The Case of the Istanbul Bar Association: Justice on Trial in Türkiye?

[Róisín Pillay is a supervisor and Ayşe Bingöl Demir is the director of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, a Middlesex University School of Law–based initiative focused on strategic litigation, research, and advocacy]

In a courtroom in Istanbul on 9 September, a trial will take place that may be all too emblematic of our times. Leaders of the Istanbul Bar Association, a respected institution of more than 65,000 lawyers in Türkiye, will stand trial on charges of “propaganda for a terrorist organisation” and “publicly disseminating misleading information”. These grave charges, against the President and ten board members of the Bar Association, are the result of an action that would not seem out of place for most bar associations around the world: a statement issued by the association in December 2024 on events raising serious human rights concerns, and involving the arrests of lawyers. The statement concerned the killing of two Kurdish journalists, Nazım Daştan and Cihan Bilgin, allegedly in a Turkish drone strike in Northern Syria and the arrests of lawyers and others who protested the deaths in Istanbul a day later. It was made in a context in which Türkiye’s active involvement in the armed conflict in Syria, particularly its support to armed Islamist groups and military operations targeting predominantly Kurdish areas in the north, had repeatedly drawn international criticism for serious human rights abuses (here and here). Both journalists had reported extensively over the past decade on the war in Syria, as well as armed clashes between Turkish forces and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in southeastern Türkiye and were reportedly targeted with criminal charges for their work (here and here). 

The Istanbul Bar Association’s statement which is alleged in these proceedings to amount to “disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation” (Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law) as well as “spreading disinformation” (Article 217(A) of the Turkish Penal Code) was couched in sober legal language. It began by recalling the international law obligations of Türkiye to protect journalists in armed conflicts, affirming that “[t]argeting members of the press in conflict zones constitutes a violation of International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions.”  The statement condemned the arrests of protestors, noting that “the detention of journalists and lawyers who exercised their constitutional rights and mourned for the deaths [Nazım Daştan and Cihan Bilgin] is an unacceptable situation.” It concluded with a call for accountability: 

“We demand that an effective investigation be conducted regarding the killing of our two journalist citizens and that those detained after making a press statement using their constitutional rights be immediately released. We respectfully announce to the public that we will follow the process.”

In making this statement, the association was acting to defend lawyers and inform public discussion on matters of the rule of law and human rights. These are actions squarely within the scope of its statutory mandate under Articles 76 and 95 of the Attorneyship Law of Türkiye, which mandate bar associations with protecting the profession, upholding the rule of law, and defending human rights. They are also functions intrinsic to bar associations everywhere. Such institutions exist to regulate and govern the legal profession, but also to protect their members from arbitrary targeting, so that in their turn, lawyers can act effectively to defend the rights of others.  

The important role of bar associations in defending the rule of law and human rights is also attested to in international standards. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the foundational international text on the protection of the legal profession, affirm that lawyers must be able to carry out their professional duties without interference or intimidation (Principle 16); to participate in public debate on legal and human rights issues without facing sanctions (Principle 23); and to operate self-governing institutions free from external pressure (principle 24). The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR), has similarly recognised that bar associations, as representative bodies of lawyers, must be able to act independently, issue appropriate public commentaries and legal assessments – particularly on matters of justice and human rights – without fear of reprisal ( see e.g. Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2), and Namazov v. Azerbaijan).

That the leaders of the Istanbul Bar Association are being tried at all for exercising their right to freedom of expression on a matter of great public interest is therefore shocking, but in Türkiye the shock is muffled by recent experience, as the space for criticism or dissent has alarmingly narrowed. The trial is another salvo in the authorities’ sustained attacks on freedom of expression, often through extraordinarily wide and arbitrary application of problematic anti-terrorism laws to stifle criticism of the government. In particular, there has been widespread criminalisation of lawyers, including in connection with their professional activities, through abusive prosecution under anti-terrorism laws. Such criminal proceedings often also lead to the lawyers’ suspension or disbarment. 

At the same time, the justice system of Türkiye and its institutions have been under sustained attack. Judicial independence has been seriously eroded and judicial institutions made subject to executive control and political influence (see ECtHR, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No. 2) [GC], Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu And Others v. Türkiye, Kavala v. Turkey; see also here and here). Bar Associations, historically strong and independent in Türkiye, have faced growing political interference in their governance, including the establishment of parallel bar associations, and the granting of powers to the President of the Republic to suspend Bar Association leadership. In recent years, there have also been arbitrary criminal investigations of bar associations in major cities, notably leading to the prosecution of leaders of the Diyarbakir Bar Association  The Istanbul Bar Association itself faces further civil proceedings over its December 2024 statement. In March, these proceedings led to a civil court decision, now under appeal, mandating the dismissal of the Bar Association’s President and ten board members for allegedly acting beyond their legal duties in publishing it.

The consequences of a criminal conviction in the Istanbul Bar Association case, or of the civil action succeeding in removing members of the association’s board, are enormous. It would send a clear message to other bar associations and public institutions in Türkiye that voicing concern at human rights violations or calling for accountability comes at a cost. Individual lawyers, already under great pressure, will become more fearful of reprisals for defending the rights of their clients or exercising their own, in the knowledge that they can no longer count on an independent bar association being able to defend them. Ultimately, the consequences will be felt by anyone in Türkiye who needs legal protection. 

There has been steady condemnation of the attacks on the Istanbul Bar Association over the last nine months. A number of UN independent experts issued a joint public statement warning that criminalisation of the Bar’s leaders “would amount to a serious breach of international and regional standards”. Numerous human rights and legal professional organisations have also spoken out, calling for urgent international attention to the case. The first hearing in the criminal trial of the Bar’s leadership was attended by scores of lawyers from around Europe in a strong display of solidarity. But the EU and other international actors have been muted in their reaction, apparently prioritising other geopolitical goals.

In recognition of what is at stake, twelve prominent international human rights and professional legal organisations (listed below) have submitted a joint amicus curiae brief to the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court. The intervention reflects the fact that Türkiye is not alone in facing erosion of essential rule of law guarantees. We have learned in recent years not to be complacent about the strength of even long-established, independent institutions, including in apparently stable democracies, in the face of concerted political attack. Around the world, lawyers working to defend human rights increasingly face harassment and retaliatory executive actions or legal proceedings, as do the associations that represent them. These concerns have gained international recognition, including in Europe, where the Council of Europe adopted the first-ever international treaty aiming to protect the profession of lawyer: the Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. Open to acceptance by all states, the Convention has so far been signed by 18 and will enter into force upon ratification by eight, including at least six Council of Europe member states. 

In their submission for the consideration of the Istanbul court during the hearings on 9-10 September, the twelve organisations have warned that the proceedings reflect a wider effort to punish the Bar for speaking out on human rights and fulfilling its public role. Whatever the outcome, the pressure on lawyers in Türkiye and other human rights defenders in the country is only likely to continue, and countering it should be a priority in the international community’s engagement with the government of Türkiye.   

The international organisations submitting the Amicus Curiae Brief are: Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Amnesty International, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, German Federal Bar, Human Rights Watch, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, International Commission of Jurists, International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger, Law Society of England and Wales, Lawyers for Lawyers, Pen Norway.