Being held in a penal institution does not remove freedom of religion and conscience. A convicted or remanded person has the right to perform the worship required by their faith, to access the books and objects necessary for their religious life, and to meet a religious official within the conditions set by law. The same protection covers the choice not to adopt any faith and not to take part in worship. Security and order in the institution are taken into account in exercising this right; however, repeating these grounds does not by itself make every restriction lawful. On a related subject, the article right to education and to sit examinations in prison may also be read.
An effective application must explain which need is being obstructed, how long the situation has lasted, what reason the institution gave and whether the proposed alternative is actually usable. Asking for holy books to be included in the general book quota and asking for unlimited acceptance of every religious publication are not the same legal question. The decisions of the Constitutional Court must also be read through this distinction.
Freedom of religion and conscience of convicted and remanded persons
Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası) protects freedom of religion and conscience, and Article 13 sets out the limits of restrictions on fundamental rights. The specific provision for the enforcement of sentences is Article 70 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures. This article provides that a convicted person may worship in a way that does not disrupt the order of the institution and does not prevent their work, and may keep, where they are held, the objects used in worship and the books and works necessary for their religious life. For remand prisoners, the framework for applying the provisions of Article 116 that are compatible with the state of detention is also taken into account.[1] [2]
Freedom not to believe and not to take part in worship
Protection does not belong only to those who wish to carry out religious practices. A person cannot be forced to declare their belief, to take part in a particular act of worship or to adopt a religious outlook. The fact that people sharing the same living space have different beliefs, or none, cannot be removed by the preference of the majority.
In such a complaint, what matters is who exerted the pressure, the nature of the conduct, its dates, whether the institution was informed of the situation and what response it gave. Pressure from staff and the administration's failure to provide the necessary protection against the conduct of other inmates call for different assessments. In both cases, it is not enough to say only “there was pressure”; the concrete events and the protection requested must be stated.
The state's duty to provide the necessary conditions
Freedom of religion is not limited to the state refraining from interference. In a closed institution, where needs cannot be met by the person's own means, measures that make the right actually exercisable may also come into play. Access to the holy book is a clear example.
The mere presence of a work in the institution library does not show that adequate access has been provided. How many copies exist, how many people use them, the loan period, the waiting order and how often the person needs the book must be examined together. Conversely, if adequate and continuous access is actually provided, that fact is also taken into account. The importance of the Ahmet Sil decision lies in revealing the gap between a means that exists on paper and a concrete need.[5]
Can holy books be included in the general book quota?
The distinction between the general publication right and works necessary for religious life
Article 62 of Law No. 5275 concerns access to general publications, while Article 70 concerns books and works necessary for religious life. These provisions are considered together. Treating a holy book that must be used continuously within the general book quota, like an ordinary reading choice, may raise a problem for freedom of religion.
However, not every religious history book, commentary, magazine or research work has the same necessity. In an application, it must be explained whether the work is a sacred text, a translation, a commentary or another publication, and what its language and edition are and why the person needs it. Thus, instead of a baseless generalization that “all religious publications are unlimited”, the function of the specific work in religious life is discussed.[2] [6]
The security justification must be concrete
The institution's ability to carry out a security review does not mean that it may block the delivery of a work on the basis of abstract possibilities. If a risk of covert communication or organizational communication is invoked, its link with the concrete work or the form of delivery must be shown. In the Ahmet Sil decision, the fact that a general security assessment was not sufficiently linked to the applicant's need for access to the holy book was significant.[5]
The examination must not turn into judging the truth of a belief. The real question is the connection of the request with religious life and the necessity of the restriction. If the security problem stems from the physical characteristics of a particular copy, it must also be assessed whether a lighter solution, such as a different controlled copy, is possible.
Access through the library is not a sufficient alternative in every case
The adequacy of the library option cannot be understood from the catalogue record alone. Circulating a limited number of copies among many prisoners on a rotating basis may not meet a need for continuous access. It is also important whether a copy exists in a language the person understands, and whether the book can be lent only for a short period.
In an application, the library inventory and loan records may be requested. If these records are not in the applicant's possession, the documents that the applicant cannot access should be clearly identified and a request made for the institution to produce them. An unsupported estimate must not be presented as an exact figure.
Items of worship and meetings with a religious official
The nature of the item and its safe use
The assessment of items of worship is made according to what the item is and how it will be used. Material, dimensions, cutting or flammable features, storage conditions and effect on the shared living space may be important. The fact that an item will be used for religious purposes does not make every security review unnecessary; nor does a security concern justify the blanket refusal of all items of worship.
Explaining the function of the item and, where possible, its technical features makes the dispute concrete. If a safer dimension, material or method of use can be proposed, asking for it to be evaluated may be appropriate. A refusal decision must explain why this alternative was also not considered sufficient.
Visit by a religious official
The second paragraph of Article 70 of Law No. 5275 regulates visits to a convicted person by officials of their religion, and communication with them, on condition that the security of the institution is not endangered. This request should not be assessed merely by repeating the rules on family visits.[2]
The religious official status of the person to be met, the purpose of the meeting and the arrangement requested must be stated in the written application. The institution may set conditions relating to security and organization; however, the actual reason for a refusal or postponement must be explained. Belonging to a belief held by a minority cannot be the reason for excluding the request from consideration. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the principle of equality may also arise together with freedom of religion.
Worship arrangements are considered together with the rights of others
Sound, lighting, movement and times of use in shared areas may affect the rights of other persons sleeping in the same ward. Protection of personal worship does not mean that other persons must take part in it or endure every kind of influence. The institution's task is to establish an order that allows rights to be exercised together as far as possible. For detailed information, the article search in prison and protection of human dignity may be consulted.
For this reason, it is important which concrete problem a restriction is intended to solve. If the aim can be achieved through a lighter arrangement in terms of time, place or manner of use, rather than a total ban on worship, that option must not be overlooked.
How are religious requirements taken into account in nutrition?
Article 72 of Law No. 5275 provides that religious and cultural requirements are taken into account in the nutritional regime, alongside age, health and work status. This provision does not mean that every menu the person requests will be provided unconditionally; but it also does not justify rejecting a religiously grounded dietary need as an ordinary preference.[2]
The application should explain which food cannot be consumed and for what reason, why the existing menu does not meet the need, and what feasible alternatives exist. It should be distinguished whether the problem is limited to a single meal or is a continuing dietary deficiency. If a health effect is claimed, examinations and assessments relating to it also become important.
The institution's reply should contain a concrete assessment of the available facilities, nutritional adequacy and the nature of the need. A general answer such as “no special meal is provided” does not by itself show that the religious requirements provided for in the law were actually considered.
How should real Constitutional Court decisions be used?
Continuous access to a holy book in the Ahmet Sil decision
In the application of Ahmet Sil (Application No. 2017/24331, May 9, 2018), the Constitutional Court examined, from the standpoint of freedom of religion and conscience, the applicant's inability to access their own copy of the Qur'an. The rotating use of four copies from the institution library in an institution holding roughly three thousand persons was significant in assessing the personal and continuous need for access.[5]
The Court found a violation after determining that the security grounds and the alternative offered were not sufficiently linked to the applicant's situation, and it indicated the route to a retrial. The decision cannot be read as meaning that all book deliveries must be made without examination. A concrete security problem, and a different event in which genuinely adequate access existed, are assessed separately. A related topic is the article right of access to petitions and to the court in prison.
The distinction between holy book and general quota in the Guvanch Saparmadov decision
The Guvanch Saparmadov decision is dated June 11, 2025, with application number 2020/26196. The fact that the decision was published in the Official Gazette dated January 16, 2026 does not mean that the decision date is 2026. The Court examined the inclusion of the holy book and its translation within the general book limit from the standpoint of freedom of religion and conscience, and found a violation.[6]
In the same application, the complaint concerning freedom of expression and the number of general books ended differently. On the assessment of possessing ten books and exchanging them every fifteen days, that complaint was clearly found to be without foundation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision declared all book restrictions unlawful.
A later change in practice did not automatically remove the examination of the earlier interference. Given the applicant's situation and subsequent developments, the Court saw no legal interest in a retrial and awarded 30,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages. This amount is not an automatic or fixed payment tariff for similar applications.
How are facts, documents and requests linked in an application?
| Need or problem | What must be explained and documented |
|---|---|
| Access to a holy book | The nature of the work, the date of delivery or refusal, the application of the quota, and the actual access available through the library |
| Items of worship | The features of the item, its purpose of use, the grounds for refusal and a safer alternative |
| Meeting with a religious official | Information about the official, the written request, the purpose of the meeting, and the response of refusal or postponement |
| Being forced to take part in worship | Concrete conduct, dates, whether the institution was informed, and the protection requested |
A concrete request instead of a general objection
Excluding a holy book from the quota, delivering the person's own copy and providing access to another copy for a sufficient period are different requests. The applicant should state the result sought and any acceptable alternative. If the claim is partly fulfilled later, it should be specifically stated which problem continues.
An application should not become a text that merely lists decision numbers. It must be shown which reasoning of a precedent decision matches the present case and, where there is a difference, why that difference does not change the outcome. For matters connected with access to general publications, the review freedom of expression and access to publications in prison may also be read together. For a separate assessment of this subject, the article camera recording and privacy in prison may be consulted.
Evidence is built on documents that can be accessed
Petitions, delivery records, board decisions, service documents and library records allow the sequence of events to be followed. Where records that are not in hand are needed, the institution holding them may be identified and their production requested. No single document proves the whole dispute; for example, a book being recorded in the library does not by itself show that the applicant had uninterrupted access to it.
Complaints, objections and individual applications
A complaint to the enforcement judgeship under Law No. 4675 must be made within fifteen days from learning of the act or activity and, in any case, within thirty days from the date it was carried out. In continuing practices, the starting point and the act complained of must be determined on the basis of the concrete case. Submitting a new petition to the administration on the same matter does not automatically restart the time limit for the earlier act.[3]
Decisive claims before the enforcement judgeship
From the enforcement judgeship, it may be requested that the person's need and the institution's security grounds be examined together, and that the adequacy of alternative access and the consideration of lighter measures be assessed. An objection may be made against the decision within two weeks of its notification. The objection should not be limited to repeating the earlier petition; it should show points that were not assessed in the decision or were treated incorrectly.
A complaint does not automatically suspend the act. For a deferral or suspension measure under the law, the risk of consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy and the conditions of manifest unlawfulness are assessed together. The procedural framework is explained in the review application to and objection before the enforcement judgeship. On this topic, the article complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison may also be consulted.
Following the same claim in an individual application to the Constitutional Court
An individual application must be made within thirty days from learning of the final decision, after effective legal remedies have been exhausted. If only the number of books was objected to, and the need for access necessary for religious life is raised before the Constitutional Court for the first time, this may cause a problem regarding the exhaustion of legal remedies.[4] For a detailed explanation, it is useful to consult the article health and the right to treatment in prison.
The link between the right alleged to have been violated and the redress requested must be established. Removing the present obstacle, determining the past interference and redressing the moral harm are not the same outcomes. The current status of the application and whether the violation continues must be clearly described.
Conclusion
Protecting freedom of religion and worship in prison requires that individual needs be assessed concretely against security grounds. Access to the holy book, items of worship, meetings with a religious official and dietary requests must each be considered within their own characteristics. Effective legal protection can be achieved through an application that clearly states the need, documents the institution's response, identifies a feasible solution and observes the time limits. For more on the subject, the article overcrowded wards and housing conditions in prison may be consulted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a holy book be included in the general book quota?
Treating the holy book and translations required for religious life within the same quota as ordinary publications may violate freedom of religion. The Guvanch Saparmadov decision illustrates this distinction; it does not produce unlimited acceptance of every publication with religious content.
Can a prisoner be forced to take part in worship?
No. Freedom of religion and conscience also protects the choice not to take part in worship and not to disclose one's belief. Concrete coercion and the institution's duty of protection are examined separately.
Is it enough for a holy book to be available in the library?
Not in every case. The number of copies, the number of persons using them, the loan period, the language and the need for continuous access are assessed together.
Is a meeting with a religious official an unconditional right?
The law provides for the condition that the security of the institution must not be endangered. This condition cannot be used as a power to refuse without reasons or to refuse in bulk.
If the practice changes later, can a past violation still be examined?
Yes. A subsequent change does not automatically remove the earlier interference; the current situation, victim status and appropriate redress are assessed in the concrete case.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Arts. 10, 13 and 24.
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 62, 70, 72 and 116.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Arts. 4–6.
- Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluş ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 45, 47, 48 and 50.
- Constitutional Court, Ahmet Sil, Application No. 2017/24331, May 9, 2018, especially paras. 40–55.
- Constitutional Court, Guvanch Saparmadov, Application No. 2020/26196, June 11, 2025, especially paras. 13–30; Official Gazette of January 16, 2026, issue 33139.