This review has been prepared on the basis of legislation and Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions accessed on October 13, 2026. It would not be correct to say that the same call duration applies to everyone without seeing the type of institution, the person's status as a pretrial detainee or convicted person, the technical infrastructure, any special security regime and the decisions currently in force.
How are communication and family life protected?
Institutional security and fundamental rights are assessed together
Article 20 of the Constitution protects private and family life, and Article 22 protects freedom of communication. Although the execution of a sentence carries unavoidable restrictions, it remains important for a person to preserve ties with relatives and to have access to the means of defense. The authority relating to institutional security is not an unlimited discretion that allows all communication to be cut off without any explanation. 1 8 In an application, not only the name of the right but also the concrete way in which it is exercised should be explained. It should be shown with whom contact is not possible, when the obstacle began, whether other channels of communication remain open, and what the effect is on the family or on the defense. Being unable to make one telephone call and the prolonged closure of all communication channels may not call for the same assessment.
Why is the position of pretrial detainees separated from that of convicted persons?
For pretrial detainees, restrictions relating to the conduct of the investigation or the trial may also arise. Articles 114 and 115 of Law No. 5275 regulate this framework; Article 116 provides that the listed provisions apply to the extent that they are compatible with pretrial detention. For this reason, an institution's disciplinary decision and a decision of a prosecutor, judge or court relating to the judicial process should not be treated as the same act. 1
In determining the competent authority and the procedure for an application, it should be examined who imposed the restriction, the legal basis of the decision and the person's status. The special safeguards concerning a pretrial detainee's communication with defense counsel and the provisions of special laws must also be taken into account.
How are telephone calls made in prison?
The general arrangement in closed institutions
Under Article 66 of Law No. 5275, convicted persons in closed institutions may speak by paid telephones under the control of the administration; the calls are listened to and recorded. Article 74 of the Enforcement Regulation provides for calls, subject to documentation, with the spouse, blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the fourth degree, and the guardian. The telephone call form, the number and the details of the family relationship must be reported correctly. 1 2
The standard arrangement provides for an uninterrupted call once a week, not exceeding ten minutes from the moment the call begins. If the call cannot take place, there is access to another number reported in advance. Days and times are determined taking into account the number of telephones in the institution, the order of applications and security conditions. 2
An incorrectly recorded number, failure to document the ownership of the line, or a list that has not been updated after a transfer may create a technical problem. In such a case, it should first be requested that it be determined in writing which record is missing. An unexplained technical problem should not be turned into a justification that makes an indefinite lack of communication the norm.
Video calls and the thirty-minute regime
In institutions that have infrastructure suitable for video calls and that are designated by the Ministry, the weekly duration is thirty minutes. An additional thirty minutes is added to the following week's telephone time for those who do not use their weekly visit right; this additional time cannot be transferred. The regular time may be divided into calls not exceeding three in total; three more calls are allowed for the additional thirty minutes. The call may be made by video and audio, or by audio only. 2
For juvenile convicted persons and for women convicted persons with a child in the zero-to-six age group, the durations in this paragraph are applied at double. There are also separate provisions for additional calls on religious holidays and for certain offense or security statuses. The general statement “thirty minutes of video calls a week for everyone in every prison” therefore goes beyond the scope of the regulation. 2
Open institutions and special statuses
For open institutions and juvenile education centers there is a separate arrangement on speaking freely by paid telephones. By contrast, for dangerous convicted persons, aggravated life imprisonment and certain organized offenses, special rules apply as to duration, group of persons and video calls. The general duration should not be assumed without seeing the decision of the relevant administration and observation board and the paragraph being applied. 1 2 The telephone right within the institution is not a permit to have third persons, who have no right to a call over the reported line, join the call, or to keep a mobile telephone. The prohibitions in the law and the disciplinary provisions may also apply. For a person facing technical access problems, the solution is to ask for the record and the decision to be corrected rather than to circumvent the rules. 1
The right to letters, fax and electronic correspondence
Letters may be inspected; withholding must be reasoned
Article 68 of the Law regulates the right to receive and send letters, faxes and telegrams. In institutions with the necessary technical infrastructure, electronic mail is also provided for. General inspection is carried out by the letter-reading commission or, in an institution without a commission, by the highest-ranking official. Restriction is possible with regard to content that endangers institutional security, leads to communication of a particular criminal organization, contains threats and insults, or is otherwise specified by law. 1
However, describing a piece of correspondence as “objectionable” is not sufficient reasoning. It must be explained which part gives rise to which statutory objection and why it was withheld. The application file should contain the whole letter, the envelope, the dispatch record, the board decision and the notification. Quoting only part of the text may make it harder to understand the context.
Correspondence to official authorities and to the lawyer for the defense
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 68, letters, faxes and telegrams that a convicted person sends to official authorities or to his or her lawyer for the purpose of defense are not subject to inspection. Postal or, on request, electronic transmission has been arranged with measures that prevent access by anyone other than the recipient. This protection should not be extended to the position that all correspondence has the same status without the recipient and the defense purpose being stated. 1 Special provisions on face-to-face meetings with a lawyer and on documents exchanged in those meetings are set out separately in Article 59. The legal bases of the correspondence, visit and telephone channels should not be merged under a single heading of “lawyer meeting.”
The power to record and retain is not unlimited
The Law permits the digital recording or physical retention, for the stated purposes, of the correspondence of persons in particular offense or danger statuses. Use outside the purpose and sharing outside the cases expressly permitted by law are prohibited. Records that are not made the subject of an investigation or prosecution are to be deleted or destroyed at the latest at the end of one year; protected correspondence under the fourth paragraph is outside this arrangement. 1
In a communication file, not only the non-delivery of a letter but also the recording, retention or sharing of its content with others may give rise to different complaints. It must be clearly determined which act is unlawful.
The right to visits: who may meet, and for how long?
Relatives and other persons notified
The general rule provides for visits by the spouse, blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the third degree, the guardian or trustee, and up to three persons notified under the statutory conditions. Details of kinship and identity are documented. The written permission route provided by law for other persons not on the list is assessed separately. It cannot be assumed that every visitor may be admitted to the institution under all conditions. 1 3 The regulation addresses the changing of the three notified persons, including mandatory circumstances and situations such as not coming to visit within six months of the last visit. It therefore cannot be said that the list can never be changed under any circumstances. Concrete reasons such as a transfer, a serious illness or a change of place of residence should be explained with documents. 3
Open and closed visit durations
A closed visit is one in which physical contact is prevented, and an open visit is one in which contact is possible. The general arrangement provides for one visit a week, with one week that the institution considers suitable being an open visit and the other weeks of the month closed visits. For adults, the general duration may not be less than half an hour or more than an hour and a half; for children, it is set at between one and three hours. The duration runs from the actual start of the visit. 1 3
There are special provisions for certain offenses, under which an open visit may be held once every two months, and for aggravated life imprisonment, with fifteen-day intervals. Holiday and special-day visits are also subject to their own arrangement. The calendar announced by the institution should be checked together with the person's legal status. 3
Adaptations for child and disabled visitors
If a disability determined by a health board report is not suited to a closed visit, an open visit may be held by decision of the administration and observation board; where deemed necessary, the accompaniment of another person who has a right to visit may be permitted. The visit of convicted persons and pretrial detainees who have a child in formal education may also be considered for the weekend, taking into account personnel, security and capacity. 3
For these possibilities, the concrete effect of the disability or of the school routine should be shown. For example, where a schedule would require the child to be absent from school constantly, a school certificate and the travel time may be submitted together. The adaptation requested should be written out clearly; a vague phrase such as “a suitable day should be given” should not be relied on alone.
Why is meeting with a lawyer protected separately?
A defense meeting is not a social visit
For a convicted person's meeting with a lawyer, the general rule is an environment in which what is said cannot be heard but, for security reasons, may be seen. There are confidentiality safeguards for the meeting and the documents. A convicted person may meet with a lawyer up to three times without a power of attorney; the regime for a pretrial detainee's meeting with defense counsel is assessed separately. 1 3
It is not correct to apply the duration or list restrictions on family visits automatically to a lawyer meeting. At the same time, the idea that communication with a lawyer may always be unlimited over every channel cannot be drawn from the general principle of confidentiality alone. It must be identified whether the request concerns a face-to-face meeting, a telephone call or defense correspondence.
Exceptional restrictions are reviewed separately
The fifth and following paragraphs of Article 59 of the Law regulate special measures that may be applied, in particular offenses and under conditions of concrete information, findings or documents, at the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and by decision of the enforcement judge. The institution's general security reasoning and the special judicial decision requirement in the law therefore cannot be substituted for one another. The basis, duration, extension and route of objection of the measure should be examined separately. 1
It should also be shown in the application for which act the defense is necessary. If there is an approaching hearing, a time-limited appeal or a need to review the file, explaining it with a date and documents shows the concrete effect of the obstacle to communication.
How is a restriction on communication or visits reviewed?
Distinguishing a disciplinary penalty, an administrative refusal and a judicial measure
The withholding of a letter because of its content, a disciplinary penalty of deprivation of the means of communication, and a judicial restriction imposed within an investigation are different acts. Likewise, a limitation of a visitor's own right to visit because of the visitor's conduct contrary to the rules should be distinguished from a visit penalty imposed on the convicted person. Preparing a uniform petition without seeing the relevant decision and its basis would not be sufficient. 1 3
In disciplinary penalties, the safeguards of defense, statutory act, duration and reasoning apply. The statutory exceptions to the sanction on communication are also protected. Article 42 contains special protection for necessary communication in the event of the death or serious illness of a mother, father, spouse, child or sibling, and in natural disasters, as well as for relations with the lawyer. The general arrangement on urgent communication is set out separately in Article 66. 1
The enforcement judgeship and objection time limits
Law No. 4675 applies to appropriate complaints about an act or activity of the institution. An application is made to the enforcement judgeship within fifteen days from learning of the act and in any event within thirty days from the act. An objection may be made to the judgeship's decision within two weeks from notification. An application does not provide an automatic stay; where the statutory conditions exist, deferral or a stay is requested separately. 4 A decision given by a judicial authority within an investigation or prosecution, by contrast, must be examined under its own appeal regime. It should not be assumed that the enforcement judgeship can lift all judicial measures. Before an individual application, effective ordinary remedies must be followed and the constitutional claim must have been presented to these authorities. 1 9
What do actual Constitutional Court decisions show?
Sezar Duruk: a UYAP mix-up alone was not sufficient reasoning
In the Sezar Duruk decision of April 21, 2026, the non-delivery of different letters in one envelope, on the ground that recording them under one person's name in UYAP might create confusion, was examined. The AYM stated that no concrete and sufficient objection connected with the content of the letters had been explained, and held that freedom of communication had been violated and ordered a retrial. 5
The importance of the decision is not that it removes the institution's power to inspect correspondence. The convenience of administrative recording and the reasoning for a statutory restriction on communication are different matters. In an application, the content of the letter and the basis of the decision to withhold it should be shown side by side. 5
Semih Akbaş: contact between spouses held in the same institution
In the Semih Akbaş decision of June 18, 2020, the inability of spouses held in pretrial detention in the same institution to have sufficient contact other than by letter for about seven months was examined under the right to respect for family life. The AYM held that the failure to take measures ensuring minimum communication was a violation. Finding no benefit in reconsideration, since a meeting was later arranged and the spouse was released, it awarded non-pecuniary compensation. 6
This result does not mean that all imprisoned spouses held in different cities must be brought together face to face. The premises, security and the communication channels that can be applied are significant in the concrete case. Suitable means should be considered so that the family bond can be maintained. 6
Selçuk Patlar: the application went to the AYM without the ordinary remedy being used
In the Selçuk Patlar decision of July 29, 2025, no information or document was found showing that the enforcement judgeship had been approached concerning the allegation that a telephone call with a lawyer had not been provided. The AYM, seeing no reason that would require this route to be regarded as ineffective, found the relevant complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of remedies. 7
The decision is not a ruling on whether the telephone call request was well founded or unfounded on the merits. In practice, it shows that, after the request made to the institution, the appropriate judicial application must also be followed. The results concerning other allegations about pretrial detention should not be used in place of the reasoning of a communication complaint. 7
What documents are needed for an effective application?
File preparation by type of communication
| Dispute | Records to collect | Concrete effect to explain |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone or video call | Request form, number record, board decision, notice of malfunction | With whom, and for how long, calls could not be made |
| Withholding of a letter | The letter and envelope, dispatch, withholding and notification documents | On what ground the content was prevented |
| Visit refusal or unsuitable day | Visit list, kinship, school and health documents | The actual difficulty for the child, the disabled person or the family |
| Communication with a lawyer | Meeting request, refusal or measure decision, date of the approaching procedure | The effect on defense preparation |
| Time limits and redress | Application receipt, notification, court and objection decisions | Which result is requested for which act |
The request should be stated clearly, for example, delivery of the letter, correction of the number record, adapting the visit day, or lifting of the restriction. Removing an ongoing obstacle and compensating past harm may call for different assessments. It should not be assumed that all consequences of the same event will be resolved automatically by a single application.
At the constitutional review stage, an assessment can be made together with the firm's articles on preparing an individual application to the Constitutional Court and on calculating the thirty-day time limit. The time limit, the date of learning and the exhaustion of ordinary remedies must be checked separately in the concrete file. 9
Conclusion
Protecting communication and visitation rights in prison requires each channel of communication to be handled within its own regulation. A technical deficiency, a disciplinary sanction, a security measure and a problem of access to the defense should be separated, and an application should be made to the appropriate authority with concrete documents and a clear request. Actual Constitutional Court decisions bring together the relationship of the reasoning to the content, the importance of family contact and the timely use of remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a telephone call in prison ten minutes or thirty minutes?
The standard closed-institution arrangement differs from the regime of institutions with technical infrastructure designated by the Ministry. The additional durations of the thirty-minute system and the exceptions for special statuses apply separately. 2
Must one wait for the weekly telephone day in the event of a relative's serious illness?
The law contains provisions on immediate communication in the event of the serious illness or death of the relatives listed and in other urgent situations. The event should be documented and application of the relevant facility requested. 1 2
Can every letter coming to a prison be read?
There is general inspection of letters; protected correspondence sent to official authorities or to the lawyer for the defense is regulated separately. Inspection and non-delivery of a letter are also different acts. 1
Must a family visit be an hour and a half?
An hour and a half is the general upper limit; it does not mean that every visit will necessarily be that long. The general lower limit, the durations for children and special enforcement regimes are examined together. 1 3
Does a disciplinary penalty also remove meetings with a lawyer?
A family or communication disciplinary sanction does not by itself remove the defense relationship with a lawyer. Special measures concerning lawyer meetings are assessed under their own statutory conditions and decision procedure. 1 3
If the institution does not respond, can I apply directly to the Constitutional Court?
As a rule, the appropriate ordinary remedies must be followed. In the Selçuk Patlar decision, a communication complaint was found inadmissible because the enforcement judgeship route had not been used. 7 9
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, in particular Articles 42–44, 59, 66, 68, 83 and 114–116. Legislation Information System.
2. Regulation on the Administration of Penal Institutions and the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, in particular Article 74; telephone and video calls. Legislation Information System.
3. Regulation on Visits to Convicted Persons and Pretrial Detainees, in particular Articles 5 and 9–20; visits, adaptations and lawyer meetings. Legislation Information System.
4. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Articles 4–6. Legislation Information System.
5. Constitutional Court (AYM), Sezar Duruk, Application No. 2022/62476, April 21, 2026, in particular §§13–19 and the operative part. Constitutional Court decision record.
6. Constitutional Court (AYM), Semih Akbaş, Application No. 2017/40441, June 18, 2020, in particular §§31–44 and 51–53. Constitutional Court decision record.
7. Constitutional Court (AYM), Selçuk Patlar, Application No. 2021/38662, July 29, 2025, §§12–16 on the communication complaint and the relevant operative part. Constitutional Court decision record.
8. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 13, 20, 22 and 36. Legislation Information System.
9. Law No. 6216, Articles 45–48. Legislation Information System.