Open Letter to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: Revise your decision which serves to conceal the reality of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Turkey!

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which monitors whether the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are being implemented, held its 1537th meeting between September 15 and 17 2025. Following its decision to close the supervision of Batı and others group of cases, it has become necessary to issue this open letter addressed to the Committee of Ministers as well as all other concerned parties.

Indeed, this decision by the Committee of Ministers means that an international human rights mechanism is being instrumentalized in efforts to render invisible the reality of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Turkey, and it clearly undermines the fight against torture and other forms of ill-treatment, particularly in Turkey but also everywhere else in the world.

As is well known, international treaties to which Turkey is a party absolutely prohibit torture. Unfortunately, despite this absolute prohibition, torture and other forms of ill-treatment remain a systematic phenomenon in Turkey, continuing to this day and becoming increasingly acute in more recent times. For this reason, the ECtHR has concluded that Turkey has systematically violated the prohibition of torture, both procedurally and substantively, in hundreds of complaints filed against it. The ECtHR’s judgments in this regard have been communicated to the Committee of Ministers pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR for the purpose of supervising their implementation.

Following the 2011 reform, the Committee of Ministers has started monitoring the implementation of ECtHR judgments using a “new twin-track procedure”: “standard procedure” and “enhanced procedure.” The Committee of Ministers classifies decisions that point to systemic problems as “leading cases” and requests that “general measures” be taken in relation to these cases. Furthermore, “repetitive cases” are grouped under these leading cases, and systematic problems are examined to see whether the issues identified by the ECtHR have been addressed.

As of writing of this statement, a total of 900 “leading” and 6,778 “repetitive” cases, where Turkey was found to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights in various ways, have been brought before the Committee of Ministers. Although the monitoring of 614 of the leading cases has been discontinued on various grounds, such as “the monitoring being continued under another group” or “the general measures having been implemented,” 286 “leading” cases still require Turkey to take the necessary steps to address the systemic problems. Yet, the closure of the Batı and others group of cases, which concerned ECtHR judgments finding Turkey in violation of the “right to life” and “prohibition of torture,” by a decision of the Committee of Ministers at its 1537th meeting, has set a precedent that is highly dangerous in many respects.

The Batı and others group of cases—under which 152 “repetitive” cases in which Turkey was found to have violated the right to life and the prohibition of torture, and which was grouped together following its first designation as a “leading” case—concerns the ineffectiveness of investigations, criminal prosecutions, and administrative disciplinary proceedings related to killings, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as the use of force amounting to torture and other forms of ill-treatment by the police and security forces between 1994 and 2013. The applicants in this group of cases were persons who lost their lives and/or were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment during arrest or detention, or during interventions in peaceful demonstrations. The group was later joined by the ECtHR judgment in Elvan v. Turkey, in which the Court found a procedural violation of the right to life concerning the killing of Berkin Elvan by law enforcement officials, and it was decided that both groups would be supervised together. This was because both the Batı and others and Elvan judgments point to systematic impunity in cases of killings, torture, and other forms of ill-treatment committed by state agents.

Turkey has claimed in its “action plans” and “action reports” — submitted for years with respect to the Batı and others group and, in more recent years, with respect to the Elvan group — that it has resolved the systemic problems. In these communications made “as a matter of procedure” by the state to the Committee of Ministers, no concrete information was provided regarding the steps taken to resolve systemic problems, and in fact, the provided information that was often far from reality. Similarly, in its most recent “action report” submitted to the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 2025, Turkey referred to reforms in the fields of criminal law and administration, its “zero tolerance” policy against torture, and training programs for law enforcement officials, claiming that independence and effectiveness had been ensured in investigation and prosecution processes. Although the authorities claimed that torture and other forms of ill-treatment are prevented through measures such as health checks, monitoring, and camera systems in prisons and other places of detention, they did not provide any concrete data to support their claims. In short, Turkey’s report essentially reiterated the existence of legislation and procedures that the Committee of Ministers itself had previously identified as inadequate, but failed to address the concerns raised by human rights organizations during the previous monitoring period regarding the continued practice of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the prevailing climate of impunity.

By contrast, human rights organizations, through submissions made pursuant to Rule 9 § 2 of the Committee of Ministers’ Rules, have clearly set out the systemic problems in Turkey on the basis of data and have repeatedly called on the Committee of Ministers to adopt a more consistent and robust stance for their resolution. Indeed, the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT), the Truth Justice Memory Center (Hafıza Merkezi), and the Human Rights Association (İHD), which for years have jointly submitted Rule 9.2 communications in the Batı and others group, in their most recent submission of 29 July 2025[1] — which also included data from HRFT’s Treatment and Rehabilitation Centers — demonstrated in striking, data-based terms that torture and other forms of ill-treatment persist in Turkey, drawing on developments since 19 March 2025 due to their contemporaneity.[2] HRFT, Hafıza Merkezi and İHD shared with the Committee of Ministers that, in the period following 19 March 2025, alongside widespread and systematic violations of the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in Turkey, there have been numerous credible allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment — reflected in the testimonies of many individuals, in reports by various institutions, and in the accounts of victims — as well as clear instances of such acts; yet, despite this, the violations have not been effectively investigated. As pointed out in the said communication;

• Thousands of people participating in peaceful demonstrations were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including being targeted with pepper spray and rubber-coated projectiles at close range, being subjected to collective physical violence, being dragged while handcuffed behind their backs, and being exposed to pressurized water. The duration and intensity of exposure to tear gas caused health problems; one protester lost an eye, while many others suffered injuries to the head and face.
• Moreover, there are numerous credible allegations and cases indicating that torture and other forms of ill-treatment continued during detention and imprisonment. According to these accounts, detainees were held in handcuffs for hours, deprived of basic necessities such as medicine, food, and toilet facilities, and subjected to sexual torture in the form of strip searches and threats of sexual assault. According to various reports in the press, at least 32 individuals who were placed in pre-trial detention were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment in prisons, including physical violence, isolation, denial of basic needs, and transfer to remote prisons.
• Alarmingly, officials have routinely dismissed allegations of torture as “baseless” and “disinformation” without initiating any effective investigation, punishing citizens who expose torture and retaliating against those who have been tortured.

The Committee of Ministers met in Strasbourg on 15–17 September 2025 to supervise the implementation of numerous groups of cases, including the Batı and others group of cases. On 18 September 2025, the Committee of Ministers announced its decisions regarding the supervised cases. Contrary to its own resolution just one year earlier in which it had concluded that the systematic problems concerning the Batı and others group of cases had not yet been resolved by Turkey, Committee of Ministers decided to close the supervision of the group of cases, “noting the important developments and progress achieved through a series of general measures adopted to address the long-standing issues as regards ineffectiveness of investigations and criminal proceedings in relation to the acts of the State agents.” Disregarding the fact that systematic and structural problems, particularly legislation which gives rise to torture and violations of the right to life, and that the practices have not changed in any positive way, the Committee of Ministers has put forward the following reasons, among others for its decision to close the supervision of Batı and others group of cases:

• The Committee of Ministers itself acknowledged that “individual measures,” such as retrials in cases concerning the 144 “repetitive” judgments under the Batı and others group, were no longer possible due to statutes of limitation. At the same time, it “welcomed the wide range of measures taken and their positive impact observed as regards the duration of investigations and criminal proceedings, the effectiveness of disciplinary proceedings and practice relating to classification of acts and mitigations of sentences, as evidenced in the provided extensive domestic case-law examples.”
• In its Concluding Observations published only a year ago, the United Nations (UN) Committee Against Torture expressed concern over the weakening of fundamental legal and procedural safeguards — which are of vital importance for protecting persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other ill-treatment — and invited Turkey to “ensure that all fundamental legal safeguards are guaranteed, both in law and in practice, for all persons deprived of their liberty from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty.” [3] Without taking into account the concrete recommendations of the UN Committee Against Torture on this matter, and despite the reality — documented both in the period since 19 March in various cities and over years of supervision — that detention periods have been arbitrarily extended up to four days, that restrictions on access to a lawyer for up to 24 hours have become routine practice, and that doctors have been assigned, through official instructions or verbal orders, to police headquarters or other locations where detainees are held to conduct medical examinations, the Committee of Ministers “welcomed” the steps Turkey claimed to have taken to ensure fundamental procedural and legal safeguards, even though no convincing information was provided to substantiate such claims.
• The Committee of Ministers also “welcomed” the Judicial Reform Strategy mentioned in Turkey’s action report. The Committee of Ministers overlooked even the fact that the word “torture” appeared only once in this document — on which Turkey’s action report provided no detailed information whatsoever.[4]
• The Committee of Ministers, entirely disregarding the systemic problem of non-implementation of Constitutional Court judgments — which had also been highlighted in the report of the former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, through the example of Can Atalay[5] — recognized the Constitutional Court as a strong mechanism for “protection against and the fight against impunity.” It is quite noteworthy that this determination regarding the Constitutional Court was followed by an interpretation in which it is stated that “consistent Convention-compliant approach of the Constitutional Court […] appears to leave little room for similar applications to be brought before the European Court.”
• Finally, the Committee of Ministers justified the closure of the supervision of the Batı and others group by referring to the “the authorities’ continued firm high-level political messages reaffirming their commitment to combating torture and to continuous judicial reforms.” This reasoning entirely disregarded the information submitted to the Committee of Ministers by human rights organizations, which demonstrated that the authorities had repeatedly denied allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment without conducting any investigations, and that those who exposed such practices were even subjected to reprisals.

The reasoning of this decision — which, despite the grave and serious violations experienced most recently in the period since 19 March 2025, served to render the reality of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Turkey invisible — clearly demonstrates that the decision was not taken on the basis of a human rights–oriented approach. This decision is so far removed from reality that it has even disregarded all the statements[6] and the work[7] by the organs of the Council of Europe themselves in view of the gravity of the situation. Therefore, this decision constitutes one of the most concrete and current examples of the crisis in which the international human rights regime has long found itself. States that are rapidly moving away from the idea of a human rights–based regime are seeking to render international human rights mechanisms ineffective. The decision regarding the Batı and others group of cases demonstrates that, unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is not exempt from this situation. Despite numerous rulings by the ECtHR in recent years finding that Turkey has violated Article 18 by restricting fundamental rights for political reasons, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has been reluctant to take action. This latest decision gives the impression that the Committee of Ministers has abandoned the universal principles of human rights, which are its very basis for existence, and has been influenced by political considerations.

We are of the opinion that this decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has seriously harmed the fight against torture and other forms of ill-treatment — a struggle carried out with great difficulty and sacrifice not only in Turkey but throughout the world:

• Despite the stark reality before us, this decision constitutes a grave violation of the right to redress for individuals subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment as a result of systematic practices and impunity in Turkey. As clearly stated in the reasoning behind the decision, many individuals subjected to torture face a significant risk of being denied access to justice before the ECtHR, which remains an important mechanism for victims of human rights violations despite its effectiveness being seriously limited in recent times, and of being trapped in the Constitutional Court, whose decisions are not consistently implemented.
• With the closure of the Batı and others group of cases, an important avenue of advocacy will also be closed off for human rights defenders who, for many years, have fought against torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Turkey and gained important ground which have also become the accomplishments of the global struggle against torture, and who, despite everything, continue this struggle under Turkey’s prevailing regime of uncertainty, rulelessness and arbitrariness.
• This decision of the Committee of Ministers — which effectively conveys an encouraging message to violating states that refrain from fulfilling their international obligations — has thereby also harmed the founding principles and values of the Council of Europe,[8] which was designed as a system of peace and human rights with the aim of ensuring that the grave destruction and suffering caused by the Second World War would never be repeated.

On the basis of the points and reasons set out above, we hereby make the following call to the Council of Europe:

1. The Council of Europe Must Remember Its Founding Values and Principles!

• The Council of Europe must assume a role that serves not to conceal human rights violations but to make the truth visible. Otherwise, the message conveyed will be that “serious human rights violations will go unpunished” — not only for Turkey but also for other member states.
• The Committee of Ministers of Council Europe must stop disregarding the truth solely by relying on the reports submitted by Turkey as a matter of procedure.
• Decisions of the Committee of Ministers should be based solely on universal human rights principles, independent of political considerations.
• The Council of Europe must uphold, under all circumstances, the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. The Supervision Process Must Be Reopened![9]

As the period since 19 March 2025 has once again demonstrated, the systemic and structural problems and practices — particularly the legislation that leads to violations of the prohibition of torture and the right to life — have not changed in any positive way. In light of this, the decision to close the Batı and others group of cases must be reversed, and Turkey’s obligations concerning the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the protection of the right to life must continue to be monitored with the utmost diligence.

The monitoring of whether ECtHR judgments are being implemented must be further developed so that it does not rely solely on the state’s “action reports” but is carried out through comparative assessment with reports prepared by independent sources and civil society organizations.

3. Concrete Steps Must Be Demanded from Turkey!

• Turkey must be required to establish a clear, time-bound roadmap for conducting effective, independent, and impartial investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, and for putting an end to impunity.
• Turkey must be required to ensure that all places of detention, especially prisons, be opened to monitoring by human rights organizations.
• Turkey must be required to ensure transparent information sharing regarding reported cases of torture and other ill-treatment.

4. Reprisals and Pressure Against the Fight Against Torture Must End!

• The Council of Europe must make a clear and strong call for an end to the pressure and reprisals against human rights organizations and defenders who expose torture and support torture survivors.

As strongly emphasized in the “Istanbul Declaration”[10] — signed by 22 human rights defenders struggling for the protection and advancement of human rights values in various parts of the world and shared with the global human rights community on 21 September 2025 — “A human rights violation in one place is a human rights violation everywhere!” Based on this fact, our organizations are calling on all human rights movements, particularly the global movement against torture, to strongly oppose this unacceptable decision by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. The only way out of the crisis facing the international human rights regime is to organize our objection and, more importantly, to defend the international human rights mechanisms that are OUR COMMON ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT), Truth Justice Memory Center (Hafıza Merkezi) and Human Rights Association (İHD)

[1] Rule 9.2 – Communication from NGOs (Truth Justice Memory Center (Hafıza Merkezi), Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği), and Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı)) (29/07/2025) in the Bati and Others group of cases v. Turkey (Application No. 33097/96),

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/?i=DH-DD(2025)899E.

[2] On 19 March 2025, a large number of individuals, including the Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor and several district mayors, were detained. This marked the beginning of a long-term protests, during which many people across Turkey participated in largely peaceful gatherings and demonstrations to express their democratic reactions.

[3] United Nations Committee Against Torture (14 Ağustos 2024), Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Türkiye, paras. 12 – 13.

[4] In the said document, the word “torture” appears only once, and that solely in the context of listing the activities of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT). By contrast, even in the previous Judicial Reform Strategy, announced in May 2019 — itself containing serious shortcomings — the word “torture” was used 15 times. See: Judicial Reform Strategy, https://sgb.adalet.gov.tr/Home/SayfaDetay/yargi-reformu-stratejisi-belgesi24012025044011.

[5] Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe Dunja Mijatović (5 March 2024). Memorandum on freedom of expression and of the media, human rights defenders and civil society in Türkiye, para. 54. https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-expression-and-of-the-media-human-rights-defe/1680aebf3d.

[6] See PACE (10 April 2025), Assembly calls for ‘immediate release’ of Mayor of Istanbul, whose arrest and detention ‘appear politically-motivated’,

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/assembly-calls-for-immediate-release-of-mayor-of-istanbul-whose-arrest-and-detention-appear-politically-motivated-.

[7] For example, between 7 and 11 April 2025, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) carried out an ad hoc visit to Turkey — the report of which has not yet been published — with the primary purpose of “examining the treatment of and safeguards afforded to persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials, in particular in the context of public demonstrations held since 19 March 2025.” See

https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-cpt-carries-out-a-visit-to-t%C3%BCrkiye.

[8] Statute of the Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/1680306052.

[9] Recalling the Committee of Ministers’ conviction “that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) must remain the essential reference point for the protection of human rights in Europe, and recalling its commitment to take measures in order to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the control system instituted by the Convention” (Res(2004)3) and that it has absolute authority regarding the supervision of execution of the ECtHR’s judgments under Article 46/2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Committee of Ministers can re-open examination of Batı and other group of cases with regards to general measures. Res(2004)3 – Resolution of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 May 2004, at its 114th Session), https://search.coe.int/cm?i=091259488020bd83. See also 1201st DH Meeting (3-5 June 2013) – McKerr against the United Kingdom (28883/95) (and seven similar cases) group – Cases concerning the action of the security forces in Northern Ireland: summary of the individual and general measures taken and identification of outstanding questions – Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/?i=CM/Inf/DH(2014)16revE.

[10] Istanbul Declaration: A Call to Action Against the Global Human Rights Crisis, https://en.tihv.org.tr/press-releases/istanbul-declaration-a-call-to-action-against-the-global-human-rights-crisis/.