What Happened in 2025?
This report examines human rights violations in Türkiye throughout 2025, focusing on those targeting the Gülen Movement. It covers mass detentions, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, unlawful deportations, freezing of assets, terror statistics, torture, and right to life violations.
Introduction
This report has been prepared to examine human rights violations in Türkiye throughout 2025, with a particular focus on those targeting the Gülen Movement. Topics covered include mass detentions, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, unlawful deportations, freezing of assets, terror statistics, torture, and right to life violations.
While the state's methods are examined through concrete cases and data specifically concerning practices targeting the Gülen Movement, the sections on judicial independence and human rights violations in prisons are addressed in a manner that reveals structural and systematic problems across Türkiye as a whole, rather than being exemplified solely through a specific group.
In light of concrete data and case analyses obtained for 2025, this report aims to document the scope of human rights violations in Türkiye and their incompatibility with international norms, contributing to the information of the public and relevant institutions.
Mass Detentions
Mass detentions have been a sword wielded by those holding power since ancient times. While the names of those wielding this sword may change throughout history, the purpose remains the same: to silence dissenting voices and punish those who refuse to submit as a warning to others.1
In the period beginning with December 17-25 and reaching its breaking point on July 15, 2016, thousands of people alleged to belong to a specific group were deprived of their liberty along with a chain of systematic human rights violations.
2025 has been recorded as a year in which the practice of mass detention gained continuity for Gülen Movement members and those targeted with allegations of "connection to the Gülen Movement". According to Turkey Rights Monitor data based on systematic scanning of open sources, 4,916 people were detained between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026.2This annual total demonstrates that detention has evolved from an isolated measure into a suppression mechanism spanning the entire year.
1.1 Official Communication and Normalization
One of the most distinctive dimensions of mass detentions in 2025 is that the practice was not only carried out in the field; official authorities also continuously made this practice visible in the public sphere through repeated numerical totals.
This normalization mechanism can be clearly observed in the statements of Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya:
It was stated that 4,022 operations were conducted and 6,045 people were detained during the cabinet period.3
A total of 6,025 operations and 9,738 detentions were shared for the same cabinet period.4
It was stated that 10,968 operations were conducted and 17,890 people were detained during this cabinet period.5
The cabinet period total was updated to 11,667 operations and 19,025 suspect apprehensions/detentions.6
According to Turkey Rights Monitor's dataset compiled from open sources regarding mass detentions against the Gülen Movement:7
- Total detentions: 152,199
- Total operations: 7,215
- Average daily detentions: 44 people
In 2025, the form and geographical scope of law enforcement operations demonstrate how mass detentions have been carried out in successive “waves.” On 6 May 2025, it was officially announced that 208 individuals were apprehended in a simultaneous operation conducted across 47 provinces, coordinated from Gaziantep. Such “multi-province / simultaneous” operations are among the year’s most striking incidents, as they illustrate that the measure of detention may, in practice, be applied as a large-scale security practice rather than on the basis of an individualized assessment of suspicion. Within the context of the same operation, publicly reported cases involving vulnerable groups also drew attention; for instance, it was reported that Hatice Doğru, who was four months pregnant at the time, was among those detained and subsequently remanded in custody. Such examples demonstrate that mass detention practices function not merely as short-term restrictions on liberty for the targeted group, but also as a mechanism of pressure capable of producing long-term effects on health, family life, and individual vulnerability.
1.2 Justification Patterns and Recurring Templates
Analysis of mass detentions cannot be reduced to total numbers alone. The determining question is around which justification sets detentions are continuously produced and how these justifications create "recurring templates."
According to official serial operation announcements, a total of 885 people were detained between January 8, 2025 and February 21, 2025.8
| Justification | Number of Detentions | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| ByLock / Encrypted Communication | 377 | %42.6 |
| Financing | 92 | %10.4 |
| Other | 416 | %47.0 |
Recurring justifications generate a twofold pressure on the targeted group. First, the standardization of justifications results in the detention threat ceasing to be a “person-specific” risk and instead transforming into a template that is potentially applicable to anyone. Second, by coinciding with the wave-like intensification of operations throughout the year, this practice deepens a sense of “uncertainty” within society. Indeed, the 2025 time-series visualization published by Turkey Rights Monitor shows distinct peak points on specific dates during the year at which the number of detentions rises markedly.
This pattern is significant in that it demonstrates that detentions in 2025 were not distributed evenly over time, but rather intensified during specific periods in the form of “operational waves.”
1.3 Comparison with 2024
In Turkey Rights Monitor's comparative chart by years, the 2024 detention count is 4,058, while the 2025 detention count is 4,915.
Conclusion: 2025 presents a mass detention practice that recorded 4,916 detentions according to open source data; was kept constantly on the agenda with official periodic totals; intensified in waves throughout the year; and was standardized through the repetition of justification templates.
Arbitrary Detention and Arrests Targeting Vulnerable Groups
While the term 'arbitrary' does not have precise definitions in international literature, the full protection of legal defense rights and due process principles in arrests and liberty restrictions is essential. The UN defines the concept of 'arbitrary' as practices that, even if compliant with existing laws and procedures, are not proportionate to the objective, reasonable, necessary, or in accordance with due process principles.91011
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has characterized and condemned Turkey's detention and arrest practices against Gülen Movement members as crimes against humanity.12
2.1 Pregnant Women and Mothers Behind Bars
Cases reflected in open sources in 2025 demonstrate that the arrest of pregnant women and mothers with children aged 0-6 has evolved from isolated incidents into a continuous practice.
2.1.1 Arrest During Pregnancy
The arrest of Hatice Doğru, who was four months pregnant and among those detained in operations centered in Gaziantep covering multiple provinces, demonstrates how mass detention practice intersects with violations targeting vulnerable groups.
Despite her case being at the Supreme Court stage for a long time, she was sent to prison just days before giving birth.
Leyla Arslan, who was five months pregnant, was remanded in custody in Edirne.
2.1.2 Prison with Infants and Young Children
| Name | Status | Prison |
|---|---|---|
| Özlem Düzenli | Detained with 6-month-old baby | Edirne L Type |
| Deniz Gündoğdu | Detained with 16-month-old daughter | Edirne L Type |
| Türkan Alemdar | Detained with 19-month-old child | Eskişehir L Type |
| Fatma Öztimur | 4-year-old autistic child + 20-month-old child | Bakırköy Women's Closed |
| Şeyma Aslan | Detained with 12-month-old baby | Edirne L Type |
Moreover, the fact that H.Ç. has been held for an extended period in Edirne L-Type Prison together with his spouse and two young children stands out as another example demonstrating the systematic impairment of family unity.
2.2 Sick, Disabled, and Elderly Prisoners
Güngör, who was arrested after his sentence was upheld, rapidly deteriorated in prison health-wise; during an open visit, he could not even recognize his university student daughter. He lost his life in prison conditions without access to necessary health and care services.
This case demonstrates that deprivation of liberty for prisoners whose health conditions are incompatible with prison conditions is not only a rights violation but also transforms into a preventable death risk.
| Name | Age | Health Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Gülten Nene | — | Cancer diagnosis took months |
| Abdullah Tırpan | 72 | Diabetes and pneumonia patient |
| Kadriye Işık | 74 | Cancer patient, execution postponement denied |
| Mehmet Hanifi Emeç | — | MS patient, wheelchair |
| D.S. | — | Psychiatric disorder |
| Ali Aki | — | 78% disabled |
Throughout 2025, detention and arrest practices directed at vulnerable groups in Türkiye have, in effect, eliminated the exceptional nature of deprivation of liberty as a preventive measure. It has been observed that, with regard to pregnant women, mothers with young children, as well as seriously ill, disabled, and elderly individuals, decisions ordering pre-trial detention were not subjected to a separate assessment within the framework of the principles of necessity and proportionality, and that alternative judicial measures were systematically disregarded.
In particular, cases involving women held in prison during pregnancy or together with their infants reveal that the fundamental legal safeguards aimed at the protection of both mother and child have become ineffective in practice. Similarly, the continued detention of prisoners suffering from serious illnesses and neurological conditions under prison conditions has reached a level that goes beyond a violation of the right to health and directly threatens the right to life. The death of Alzheimer’s patient İbrahim Güngör in prison has stood out as one of the most striking examples symbolizing the point this process has reached.
Data from 2025 demonstrate that arrest and enforcement practices directed at vulnerable groups cannot be assessed as isolated errors or exceptional decisions; rather, they point to a structural problem in which protection mechanisms centered on human dignity are being systematically eroded. This situation reveals that the criminal justice system in Türkiye has evolved, particularly with regard to vulnerable groups, from a rights-based approach toward a punitive and deterrent practice.
The Reality of Torture in Turkey
This section aims to demonstrate, on the basis of international reports published in 2025 and publicly reported cases, that allegations of torture and ill-treatment in Türkiye persist, and that detention and arrest processes continue to constitute a high-risk area, particularly in investigations conducted against individuals purged under the KHK regime and those carried out on the basis of alleged links to the Gülen Movement.
- EU 2025 Turkey Report: Attention was drawn to the inadequacy of legal safeguards for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.13
- Human Rights Association June 26, 2025 Report: The current state of torture and impunity dynamics were evaluated.14
- OMCT Global Torture Index 2025: Turkey was classified in the high-risk group.15
3.1 Case Studies
77 people, mostly university students, were arrested. Allegations emerged that they were subjected to psychological torture during detention and arrest processes and forced to testify against each other.16
In a case filed alleging torture during detention in Antalya in 2016, witnesses were heard on April 18, 2025. Another dismissed teacher who stayed in the same detention facility testified that he saw Birinci covered in blood and unconscious.17
3.2 Landmark Decision: Zabit Kişi Case
The Constitutional Court found a violation of rights in the case of Zabit Kişi, who was allegedly forcibly transferred from Kazakhstan to Turkey in 2017 and subjected to torture for 108 days in a container in Ankara. The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages on the grounds that the authorities had failed to properly discharge their obligation to conduct an effective investigation.18
3.3 Impunity and Investigation Threshold: İlhan Talu Case
It was reported to the public that the criminal complaint filed in relation to allegations of “torture and ill-treatment” by Lieutenant General İlhan Talu, who was tried in the General Staff umbrella case and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment, was dismissed by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of a decision of non-prosecution
Freezing of Assets Decisions and Terror Wanted List
Throughout 2025, asset freezing decisions targeting individuals and legal entities associated with the Gülen Movement continued. These decisions, through Presidential decrees published in the Official Gazette and related administrative actions, were primarily based on justifications of "prevention of terrorism financing" and "national security."21
Although the asset freezing measure is regulated as a temporary and exceptional measure in terms of its legal nature, as of 2025, it is observed that this measure functions as a de facto sanction producing permanent results. However, implementation practice shows that these measures are not limited to combating financial crimes; they have transformed into a structural pressure tool aimed at economically liquidating dissident individuals and organizations.
4.1 Terror Wanted List
In 2025 as well, the "terror wanted list" system operated by the Ministry of Interior continued to function as a politically-oriented stigmatization tool targeting dissident individuals and groups living abroad, rather than as a mechanism to combat real and concrete terrorist threats.22
United Nations mechanisms have openly criticized Turkey's use of such monitoring and listing systems as pressure tools against human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, and political dissidents; emphasizing that listing procedures carry risks of arbitrariness.23
Right to Life Violations
Data reflected in open sources throughout 2025 reveals that violations of the right to life of individuals alleged to be affiliated with the Gülen Movement present a multidimensional picture.
These violations are not limited to prison deaths alone; they spread across a wide spectrum including indirect effects of prison conditions, deaths occurring in the context of exile and forced migration, suicide cases triggered by economic and psychological pressures, and work and traffic accidents.
5.1 Deaths in Prison
In 2025, it was determined that numerous individuals alleged to be connected to the Gülen Movement lost their lives in prison. A significant portion of these cases show that the deaths were preventable in nature.
| Name | Cause of Death |
|---|---|
| Hüsamettin Karadeniz | Death in prison |
| Ertuğrul Yavaşça | Death in prison |
| Ramazan Aktaş | Death in prison |
| Cengiz Çakıltepe | Death in prison |
| İbrahim Güngör | Death in prison |
| Asaleddin Çelik | Death in prison |
| Hüseyin Parlak | Death in prison |
| Süleyman Yıldırım | Death in prison |
| Mehmet Çataklı | Death in prison |
The İbrahim Güngör case in particular is one of the striking examples demonstrating systematic violation of the right to health in prisons. Güngör, an Alzheimer's patient who should have been receiving intensive care treatment, was sent back to prison, all release requests from his family were left unanswered, and he ultimately lost his life. Similarly, the case of Asaleddin Çelik expose judicial negligence resulting in violation of the right to life because courts did not decide for release despite forensic medicine finding execution postponement appropriate.
5.2 Deaths Due to Illness (Outside Prison)
2025 data reveals that numerous individuals lost their lives due to illness outside prison but as a direct result of social, economic, and psychological destruction connected to the emergency decree process. Difficulties in accessing health services after dismissal, lack of insurance, unemployment, social exclusion, and prolonged stress stand out as fundamental factors accelerating the progression of fatal diseases.
In this context, it has been recorded that many individuals including Uğur Kömeçoğlu, Yusuf Olca, Ali Altınpınar, Murat Eryılmaz, Devrim Sönmez, Dursun Ali Kurt, Bülent Adıgüzel, Kazım Doğan, Derya Çelik, Vakkas Karakoyun, Ramazan Ünal, Arif Taşçılar, and Bekir Esen lost their lives due to cancer, heart attack, brain hemorrhage, and multiple chronic diseases. In a large portion of these cases, diseases worsened in the post-dismissal period and individuals could not access regular treatment.
5.3 Suicide Cases
It is observed that individuals dismissed by emergency decree and living under prolonged unemployment, stigmatization, poverty, and psychological pressure were deprived of social and psychological support mechanisms that should have been provided by the state.
In this context, it was determined that Gazi Bahargülü, Erdal Mehmet Uzun, Ömer S., and Ali Ülker took their own lives. The common point of these cases is that individuals were left alone with legal uncertainty, economic collapse, and social exclusion.
5.4 Traffic and Work Accidents
2025 data shows that the indirect effects of the emergency decree process have also transformed into right to life violations through work and traffic accidents. It is observed that many dismissed individuals were forced to work in insecure and dangerous jobs outside their professional expertise.
In this context, Ali Osman Çırak and his family, Mehmet İraz, Burak Kayacı, Hüseyin Şen, and Ramazan Korkut lost their lives in traffic accidents; while Musa Üçgül, Yusuf Çetin, Orhan Çöl, and Hüseyin Açıkyörük died as a result of work accidents. These cases clearly demonstrate that individuals dismissed by emergency decree were forced to work in conditions contrary to human dignity and risky in order to sustain their lives.
5.5 Children's Right to Life
In 2025, it has been observed that violations of the right to life have also directly affected children. The cases of the three children of Ahmet Çetiz, as well as that of Sümeyra Gelir, demonstrate that the imprisonment of parents and the disruption of family unity may have life-threatening consequences for children. In particular, the fact that Sümeyra Gelir was forced to care for her siblings due to her mother’s imprisonment, and that the State failed to put protective social policies into effect, constitutes a grave violation of the principle of the best interests of the child.
Enforced Disappearances & Illegal Deportations and Renditions
The United Nations defines enforced disappearance as arrest, detention, abduction, or any other form of deprivation of liberty by state agents or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.25
It is known that at least 36 people who were Gülen Movement members were abducted from 2016 to the end of 2025. Three of these people are still missing:
- Sunay Elmas - Teacher, missing since January 27, 201627
- Ayhan Oran - MIT official, missing since November 1, 201628
- Yusuf Bilge Tunç - Defense industry employee, missing since August 6, 201929
6.1 Cases Concerning 2025
Mustafa Güngör, a Turkish national holding refugee status in Kenya, was detained by the Kenyan authorities at the request of Turkey. A Kenyan court ordered his release on 30 December 2025.3031
Lawyer Emre Çınar was detained in Mozambique upon Turkey's extradition request. The Mozambique court, stating that there were serious indications that the extradition request was made with political motives, decided on his release.3233
Terror Statistics
This section is based on official statements made to the public by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Interior during 2025, based on the July 15, 2016 events.34
7.1 Trials Concerning July 15, 2016 Events
According to Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç's statement on July 13, 2025, decisions have been made in all 289 actual incident files:
7.2 Number of Prisoners and Convicts in Prisons
According to data shared by the Ministry of Justice as of July 2025:35
| Category | Number |
|---|---|
| Convicted or Sentenced | 11,085 |
| Detained | 555 |
| Ongoing Trial | 24,000 |
| Under Investigation | 58,000 |
7.3 Public Sector Dismissals
After July 15, 2016, 127,000 people were dismissed from public service with allegations of affiliation or connection with the Gülen Movement.36
7.4 Detention, Arrest, and Judicial Control
According to Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya's statements, since July 15, 2016:37
Human Rights Violations in Prisons
In accordance with international human rights conventions, respect for human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty during the execution of prison sentences is among the fundamental obligations of the state.
The conditions under which prisoners are held in detention facilities must comply with minimum standards of living; beyond the inevitable restriction of liberty inherent in a sentence, practices that would cause excessive suffering or hardship must be avoided. Nevertheless, long-standing structural problems in prisons in Türkiye have continued to give rise to widespread and systematic human rights violations in 2025
- Total number of cases: 950+
- Number of affected prisons: 80+
- Different violation types: 25+
| Violation Type | Number of Cases |
|---|---|
| Health rights violations | 300+ |
| Obstruction of release rights | 180+ |
| Overcrowding and housing conditions | 160+ |
| Arbitrary disciplinary punishments | 120+ |
| Ill-treatment, assault, strip search | 90+ |
| malnutrition, lack of hygiene, and related conditions | 100+ |
Judicial Independence
Judicial independence is one of the fundamental democratic principles measured by the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers and their ability to make independent and impartial decisions.
Although this principle is explicitly enshrined in Türkiye’s legislation, national and international reports indicate that, as of 2025, the principle is subject to serious pressure and risks in practice.
9.1 International Assessments
The European Commission’s 2025 “Turkey Report” emphasized that concerns regarding the rule of law and judicial independence in Turkey have not been remedied.3839
Stated that Turkey faces "an unprecedented democratic backsliding in history".41
9.2 Criticisms from International Rights and Justice Organizations
Human Rights Watch and other international civil society organizations have published reports stating that judicial independence and rule of law in Turkey are under serious pressure as of 2025.4243
9.3 Concrete Cases
In the last quarter of 2025, a heavy penal court in Istanbul refused to conduct a retrial in the relevant case by not implementing the Constitutional Court's 'retrial' order.44
The arrest and prosecution of Ekrem İmamoğlu, Mayor of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, triggered widespread public reaction and has been argued to have intensified the debate over the “politically motivated use of the judiciary.”
The fact that more than 150 journalists were brought before the courts due to judicial proceedings during the July–September period of 2025 has further fueled debates on judicial independence through the lens of media freedom.45
9.4 Judicial Independence Indices
Turkey dropped to 118th place in the 2025 Global Rule of Law Index.
International reports identify the following as the main problem areas directly affecting judicial independence in Türkiye: • The indirect and political influence of the executive branch on the judiciary, and the lack of transparency in judicial appointment processes. • The failure of domestic courts to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and delays in incorporating those judgments into domestic law. • The growing perception of politically motivated cases within judicial proceedings, particularly in high-profile political trials.
As of 2025, international and domestic monitoring reports indicate that judicial independence in Türkiye is confronted with systematic pressure and a perception of political influence. This situation has been the subject of serious criticism within international human rights mechanisms and European legal circles, and has been identified as a significant risk factor with regard to the rule of law, fundamental rights, and democratic participation. Strengthening judicial independence, ensuring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and establishing a judicial culture free from political influence remain essential both for the credibility of Türkiye’s domestic legal system and for the fulfillment of its international obligations.
Closed and Seized Institutions
Closure and seizure practices targeting the Gülen movement in Turkey gained an institutional character with Emergency Decrees (KHK) issued during the State of Emergency declared in 2016.
Although the emergency decree regime has ended, property seizure and takeover practices conducted on the basis of allegations of affiliation or connection with the Gülen movement have continued through different legal mechanisms in subsequent years. At this point, the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) has become a determining actor over the management and assets of private companies through trustee appointments.
With 11 different emergency decrees, at least 3,942 institutions operating in different fields across 81 provinces in Turkey were closed:
| Institution Type | Number |
|---|---|
| Association | 1,410 |
| Private School | 1,034 |
| Student Dormitory | 835 |
| Tutoring Center | 301 |
| Foundation | 109 |
| Newspaper | 53 |
| Health Institution | 47 |
| Publishing House | 29 |
| Radio | 22 |
| Magazine | 20 |
| Television | 19 |
| Union | 19 |
| Federation | 19 |
| University | 15 |
10.1 Current Seizure Practices in 2025
Within the scope of the investigation conducted against the restaurant chain called Maydonoz Döner, a trustee was appointed with the allegation that the company provided financing to the Gülen movement, and it was effectively brought under state control together with its many branches and affiliated companies.
Conclusion
Analyses for 2025 reveal that human rights violations practiced in Turkey are multi-layered and systemic in nature. The examined data and case analyses show that the methods applied by the state in various areas - particularly mass detentions, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, unlawful deportations, asset freezing, and right to life violations - contain deviations from the standards required by both national law and international human rights norms.
Findings supported by concrete examples through actions associated with the Gülen Movement in particular reveal that the practices used by the state in targeting specific groups are a reflection of broader and structural problems. In addition, pressures on judicial independence and inhumane practices in prison conditions point to deep deficiencies in Turkey's general legal system and penal execution mechanisms, beyond just a specific movement.
These rights violations experienced in 2025 reveal a serious need for reform in terms of rule of law and preservation of human rights in Turkey. State bodies should stop using the power they derive from their positions as a tool of oppression and should not become perpetrators of the ongoing social genocide.
The concrete findings obtained indicate, both at the national level and in the eyes of the international community, that current practices must be terminated, that rights violations and unlawfulness can no longer be concealed, and the urgent necessity to protect the rights of victims.