The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) recent judgment on Şaban Yasak, convicted in Turkey of alleged links to the Gülen movement, lacks fairness and dismisses critical evidence, a report by the European Association for the Defense of Rights and Freedoms (ASSEDEL) claims, Turkish Minute reported.

ASSEDEL’s analysis, which examines the court’s ruling, concludes that the judgment criminalizes lawful activities, relies on dubious witness testimony and fails to uphold the fair trial standards required under European law.

The report suggests that the ECtHR did not fully account for the complexities of Turkish political trials amid growing international attention on human rights issues in Turkey.

The Yasak v. Türkiye case has drawn attention for its broader implications on freedom of association and fair trial standards in cases involving suspected Gülen movement members.

Yasak’s conviction, based on alleged membership in the movement, is emblematic of thousands of similar cases, many of which, ASSEDEL argues, are prosecuted with scant evidence and limited due process. The ECtHR’s decision in Yasak’s case, the rights group claims, does little to address these systemic issues.

The Gülen movement, inspired by the late Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, is accused by the Turkish government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of masterminding a failed coup on July 15, 2016 and is labeled a “terrorist organization,” although the movement denies involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity.

Erdoğan has been targeting followers of the Gülen movement since the corruption investigations of December 17-25, 2013, which implicated then-prime minister Erdoğan, his family members and his inner circle.

Dismissing the investigations as a Gülenist coup and conspiracy against his government, Erdoğan designated the movement as a terrorist organization and began to target its members. He intensified the crackdown on the movement following the abortive putsch in 2016 that he accused Gülen of masterminding.

In addition to the thousands who were jailed, scores of other Gülen movement followers had to flee Turkey to avoid the government crackdown.

Turkish authorities routinely rely on witness statements as evidence to identify and prosecute members of the group.

The defendants in the trials against the movement are often encouraged to benefit from the country’s repentance laws allowing for reduced penalties in exchange for denouncing other members of the group.

In recent years, there have also been many reports about the alleged use of torture and ill-treatment in custody to coerce detainees into becoming informants and incriminating others.

Key omissions and factual inaccuracies

ASSEDEL’s report criticizes the ECtHR for what it identifies as critical omissions and factual inaccuracies in the judgment, which it believes influenced the court’s legal reasoning and outcome.

According to the report the ECtHR failed to properly account for the nature of Yasak’s actions within the Gülen movement, which, prior to 2016, was primarily involved in education, charitable activities and religious gatherings. The rights group argues that Yasak’s alleged involvement as a student coordinator and mentor does not constitute terrorist activity and that the court’s judgment erroneously conflates these roles with criminal intent.

Additionally ASSEDEL notes that witness testimonies in Yasak’s case were obtained through Turkey’s “active remorse” provisions, which allow reduced sentences in exchange for cooperating with the authorities.

Witnesses who testified against Yasak had incentives to implicate others to secure their release, leading ASSEDEL to question the credibility of these testimonies.

The rights group points to inconsistencies in these statements, arguing that the ECtHR did not sufficiently examine these flaws. For example, one witness stated that he communicated with Yasak through ByLock, a messaging app reportedly used by Gülen members, despite evidence showing that the app was deactivated months before the alleged exchanges took place.

The report asserts that the ECtHR’s judgment missed these inconsistencies, thereby allowing unreliable testimonies to shape the final ruling.

ASSEDEL argues that had these issues been fully considered, the court might have questioned the legitimacy of Yasak’s conviction and the broader practice of relying on incentivized witness statements in politically sensitive cases.

Procedural fairness and due process violations

The ASSEDEL report harshly criticizes procedural aspects in Yasak’s trial, which, it argues, fell short of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial.

According to the rights group, Yasak’s trial in Turkish courts was marred by limited access to legal counsel as he was often compelled to participate virtually from prison, with restricted communication with his attorney. This arrangement, ASSEDEL contends, severely hampered Yasak’s ability to effectively mount a defense.

The report also notes that Yasak’s lawyer was not permitted to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses in court.

Instead, the court relied on written testimonies from witnesses who had agreed to testify against Yasak in exchange for leniency, an arrangement ASSEDEL argues is inherently biased and violates the basic principles of a fair trial.

The ECtHR’s judgment, by failing to address these issues, effectively validated Turkey’s handling of Yasak’s trial, a decision the rights group warns could set a dangerous precedent.

Implications for freedom of association

ASSEDEL’s report raises concerns about the implications of the ECtHR’s ruling on freedom of association, arguing that the court’s decision criminalizes activities previously considered lawful.

Yasak’s role as a coordinator for Gülen-affiliated students, for example, primarily involved organizing educational and religious events. The rights group contends that the court’s interpretation effectively criminalizes participation in a community based on perceived, rather than proven, threats to national security.

The rights group stresses that the ECtHR should have distinguished between peaceful association within the Gülen movement and involvement in criminal activities. By failing to draw this line, the court’s judgment could signal a broader intolerance for peaceful association with dissident groups, ASSEDEL warns, particularly in countries where political dissent is often equated with national security threats.

Comparison with previous ECtHR judgments

In addition to factual and procedural critiques, ASSEDEL’s report highlights what it considers inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s application of legal standards. The organization points to the Yalçınkaya case, in which the ECtHR ruled that the use of ByLock and participation in peaceful activities could not alone justify a terrorism conviction.

In Yasak’s case, however, the court took a more lenient approach toward the Turkish government’s interpretation, accepting Yasak’s student coordination role and use of a pseudonym as evidence of terrorist intent.

ASSEDEL argues that the court’s ruling in Yasak’s case deviates from its precedent, creating ambiguity around what constitutes association with a terrorist organization.

The rights group urges the ECtHR to reconcile these discrepancies to maintain consistency in its approach to cases involving political associations and alleged terrorist affiliations.

ASSEDEL is calling for the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR to review the Yasak v. Türkiye decision, arguing that a reassessment is necessary to ensure alignment with European human rights standards. The group asserts that without a thorough review, the judgment risks setting a precedent that allows states to criminalize lawful association and to convict individuals on limited or flawed evidence, particularly in politically sensitive cases.