The maximum pretrial detention period for adults is 1 year and 6 months, including extension, for offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction; 5 years in general for offences within that jurisdiction; and 7 years for the offences listed separately in Article 102/2 of the Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK). During the investigation stage, shorter and independent limits apply, and the periods are reduced for children. These are not periods for which detention must be continued. Release may be requested before the upper limit is reached. A correct calculation requires that the nature of the offence, the age on the date of the act and all stages of the proceedings be examined together. 1
Pretrial detention is a protective measure, distinct from the enforcement of a final prison sentence. An accusation does not mean that the person has been finally found guilty. For this reason, a time calculation is not merely a matter of finding the difference between entry into prison and today's date. The legal basis for the deprivation of liberty must be determined separately for each period.
What is the maximum pretrial detention period under CMK 102?
Limits in the investigation stage
The investigation runs from the time a suspicion of an offence is learned of until the indictment is accepted. The preparation of the indictment by the public prosecutor or its sending to the court does not by itself start the prosecution. Detention that exceeds the investigation limit does not become lawful retroactively because the indictment is later accepted. 1, Art. 2 and 102
| Category of offences | Investigation upper limit | Extension |
|---|---|---|
| Offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction | 6 months | Article 102/4 provides no separate extension for this category. |
| Offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, other than the special group below | 1 year | Article 102/4 provides no separate extension for this category. |
| Specific offences listed in the article, and collective offences | 1 year 6 months | A further 6 months with reasons; the limit in the text is therefore 2 years. For collective offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction (asliyelik), the conflict below is assessed separately. |
The special group consists of offences in Chapters Four to Seven of Part Four of Book Two of the Turkish Penal Code, and offences under the Counter-Terrorism Law (Terörle Mücadele Kanunu). These chapters concern, respectively, offences against the security of the State, against the constitutional order and its functioning, against national defence, and relating to state secrets and espionage. The investigation provision also adds offences committed collectively. That an offence is described in everyday language as "serious" or "organised" is not enough; the applicable statutory provision must be identified. 1, Art. 102/4
Total limits including the investigation stage
The table below shows the totals accepted in practice under CMK 102/1–2. Detention during the investigation falls within this total. The effect of a first-instance conviction and of reversal on the calculation is explained below.
| Category of offences | Basic period and possible extension | Total including extensions |
|---|---|---|
| Offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction | 1 year + up to 6 months | 1 year 6 months |
| Other offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction | 2 years + up to 3 years in total | 5 years |
| Offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction and in the special group of CMK 102/2 | 2 years + up to 5 years in total | 7 years |
An extension is not automatic. A justified necessity and reasons must be shown. Under CMK 102/3, before an extension decision, the views of the public prosecutor, the suspect or accused and the defence counsel must be obtained. The fact that an unused extension period remains does not prove that the current detention is necessary. 1
Adding extension periods to the basic period has also been criticised. In Ersan Şen's assessment of March 25, 2026, it is argued that the total should be three years for heavy-penalty offences and five years for special offences. The five- and seven-year tables above follow the judicial practice in which extensions are added to a two-year basic period. In the Murat Narman decision, the general regime is also interpreted as five years. 3, §46 6
The point of departure also should not be narrowed to the name of the court that is hearing the file. Where a case is heard by the heavy penal court because of connection (bağlantı), the legal jurisdiction over the offence charged must be examined separately. The starting calculation "the file is in the heavy penal court; therefore five years for everyone" is not safe. 1, Art. 102 7
Does a collective offence always raise the detention period to seven years?
A collective offence and the special offence groups are not the same
No. Article 102/2 of CMK, which sets out the special extension scope that produces the seven-year total, does not write "collective offence". That phrase appears in the fourth paragraph, which regulates the investigation limit. A seven-year upper limit therefore cannot be applied to every file involving at least three persons. If the offence also falls within the special group of Article 102/2, the result changes. 1
Under CMK 2/1-k, a collective offence (toplu suç) is an offence committed by three or more persons, even where there is no intention to act together. A criminal organisation is a separate legal characterisation with its own elements. The number of suspects, whether the offence falls within the scope of an organisation, and the Turkish Penal Code or Counter-Terrorism Law provision on which the charge rests must not be used interchangeably. 1
The 18-to-24-month problem for collective offences outside the heavy court's jurisdiction
For collective offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, there is a tension between two provisions that must be explained. Article 102/1 limits the total, including extension, to 18 months, while the wording of Article 102/4 on collective offences provides for 18 months in the investigation with a 6-month extension. Whether the investigation-stage limit may exceed the limit set for the whole process is debated.
Ersan Şen's assessment of March 25, 2026 argues, in favour of the interpretation more favourable to liberty, that the 18-month total must not be exceeded. Against this, the view that Article 102/4 is a special provision is arguable. This question should not be presented as a settled rule that all courts are assumed to apply in the same way. In a defence, both paragraphs should be shown together; the claim that "two years may be held in the investigation without dispute because it is a collective offence" should not be relied upon. 6
How do the periods change for children?
The age on the date of the act is decisive
Under CMK 102/5, the periods are halved for children who had not reached 15 years of age on the date of the act, and applied at three-quarters for children who had reached 15 but not 18. The second ratio is not the application of one quarter of the period; it is 75% of the adult period. Reaching 18 during the proceedings does not change the principle that the age on the date of the act governs. 1
| Applicable adult upper limit | Act committed under 15 | Act committed between 15 and 18 |
|---|---|---|
| Investigation: 6 months | 3 months | 4.5 months |
| Investigation: 1 year | 6 months | 9 months |
| Special investigation limit: 2 years with extension | 1 year | 1 year 6 months |
| Offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, total 1 year 6 months | 9 months | 13.5 months |
| Other offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, total 5 years | 2 years 6 months | 3 years 9 months |
| Special offence group, total 7 years | 3 years 6 months | 5 years 3 months |
The table is for comparison. The actual end date of fractional months must be determined from the start date and the calendar calculation. The reduction must not be applied only to the final total while the basic period and the extension stages are overlooked; all periods in Article 102 are assessed. The conflict on collective offences in the investigation stage is considered together with the corresponding reduction for children.
The prohibition on detention is examined before the time calculation
Article 21 of the Child Protection Law (No. 5395) prohibits ordering pretrial detention of children under 15 years of age for acts that call for a prison sentence not exceeding five years. In such a case, the fact that the reduced period has not yet expired does not make the detention lawful. The criminal responsibility conditions of the child and other child-specific safeguards are also assessed. 2
The general prohibition under CMK 100/4 must also not be overlooked: as a rule, pretrial detention may not be ordered for offences that call only for a judicial fine or whose maximum prison sentence does not exceed two years. The exception to the prison-sentence limit concerns offences against bodily integrity committed intentionally; this exception cannot be extended to all negligent injury and negligent homicide offences. 1
How is detention time calculated?
The counter does not restart for the investigation and the prosecution
The calculation involves two controls: where the investigation has not ended, the limit in Article 102/4; and the total limit in Article 102/1–2. Acceptance of the indictment does not erase earlier detention. Sending the file to another court or changing its file number alone does not create a new period.
Hypothetical example: A person in an offence outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction is held for five months during the investigation. When the indictment is accepted and the conditions for extension are also met, the theoretical remaining maximum is 13 months out of the 18-month total. The calculation is not "five months of investigation plus 18 months of prosecution again." Moreover, there is no right to use all 13 months; release conditions are examined at every stage. 1
Why must the dates of apprehension and custody be recorded?
Apprehension, police custody (gözaltı) and pretrial detention are separate measures. Nevertheless, in calculating the deprivation of liberty, wholly excluding the initial apprehension or custody date may produce an erroneous result. In the Murat Narman decision, the Constitutional Court (AYM) took as the basis for the statutory upper limit the start of custody before the detention order. In the assessment of reasonable time, too, the date on which the person was first apprehended or taken into custody is considered; where the person was detained directly, the date of detention is considered. 3, §§54, 66
The chronology should therefore show both the first deprivation of liberty and the detention order. Where a period of release intervenes, or where there is detention or enforcement on another charge or from another file, it is also wrong to add all periods together as a single uninterrupted detention. Which period is linked to which legal reason must be separated by documents.
First-instance conviction and the appeal stage
According to the approach the Constitutional Court adopted in the Şükrü Aydın decision, detention after a first-instance conviction is detention following a judgment (hükme bağlı tutma), even if the judgment is not yet final. This period is separated from the CMK 102 calculation made for detention on the charge. Accordingly, a calculation that directly adds the whole period spent on appeal (istinaf) or on appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) to the detention before first instance is inconsistent with this case law. 4, §§41–43 A related article on appeal in criminal proceedings may also be consulted.
This approach is criticised in legal scholarship. Önder Tozman opposes the distinction between detention following a judgment and detention until the proceedings become final, in terms of the legal basis for restricting liberty. The criticism may be raised in a defence, but it cannot be presented as an already binding rule that replaces the existing judicial calculation approach. Excluding the appeal stage from the Article 102 calculation does not mean that the restriction of liberty in that period is lawful in every case. 8, pp. 310–315
Are earlier periods erased after reversal?
No. When the conviction is quashed (bozma) and the person is detained again on the basis of the charge, the period after the reversal is added to the calculation. Detention that fell within the calculation before the reversal is preserved; a new five- or seven-year period does not start from zero. By contrast, a referral back to remedy a deficiency in the file, which is not a reversal in nature, may not produce the same result. 4
Hypothetical example: If 20 months pass until the first judgment, 8 months pass between the conviction and the reversal, and 10 months pass after the reversal until the new judgment, then under the case-law approach described, the relevant total is 20 + 10 = 30 months. The 8 months in between have a separate legal review. This example assumes that there is no enforcement on another file and no release.
The practical importance of the Şükrü Aydın decision lies here: despite the long calendar interval, the Constitutional Court separated the conviction and reversal periods, calculated the relevant period as 2 years, 6 months and 11 days, and found the complaint that the statutory limit had been exceeded clearly unfounded. A petition that shows only the total calendar time spent in prison does not address this distinction. 4, §§46–49
Is a separate upper limit applied to each offence in the same file?
In proceedings conducted in the same file or in joined files, separate maximum periods cannot be added up for each charge. As the Constitutional Court explained in the Murat Narman decision, the number of offences and accused persons may matter in assessing the complexity of the proceedings; however, the number of offences cannot justify multiplying the statutory upper limit. 3, §§49–50
For example, the presence of three separate charges in a single file under the general five-year regime does not raise the upper limit to 15 years. Whether the special seven-year regime applies is determined separately according to the nature of the offence. Where there is detention on an independent charge in another file, or enforcement of a final sentence, a release order in one file may not mean that the person actually leaves prison. The release warrant and the grounds of any other restrictions on liberty must be checked together.
Is release possible before the upper limit is reached?
The statutory maximum and reasonable time are separate reviews
Even where the statutory period has not been exceeded, detention may have become unnecessary or disproportionate. Strong suspicion based on concrete evidence, the grounds for detention and proportionality are assessed together. Decisions to continue detention and to reject a release request must justify these conditions with concrete facts. At the first detention request, it must also be explained why judicial control (adli kontrol) would be insufficient. 1, Arts. 100–101 For the details of the subject, see the article on objection to detention and request for release.
The existence of collected evidence, the hearing of witnesses, the state of health, a fixed residence and the available judicial control options may matter depending on the file. A fixed address alone does not always require release, and the gravity of the charge alone does not justify unlimited detention. The defence must directly address the concrete risk of flight or interference with evidence on which the decision rests.
In the Murat Narman decision, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the statutory upper limit is not an indicator of reasonable time, and that even a shorter detention may constitute a violation of rights. The importance of the decision is that it does not confine the defence to the debate "five years have not yet elapsed." 3, §§50, 61–72
The thirty-day review is not a new maximum period
Under CMK 108, during the investigation, detention is reviewed by the criminal judgeship of peace at intervals not exceeding thirty days; the suspect or defence counsel is heard. The suspect may also request a review within this period. In the trial, the court assesses detention at every hearing and, when circumstances require, between hearings, within the same period. 1
This review schedule does not create a new total detention right every thirty days. Timely decisions on review and compliance with the limit in Article 102 are separate obligations. Meeting both conditions also does not remove the need for concrete and sufficient reasons.
How are objections to detention and release requests made?
A release request does not wait for the upper limit to expire
The suspect or accused may request release at every stage of the investigation and the prosecution. During the investigation, the procedure runs before the criminal judgeship of peace; during the trial, before the court hearing the case. When the file reaches the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation, the request is examined by the relevant chamber or by the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu). If the public prosecutor finds detention unnecessary during the investigation, they may use their authority under CMK 103. 1, Arts. 103–104
Under CMK 105, a three-day decision period generally applies to the relevant requests. For offences committed within the framework of organisational activity, the period is seven days; the request in the first sentence of Article 103/1 falls outside this extended period. These decision periods must not be confused with the period for objection. The general rule on obtaining views outside a hearing and the special extension procedure in Article 102/3 should likewise not be treated as the same. 1
The current objection period is two weeks
Under CMK 268/1, the general period for objection is two weeks from learning of the decision. The amendment applies to decisions given on or after June 1, 2024; earlier decisions are subject to the transitional provision. Therefore, the "seven days" information in older texts should not be used for current decisions. The date of learning must be determined together with the reasoning and the notification and service documents. 1, Art. 268; Provisional Art. 6
An objection is made by petition or by a statement recorded in the minutes, before the authority that issued the decision. If that authority does not find the objection well-founded, it sends the objection to the competent objection authority within three days at the latest. For objections against detention and judicial control decisions of the criminal judgeship of peace, review is carried out by a judge of the criminal court of first instance under Article 268/3-b. For other decisions, the relevant paragraph of Article 268/3 applies according to the court that issued the decision. For more information, see the article on house arrest and judicial control.
Filing an objection does not automatically suspend the decision. An objection filed in time and a release request, which may be made at any stage, are different remedies. Using one does not automatically eliminate the conditions of the other, nor the individual application periods that begin to run. 1, Arts. 104, 269
Documents that strengthen the petition
- Apprehension and custody records; detention, continuation and extension orders.
- The date of acceptance of the indictment; first-instance judgments, reversal decisions and release records.
- Documents showing the dates of service, notification and learning; earlier objections and their results.
- Documents confirming the nature of the offence and the age on the date of the act; detention and enforcement records in other files.
- Documents on the state of the collected evidence, and residence, health or other documents supporting the concrete ground for release.
The petition should not state only the total number of days. It should show which interval is counted, which interval is excluded and why, which upper limit applies, and the result sought. If the counter-argument "the period has not expired" is raised, the grounds of reasonable time and proportionality must also be addressed; if the argument "there are other charges as well" is raised, the principle that periods cannot be multiplied within the same file must also be met.
Can judicial control be applied once the period has expired?
Release is not the end of the case
When the maximum period expires, detention cannot normally continue on the same legal basis. However, release is not an acquittal or the end of the prosecution. The proceedings may continue, and under CMK 109/7, judicial control may be applied to a person released because of the upper limit. The type and severity of judicial control must also suit the concrete need. 1
Measures such as a signature obligation, a travel ban or an obligation not to leave the residence differ from one another in intensity. The time regime of judicial control itself is set out in Article 110/A. The fact that the detention limit has expired does not allow the conclusion that all judicial control measures may continue indefinitely.
The exception for re-detention on breach of judicial control
The important exception is in CMK 112/2. A person who deliberately fails to comply with the obligations of judicial control imposed because the maximum detention period has expired may be detained again. In such a case, the period of detention may be at most nine months for offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction and at most two months for other offences. 1
This provision is not an ordinary extension automatically added to the five- or seven-year limit. First comes judicial control because of the upper limit; then a deliberate breach of the obligations and the related judicial assessment are required. Where there is an illness or an unavoidable obstacle, documenting the excuse and the notifications is therefore important. Not every violation automatically results in new detention.
Which remedies exist for unlawful detention?
The ground for compensation and the distinction of authority
Exceeding the statutory limit may serve as a basis for a compensation claim under CMK 141/1-a. Failure to bring the case before the judicial authority within a reasonable time, or failure to render judgment within that time, is also assessed under Article 141/1-d. In its decision dated December 22, 2022, numbered E.2017/862, K.2022/829, the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) accepted the right to compensation in a case where, after the relevant periods were separated, the five-year limit had been exceeded. That five-year calculation does not mean there is a single limit for all current categories of offences. 5
The competent authority depends on the legal basis of the claim. Under the current system of CMK 142, claims under Article 141/1-a and d are brought before the heavy penal court; specific claims under subparagraphs e, f and l are brought before the Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonu). For example, a claim based only on acquittal or on a finding that no prosecution is warranted should not be merged with the claim that detention was unlawful from the outset, or unlawful because the time limit was exceeded. Where these claims are raised together, they may need to be separated. 1, Arts. 141–142
The general period under CMK 142/1 is three months from service of the decision or judgment on the person concerned, becoming final, and in every case one year from finality. Nevertheless, not every ground of compensation requires waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings; the nature of an independent unlawfulness, such as the expiry of a time limit, is assessed separately. For transitional purposes, the amendments to Article 142 apply to claims made on or after June 1, 2024. The route and the period should be selected by determining the ground of the claim together with the decision dates. 1 5 For a detailed explanation, the article on appeal on points of law in criminal cases is useful.
Individual application to the Constitutional Court
For an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), exhaustion of ordinary and effective remedies and the thirty-day application period are important. In ongoing detention, the remedies to be exhausted for a request for release may differ from those for detention that has ended, where the remedy is redress. Whether a compensation remedy is effective is assessed according to the subject of the complaint and whether detention is continuing. 3–4 9
It is not always correct to wait for all stages of the criminal case to finish before complaining about detention. A change in the nature of the detention through a first-instance conviction may affect the application period for the earlier period. The result of the objection and the date of learning should be recorded; the thirty-day period must not be automatically tied to the date on which the "criminal file became final." In this connection, the article on first hearing in criminal proceedings may also be read.
Application to the European Court of Human Rights
For an application to the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), exhaustion of effective domestic remedies is required and, as a rule, the four-month period runs from the final domestic decision. Which remedy is effective depends on the subject of the application, and the start of the period is assessed separately. Applying to the Constitutional Court or to the European Court of Human Rights does not mean that release has been ordered automatically. 10
How should a time-limit review be set up for a specific file?
The first step is to combine the prison records and the court decisions in a single chronology. Each period should then be given its legal character: custody, detention on a charge, detention following a judgment, enforcement on another file, or release. A conclusion produced by an automated calculator without this distinction is not sufficient on its own. For a separate assessment of the subject, see the article on crediting detention and custody periods against sentence.
| Check | What to look for in the file |
|---|---|
| Which period regime applies? | The statutory provision charged, the competent court, and whether the offence is a special or collective offence |
| Which age ratio applies? | The date of the act and the date of birth |
| Which periods are counted? | Dates of the first deprivation of liberty, acceptance, judgment, reversal, release and enforcement |
| Is the extension procedure correct? | Justification of necessity and the views required under Article 102/3 |
| Is there an earlier basis for release? | Current evidence situation, concrete risk and judicial control options |
| Which remedy, and when? | Date of learning, result of the objection, and the type of compensation or individual application |
At the end of this work, the result should not be merely "the period has or has not expired"; the verifiable basis of the calculation should emerge. If there is a contradictory date, the relevant record should be requested rather than the uncertainty being concealed in the petition. Especially in files that have been reversed, a difference of even a few days can affect both release and the application period.
Conclusion
Review of maximum detention rests on selecting the correct upper limit for the category of offence, not treating the investigation period as an additional period on top of the total, and separating every period of detention by its legal character. Automatically placing a collective offence in the seven-year regime, using the current age for children, or resetting the calculation through reversal are serious errors.
A defence does not rely on the calendar calculation alone. The necessity of detention, the reasoning of the decisions, the adequacy of the extension procedure and whether lighter measures would be sufficient must also be examined. If the limit has been exceeded, release follows; depending on its conditions, the compensation and individual application routes are also assessed. Since each route has a different purpose, authority and period, a single chronology based on documents is the starting point for preventing loss of rights. On this subject, the article on unlawful detention and custody compensation may also be reviewed.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long can pretrial detention last at most?
For adults, the general totals, including extensions, are 18 months, 5 years, or 7 years for the special offence group. Investigation limits are shorter. Age reductions, the periods of conviction and reversal, and the exception for breach of judicial control are assessed separately.
Is the period spent in the investigation deducted from the total?
Yes. A period spent in the investigation and included in the calculation forms part of the total. Acceptance of the indictment does not start a new 18-month, 5-year or 7-year period.
Is the upper limit seven years in every file where there are three persons?
No. The collective offence provision appears in the investigation limit. For the seven-year total, the offence must separately fall within the special group in CMK 102/2. The 18-to-24-month relationship for collective offences outside the heavy penal court's jurisdiction is also debated.
If a child turns 18 during the proceedings, does the reduction end?
CMK 102/5 takes the age on the date the act was committed. Growing older during the proceedings does not change this criterion. The prohibition on detaining children and the conditions of criminal responsibility are also examined first.
Is it correct to leave the date of custody out of the calculation?
Not in every case. In the calculation approach set out by the Constitutional Court, the date of the first apprehension or custody matters. The records and the detention order should be considered together, and periods of release or periods based on another legal ground should be separated.
Does detention time restart when the Court of Cassation quashes a judgment?
A reversal does not erase detention that fell within the earlier calculation. Post-reversal detention on the charge is added to the relevant earlier periods. The legal character of the period between the conviction and the reversal is assessed separately.
Can release be requested before the upper limit is reached?
Yes. The cessation of the grounds for detention, insufficiency of the reasoning, the exceeding of a reasonable time, or judicial control becoming sufficient may justify a request for release before the upper limit is reached.
Is the objection period to a detention order seven days or two weeks?
For decisions given on or after June 1, 2024, the general period is two weeks from learning of the decision. Older decisions are assessed under the transitional provision and the amendment in force at the time.
Can a person released because of the maximum period be detained again?
CMK 112/2 specifically regulates the case in which a person deliberately fails to comply with the obligations of judicial control imposed for that reason. If its conditions are met, detention of at most nine months for offences within the heavy penal court's jurisdiction, or two months for other offences, is possible. It is not an automatic additional period.
Can compensation be claimed without an acquittal?
Compensation is not limited to acquittal. Independent unlawfulness, such as detention exceeding the statutory limit, may also be a basis. The ground of the claim, whether finality is required, the competent authority and the application period must be determined together.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu): Arts. 2, 100–105, 108–112, 141–142, 267–269 and Provisional Art. 6. Consolidated text published by the Ministry of Justice.
- Child Protection Law No. 5395 (5395 sayılı Çocuk Koruma Kanunu): Art. 21. TBMM adopted text; text of Art. 21.
- Constitutional Court, Murat Narman: Application No. 2012/1137, July 2, 2013; in particular §§46–54, 61–72. Full text of the decision — De Jure.
- Constitutional Court, Şükrü Aydın: Application No. 2015/10260, December 11, 2018; in particular §§32–33, 39–49. Full text of the decision — De Jure.
- Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: E.2017/862, K.2022/829, December 22, 2022. Full text of the decision — De Jure.
- Ersan Şen: “Tutuklulukta Geçen Süreler ve Toplu Olarak İşlenen Asliye Cezalık Suçlarda Azami Tutukluluk Süresi” (Periods of Detention and the Maximum Detention Period for Collectively Committed Offences Within the Criminal Court of First Instance), March 25, 2026. Article.
- Ersan Şen, Beyza Başer Berkün, Ertekin Aksüt: “Tutuklulukta Geçecek Azami Süreler” (Maximum Periods of Detention to Be Served), May 7, 2026. Article.
- Önder Tozman: “Kanuna Aykırı Bir Uygulama: Hükmen Tutukluluk Hakkında Değerlendirmeler” (An Unlawful Practice: Assessments on Detention Following a Judgment), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 74(1), 2025, pp. 273–318. Article PDF.
- Constitutional Court: “Süre Aşımı” (Expiry of the Time Limit), admissibility statement in individual applications. Official statement.
- European Court of Human Rights: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria; domestic remedies and the four-month period. Official guide.
- Starting-point source for the topic: Önder Yaman, “Azami Tutukluluk Süreleri” (Maximum Detention Periods), October 11, 2026. Hukuki Haber. The distinctions between collective offences and total periods have been separately assessed above against the legislation.