ASSEDEL
ASSEDEL has submitted a Rule 9.2 communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the execution of the Grand Chamber judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye (App. No. 15669/20), which is due to be examined at the 1577th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (DH) in December 2026. In the judgment, the Court found that treating the use of the ByLock app as conclusive proof of terrorist membership violated Articles 6 § 1, 7 and 11 of the Convention, and identified this practice as a systemic problem. ASSEDEL concludes that the judgment remains substantially unexecuted.
The communication first examines the Government’s latest Updated Action Plan, which ASSEDEL describes as relying on a “statistical illusion”. Of the 1,499 reopened proceedings presented as evidence of progress, only 24 have ended in acquittal. The twenty “sample judgments” annexed by the Government mostly concern exceptional cases, while the Court of Cassation and lower courts continue to treat ByLock use as sufficient on its own for a conviction. Because sentences are not suspended during retrial, most applicants remain in prison or subject to the sanctions of “civil death”.
Mr Yalçınkaya’s own retrial is presented as a test of the system. He was convicted again on the same evidence, after the prosecutor’s office refused to produce the raw ByLock data needed for independent expert review. The Government now openly admits that these data are “secured in lockboxes” by the intelligence services. As long as the decisive evidence remains beyond the reach of the defence, ASSEDEL argues, equality of arms is illusory. This also calls into question whether reopening proceedings is an effective remedy at all. The Court has declined to award compensation in follow-up cases on the assumption that retrials would repair the violation, an assumption that no longer holds if retrials simply confirm the original convictions.
ASSEDEL also points to the growing body of follow-up judgments, including Demirhan, Yasak and Kılıçarslan, as confirmation of the systemic nature of the problem. It further notes the Government’s repeated missed deadlines, and senior officials’ public statements questioning whether the judgment is binding.
In light of these findings, ASSEDEL calls on the Committee of Ministers to:
• maintain enhanced supervision of the Yalçınkaya group and keep it on the agenda of every Human Rights meeting until concrete compliance is demonstrated; • express serious concern that reopening under Article 311 § 1(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has failed in practice to provide an effective remedy, as shown by the Government’s own figures; • request the Government to explain how defence rights under Article 6 § 1 can be effectively exercised when the raw ByLock data remain shielded from independent expert scrutiny; • call for concrete general measures with a clear timetable, so that all domestic courts, including the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court, stop treating ByLock use as automatic proof of guilt and apply a genuine personal-culpability standard; • urge the authorities to guarantee an immediate stay of execution of sentences once reopening is requested, to end continued imprisonment and the sanctions of “civil death”; • encourage senior officials to refrain from statements questioning the binding nature of the Court’s judgments.
Read the full submission here.
