Source: Amnesty International –
Responding to today’s acquittal of 87 protesters on trial for their participation in mass protests which took place following the detention of Istanbul Mayor, Ekrem Imamoğlu, and yesterday’s acquittal of eight journalists and four lawyers charged in relation to the same demonstrations, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director EU, Balkans and Turkey, Dinushka Disanayake said:
“Whilst the acquittal of these 87 peaceful protesters, eight journalists and four lawyers is welcome, it does beg the question as to why they were put through this eight-month ordeal in the first place.
The prosecutions of these protesters, journalists and lawyers should never have been brought
“Last March, hundreds of young people were detained and criminalized for protesting the detention and subsequent remand in pre-trial detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu. Amnesty International’s research into the policing of these mass protests found allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, including the targeting of journalists, by law enforcement officials during the demonstrations.
“The prosecutions of these protesters, journalists and lawyers should never have been brought and the endemic misuse of the criminal justice system to crack down on dissent in Türkiye must end.”
Background
For information about Amnesty International’s research into the policing of the March protests see this public statement.
Today’s decision hearing follows two previous trials which also recently ended with wholesale acquittals.
Another hearing held today was that of 13 protesters prosecuted for ‘insulting the president’. The protesters have already spent almost three months in pre-trial detention between March and May this year. Their hearing was postponed to May 2026, with the court referring the file to be examined by the National Criminal Bureau to establish whether photographic evidence backs the claim against the individuals concerned. A lawyer representing the President was present at the hearing and requested that the court find the defendants guilty of the charge because ‘his honour had been damaged by the actions of the defendants.’