Osman Kavala Statement Reignites Debate on Pretrial Detention

A newly released statement on behalf of jailed businessman and civil society advocate Osman Kavala, currently held in Silivri Prison, has reignited national debate over the quality of evidence used in criminal proceedings and the proper role of pretrial detention in Turkey. The statement responds indirectly to recent remarks by Feti Yıldız, Deputy Chair of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a legal expert, who argued on X that “wrong evidence cannot lead to the right conclusion.” According to Kavala’s representatives, this observation cuts directly into persistent, systemic issues within Turkey’s criminal justice framework.

Human Rights Courts Have Repeatedly Flagged the Same Problems

The statement stresses that many violation rulings issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) relate to arrests and convictions based on flawed, incomplete, or uncorroborated evidence. Despite these rulings, local courts have often failed to implement them, which the statement describes as producing “a form of unlawfulness exceeding even the act that originally caused the violation.”

To emphasize the seriousness of this pattern, the announcement recalls a warning issued earlier by the President of the Court of Cassation, who stated that “resisting the remedy of a violation creates a greater unlawfulness than the judicial act that caused the violation itself.”

Yıldız’s Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Aligns With Kavala’s Concerns

Yıldız’s posts focused on the foundational principles of criminal justice, arguing that establishing material truth is only possible when courts adhere to universal legal standards. Among his most notable remarks was the following translated statement:

“Criminal procedure does not accept reaching the correct conclusion through incorrect evidence. Proof without evidence—even if it corresponds to factual reality—consists merely of suspicion and conjecture.”

Kavala’s team points out that this perspective mirrors the core issue highlighted in ECtHR and AYM rulings: defective evidence consistently leads to unfair arrests and verdicts, undermining both individual rights and public trust in judicial integrity.

Kavala’s full statement, translated into English, reads:

**“Mr. Feti Yıldız, Deputy Chair of the MHP, emphasized in his recent remarks the importance of adhering to universal principles of law. He reminded us that one cannot reach the right conclusion through incorrect evidence, and that proving guilt with such evidence amounts only to suspicion and conjecture. This warning is directly related to the fundamental problem that causes serious human rights violations in Criminal Courts.

According to universal principles of law, both the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court—institutions responsible for protecting individual rights—have found that most violations stem from arrests and convictions based on incorrect or incomplete evidence.

What makes the situation even more grave is that local courts refuse to take these findings into account, declining to review decisions grounded in suspicion and assumptions.

As the President of the Court of Cassation has stated, resisting the remedy of a violation creates a greater unlawfulness than the judicial action that caused the violation in the first place.

Such conduct, which contradicts constitutional provisions, also represents a deeper violation of the universal principles of law.”**

Detention Must Be Temporary, Not Punitive, Yıldız Reminds

Yıldız also warned against treating pretrial detention as a substitute for punishment. In his translated statement, he said:

“Detention is one of the most severe measures restricting personal liberty. Therefore, it must be applied under strict conditions, with great caution and care.”

He further stressed the responsibilities of a democratic state toward prisoners with serious health conditions, noting:

“Keeping severely ill individuals in prison indefinitely cannot be the practice of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.”

These statements intersect with long-standing concerns expressed by Kavala’s supporters, who argue that Turkey’s broad and inconsistent use of pretrial detention functions as a form of de facto punishment rather than a preventive legal measure.

ECtHR and AYM Rulings on Kavala Remain Unimplemented

Kavala’s case has become one of the most closely watched judicial controversies in Europe. The ECtHR has ordered his immediate release, and the AYM has ruled in favor of retrial, yet both decisions remain unenforced by local courts. This persistent refusal has drawn criticism at both national and international levels, deepening tensions around Turkey’s adherence to human rights norms and judicial independence.