In a dispute about camera use in a prison, the first question is not simply whether a camera exists. It must be established which area is monitored, whether images or sound are recorded, how long recordings are kept, who can access them and on which legal authority the practice rests. Real-time observation of a common corridor and the systematic recording of a family visit are not the same interference. An effective application ties these distinctions to the date of the incident and to the status of the person concerned.
The security of a penal enforcement institution is a legitimate aim. However, a security purpose does not by itself make every interference with privacy lawful. The Constitutional Court's decision in Murat Koçyiğit shows the importance of a legal basis and of recording safeguards, while the decision in Gökhan Gündüz (8) shows that a privacy complaint must be raised through the correct remedy. [1] [5] [6]
How far is private life protected in prison?
Deprivation of liberty does not mean that private life ends altogether. Article 20 of the Constitution protects private and family life, and Article 13 sets out the conditions under which fundamental rights may be restricted. The supervision required by the prison environment is assessed by reference to its effect on a person's intimate spaces and on their relationships with close relatives. Purposes such as physical security, the prevention of violence and the clarification of incidents are important; the scope of the method used, however, must also be justified separately. [1] [5] For more on this subject, see the article on religious practice and freedom of worship in prison.
There is a legal difference between monitoring and recording
An officer's real-time view of movements in an area, the recording of images, the recording of sound together with images, and the transfer of a recording to other authorities are separate operations. Each may create a new use and a new privacy risk. For this reason, the explanation that "the camera was installed for security" is not, on its own, enough to assess every stage. The scope of any recording and its purpose of use must be set out separately in the file.
The absence of sound recording does not mean that a video recording contains no personal information. Family relations, visitors and conduct can be understood from images. In the Murat Koçyiğit decision, the fact that the open-visit camera did not record sound did not remove the finding of interference with private and family life. [5]
Common areas and private areas are not the same
Monitoring a corridor, a ventilation area or a sports ground for security purposes and filming a bed, toilet or bathroom carry very different weight. The fact that a camera is physically located in a common area is not, in itself, a sufficient explanation; what matters is whether its field of view covers the inside of a room or a private part. An application must describe the location of the camera as well as the area it films.
In its official statement, the Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses says that cameras are used in common areas and that private areas are not monitored. This statement is a general declaration of administrative practice. If there is a claim that a different viewing angle exists in a particular institution, it cannot be replaced by a general statement; the general declaration and the technical determination of the incident must be kept apart. [8]
The current statutory rule on visit recordings
Recording of visits after June 2021
The fourth paragraph of Article 83 of Law No. 5275, added in 2021, concerns the listening to and recording of visits for certain categories of convicted prisoners. The scope covers persons held in a closed penal enforcement institution who have been convicted of the terrorism or organization-related offences listed in the article, and prisoners who are in a dangerous situation or whose communication with the outside is considered dangerous for the security of the institution. Application is subject to prior notice. The purposes are set out as public order, the security of persons and society and of the institution, and the prevention of crime. [2]
The phrase used in the provision is "closed penal enforcement institution" (kapalı ceza infaz kurumu). This must not be confused with a visit held as a "closed visit" (kapalı görüş). The scope of the rule cannot be determined from the name of the type of visit alone; the person's status, the nature of the visit and the act relied on are examined together. For detainees, the rule in Article 116 of Law No. 5275 is also considered, to the extent that it applies, together with the concrete status of the person.
Purpose, sharing and deletion of recordings
Under Article 83(4) of Law No. 5275, recordings may not be used for any purpose other than the one for which they were made, and they may not be shared with persons or institutions except in the cases expressly set out in the law. Recordings that have not become the subject of an investigation or prosecution are deleted at the latest after one year; the deletion is supervised by the public prosecutor. This period must not be presented as a single, general retention rule applicable to every prison camera. The provision concerns visit recordings within its own scope. [2]
Where a recording is said to be retained because of an ongoing investigation, the file to which it is connected must be examined. On the other hand, it cannot be concluded that all recordings must be kept for one year; the provision sets an upper limit for recordings that have not become the subject of an investigation or prosecution. The necessity of the retention purpose and the other safeguards of the practice are assessed separately.
A general security provision is not an unlimited authority
Article 9 of Law No. 5275 describes the technical and electronic security features of high-security institutions. However, in a particular privacy interference it is also important whether safeguards exist as to which information may be recorded and under what conditions. The fact that an institution is high-security does not disclose all the features of its recording system. The legality review in the Murat Koçyiğit decision was built on this distinction. [2] [5]
How is the lawfulness of a specific camera examined?
| Subject of review | Question to be clarified |
|---|---|
| Area monitored | Does the camera film a common area, or the inside of a room or a private part? |
| Type of operation | Is it real-time monitoring, image recording, sound recording or a combination of these? |
| Authority and scope | Which law and which individual decision are being applied? |
| Retention and access | How many days is the recording kept, and who has access to it? |
| Use and sharing | For what purpose is the recording used, and to which file or authority is it transferred? |
Is a less intrusive measure possible?
In a concrete case, it can be discussed whether the security need could be met by narrowing the camera's angle, masking a private area, replacing recording with monitoring, or limiting access. These are not a single list of solutions that must be applied in every file. The aim is to make the protection sought technically understandable and reviewable. The Constitutional Court has pointed to the importance of safeguards that prevent resort to a recording measure where a lighter tool can achieve the same result, given the weight of the recording operation. [5]
The personal data protection dimension
When Law No. 6698 is considered, the exceptions set out in Article 28 of that law must be examined together with the nature of the operation. It cannot be said in advance that the same KVKK application route will apply to every recording operation in a prison, or that all operations fall entirely outside its scope. The procedure must not be chosen before the authority carrying out the specific operation, its purpose and its legal basis have been identified. The constitutional privacy safeguards are kept in view independently of this debate about exceptions. [1] [7]
For this reason, turning a privacy complaint into a general personal data application alone may lead to the missing of time limits relating to the enforcement judgeship. The relationship between the same incident and the different legal routes must be established; the fact that an application to one authority interrupts the other periods must not be assumed.
Constitutional Court decisions and the limits of their application
The problem of legal basis in the Murat Koçyiğit decision
In its decision of 30 April 2025 in application no. 2020/36021, Murat Koçyiğit, the Constitutional Court dealt with the recording of an open visit by camera. The enforcement judgeship had rejected the complaint, taking into account the security of the institution and the fact that the cameras did not record sound. The Constitutional Court emphasised that systematic recording must be governed by law, and that the safeguards which prevent arbitrariness must also be set out in law. [5]
The decision found that the legislation in force on the date of the incident did not regulate with sufficient clarity the conditions under which open visits could be systematically monitored, listened to and recorded by technical means. It found a violation of the right to respect for private and family life, ordered a retrial, and awarded 10,000 Turkish lira (TL) in non-pecuniary damages. Because the requirement of legality was not met, the other criteria for restriction were not examined separately.
The decision date and the incident date must not be confused
The fact that this decision was given in 2025 does not mean that the rule added in 2021 has been treated as invalid. The Constitutional Court expressly stated that the fourth paragraph of Article 83 entered into force on 25 June 2021, after the complaint, and that it could not be used as the basis for assessing the legality of the concrete incident. An application that relies on this decision in a current dispute must therefore separately discuss its own incident date and the new provision that may apply. [5]
Nor can it be concluded from the decision that all prison cameras are prohibited, or that current visit recordings are lawful without conditions. The principal contribution of the decision is that it requires a link to be drawn between the technical nature of the interference and the legal safeguards. How the later rule has been applied to a particular person is a separate question for examination.
Exhaustion of remedies in the Gökhan Gündüz decision
In the Constitutional Court's decision in Gökhan Gündüz (8) (application no. 2018/13363, 21 December 2022), the complaint that a camera placed in the yard recorded the inside of a dormitory was declared inadmissible because the complaint route to the enforcement judgeship had not been exhausted. In that section, the Court did not decide on the merits whether the camera was lawful. [6]
In the same decision, there was a violation in respect of a separate claim concerning the right to be present at a hearing. It would be wrong to present this second result as though it belonged to the camera complaint. The decision shows that different rights claims within the same application may be subject to separate procedural and merits assessments. For a detailed explanation, the article on health and the right to treatment in prison may be useful.
What records should a complaint file contain?
The location and field of view of the camera must be explained
The applicant should describe which corridor, wall or yard the camera is in, its relationship to the room door or window, and the area the applicant believes is being filmed. Where the technical angle is not known, it should be stated clearly that this is not certain information, and an on-site inspection, a technical examination or the production of the institution's records should be requested. Interfering with the security system, recording without permission or possessing a prohibited device must not be treated as a method of gathering evidence.
The administration's response on the existence of the image, camera placement information, notice given to the person and the decision on the procedure may all be important. Unnecessary private information about third parties should not be piled into the file, so that the application remains understandable. The document should state which claim it is submitted to prove.
Stopping an unlawful recording and preserving evidence must be kept apart
A person may ask both for the end of a recording they consider a violation of their privacy and for the preservation of footage that could shed light on an earlier allegation of ill-treatment. These requests need not contradict each other. The retention by the competent authority of a recording covering a specific date and time range, and the limitation of the future scope of filming, may be written as separate requests.
For example, a demand that "all images be deleted immediately" may lead to the loss of evidence needed in the same file. Lawful preservation of recordings, restriction of access, examination of the relevant sections and deletion of unnecessary data must be separated according to the concrete aim. This is not an automatic request template, but a relationship to be considered when preparing the file. For this topic, the article on body searches in prison and the protection of human dignity may also be examined.
Filing and objection deadlines
Complaint to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği)
Under Law No. 4675, a complaint about an institutional act or practice must be raised within fifteen days from the date it is learned of and, in any event, within thirty days from the date it occurred. In a continuing recording practice, the start of the period and the act or refusal decision being challenged must be specified. It must not be assumed that submitting the same petition again to the administration will necessarily revive the expired remedy periods. [3]
If the complaint is accepted, decisions may be made to annul the act, or to halt or suspend the activity. A complaint does not by itself produce a stay. Where a clear violation of law exists together with a consequence that is difficult or impossible to remedy, interim protection may be requested. Requests that can be technically applied make it easier for the court to assess the problem.
Objection to the heavy penal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) and the Constitutional Court
An objection may be made against a decision of the enforcement judgeship within two weeks of its notification. The competent heavy penal court and the procedure for the application must be checked against the legal remedy notice in the decision and against Law No. 4675 together. At this stage the earlier petition should not simply be repeated; it should explain which decisive technical or legal point the court did not assess. [3] For a related topic, the article on access to petitions and to the court in prison may also be read.
For an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the exhaustion of effective ordinary remedies and a period of thirty days from learning of the final decision are the basis. The application should be accompanied by the earlier petitions, decisions, notification records and documents showing the concrete interference. For details of the time limits and competent authorities, the article on applications and objections to the enforcement judgeship may serve as a guide. [4]
Family visits and attorney visits must be kept apart
This article deals with the filming of visiting areas and living spaces. Visits with a lawyer are assessed separately, because of the right to defence and the confidentiality of legal assistance. It is not correct to carry the provision of Article 83 on family visits directly over to attorney visits; Article 59, which governs attorney visits, and the other rules applicable to the concrete file must be examined. [2] For a related discussion, the article on the right to visit a lawyer in prison may also be read.
Likewise, camera footage showing ill-treatment may call for an investigation separate from a privacy complaint. Determining at the outset which application seeks which result helps the file progress before the correct authorities. Within the assessment of legal assistance in enforcement law, the recording, defence and redress claims should therefore be considered together. For detailed information, the article on disciplinary penalties in prison: complaint and objection may be consulted.
Conclusion
In a dispute about cameras in prison, the effective approach is to examine the concrete effect on privacy of a security measure together. Without establishing the location of the camera, the characteristics of the recording, the basis of the measure, and the conditions of retention and sharing, a sound conclusion cannot be reached. Separating the scope of the current legal rule from that of the historic Constitutional Court decisions, and using the necessary remedies on time, form the foundation of legal protection. For a separate discussion of the subject, the article on overcrowded wards and living conditions in prison may be consulted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are all cameras in prison unlawful?
No. Security in common areas and private areas or the recording of visits are assessed differently. The concrete area, the type of interference, the legal basis and the safeguards must be examined together.
Does the absence of sound recording remove the privacy problem?
No. Video recording can also constitute an interference with private and family life. In the Murat Koçyiğit decision, the absence of sound recording did not prevent a finding of violation.
When are visit recordings deleted?
Recordings within the scope of Article 83(4) of Law No. 5275 are deleted at the latest after one year if they have not become the subject of an investigation or prosecution. This rule cannot be applied as a general retention period for every camera system.
Can a camera complaint be brought directly to the Constitutional Court?
As a rule, effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted first. In the Gökhan Gündüz (8) decision, a camera complaint was declared inadmissible because the route to the enforcement judgeship had not been exhausted.
What should be considered before requesting the deletion of a camera recording?
It should be examined whether the recording is needed to prove another rights violation. Protection of a specific recording by the competent authority and limitation of the future recording practice may be separate requests.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), arts. 13, 20, 36 and 40.
- Law No. 5275, especially arts. 9, 59, 83 and 116.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), arts. 4–6.
- Law No. 6216, arts. 45, 47, 48 and 50.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Murat Koçyiğit, Application No. 2020/36021, April 30, 2025, especially §§ 40–52.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Gökhan Gündüz (8), Application No. 2018/13363, December 21, 2022, especially §§ 3–6 and the operative part.
- Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), especially arts. 4, 5 and 28.
- CTE, frequently asked questions, cameras in common living areas, official administrative statement on practice; accessed October 13, 2026.