Trial Observation Report
(Hearings between January and November 2025 – Istanbul 1st High Criminal Court)
1. Nature and Scope of the Proceedings
The report documents observations of multiple hearings in an ongoing criminal case concerning Mr Adnan Oktar and members of his alleged group, including several defendants who are lawyers accused of membership or assistance. The observer attended all listed hearings and was, on each occasion, the sole independent observer. The proceedings relate to allegations of continued existence or reconstitution of an armed criminal organisation, largely following earlier convictions and trials.
2. Procedural Context
The case involves successive indictments relying heavily on statements from complainants who benefitted from Turkey’s “effective remorse” law. Many of the alleged acts pre-date 2018 and were previously litigated. The court repeatedly dealt with issues of jurisdiction, competence, procedural fairness, and defendants’ rights of defence.
Several defendants were detained in different prisons across Turkey, with frequent reliance on video-link hearings, often accompanied by technical failures or restricted visibility.
3. Key Defence Themes
Across hearings, the defendants and their lawyers consistently argued that:
There is no evidence of an ongoing criminal organisation, armed or otherwise.
The indictments rely almost exclusively on uncorroborated statements of complainants, many of whom are also defendants seeking sentence reductions.
Allegations are recycled from earlier trials and lack evidence of new facts, hierarchy, commands, or criminal acts.
Lawful professional activities (legal representation, prison visits, correspondence, lobbying, or media activity) are being criminalised.
No weapons, commands, coded messages, or unlawful communications have been proven.
All communications with detained defendants were monitored and approved by prison authorities, undermining allegations of secret coordination.
Several defence submissions cited constitutional principles, Supreme Court case-law, and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and freedom of expression.
4. Treatment of Defendants and Defence Rights
The report records repeated concerns about restrictions on defence rights, including:
Inadequate access to case files and indictments.
Delays in delivering documents to detained defendants.
Restrictions on confidential lawyer–client communication.
Defendants being unable to hear or challenge complainants’ statements.
Requests for cross-examination of complainants being consistently refused.
Requests for additional investigation or preparation time being routinely denied.
Conditions of detention were also raised, including health issues, cold conditions, lack of food or water during transfers, and alleged psychological pressure.
5. Position of the Court
Throughout the observed hearings, the court:
Rejected challenges to its competence and jurisdiction.
Denied requests for suspension, release, or further investigation.
Maintained detention of key defendants.
Accepted indictments despite defence arguments that they were not based on professional or criminal acts.
Ruled that participation by video link did not violate defendants’ rights, notwithstanding technical and practical limitations.
In later hearings, the court merged related cases, ordered limited further police inquiries (e.g. social media review), but continued to refuse cross-examination of complainants.
6. Role of Complainants
Complainants are portrayed in the report as:
Beneficiaries of the effective remorse regime, some previously convicted of serious offences.
Providing statements that were inconsistent over time and, in some cases, concerned events from decades earlier.
Not subjected to adversarial testing in court due to refusal of cross-examination.
The defence repeatedly argued that complainant testimony was self-serving, unreliable, and unsupported by independent evidence.
7. Overall Assessment and Conclusions
In his concluding observations, the author states that:
Although the court appeared attentive, core fair-trial guarantees were not met, particularly the right to examine witnesses and mount an effective defence.
Defence lawyers themselves were placed under criminal suspicion without authorisation from the Ministry of Justice, which the court justified by asserting that indictments were not based on professional activity.
This approach appeared to discourage lawyers from representing members of the group, raising concerns about the independence of the legal profession.
The cumulative effect of procedural decisions resulted in very long prison sentences through aggregation, despite the absence of proven new criminal conduct.
Source
This summary is based on the trial observation report by Avv. Salvatore Filippini La Rosa, dated 31 December 2025, covering hearings between January and November 2025