X'te takip edin: @yjinitiative_tr ◆ #MaviOtobüs ◆ Instagram'da bizi takip edin ◆ Gelişmeleri kaçırmayın — sessiz kalmayın, paylaşın. ◆

© 2025 SolarX . All rights reserved.

Contact
EVIDENCE FILE · PUBLIC RECORD
CASE FILE — 2016/15.07 · MILITARY CADETS PROSECUTIONS
OPENED · JULY 15, 2016
LAST UPDATE · MAY 2026
STATUS · OPEN

The Record, Verified.

Every court ruling, every UN finding, every expert opinion — assembled, sourced, and published. The evidence is not new. The world has known. This page is here so that no one can claim otherwise.

03
UN WORKING GROUP RULINGS
02
ECHR JUDGMENTS
47
EXPERT OPINIONS FILED
9.7K
PAGES OF COURT RECORD
AUTHORITIES SPEAK

The institutions that have already ruled.

Three United Nations rulings. Two European Court of Human Rights judgments. The world's most authoritative human rights bodies have examined this case — and they have not been silent.

UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION · 3 RULINGS · 2021–2025

"The detentions are arbitrary."

In three separate communications, the UN Working Group concluded that the cadets were detained in violation of their right to liberty and fair trial under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Working Group found violations of Articles 3, 9, 10, and 11 of the UDHR — including arbitrary deprivation of liberty, absence of legal counsel during interrogation, and failure of the courts to provide due process. Each ruling called on Turkey to release the detainees, compensate them, and conduct an independent investigation. No such action has been taken.

2021
SAKAOĞLU
OPINION 27/2021
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS · SEPTEMBER 2023

"A systemic violation of fair trial rights."

In Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, the ECHR found that post-July 15 trials systematically violated Articles 6 (fair trial) and 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Grand Chamber concluded that Turkish courts had based convictions on the use of the ByLock messaging application without proving criminal intent. The judgment was issued under the pilot judgment procedure — meaning Turkey is legally required to address the same violation in thousands of similar cases, including those of the cadets.

2023
YALÇINKAYA
v. TÜRKİYE
ECHR GRAND CHAMBER · MAY 2026 · LANDMARK

"Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention were violated."

In Yasak v. Türkiye, the ECHR Grand Chamber ruled — by 11 votes to 6 — that Turkey violated the principle of no punishment without law in the trials following July 15, 2016.

This is the most recent and most authoritative ruling on the post-July 15 prosecutions — issued by the ECHR's highest panel, the Grand Chamber. By 9 votes to 8, the Court also found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) regarding the conditions of detention. The ruling is binding on Turkey. Implementation has not yet begun.

2026
YASAK
v. TÜRKİYE
SPOTLIGHT · LANDMARK RULING · MAY 2026

The most authoritative ruling in nine years — and the world barely covered it.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT

Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme
CASE NAME
YASAK v. TÜRKİYE
APPLICATION NO.
27077/19
JUDGMENT DATE
05 MAY 2026
PANEL
17 JUDGES (GRAND CHAMBER)
STATUS
FINAL · BINDING
PRINCIPAL FINDING

Articles 3 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated. The applicant's conviction lacked a sufficient legal basis at the time of the alleged offence.

STRASBOURG · CHAMBER OF JUDGES PUBLIC RECORD
KEY FINDINGS
01

Article 7 — No punishment without law

The Court found that the applicant could not have reasonably foreseen that his conduct would amount to membership in an armed terrorist organisation. Convictions cannot rest on legal interpretations created after the fact.

VOTE · 11 TO 6
02

Article 3 — Inhuman or degrading treatment

The conditions and treatment surrounding the prolonged solitary confinement of the applicant violated the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention.

VOTE · 9 TO 8
03

Binding effect on Turkey

As a Grand Chamber ruling, the judgment is legally binding on Turkey under Article 46 of the Convention. Implementation is monitored by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

GRAND CHAMBER · FINAL
04

Implications for cadet cases

Although the case concerns one applicant, its reasoning directly applies to all post-July 15 prosecutions — including those of the imprisoned cadets — that share the same legal foundation.

PRECEDENT
FROM THE COURT RECORD

The words they cannot take back.

Direct excerpts from international rulings and expert opinions — preserved here, exactly as they appear in the public record.

UN WORKING GROUP · OPINION 75/2024 § 87

The deprivation of liberty of the cadet is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION · GENEVA · 2024
ECHR · YALÇINKAYA § 263

There has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of the lack of foreseeability of the criminal offence in question.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS · STRASBOURG · 2023
EXPERT OPINION 2022

A military cadet, by the very nature of his training, cannot refuse a direct order from a superior. The criminal law of every civilised nation recognises this as a defence — not an aggravating factor.

PROF. EM., INT'L CRIMINAL LAW · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
ECHR GRAND CHAMBER · YASAK § 191

The Court considers that the applicant could not have foreseen, at the time of the acts in question, that his conduct would later be classified as membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Turkish criminal law.

GRAND CHAMBER · 17 JUDGES · 11–6 MAJORITY · 2026
PARLIAMENTARY HEARING 2024

If you are going to imprison someone, imprison the commander, not the cadet.

FORMER OPPOSITION LEADER · TURKEY
ACADEMIC PAPER 2023

The post-July 15 trials remain the largest collective deviation from due process in the modern history of NATO member states.

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW · OXFORD · 2023
SUBMISSION TO UN 2024

The applicant was 19 years old, a second-year cadet, and had no knowledge of the political circumstances of the night in question. He was convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.

LEGAL SUBMISSION · GENEVA · 2024
DOCUMENT ARCHIVE

Every record, open and searchable.

All documents are public record. Each entry links to its primary source. Nothing here is private. Nothing here is invented.

52
DOCUMENTS ARCHIVED
01
ECHR

Yasak v. Türkiye — Grand Chamber Judgment

The most recent and most authoritative ruling on post-July 15 trials. Found violations of Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention.

MAY 2026
17 JUDGES · BINDING
VIEW
PDF · 184 PAGES
02
ECHR

Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye — Pilot Judgment

Found systemic fair-trial violations in all ByLock-based prosecutions. Issued under the pilot judgment procedure.

SEP 2023
PILOT · BINDING
VIEW
PDF · 102 PAGES
03
UN

WGAD Opinion 75/2024 — Öztürk Case

Third UN ruling finding arbitrary detention of post-July 15 detainees. Calls on Turkey to release and compensate.

2024
GENEVA · OPINION
VIEW
PDF · 28 PAGES
04
UN

WGAD Opinion 49/2024 — Çenteli Case

Second UN ruling examining the cadet trials. Found multiple due process violations during interrogation and trial.

2024
GENEVA · OPINION
VIEW
PDF · 22 PAGES
05
UN

WGAD Opinion 27/2021 — Sakaoğlu Case

The first formal UN finding on the detention of military personnel from July 15 night. Recognised as arbitrary.

2021
GENEVA · OPINION
VIEW
PDF · 19 PAGES
06
COURT

"Roof Case" — Trial Court Verdict

The first major collective verdict against 70 Air Force cadets. Aggravated life sentences issued in January 2020.

JAN 2020
ANKARA · 4. ACM
VIEW
PDF · 1,247 PAGES
07
COURT

Sultanbeyli Trial — Final Verdict

Verdict against 116 cadets dispatched to Sultanbeyli district. Mass conviction for membership in armed terrorist organisation.

2021
İSTANBUL · 25. ACM
VIEW
PDF · 982 PAGES
08
PAPER

Due Process After 2016 — Human Rights Law Review

Comprehensive academic analysis of the post-July 15 trials as the largest collective deviation from due process in modern NATO history.

2023
OXFORD · PEER-REVIEWED
VIEW
PDF · 68 PAGES
09
PAPER

Military Obedience and Criminal Liability

Legal scholarship on the principle of superior orders and its application to junior military personnel under international and Turkish law.

2022
COLUMBIA · LAW JOURNAL
VIEW
PDF · 54 PAGES
10
NGO

Human Rights Watch — Turkey Country Report

Annual report documenting the continued detention of post-July 15 military personnel and the systemic failures of the trials.

2024
HRW · ANNUAL REPORT
VIEW
PDF · 312 PAGES
EXPERT TESTIMONY

The scholars who refused to look away.

Legal experts, military law specialists, and human rights scholars who have filed opinions, written reports, or provided testimony on the cadet cases.

A military cadet, by the very nature of his training, cannot refuse a direct order from a superior. To convict him for obeying it inverts the entire structure of military law.

Prof. R. M.
INT'L CRIMINAL LAW
Columbia University · School of Law

The use of mobile-application metadata as standalone evidence of criminal intent has no precedent in any major European jurisdiction. Turkey's reliance on it represents a serious deviation from established criminal procedure.

Dr. K. L.
DIGITAL EVIDENCE
Cambridge University · Centre for Law

The principle that no one shall be punished for an act that was not criminal at the time it was committed is one of the oldest in international law. It is non-derogable. Even in a state of emergency, it cannot be suspended.

Prof. A. S.
EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS
University of Vienna · Faculty of Law

In international military law, command responsibility flows upward, not downward. The cadets followed their commanders. The crime — if there was one — was committed at the top of the chain. Not the bottom.

Gen. (Ret.) H. J.
MILITARY LAW
NATO War College · Senior Fellow

The mass-trial format used in these prosecutions, with hundreds of defendants and limited individualised review, cannot meet the standards of due process required by the European Convention. The Yalçınkaya pilot judgment has now confirmed this.

Dr. F. N.
EUROPEAN LAW
Leiden University · Grotius Centre

When a state convicts thousands of people through the same procedure, that procedure becomes the case. The post-July 15 trials are not separate cases. They are one collective miscarriage of justice — and one collective remedy is owed.

Prof. M. C.
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
London School of Economics · LLM Programme
READ THE RECORD

The evidence is here. The verdict is yours.

Every claim on this page is verifiable. Every document is publicly available. Every ruling is binding. After reading the record, the question is no longer what happened — but what each of us is willing to do about it.

TAKE ACTION DOWNLOAD FULL ARCHIVE