Right to Education and to Sit Exams in Prison

The exercise of the right to education and to sit examinations in prison begins with student registration and continues through coordination between the institution and the educational body. Not every request concerning the education of a convicted person or a detainee is subject to the same rule. A distinction must be drawn between open and closed penal enforcement institutions (ceza infaz kurumu), instruction carried out inside or outside the institution, central examinations and the university’s own examinations. Legal protection requires that a concrete request for participation be built on these distinctions. As a closely related topic, the article petitions and the right of access to court in prison may also be considered.

Article 76 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Kanun) was amended in 2024 by Law No. 7532 (7532 sayılı Kanun). An important element of the current regulation is that certain examinations of eligible students in closed institutions are held online first and, if that is not possible, in person under the supervision of an official of the educational institution. The rules that applied at the time of the events of an older decision should not be applied to current applications without taking the changes into account. [1]

Legal scope of the right to education

Constitutional right and institutional conditions are assessed together

Article 42 of the Constitution guarantees the right to education and learning. Being in a penal enforcement institution does not remove this right entirely. However, the natural consequences of restricting liberty, the security of the institution and the facilities available may be taken into account in the concrete regulation. The approach of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) is that the administration has no unlimited discretionary power over the educational opportunities recognized by law. The administration’s ground for refusal must be examined in relation to the person’s request and the alternatives that could be applied. [2] [5]

Article 75 of Law No. 5275 links education programs to the person’s age, length of sentence, abilities, and economic and cultural situation. Basic education, vocational training and higher education respond to different needs. For example, a need for literacy and participation in a thesis defense cannot be resolved with the same application content. The request must state clearly the education level, the registered program and the action expected. [1]

Application to detainees

Article 116 of Law No. 5275 allows the provisions on education and instruction to be applied to detainees to the extent that they are compatible with the state of detention. For this reason, it cannot be concluded that detainees fall outside the scope merely because the word “convicted” appears in the statutory article. The official statements of the Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü, CTE) on education also address the practice concerning the examinations of convicted persons and detainees together. [1] [7]

In respect of a detainee, the timetable of ongoing proceedings or a temporary transfer to another institution may affect the organization of the examination. In this case, it must be clarified who will carry out the correspondence among the home institution, the institution where the person is temporarily held and the educational body. Documenting a factual obstacle arising from a transfer or a hearing can prevent a later assessment based solely on a record of absence or of not sitting the examination.

Education opportunities in open and closed institutions

Open penal enforcement institution and juvenile education home

Article 76(1) of Law No. 5275 regulates the use of all types of instruction in open institutions and juvenile education homes (çocuk eğitimevi). Paragraph five lists the situations in which benefiting from instruction or taking part in an examination may be prevented: failure, absence, acts requiring a disciplinary penalty provided for by law in the fields of education and examinations, or a program that is not suitable for the institution’s operation in terms of place and time. The ground on which a refusal is based, and the record showing it, must be disclosed. [1]

For example, if absence is cited as the ground, the school’s record, the dates of the absences and the institution’s leave or transfer records are reviewed together. If it is claimed that participation did not take place because of an administrative obstacle, the documents of that obstacle are submitted. A student’s failure to fulfill their own obligations and the institution’s failure to establish coordination in time may lead to different assessments.

Closed penal enforcement institution

Convicted persons in closed institutions are enabled to benefit from the non-formal, external and open education programs that can be provided within the institution. Continuing a formal program opened within the institution depends on discipline, order, security, capacity and the available facilities. The law also provides for priority to be given to those in need, based on criteria such as age, education level, disability and social and economic situation. [1]

This scope is not a general permission regime allowing a person in a closed institution to go to and return from any university of their choice every day. However, where the conditions for a specific program or examination that can be carried out within the institution exist, that request cannot be answered only on the ground that the person is held in a closed institution. The review must focus on where and how the requested activity can be carried out.

Procedure depending on the type of examination

University and vocational qualification examinations

Article 76(3)(a) of Law No. 5275 regulates the examinations in secondary education, associate degree, bachelor’s degree and similar programs, as well as written or oral examinations such as vocational qualification. For convicted persons in closed institutions who meet the necessary conditions under the regulations of the registered educational institution, examinations are held online first, in coordination with the relevant institution. If this is not possible, the option of an in-person examination under the supervision of an official of the educational institution applies. [1]

It is not enough for the file merely to state that the examination will be held over the internet. The university’s letter must explain the examination date, the time window, the system used, the identity verification method, the duration, any camera or microphone requirement and the permitted resources. This allows a discussion of whether a security concern can be addressed by a specific technical measure. For the alternative of an in-person examination, the educational body should also be asked about its ability to assign personnel and to organize it.

Central examinations and open education examinations

The other subparagraph of the third paragraph of the article regulates participation in central examinations and in examinations of open education institutions, at penal enforcement institutions designated as examination centers. It is important to establish whether the person’s institution is an examination center, whether a transfer to another institution is required, and whether the candidate record is created in the correct place. The general examination application date and the procedural timetable requested by the penal enforcement institution for preparation must also be followed separately. [1]

Submitting a petition to the institution’s education department does not mean that all the steps in the educational body’s application system have been completed. It must be determined who will carry out re-registration, examination selection, updating of a photograph or identity information and, if there is one, the fee payment. Procedures in which family or an attorney assists should also be documented in writing, and passwords or personal data should not be passed to unnecessary persons.

Access to computers and course materials

Article 67 of Law No. 5275 makes the use of computers and the internet for educational purposes subject to special conditions. The need for internet access should not be expressed as a request for unlimited internet use. Applicable conditions, such as the course or examination system requested, the days of access and supervision by an official, should be stated. Although there are restrictions linked to certain groups of offenses or to dangerousness assessments, their effect on the concrete request and the current Article 76 provision should be considered together. [1]

Delivery of a textbook, provision of digital course content and entry into an online examination are separate procedures. Securing one does not automatically remove an obstacle to another. In a dispute over access to materials, the full title of the publication, its relation to the course and the means of obtaining it can be indicated. Broader explanations on this subject are given in our article on freedom of expression and access to publications in prison. In addition, the article freedom of religion and worship in prison may be reviewed on this heading.

How is a refusal to take part in an examination reviewed?

Sufficiency of a general security justification

Protecting the security of the institution is a legitimate aim. However, if a request is refused only with general statements about risk, this may raise a problem as to the sufficiency of the reasoning. Whether options such as limiting internet access to a specific examination address, supervision by an official, or an in-person alternative can be applied in the concrete case must be examined. The applicant should also contribute to the assessment by providing information on these options. [4] [5]

Not every technical or security objection can be regarded as unfounded. The number of students who would sit an examination at the same time in the institution, overlapping examination times, or an educational body’s inability to provide closed access may create real problems. Legal review covers not only the existence of the problem but also why it cannot be resolved by a lighter or different arrangement. An individualized explanation and documented coordination are therefore important.

Time limit and request for urgent protection

For the institution’s education or examination act, the complaint period under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu) is fifteen days from learning of it and, in any event, thirty days from the act. An objection may be made to a decision of the enforcement judgeship within two weeks of notification. A dispute concerning the university’s own act is, however, assessed separately according to the authority that performed the act and its legal nature; the institution’s decision and the university’s decision must not be treated as a single act. [3] For detailed information, the article equivalent examination summons and the right to education can be consulted.

Where an examination is approaching, the examination date and the last day of preparation should be stated at the beginning of the petition. A complaint does not by itself stop the act. By explaining together the conditions of clear unlawfulness and consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy, appropriate interim protection may be requested under Article 5 of Law No. 4675. The loss of a term, a delay in graduation or the risk of the end of student status must not be left in abstract terms; it should be shown with the educational body’s records. [3] In connection with this topic, the article leave for convicted persons may also be read.

Comparison of actual Constitutional Court decisions

The Ömer Aslan decision

In Ömer Aslan, Application No. 2021/3350, decision of July 2, 2025, the Constitutional Court examined the refusal of a request to take part in an examination held online during the pandemic period. Although a general security assessment had been made, it found the failure to assess adequately the applicant’s circumstances, the technical details of the examination and the relevant administrative regulations to be contrary to the right to education. [4]

The practical meaning of the decision is to show which examination could be taken, by which method and under which applicable conditions, instead of the bare claim “I could not take the exam.” A finding of violation does not mean that unconditional internet access is granted to all prisoners. The pandemic rules of the period of the events and the current statutory provision are assessed separately. [4] For a separate assessment on the subject, the article overcrowded wards and housing conditions in prison can be consulted.

Hüseyin Değirmen’s second application

In Hüseyin Değirmen (2), Application No. 2021/2869, decision of January 13, 2026, a violation of the right to education was found by majority vote because the ban on online examinations rested on a general security ground and no individualized assessment was made. In the dissenting opinion, reasons relating to technical infrastructure, security and the in-person examination alternative were emphasized. [5]

This comparison makes it necessary for the file to explain to what extent a technical solution is possible. The Constitutional Court also took into account, in terms of redress, that the applicant had been released. Therefore, a finding of violation does not result in the missed examination being held automatically or in a direct right to graduate being granted; redress is determined according to the concrete situation. [5]

The limits of the Ali Yıldırım decision

In Ali Yıldırım, Application No. 2018/19004, decision of November 3, 2022, the education complaint concerning being unable to continue full-time higher education while in a closed institution was found manifestly ill-founded. This outcome is not the same matter as the refusal of a request to take part in a particular online examination. [6]

The distinction between the decisions lies in the scope of the request. A request to continue full-time education outside the institution and a request to sit an examination that can be held inside the institution must be formulated separately. Likewise, it would not be correct to use the 2022 decision as if it were a current prohibition that renders ineffective the explicit examination provision in Article 76, which was amended in 2024.

Preparing the file for an effective education application

The core of the application should be a current student certificate, the type of program, the examination announcement and the correspondence with the institution. It must be shown clearly which fact underlying the ground for refusal is being objected to, and the requested solution must be described in an applicable form. The following documents may be used together as needed:

• Student and re-registration documents, together with a record showing that the conditions for entering the examination are met.
• The official announcement showing the examination date, duration, method and technical requirements.
• The petition submitted to the education department, the delivery record and the institution’s decision.
• The university’s reply on an online or in-person alternative.
• Relevant documents showing a disability, health or other priority need.
• The academic regulation or letter showing the loss of a term and other consequences.

Even after the examination date has passed, the legal effect of the decision may not come to an end. It must be explained what current request exists with respect to subsequent examinations, a continuing general ban or the student status. On the other hand, continually submitting new petitions about a past refusal decision does not automatically renew the earlier application time limits. For the general procedure, our guide to applications to the enforcement judgeship can be read together with this article. For a detailed explanation, it is useful to consult the article complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison.

Building the application file in line with the examination timetable

Academic eligibility and institutional capacity are documented separately

The conditions for sitting an examination are set by the university or the relevant educational body. The institution’s preparation of an examination environment does not, by itself, fulfill the student’s obligations as to re-registration, attendance or prerequisite courses. Conversely, the fact that the student’s enrollment conditions have been completed does not mean that the institution’s technical and security organization has been put in place. The application must bring two separate axes together: the student’s ability to sit the examination and the practicability of holding the examination at the institution.

A student certificate often shows only that an active registration exists. If the right to enter a particular examination is disputed, it is useful to obtain a letter from the educational body on the name of the examination, the course code, the term and the student’s eligibility. If there is more than one examination on the same day, stating the times and durations makes the planning of computers and officials concrete. Starting the preparation once the official timetable is announced, rather than making the application immediately before the examination, increases the time available for a solution.

Technical information needed for online participation

An examination system may not consist merely of an internet address. Requirements such as identity verification, a one-time login code, a camera or microphone, file uploading and permitted resources should be asked of the educational body. The technical access need should be described in a manner that is limited to the educational purpose and capable of being monitored. Instead of sharing personal passwords with everyone, it is requested that a secure procedure be established among authorized persons.

If the institution reports that its computers or connection are inadequate, it is determined which obstacle exists in respect of which examination. The question may arise whether changing the examination time, a different session, setting aside a suitable computer, or applying the in-person alternative provided in the law is possible. These should be presented not as proposals that must be accepted in every case, but as options that can be considered in the assessment of the concrete justification. [1]

If the connection is lost on the day of the examination

If the examination cannot start or is interrupted midway, the time and duration of the incident, the information available on the source of the connection problem, and the notification made to the educational body are recorded. The institution’s incident report and the university’s session record should be assessed together. A later record stating only “did not sit the examination” may not show the whole of the wish to participate and the technical obstacle that was experienced.

For a make-up or excuse examination, the educational body’s own procedure is followed separately. Having filed an application concerning the unlawfulness of the institution’s act does not automatically complete the application to the university. The addressees and time limits of the two separate acts should be listed separately. The result requested in the application should, where possible, be directed at the actual protection of the right to sit the examination; the current academic need should not be overlooked by being satisfied with a finding about the past event.

Reading case law together with the current statute

The events in the Ömer Aslan decision relate to the pandemic conditions of 2020; the date of the decision is 2025. The difference between these two dates matters. The Constitutional Court’s assessment, made on the basis of the circulars and technical conditions of the period of the events, cannot replace the text of Article 76 of Law No. 5275 as amended in 2024. When a current request is prepared, the examination provision in force is shown first; the decision is used for the assessment of individualized reasoning and alternatives. [1] [4]

Although a violation was found in the decision with respect to the right to education, the other claims concerning equality and the presumption of innocence were found inadmissible. The fact that no legal interest was seen in a retrial because the applicant had been released also shows that redress is specific to the person. For this reason, instead of reporting only the “violation” outcome of a decision, it should be explained on which request and for what reasons that outcome was reached. Each claim of a right is substantiated with its own facts and documents. [4]

Conclusion

Protecting the right to education in prison is possible through an application suited to the type of examination and to the conditions of the institution. Current law requires coordination to be established between institutions for certain examinations. The application file must show why this coordination has not taken place, what is deficient in the ground for refusal, and whether the requested solution is applicable. In this way, the right to education becomes a concrete legal request aimed at obtaining a result within the examination timetable. For the details of the subject, the article work, wages and insurance rights in prison can be consulted.

Related articles: Good Conduct and Objection to a Decision of the Administration and Observation Board (İdare ve Gözlem Kurulu).

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person held in a closed prison sit a university examination?

Yes, under the conditions set by law. For central and open education examinations, the penal enforcement institutions designated as examination centers apply; for examinations within the other scope, an online or appropriate in-person method is considered.

If an online examination is not possible, can the request be refused outright?

For examinations within the scope of Article 76(3)(a) of Law No. 5275, an in-person method under the supervision of an official of the educational institution is also provided for. Concrete impossibility and the alternatives must be assessed.

Does a student in prison have an unlimited right to use the internet?

No. The educational purpose, the legal conditions, security and the concrete technical arrangement form the basis. A request for access to a particular examination and a request for unlimited internet access are different.

How is a decision before an examination requested?

The examination timetable and the consequence of the delay are documented and the urgency is stated. If interim protection is requested from the enforcement judgeship, it is explained that the conditions set out in the law are met together.

Does a finding of violation automatically provide a make-up for a missed examination?

No. Reassessment, compensation or other redress is determined according to the concrete situation. The educational body’s make-up examination and academic procedures are dealt with separately.

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Kanun), Articles 67, 75, 76 and 116; amendments made by Law No. 7532 (7532 sayılı Kanun).
2. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13 and 42.
3. Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
4. Constitutional Court, Ömer Aslan, Application No. 2021/3350, July 2, 2025, in particular §§ 15–24.
5. Constitutional Court, Hüseyin Değirmen (2), Application No. 2021/2869, January 13, 2026, in particular §§ 17–25 and the dissenting opinion.
6. Constitutional Court, Ali Yıldırım, Application No. 2018/19004, November 3, 2022, §§ 35–41 on the right to education.
7. Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü), education questions and answers, on education and examination practices. Source access and legislation check: October 13, 2026.