On 7 May, the European Court of Human Rights held a public hearing before the Grand Chamber in the Turkish case of Yasak v. Turkey, a landmark case concerning the wrongful prosecution of over 100,000 individuals who were sentenced to long prison terms solely for their lawful involvement in the Gülen movement.
Mr. Yasak himself was active in mentoring fellow students during his university studies and was sentenced to six years and three months in prison for this involvement. Mr Johan Vande Lanotte and Mr Johan Heymans represented Mr. Yasak’s interests. Their pleadings remain accessible via this link: https://www.echr.coe.int/.
They were also the initiators of the Turkey Tribunal, an advisory tribunal that convened in 2021 to independently investigate and report on alleged human rights violations occurring under Turkish jurisdiction.
The case of Yasak v. Turkey garnered significant attention prior to, during, and following the public hearing. Regrettably, this attention triggered repressive responses from the Turkish state.
On 29 April 2025, the Turkey Tribunal’s X (formerly Twitter) account was blocked in Turkey by order of a Turkish judge. On 12 May, the account was suspended globally by X, citing the following reason: “use our services to engage in inauthentic activity that undermines the integrity of X.” An appeal was formally lodged and is currently “under review.” Experience shows that X rarely responds to such appeals. Should that also be the case here, the Turkey Tribunal will serve X with a formal notice through a bailiff in the coming days in order to denounce this injustice.
On 27 May 2025, the Turkey Tribunal was informed that the podcast titled “Are claims of a slowdown in the persecution of Gulen movement members in Turkey accurate?” had been blocked in Turkey by a domestic court. The podcast discusses a report authored by Prof. Vande Lanotte for various asylum authorities. The report concludes that there is clearly no decrease in persecution, contrary to misleading claims disseminated by some governments under Turkish influence.
On 28 May 2025, the Turkey Tribunal received notice that its YouTube channel had been entirely blocked in Turkey at the request of the Turkish government. YouTube cited the following justification: “We have received a legal complaint from a government entity regarding your content.” This YouTube channel was the sole platform where the Grand Chamber hearing was published with Turkish subtitles.
In Turkey, social media platforms are only allowed to operate if they agree to block content upon government request. Unsurprisingly, these requests are selectively targeted at critical voices.
The Turkish authorities continue to deprive their population of access to the most basic information. The blocking of social media remains a recurring method employed by the Turkish state to suppress any critical scrutiny of its policies.