence • Reliance of the applicant’s role in the educational field without establishing the existence of a personal, functional or hierarchical link with the organisation’s strategic branches and the extent of his responsibilities • Reliance on general considerations about the organisation’s development from a religious movement to an entity designated as a terrorist organisation without establishing the applicant’s awareness of this transformation and that he joined the organisation and maintained links in full knowledge of those facts • Violation of the individual right not to be punished without the existence of a mental link through which an element of personal liability must be established Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Cumulative conditions of the applicant’s conditions of detention in prison attained the minimum level of severity   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 5 May 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   THE BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A.   Attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016 and declaration of a state of emergency B.   The classification of the FETÖ/PDY as a terrorist organisation II.   THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.   The applicant’s arrest and his statements B.   The bill of indictment C.   The evidence obtained during the investigation and subsequent criminal proceedings 1.   Witness statements taken in the criminal investigation initiated by the Çorum Public Prosecutor’s Office (a)   B.A.’s statements (b)   Y.B.’s statements (c)   A.B.’s statements (d)   H.E.’s statements (e)   A.S.’s statements 2.   The analysis report on HTS records from a mobile telephone line 3.   The report on payment of the applicant’s social-security contributions 4.   Document on the applicant’s banking activities with Bank Asya D.   Other documents produced by the Government E.   The proceedings before the domestic courts 1.   The proceedings before the Çorum Assize Court 2.   The applicant’s conviction 3.   The judgment of the Çorum Assize Court 4.   The appeal lodged by the applicant 5.   The applicant’s appeal on points of law 6.   The proceedings before the Constitutional Court F.   The applicant’s conditions of detention and the related proceedings 1.   The applicant’s conditions of detention (a)   Detention in police custody (b)   Pre-trial detention in Çorum Prison 2.   The steps taken by the applicant to complain about his conditions of detention in Çorum Prison 3.   The applicant’s individual application concerning the conditions of his detention in Çorum Prison RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.   Domestic law 1.   The Criminal Code (Law no. 5237 of 26 September 2004, entered into force on 1 January 2005) 2.   The Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713 of 12 April 1991) B.   Relevant domestic case-law 1.   The case-law of the Constitutional Court (a)   The judgment of 4 August 2016 on the dismissal of two members of the Constitutional Court (b)   The Metin Birdal judgment of 22 May 2019 (c)   The Adnan Şen judgment of 15 April 2021 (d)   The Bilal Celalettin Şaşmaz judgment of 18 October 2022 2.   The case-law of the Court of Cassation (a)   The judgments of 24 April 2017 and 26 September 2017 (b)   The judgment of 24 October 2017 (c)   Other relevant judgments of the Court of Cassation 3.   The criminal proceedings against F. Gülen in 1999 II.   RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.   The United Nations B.   The Council of Europe 1.   Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on Articles 216, 299, 301 and 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code 2.   Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights THE LAW I.   PRELIMINARY ISSUES A.   The Government’s request to reconsider the decision of the Grand Chamber panel B.   Abuse of the right of individual application II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The Chamber judgment B.   Merits 1.   Arguments of the parties (a)   The applicant (b)   The Government 2.   Third-party observations (a)   The UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (b)   European Criminal Bar Association (c)   Italian Federation for Human Rights 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Relevant general principles (b)   Application to the present case (i)   Preliminary observations (ii)   The issue to be decided in the present case (iii)   The mens rea requirement for the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation (iv)   The domestic courts’ establishment of the mens rea of the offence in the present case (v)   Conclusion III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF the CONVENTION A.   The Chamber judgment B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant 2.   The Government C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Scope of the case 2.   On the Government’s preliminary objection 3.   The complaint under Article 3 (a)   General principles (b)   Application of these principles to the present case IV.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses OPERATIVE PROVISIONS JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES VEHABOVIĆ, SCHUKKING, CHANTURIA, YÜKSEL, SEIBERT-FOHR, ROOSMA, GUERRA MARTINS AND NÍ   RAIFEARTAIGH PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GUERRA MARTINS P artly dissenting opinion of judge Lavapuro, joined by judges Jelić, Ktistakis, Šimáčková and Đurović JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES VEHABOVIĆ, CHANTURIA, FELICI, YÜKSEL, NÍ RAIFEARTAIGH AND KUČS DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE NÍ RAIFEARTAIGH     In the case of Yasak v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Lado Chanturia,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Faris Vehabović,   Jolien Schukking,   Gilberto Felici,   Saadet Yüksel,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Artūrs Kučs,   Mateja Đurović,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2025, 5 November 2025 and 11   February 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s conviction, under Article 314 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code, for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, and also the conditions of his detention while serving his sentence in Çorum Prison. It raises issues under Articles 7 and 3 of the Convention. PROCEDURE 2 .     The case originated in an application (no. 17389/20) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Şaban Yasak (“the applicant”), on 2 April 2020. 3 .     The applicant was represented by Mr   J.   Vande Lanotte and Mr   J.   Heymans, lawyers practising in Mariakerke (Belgium). The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 4 .     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court ). On 19 February 2021 the Government were given notice of the applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and 7 of the Convention. The remainder of the application (in particular, the applicant’s complaint under Article 6) was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 §   3. 5 .     In a judgment of 27 August 2024, a Chamber of the Second Section composed of Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Saadet Yüksel, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Frédéric Krenc, Diana Sârcu and Gediminas Sagatys, and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, unanimously declared admissible the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention in Çorum Prison, and also the complaint under Article   7. Unanimously, it declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It also concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   3 or Article 7 of the Convention. The concurring opinion of Judge   Krenc was appended to the judgment . 6 .     On 26 November 2024 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention. On 16   December 2024 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 7 .     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 8 .     The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, Mr Ben Saul, who had been invited by the President of the Grand Chamber to intervene in the written procedure (Article   36 § 2 of the Convention and Rules 44 § 3 and 71 § 1). Written comments were also received from the European Criminal Bar Association and the Italian Federation for Human Rights, the President of the Grand Chamber having granted them leave to intervene in the written procedure (ibid.) . 9 .     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 7 May 2025. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr A. AYDIN ,   Co ‑ Agent , Mr S. TALMON ,   Mr O. DEĞİRMENCİ,   Counsel,   Ms B. BAYRAK ŞENOCAK,   Mr N. UZUN,   Mr H. AKCEVİZ,   Mr Ş. TAŞ,     Advisers;     (b)     for the applicant Mr J. HEYMANS ,     Mr J. VANDE LANOTTE ,   Counsel ,   The Court heard addresses by Mr   Aydın and Mr   Talmon, for the Government, and from Mr   Heymans and Mr   Vande Lanotte, for the applicant, as well as their replies to questions put by judges. 10 .     Each of the parties also submitted written observations on certain of the questions put to them by the judges at the hearing. 11.     Following the hearing, the President of the Grand Chamber, Marko Bošnjak, withdrew from the case when his term of office at the Court came to an end. As President of the Grand Chamber he was succeeded by Mattias Guyomar, and as a member of the composition he was replaced by the first substitute judge, Ana Maria Guerra Martins. Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström also withdrew from the case following the end of her term of office. She was replaced by the second substitute judge, Peeter Roosma (Rule 24 § 3). THE FACTS         THE BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 12 .     The case concerns one of many sets of criminal proceedings brought against the alleged members of an armed terrorist organisation, namely the group referred to by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (hereinafter “the FETÖ/PDY” or “the organisation”), which they consider to be responsible for the attempted coup d’état that took place in Türkiye on 15   July 2016 (for more details on that event and the measures taken by the national authorities at that time, see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 10-17, 26   September 2023). For the purposes of the present case, the relevant elements relating to the attempted coup of 15 July 2016 and the organisation are summarised below.    Attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016 and declaration of a state of emergency 13 .     During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected Parliament, Government and President of Türkiye. During the attempted coup, more than 8,000 military personnel under the instigators’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the Parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying and the convoy in which the Prime Minister was travelling, held the Chief of General Staff hostage, attacked and occupied a number of public institutions, occupied television studios, blocked the bridges over the Bosphorus and the airports in Istanbul with tanks and armoured vehicles, and fired on demonstrators who had taken to the streets to oppose the coup attempt. According to the figures provided by the Government, more than 250 people, including civilians, were killed on the night in question and more than 2,000 people were injured. 14 .     The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen (hereinafter referred to as “F.   Gülen”), a Turkish citizen who at that time and until his death on 24   October 2024 was resident in Pennsylvania (United States of America), and was considered to be the leader of the FETÖ/PDY. The authorities attributed responsibility for the coup attempt to members of the FETÖ/PDY who had infiltrated the Turkish armed forces. 15 .     On 16 July 2016 the Bureau for Crimes against the Constitutional Order at the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the attempted coup. Acting within the framework of that investigation, the regional prosecutors’ offices launched criminal investigations against those suspected of being involved in the coup attempt, as well as against other persons suspected of having links to the FETÖ/PDY. 16 .     On 20 July 2016 the Government declared a state of emergency for a period of ninety days as from 21 July 2016. The state of emergency was subsequently prolonged on seven occasions, each time for ninety days. 17 .     On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation from the Convention under Article   15. On 18 July 2018 the state of emergency was lifted.    The classification of the FETÖ/PDY as a terrorist organisation 18 .     Under Turkish law, the classification of a structure as a terrorist organisation is possible only by way of a judicial decision (see paragraph   102 below). According to the case-law of the Court of Cassation, domestic courts called upon to assess for the first time whether an organisation can be classified as terrorist must carry out a thorough investigation and determine the nature of the organisation by scrutinising its purpose, whether it has adopted an action plan or similar operational measures, and whether it has resorted to violence or a credible threat to use violence in pursuing that action plan (see paragraph 114 below). 19 .     It appears from the domestic court judgments submitted by the parties that although the FETÖ/PDY, which was formerly known as the “Gülen movement” or the “Gülen community” ( Gülen cemaati ), had initially been perceived as a religious group after its inception in the 1960s, its motivations and modus operandi had nevertheless raised suspicions and contributed to a longstanding public debate as to whether its motivations were solely religious (see paragraph   112 below). In this connection, the leader of the movement, F.   Gülen, was charged in 1999 with founding and leading a terrorist organisation, on account of the activities of the “Gülen movement”. The Court of Cassation, sitting in plenary criminal divisions, ultimately acquitted him of this charge in a final decision delivered on 24   June 2008 (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, § 18). 20 .     It also appears from the relevant domestic court judgments that the debates and controversy surrounding the FETÖ/PDY intensified after 2013, particularly following the so-called “17-25 December investigations” and the “MİT trucks” incident, which reinforced misgivings about the motivations of the FETÖ/PDY and triggered numerous investigations in relation to suspected members of that movement on terrorism-related charges (ibid . , §   19). 21 .     The assessment by the State security services of the FETÖ/PDY also changed over time.   The National Security Council, a consultative body, issued increasingly strong warnings about the FETÖ/PDY from the start of 2014, by means of press statements issued at the end of its regular bi-monthly meetings. This growing concern is reflected in a gradual change in the description of the organisation in those press releases: in February 2014, it was considered a “structure threatening public peace and security”. In the press release issued at the close of the meeting of 30 October 2014, the National Security Council listed the FETÖ/PDY as one of the threats facing Türkiye’s national security and referred to the organisation in the following terms: “parallel structures and illegal formations, conducting illegal acts under the guise of legality at home and abroad, that threaten our national security and disturb public order.”   Following its meeting on 26 May 2016, the last to be held prior to the coup attempt, the National Security Council issued a press statement, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “The efforts undertaken to ensure the peace and security of our citizens and the public order, the achievements in the fight against terror and terrorist[s] and the measures taken against the parallel State structure – which threatens our national security and which is a terrorist organisation – have been discussed.” This was the first time that the National Security Council expressly referred to the organisation as a terrorist organisation (ibid., § 251). 22 .     As regards the status of the organisation in domestic case-law, it was only on 16 June 2016 that the Erzincan Assize Court, sitting as a court of first instance, designated the organisation as terrorist in nature for the first time. Similarly, the first final judgment by a court of appeal attributing this status to the organisation was that of 7 March 2017, delivered by the Samsun Regional Court of Appeal. In addition, in two judgments delivered on 24   April and 26 September 2017, the Court of Cassation designated the FETÖ/PDY as a “terrorist organisation” (ibid., §§   155-156 and 251; see also paragraphs   113 ‑ 115 below). Thus, it was over the period 2016-2017 that the organisation was formally classified as a terrorist organisation by the courts.       THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 23 .     The applicant was born in 1987 and currently lives in Stockhausen-Illfurth, Germany. When his application was lodged, he was serving a prison sentence in the L-type prison in Çorum. 24 .     After the coup attempt, the Çorum Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the activities of the FETÖ/PDY in Çorum Province. In an indictment filed on 4   August 2017 (see paragraph 30 below), the applicant was accused of belonging to the organisation, which marked the beginning of the criminal proceedings against him. The accusation was based on evidence gathered in the course of the criminal investigation referred to above and was subsequently supplemented by evidence obtained during the proceedings before the Çorum Assize Court. This evidential material is set out in detail below. Certain witness statements that were taken by the police or by the public prosecutor before the bill of indictment was lodged played a key role in the applicant’s conviction and were given by witnesses who had indicated a wish to benefit from the “active repentance” regime, including Y.B. and A. B. (see paragraphs 43 and 46 below).    The applicant’s arrest and his statements 25 .     On 26 January 2017, on orders from the Çorum magistrates’ court, the police carried out a search of the applicant’s home during which they seized, among other devices, five mobile phones, two hard drives, three laptops and a camera. 26 .     On 30 January 2017 the applicant handed himself in at the Nevşehir police station. He was placed in police custody on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY. 27.     On 1 February 2017 the applicant met with his lawyer at the premises of the Çorum Province Anti-Terrorism Directorate. 28.     On the same day the police recorded the applicant’s statement in the presence of his lawyer. He stated that he had participated in a few dinners and three conversation meetings organised by institutions linked to the organisation when he was staying in the university residence, but denied that he had held any position within this structure or that he had carried out any activity on behalf of that organisation. Questioned about the incriminated organisation’s aim and strategy, he indicated that he knew nothing about these. He added that he had approached the Gülenist movement to obtain a reference that could facilitate his job search. During the police interview, the relevant portions of the statements taken from witnesses B.A. and Y.B. were read out to the applicant and questions were asked about them (see paragraphs 39 and 43 below). In response, the applicant stated that he did not know B.A. and Y.B., who had accused him of belonging to the FETÖ/PDY, and that he had not carried out any activities on behalf of the organisation in question. He added that he had not assumed any responsibility as a regional student leader (“ Bölge Talebe Mesulleri ”, hereinafter “BTM”) or principal regional student leader (“ Büyük Bölge Talebe Mesulü ”, hereinafter “BBTM”) and had not guided or directed anyone. He further stated that he had not carried out any investigation of individuals on behalf of the cemaat . He had heard in the media that the organisation ( örgüt ) was carrying out such investigations into its members. Moreover, in response to the questions put to him, he repeated that he had not carried out any activities on behalf of the cemaat , with the exception of the Turkish Language Olympiad, and that he did not know E.B. (see paragraph   52 below). He also claimed to be unfamiliar with the organisation’s structure, although he had heard that in each province there was a leader (“ il abisi” – older brother of the province) and it was this person who organised the people under his supervision (“ her ilin bir abisi varmış, altındaki kişileri o organize ediyormuş” ). 29.     On 6 February 2017 the applicant appeared before the Çorum magistrates’ court, which ordered his detention on charges of membership of the FETÖ/PDY. He repeated the statements he had made to the police, stating that he did not wish to benefit from the active repentance regime, since he had no connection with the organisation in question.    The bill of indictment 30 .     On 4 August 2017 the Çorum Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged a 71 ‑ page indictment against the applicant with the Çorum Assize Court. He was accused of being a member of the FETÖ/PDY, and of having carried out activities on behalf of that organisation in Çorum Province, in 2016, acts which fell within the scope of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In the indictment, the public prosecutor’s office first provided general information about the organisation, then examined the acts of which the organisation was accused from the perspective of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and, lastly, detailed the evidence against the applicant. The evidence relating to these points, as set out in the indictment, may be summarised as follows. 31.     The bill of indictment began by describing the FETÖ/PDY as an atypical or sui generis armed terrorist organisation which used religion as a front and a means to attain its non-religious earthly purposes. It alleged that the organisation acted in line with the instructions given by its leader, with the intent of establishing a new political, economic and social order. To that end, the organisation was alleged to be aimed primarily at obtaining power, while acting with the greatest secrecy in order to achieve control and establish a new order. It purportedly used code names, special communication channels, and money from unknown sources, and harboured the aim of taking over all the constitutional institutions of the Republic of Türkiye by means of its human and financial resources. The prosecutor’s office alleged that the organisation’s aim was not to come to power through legitimate methods, but to overthrow parliament, the government and the other constitutional institutions through force and violence, as demonstrated by the attacks carried out against several symbolic State buildings, including the Parliament building and the presidential compound. 32.     The bill of indictment also described the specific terminology used by the FETÖ/PDY and its structure. In particular, it explained that the FETÖ/PDY had adopted a “cell-type organisation” within public institutions, that those cells consisted of a maximum of five persons who were subordinated to their hierarchical superior, named the “Brother” ( örgüt abisi ), and were the smallest organisational units within the FETÖ/PDY. The cells were not aware of each other’s existence, so that if one cell was exposed, the others could continue their activities. The bill of indictment added that the organisation considered the infiltration of State institutions as one of its objectives. In particular, prior to civil-service entrance examinations, information had been provided to candidates so as to enable them to succeed in those examinations. 33.     The indictment also provided the following details concerning the structure of the FETÖ/PDY. The organisation’s secret hierarchy purportedly consisted of seven layers (for a detailed account of this hierarchy, see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 162). The seventh and highest layer was made up of seventeen individuals, chosen directly by the leader of the organisation. Transfers between the layers was possible; that said, transfers above the fourth layer were determined by the leader. In addition, the organisation had taken care to adopt a horizontal cellular structure in order to avoid detection and prevent the State from deciphering its functioning. The indictment further stated that the FETÖ/PDY, which had set itself up in the operative units of the Security Directorate and the armed forces, made use of the force and violence inherent in those entities, taking advantage of the domination and intimidation afforded by their authority. It stated that during the coup attempt of 15   July 2016, weapons were used by the members of the organisation, who appeared to be army officers but who were acting in line with the orders and instructions of the organisation’s leader, as a result of which many civilians and public officials had died. Given in particular that certain members of the organisation were employed in State bodies that were authorised to carry weapons, and that those persons would not have hesitated to use the weapons in question if instructed to do so by the organisation’s hierarchy, the indictment stated that it was self-evident that the FETÖ/PDY was an armed terrorist organisation within the meaning of Article   314 of the Criminal Code. 34.     According to the indictment, during its first phase of existence, until the coup d’état of 12 September 1980, the organisation had initially endeavoured, on the one hand, to broaden its support basis – which it had recruited in particular among students, through the “houses of light” ( ışık evleri ) intended to accommodate them, houses described in the indictment as the organisation’s “cells”, as well as through private tutoring centres ( dershane ) – and, on the other, to infiltrate public institutions with a view to achieving its objectives. It explained that, after completing this undercover project, the organisation had prioritised its objectives in the field of education, while secretly pursuing other activities. In addition, the organisation had, in a second phase following the 1980 coup d’état , made considerable progress in its plan to infiltrate public institutions. A key element of the organisation’s long-term plan was to identify and train bright students, with a view to placing them in important public institutions. Economically, it had begun to operate as a holding company, bringing together several interlinked companies. Thus, in addition to its presence in the education field, it had founded a bank and launched activities in the health, finance, transport and media sectors. 35.     The indictment also presented the elements of the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation within the meaning of Article   314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. After noting the domestic legislative provisions governing the concepts of “organisation” and “terrorism” and referring to the judgment of the 9th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, handed down on 27   November 2011 (E.2012/2721, K.2012/13802), the indictment explained that three elements had to be present for a structure to be qualified as a “terrorist organisation”: (i)   an ideology or purpose, as set out in section   1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.   3713), (ii) an organised structure, as defined in Article 220 of the Criminal Code, and (iii) the use of force and violence by the structure to achieve its goals. In that regard, it stated that those three elements were present in the present case. The indictment concluded that the FETÖ/PDY was an organisation that exhibited the characteristics of a terrorist organisation and that one of its most significant acts had been the attempted coup carried out by it on 15 July 2016. 36 .     With regard to the evidence contained in the indictment concerning the applicant, this consisted of: (a) the statements by witnesses B.A., Y.B., A.B. and H.E., taken during the criminal investigation, which allegedly established that the applicant had been covertly recruiting and disseminating the organisation’s ideology under a code name, as one of the student leaders for Çorum Province within the organisation’s secret structure; (b) analysis of the Historical Traffic Search (HTS) records of the telephone line belonging to E.B., showing that the applicant’s name was listed among the persons with whom E.B. had been in contact; (c) bank statements for the applicant’s account with Bank Asya, which showed that a certain sum had been deposited in January 2014; and, lastly (d) the payment of the applicant’s social-security contributions by a private company affiliated to the organisation. The indictment concluded that, in the applicant’s case, having regard to the continuity, diversity and intensity of his activities as mentioned above, the offence of membership of an armed organisation as defined in Article 314 §   2 of the Criminal Code had been made out.    The evidence obtained during the investigation and subsequent criminal proceedings 37 .     The evidence obtained in the course of the investigation and in the criminal proceedings against the applicant falls into several categories: (1)   witness statements; (2) an analysis and findings report on the HTS records of a mobile telephone line; (3) two reports on the payment of social-security contributions; and (4) the applicant’s banking activities with Bank Asya. This evidence has been grouped and presented below by category, rather than by the date on which it was obtained. 38.     The witness statements mentioned below (see paragraphs   39-51), were obtained at various stages in the proceedings (by the police or the public prosecutor’s office). The Çorum Assize Court, which was responsible for trying the case, decided to have these witnesses heard by way of letters rogatory (see paragraph 56 below); two of them, namely Y.B. and A.B., were thus heard by courts acting under letters rogatory. It also appears from the case file that the applicant stated, on a single occasion, that he was willing to confront these witnesses before the Çorum Assize Court (see paragraph   59   below). However, neither in his notice of appeal (see paragraph   73 below), nor in his appeal on points of law (see paragraph 75 below), nor in his application to the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 77 below), did he raise any complaint concerning the lack of confrontation with any of these witnesses. The file contains no information regarding the outcome of the criminal proceedings opened against two of the witnesses who are specifically mentioned in the Assize Court’s judgment (see paragraph 64 below).      Witness statements taken in the criminal investigation initiated by the Çorum Public Prosecutor’s Office    B.A.’s statements 39 .     On 7 December 2016 the police took a statement from B.A., who was suspected of membership of the FETÖ/PDY. When making his statement in the presence of his lawyer, B.A. expressed a wish to benefit from the “active repentance” regime set out in Article 221 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the possibility of a reduction in sentence in exchange for information. He then stated as follows. Between 2010 and July 2015 he had taken part in the organisation’s activities, but claimed to have left it in 2015. In the context of these activities, he had known numerous individuals within the secret structure responsible for overseeing the organisation’s student network in Çorum Province. In response to a question about the purpose and strategy of the organisation, he stated as follows: “I do not know the organisation’s goal and strategy. When I was in the organisation, I was told that its aim was to train a pious generation and I didn’t know that it had another aim. During the attempted coup d’état of 15 July, I understood that it was working to achieve the aim of overthrowing the State and building a structure in line with its ideology.” According to B.A., the hierarchical organisation of this structure was as follows: at the top was the regional student supervisor (“ Büyük Bölge Sorumlusu ”), who was responsible for the principal regional student leaders (“BBTM”), who in turn supervised the regional student leaders (“BTM”); lastly, the BTMs were responsible for directing a network of “older house brothers” in residences where candidates for competitive examinations for the civil service or students from various universities were housed. B.A. also explained that certain measures had been taken to ensure the secrecy of their activities ( gizlilik tedbirleri ), such as the use of ByLock messaging, the storage of their mobile phones in a room other than that where the “discussion meetings” took place, the use of code names by certain senior leaders of the organisation, and monitoring of their activities by the house imams, who used code names. With regard to the applicant, B.A. stated as follows: “Recep or Şaban – I know for sure that one of these names was his code name. He was 26 or 27 years old, 1.75 or 1.80 m tall, had fair skin, brown hair, and a slight limp. He was continuing his studies at the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, where he had graduated. I know that he comes from Kayseri. I found out there that he was one of the BBTMs within the organisation. During a camp for residents of the student accommodation, he was responsible, with the assistance of the regional leaders ( Bölgeci ) and the BTMs, for 90 to 100 students: he planned the organisation’s activities and scheduled conversation meetings (“ sohbet ”) aimed at familiarising the students with the organisation’s ideology. I heard that in 2010 and 2011, he asked the imam (person responsible for the house) and my friends about me. I understood that he was thinking of appointing me as an “older house brother” (“ ev abisi ”) ...” B.A. also explained why he had not assumed any responsibilities within the organisation. He stated, in particular: “I [had] already said that the principal regional student supervisor Recep or Şaban [the applicant] had inquired about me, asking the older house brother in my residence and my friends about me, and that I understood that he was thinking of making me an older house brother. However, I think he crossed me out because I was a smoker and had a girlfriend at that time, and I was not very involved in the organisation’s activities.” 40.     It appears from the identification report drawn up by the police on 8   December 2016 that B.A. identified “Recep or Şaban” from photographs, and that this individual was none other than the applicant. 41.     It appears from the preliminary report of the Çorum Assize Court of 23   August 2017 (see paragraph 56 below) and the minut