This report highlights the most important developments in the area of human rights in Turkey in 2025, a year marked by continued democratic decline and the erosion of fundamental freedoms under the increasingly centralized rule of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

With extensive control over the media, judiciary and key state institutions, the government intensified pressure on opposition figures, independent journalists, civil society organizations and marginalized communities.

The pressure on the political opposition escalated significantly. The arrest of İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, widely viewed as President Erdoğan’s strongest political rival and a potential presidential candidate, sparked the largest wave of anti-government protests in more than a decade. Turkish authorities detained nearly 2,000 people during demonstrations that followed his arrest, while journalists covering the protests were also taken into custody, and several opposition-aligned broadcasters were temporarily taken off the air.

Throughout the year the Erdoğan government continued its repression of perceived adversaries, with the faith-based Gülen movement remaining a primary target. Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya announced that 1,601 people were arrested in 2025 alone over alleged links to the movement. Official figures show that since a coup attempt in 2016 a total of 390,354 people have been detained and more than 113,000 arrested in investigations related to the movement. According to justice ministry statistics, more than 126,000 people have been convicted in Gülen-related trials since 2016, with thousands still imprisoned and tens of thousands remaining under investigation nearly a decade later.

Judicial statistics and international rankings underscored the depth of the country’s rule of law crisis. Turkey remained the country with the highest number of pending applications before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with more than 21,000 cases awaiting judgment in 2025, accounting for over one-third of the court’s total caseload. The judicial crisis, further exacerbated by courts’ failure to comply with Constitutional Court rulings,continued with new cases.

Press freedom deteriorated further as authorities expanded the use of prosecutions, regulatory penalties and online censorship against journalists and media organizations. Turkey ranked 159th out of 180 countries in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders. Authorities also dramatically increased digital censorship, blocking more than 27,000 social media accounts in the first four months of the year alone.

Conditions in detention facilities worsened as Turkey’s prison population reached a record level of more than 433,000 inmates in 2025, exceeding official capacity by approximately 42 percent. Human rights organizations continued to document widespread allegations of torture, ill-treatment and medical neglect in detention, while overcrowding further strained already limited access to healthcare and basic services.

Turkey continued its transnational repression campaign targeting critics abroad, including a case of forced deportation in Rwanda and attempted actions in Kenya, Mozambique, andBrazil. These activities have also been reflected in official reports from Germany and the UK.

Labor rights also remained a serious concern. According to data compiled by the Health and Safety Labor Watch (İSİG), at least 2,105 workers died in occupational accidents in 2025, reflecting persistent safety failures and weak enforcement of labor protections. Child labor remained widespread, with dozens of underage workers dying in job-related incidents during the year.

Minority groups, refugees and migrants continued to face discrimination, violence and forced deportations. Syrian refugees reported abuse in deportation centers and pressure to sign so-called “voluntary” return documents, while rights organizations warned that Iranian refugees and Uyghur asylum seekers faced increasing risks of deportation.

Women’s rights groups also continued to raise alarm over persistent femicide and institutional failures to protect victims of gender-based violence. According to the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, at least 294 women were murdered by men in Turkey in 2025, while nearly 300 additional deaths involving women were recorded under suspicious circumstances.

Taken together, developments in 2025 highlighted the widening gap between Turkey’s constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights and the reality on the ground. Despite repeated warnings from international institutions and human rights organizations, the government took few meaningful steps to address systemic violations or restore the rule of law.

Transitional justice is a system of transformations, an ideology that enables countries with repressive, war-affected, corrupt, economically, socially, legally and politically underdeveloped systems and oligarchic governance to become democratic states that guarantee fundamental human rights and freedoms, rather than merely enshrining these principles in legislation. At the same time, it is also a set of mechanisms whose comprehensive application makes it possible to ensure impartial justice, uncover the truth, restore the violated rights of victims, and achieve the establishment of an atmosphere of public solidarity and peace. 

Transitional justice includes various components: criminal justice, fact-finding or truth commissions, institutional reforms, mechanisms for compensation of damages, and in some cases judicial proceedings. The purpose of such mechanisms is to understand the causes of systemic problems through the study of facts and to prevent their recurrence in the future.

In Armenia, this topic began to be discussed after the 2018 revolution.

International experience: different models of transitional justice

In different countries, the application of transitional justice instruments has taken place under different political and historical conditions. International experience shows that such processes generally include truth-seeking commissions, legal assessments of the activities of former regimes, compensation for victims, and reforms of state institutions. Despite the diversity of the instruments applied, the main objective of these processes has been to document past violations and to establish an institutional system that prevents their recurrence.

The experiences of Chile, Lithuania, Latvia and Germany are particularly noteworthy, as they demonstrate different models of transitional justice and their outcomes.

Chile. In Chile, the process of transitional justice began in 1990, after the end of the military dictatorship. Following the coup d’état led by General Augusto Pinochet in 1973, the country was governed for about 16 years by a military regime during which numerous human rights violations were recorded, including political killings, disappearances, and torture. After the establishment of democratic authority, the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation was created, which studied the violations of that period and published a report on them.

Later, a second commission was also established to examine cases of political detention and torture. In Chile, programs for the compensation of victims and mechanisms of social support were also implemented. Despite the long-standing amnesty law, in subsequent years judicial proceedings were also initiated against representatives of the former regime, and the state officially recognized the victims of that period.

Lithuania. In Lithuania, transitional justice was mainly directed at studying the political repressions of the Soviet period and assessing their consequences. After gaining independence in 1990, the state began to examine the repressions that had taken place during the years of Soviet rule and their impact on society. For this purpose, several state and international commissions were established to investigate crimes committed both during the Soviet and Nazi occupations.

Lithuania also established a special research center responsible for collecting and studying documents related to Soviet repressions. At the same time, laws were adopted on the rehabilitation of political prisoners and deportees, which provided social assistance and, in some cases, financial compensation.

Latvia. In Latvia, the process of transitional justice began after the restoration of independence in 1991. The authorities of the country began to examine the activities of political and security structures operating during the years of Soviet rule and in certain cases attempted to provide a legal assessment of the actions of that period. This process was also aimed at transforming the system of state governance.

As a result, institutional changes were implemented, which led to the dissolution of Soviet security structures, and restrictions were introduced in the system of public administration regarding the participation of certain representatives of former communist structures.

Germany. In Germany, the process of transitional justice took shape after the Second World War following the defeat of the Nazi regime. In 1945, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was established with the aim of prosecuting the highest leadership of Nazi Germany. These trials became an important precedent in international law and formed a number of fundamental principles, including the legal definition of crimes against humanity.

In subsequent years, special prosecutorial and investigative bodies were established in Germany to investigate Nazi crimes, while within the framework of educational and memory policies museums and research centers were created that contributed to the study of the history of that period.

In different countries, transitional justice processes have led to concrete legal and institutional changes: from criminal prosecutions and the establishment of truth commissions to compensation programs and reforms of the system of public administration. These experiences demonstrate that transitional justice often includes not only the assessment of past crimes but also long-term institutional changes aimed at strengthening the democratic system.

Political statement on transitional justice in Armenia

In Armenia, the issue of transitional justice appeared on the public and political agenda after the Velvet Revolution of 2018. On August 17, 2018-100 days after the revolution-Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the possible mechanisms of transitional justice at a rally organized to mark the occasion.

He noted that the existing legislation could in some cases create difficulties for the investigation of possible violations committed in the past, and that under such conditions it is necessary to discuss the possibility of applying new mechanisms.

The Prime Minister stated:

“I think we should indeed seriously consider forming new bodies of transitional justice.”

He also emphasized that the discussion was not about creating extraordinary courts, but about mechanisms that could contribute to the study of facts and the formation of legal assessments.

These discussions became a basis for initiating debates in various professional circles, including within state bodies, which later found reflection in legal acts as well.

On November 28, 2018, the Armenian Lawyers’ Association organized a civil society-government conference entitled “The Possibility of Introducing Transitional Justice Mechanisms in the Republic of Armenia in Light of International Experience.” The purpose of the conference was to discuss what mechanisms could be applied in Armenia, taking into account international experience. The event was attended by high-ranking officials, representatives of international organizations, CSO representatives, experts, and other interested individuals.

The First Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, Ararat Mirzoyan (current Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia), participated in the conference. The main presentations were delivered by Anna Vardapetyan, Adviser to the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia (current Prosecutor General of the Republic of Armenia), lawyer Vahe Grigoryan (judge of the European Court of Human Rights elected in respect of RA), and Karen Zadoyan, President of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association. The speakers presented international experience on transitional justice and discussed possible tools of transitional justice: truth commissions, compensation programs, as well as possible mechanisms of vetting and lustration within the judicial system.

As a result of the discussions, it was emphasized that in order to implement such a process it is necessary first to develop appropriate legal and conceptual foundations, as well as to ensure broad public debate.

This expert discussion subsequently became the basis for the parliamentary hearings held in the National Assembly on May 24, 2019, entitled “Prospects for the Application of Transitional Justice Instruments in Armenia.”

Excerpts from those hearings:

• Vetting is an evaluation process that must be predictable and transparent — Anna Vardapetyan
• Ruben Karanza spoke about certain instruments of transitional justice
• Karen Zadoyan presented the possibilities for implementing transitional justice in Armenia at the National Assembly

Judicial and legal strategy of Armenia and the legislative initiative to establish a fact-finding commission

The result of all these expert and parliamentary discussions was that the idea of establishing a Fact-Finding Commission was included in the Action Plan deriving from the Judicial and Legal Reform Strategy of the Republic of Armenia for 2019–2023, as an important tool of transitional justice aimed at ensuring comprehensive reforms of the judicial and legal system.

The program envisaged the development of the draft law “On the Formation and Activities of the Fact-Finding Commission,” which was later published on the e-draft platform. According to the draft law, the legal bases for establishing the fact-finding commission were to be defined.

The draft envisaged that the Fact-Finding Commission should consist of 9 members who must have higher education, sufficient professional experience and public reputation, and it was also mandatory that they had not previously held political office.

The focus of the Commission’s activities was to be the study, disclosure and assessment of human rights violations that occurred between September 1, 1991 and April 2018 and their causes, as well as the development of mechanisms to mitigate their consequences and restore violated rights.

The Commission’s powers included collecting facts, obtaining testimonies, requesting information from state and local bodies, organizing public hearings, involving experts, preparing reports, submitting recommendations to the Government and the National Assembly, supporting the development of measures to protect the rights of victims, as well as international cooperation and, if necessary, obtaining information from foreign bodies.

However, the draft law was not subsequently adopted, and the issue of establishing the commission remained unresolved at that stage. As a result, the judicial and legal strategy did not achieve its objective in this direction.

New Judicial and Legal Strategy: 2022–2026

The topic of transitional justice was again included in the next legal document-the Judicial and Legal Reform Strategy of the Republic of Armenia for 2022-2026.

The strategy set the following objective:

Application of the toolkit of transitional justice through fact-finding activities aimed at uncovering systemic violations of human rights. To achieve this objective, the following main actions were envisaged:

• Develop a package of legislative drafts on the establishment of a body performing fact-finding functions.
• Establish a body performing fact-finding functions.

These actions were planned to be implemented in 2023; however, according to the report published by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia for 2023, it became clear that these actions were assessed as not implemented during the reporting period. It should also be noted that in the subsequently published reports concerning partially implemented or unimplemented actions during the observed period, updated information was not presented.

At the same time, it was proposed that the legal regulations for the establishment of the fact-finding commission be included in the Law of the Republic of Armenia “On the Public Council.”

As a result, according to updated information published on the website datairav.am on January 3, 2025, on December 4, 2024 the National Assembly adopted in the second reading and in full the draft law “On Amendments and Additions to the Law of the Republic of Armenia ‘On the Public Council’,” which provided the legal possibility for establishing the commission under discussion.

At the same time, it should be emphasized that in essence this draft also failed to fully resolve the issue of establishing the commission and effectively implementing the transitional justice toolkit.

Legal regulation within the framework of the Public Council

According to the law, the commission must consist of seven members, and the scope of its activities includes:

• collecting and analyzing facts of human rights violations during the studied period (September 1991 – April 2018),
• identifying the causes and circumstances of the violations and their functional/institutional basis,
• developing proposals for systemic reforms, restoring victims’ rights and defining compensation mechanisms.

The selection of the commission members must be carried out in two stages—through a public competition and evaluation, where the candidate’s professional experience, participation in programs and research, the nature of publications, as well as balanced local and gender representation are assessed. The Chair of the Commission is elected by the majority vote of its members.

The Commission’s powers include:

• collecting and analyzing facts regarding cases and violations,
• requesting information from state and local bodies and organizing visits and studies,
• engaging national and international experts,
• conducting public discussions and hearings,
• presenting recommendations to the Government and competent bodies regarding the restoration and protection of victims’ rights,
• preparing reports on its activities and results,
• cooperating with state, local and international institutions, as well as exercising other powers provided by law.

Thus, with the adoption of the above-mentioned law certain legal changes took place, which created a mechanism for the formation of the fact-finding commission.

Competition for the selection of commission members

In 2025, the initiative moved to the practical stage.

The Secretariat of the Public Council of the Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, guided by the relevant provisions of the law and the procedure approved by Government Decision No. 1128-L of August 14, 2025, announced a competition for the selection of members of the Fact-Finding Commission.

The announcement specified the requirements for candidates for commission membership, the amount of the monthly remuneration, and the procedure for application. However, the competition was later declared invalid.

According to information provided by the Public Council:

“The competition for the selection of members of the Fact-Finding Commission announced on October 30, 2025 is considered invalid due to the failure to meet the minimum threshold required for the number of commission members.”

Timely implementation of transitional justice as a legal obligation

The Armenian experience shows that although the idea of transitional justice has been закрепված de jure, the de facto picture is different. The competition announced in 2025 for the selection of commission members did not take place due to the failure to reach the required minimum threshold, which in fact demonstrates that both political will and the readiness for expert and public participation are crucial in this process.

The factor of time has fundamental importance in this context: delays not only reduce public trust in the process but also lead to the loss of evidence, complicate the identification and accountability of responsible persons, and contribute to the reproduction of a culture of impunity.

Therefore, the timely implementation of transitional justice measures should be considered not as a matter of political expediency but as a legal obligation deriving from the fundamental principles of the protection of human rights, the right to a fair trial, and effective legal remedy.