The Turkish Criminal Defense Tradition: Defense Approaches from Landmark Cases to the Present

The Turkish criminal defense tradition is a body of professional practice that does not let the individual disappear behind a criminal accusation and that calls the accusation into open debate. This practice shows itself in case preparation, in the questions put to a witness, in objections to a technical report and in protecting the right to speak at a hearing. The lasting value of a powerful defense lies less in the fame of a single sentence than in which question it opened in the proceedings and which right it made visible.

Faruk Erem’s humane and dialectical approach, the defenses Halit Çelenk undertook in difficult periods, the team effort in the DİSK case, and the professional testimonies of Duygun Yarsuvat and Fikret İlkiz each illuminate a different side. Digital evidence disputes and current hearing theories raise the same questions with new tools: What is the defense contesting, how should it present it, and at what moment should it intervene?

Four questions that shape a defense approach

To evaluate the method of a defense, one must first know which accusation is being faced. Is the question whether the person took part in the act, whether the elements of the offense are present, whether the evidence is reliable, or whether the proceedings were fair? Several of these questions may coexist in the same file, but each requires different work.

The second question is which concrete evidence the accusation is being tested against. When a defense exposes a dating error, separates a witness’s source of knowledge, or shows that a general charge is not directed at this person, it makes the dispute examinable. The third question is which procedural right is used to carry out that examination. The last question is what exactly is being requested from the court.

These questions carry past experience into today’s file. They make it possible to understand why an approach worked, rather than imitating a personality.

Faruk Erem: seeing the person behind the criminal charge

The memorial record of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği) for Faruk Erem recalls together his humane approach and his book Memoirs of a Criminal Defense Lawyer (Bir Ceza Avukatının Anıları). The saying “Scrape away the criminal and a human being emerges underneath” (Suçluyu kazıyınız, altından insan çıkar) is also attributed to Erem in the same institutional source. [1]

The value of this approach for today’s defense lies in the idea of not defining a person solely by the name of the offense in the file. A person’s living conditions, fears, capacity for perception and will, or social environment may become the subject of legal examination. But their effect on the concrete event must be shown. Understanding a person is not the same as presuming that the alleged conduct was justified or belittling the experience of the victim.

The humane dimension and proof cannot be substituted for one another. That a person has lived a hard life does not prove that they did not commit the act. Likewise, facing a grave accusation is no ground for depriving someone of their rights. The professional lesson from Erem’s approach is to be able to see these two planes together.

Here one should not reduce humanist thinking to an emotional closing speech. In everyday practice, the more concrete returns are that the client understands the charge, can take part in the defense, reaches the support they need and is addressed with respect. Human dignity is not a principle that applies only to people the public happens to admire.

Erem’s dialectical approach: opening the accusation to debate

In his 1988 article “Defense and the Fundamental Defects of Criminal Proceedings” (Savunma ve Ceza Yargılamasının Temeldeki Kusurları), Erem treats the defense as the founding counter-statement of the proceedings. He criticizes accusations turning into judgments without being tested, and focuses on oral argument, preparation for the defense and access for the defense to the file. This is a critique and reform approach aimed at the procedural system of that period. [11]

The lesson for current practice is to connect an objection to the way the decision is formed. Saying only “the witness’s statement is contradictory” is incomplete if one does not explain the possibility that the witness is describing something they did not see. What fact the contradiction leaves unclear, and which element of the offense that fact relates to, must be shown. Only then does the counter-statement become a concrete question the court has to answer.

Halit Çelenk and defense responsibility in difficult periods

The biographical record on Halit Çelenk published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations states that, before and after the 12 March and 12 September periods, he undertook defense roles in various political and social cases. The record also lists the TÖS, the 1st THKO, the events of 15–16 June and the DİSK trials. [2]

The question that can be discussed through Çelenk’s cases is how a defense continues under heavy political and social tension. In such an environment, a lawyer may face being identified with the client, having their words taken out of context, or seeing the file judged only through ideological labels. The existence of these risks does not reduce the importance of procedure and evidence review; on the contrary, it makes them more pronounced.

Professional courage is not an alternative to preparation. Attending the hearing, putting an objection on the record, using legal remedies and making the client’s voice heard are complementary tasks. Viewing the defense only within a narrative of heroism can hide how such systematic work is actually carried out.

Carrying a past defense into the present also cannot happen through direct copying. The court structure, the laws in force and the available applications may differ from that period. The conceptual value of the historical text should be kept, but the rule to be applied in the current file must be determined separately.

The DİSK case: team effort hidden in a mass trial

The section on the DİSK case in Hamit Emrah Beriş’s book A Dark Stain on Democracy: 12 September 1980 (Demokrasiye Kara Bir Leke: 12 Eylül 1980), published by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), addresses both the size of the file and its defense team. Mehmet Ali Aybar, Halit Çelenk, Hasan Fehmi Güneş, Turgut Kazan, Fikret İlkiz, Ergin Türsoy, Ercüment Tahiroğlu and Rasim Öz are named among the broad group of lawyers. The same publication states that the stage before the defense lasted 257 sessions and four years and two months. [3]

This information shows that a long proceeding cannot be explained by the speech of a single lawyer. In a file with many defendants, common legal questions and each defendant’s personal situation must be tracked separately. When an event attributed to one person is charged against all defendants without the link being explained, this is a problem the defense must watch closely.

For teamwork, the file index, the division of tasks and a consistent record-keeping system stand out. A technical objection a lawyer raises at the hearing may rest on another colleague’s document review or on a conversation with the client. Writing history by focusing only on visible speakers therefore produces an incomplete account.

A division of labor must be established between joint and individual defense. The joint section can address procedural issues or legal questions that matter to everyone. The individual section keeps visible the particular defendant’s conduct, evidence position and personal requests. If interests conflict, the limits of a joint argument must be assessed separately.

A long trial should not be read as a successful tactic in itself. Detention, uncertainty and the burden of being prosecuted carry real costs for people. Asking for the time a defense needs is not the same as a method aimed at increasing those costs. What can carry over to today is less the length of the proceeding than how rights were used within it.

Duygun Yarsuvat and Fikret İlkiz: the value of professional testimony

Fikret İlkiz’s article on Duygun Yarsuvat, dated 13 September 2021, is the testimony of someone who practiced the profession alongside him. İlkiz describes how Yarsuvat stood by his colleagues and the importance he gave to human dignity. [4]

The solidarity this testimony points to is connected to the institutional dimension of the right to defense. That a lawyer is not left alone, that experience is shared, and that professional objections are expressed in a common legal language can matter well beyond an individual file. From this, however, one cannot conclude that adopting a particular political view is a condition of professional competence.

Yarsuvat’s defense in the Cumhuriyet case was also reported in a hearing news report dated 25 April 2018. The report includes his criticisms of the grounds for the charge and of witness accounts. However, it is not correct to turn a remark made at a hearing into a general statutory rule that “hearsay testimony can never be evidence under any circumstances” (dolaylı tanık beyanı hiçbir koşulda delil olamaz). [5]

A defense counsel’s statement should be read within the features of the file in which it was made. To argue that a particular witness has no direct knowledge is different from claiming that all testimony based on hearsay is barred in every case. The strength of the criticism lies in its ability to make this distinction.

The relationship between academic knowledge and practice also becomes visible here. Conceptual knowledge helps separate the element on which a charge rests; file work shows whether the data for that element actually exists. The lack of one weakens the other. An academic title alone does not make a claim correct; the reasoning of a technical explanation must be examined.

How digital evidence disputes transformed the defense

Disputes over electronic documents have raised new questions for the defense. When was the file created? What is the technical meaning of the date displayed? From which device was the document obtained? Can the copy under examination be linked to the original record? Answering these requires not only legal knowledge but also appropriate technical expertise.

In the Constitutional Court (AYM) decision in Sencer Başat and others concerning the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) case, the review arose from the proceedings before the Istanbul 10th Heavy Penal Court. The court examined whether the assessment of substantive defenses on digital evidence, of expert opinions and of certain witness requests met the guarantees of a fair trial; it found a violation and ruled for a retrial. [6]

The professional lesson from this decision must be limited carefully. An effective technical objection must show which data it rests on and why that data matters. From the decision one cannot derive “every digital record is unreliable” or “every private expert opinion binds the court.” A court and a technical expert have different roles; a dispute requires those roles to be connected in a reasoned way.

In the hearing, the task of technical defense is to turn expert language into a question that can be decided. Instead of “the report is wrong,” one shows which input is missing, which result is affected by it, and which additional examination is requested. The lawyer need not reach a technical judgment in place of the expert; they must make the legal significance of the technical dispute and the request for investigation understandable.

Oratory, body language and the “art of defense”

When defense is called an art, the reference may be to the ability to organize thought and express it clearly. A good speaker notices which question the listener is looking to answer, connects details to the central issue, shows where a passage sits in the document and explains the request. However, if the courtroom is treated as a stage for display, there is a risk that legal debate recedes into the background.

A lawyer’s strong voice or calm appearance does not have the same effect on every judge. Simple prescriptions about body language cannot determine whether a witness is telling the truth. Personal impressions must not replace facts that can be seen and discussed in the file.

Written and oral defense complement each other. The written text sets out the detailed legal grounds and sources; the oral statement brings forward the matter that must be resolved at that session. A long petition is not proof of depth, and a short speech is not proof of superficiality. The criterion is whether the defense being raised can be understood and examined.

Ersan Şen’s article “Order of Speech in Criminal Cases” (Ceza Davalarında Söz Sırası) offers a way to examine professional method through a published legal discussion rather than through praise of a person. The article addresses the procedural consequences of the order of speech at hearings and of the right to the final word. [7]

One does not have to agree with a legal author’s view. What matters is being able to discuss how that view relates to statute and case law. The continuity of the defense tradition comes not from repeating names alone but from carrying this method of discussion into new files.

The boundary between strong criticism and personal attack

In Nikula v. Finland, the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM) examined under freedom of expression the conviction of a defense counsel for criticizing the prosecutor’s method in the case, and found a violation. The court gave weight to the fact that the criticism concerned the prosecutor’s role in the proceedings and was not directed at personal qualities. The decision shows the broad space available to strong defense criticism, but it does not create unlimited freedom to insult. [12]

In practice, this distinction can be seen in the difference between “the conclusion the charge draws from this document is not supported” and “the prosecution is acting in bad faith.” The first is directed at evidence and reasoning. The second contains an allegation of intent that needs its own grounds. The sharpness of a defense shows less in the weight of its adjectives than in the concreteness of the objection and the persistence with which it is pursued.

Harmony and rupture: thinking about method in the context of the file

The question of the ground on which the defense will speak before the court becomes clearer in Jacques Vergès’s distinction between harmony (uyum) and rupture (kopuş). Ender Serdar Önaldı’s study examines this distinction through the defenses of Socrates and Lubanga; it evaluates the disputes over access to evidence and procedure in the Lubanga proceedings within the framework of a harmony defense. This is the author’s historical and theoretical interpretation. [16]

The question this raises for Turkish defense practice is this: Is the problem the incorrect application of an existing rule, or a more fundamental objection to the fairness of the proceedings? In the first case, the relevant provision and the concrete act must be shown. In the second, one must explain which facts about impartiality, equality or the opportunity to defend support that assessment. A general statement about injustice does not replace a procedural request concerning the file.

Abdullah Teltik’s comparison between Cicero and Vergès highlights the role of narrative and context in defense. From this, one may investigate the interests behind an accusation; but the fact that a person benefited from an event does not by itself prove that they committed a crime or that another person is innocent. Statements about reputation and character must also be kept separate from proof of a concrete act. [17]

The value of these debates does not lie in turning every file into a political struggle. It lies in helping the defense deliberately choose its audience, its aim and the legal path it uses. The client’s liberty and rights cannot be left behind the lawyer’s search for personal visibility.

A current approach: Fahrettin Kayhan and the Hybrid Rupture Defense

In a model he calls the Hybrid Rupture Defense (Hibrit Kopuş Savunması), Fahrettin Kayhan discusses the degree of defense intervention, which shifts between harmony and conflict. The model proposes five levels: full harmony, micro-intervention, open intervention, hard rupture and radical rupture. This classification is the author’s theoretical approach; it is not a type of defense regulated in the CMK. [13]

The professional contribution of the approach is that it does not evaluate defense only by the content of speech. Timing, the purpose of the intervention and its dosage must also be considered. However, a motion to recuse or a decision to leave the hearing cannot be taken simply to reach a step in the model; these have their own legal conditions and consequences for the client.

Kayhan’s article on rhetoric and courtroom interaction also opens up the question of communication roles and of how the defense can handle that tension. Transactional analysis and dramaturgy are interpretive tools here. They cannot be used as a method to diagnose a particular judge’s mental state or to state with certainty the hidden reason for a decision. [14]

The professional response is more concrete: when speech is cut off, state which part could not be completed; reconnect an argument that seems to have been dismissed to the evidence in the file; and record the request and the court’s answer wherever the loss of a right is possible. Such an approach keeps the right of defense visible without making the tension itself the goal.

Do political and social tensions change the limits of defense?

Defending a person in cases that provoke strong social reaction cannot be equated with approving the act alleged. Likewise, the existence of the right to defense does not exempt a defense counsel’s every word and act from criticism. The security of the professional role and the conduct of that role in line with law and ethical rules must be considered together.

Public narratives about Şevket Kazan’s connection to the Sivas case show how difficult this distinction is. Press sources mention him together with the defense of defendants and with prison visits. From these reports, it is not possible to determine with certainty his intent in particular hearings, the purpose of every procedural request, or his personal effect on the outcome of the case. [8]

To find that a procedural objection is “stalling,” one must examine its content, its timing and its effect on the proceedings. The same measure applies to texts written in favor of the defense: prolonging a hearing, waiting for political conditions to change or steering the court through public pressure should not be presented as defense techniques deserving praise in themselves.

Examining historical cases does not require erasing what victims and their relatives went through. Explaining the right to defense can proceed alongside describing the social impact of an event. Legal evaluation must rest on conduct and legal criteria, not on people’s beliefs or political affiliation.

Trust with the client: loyalty, confidentiality and independence

A client’s trust in their lawyer does not arise only from hearing a strong speech. Clear explanation of the process, not concealing uncertainties, following up on the work undertaken and setting up an accessible communication channel are more lasting elements. A statement such as “we will definitely win” may seem to increase trust, but it can distort the legal assessment.

Independence does not mean deciding arbitrarily against the client’s interests. The lawyer explains the legal options and risks and respects the client’s procedural rights and choices, but does not take part in creating a document or statement that is unlawful. The line between defense and assisting in a crime is one of the central debates of the profession. Hamide Zafer’s study examines the scope and limits of the right to defense within this conceptual framework. [9]

Professional secrecy is also important for historical narrative and for publishing. That a file is known to the public does not mean a lawyer may disclose every piece of information they have learned. Even if the client’s identity has been concealed, details taken together can make the person identifiable. Legal permission, confidentiality and an assessment of personal data must be carried out when professional experience is shared. [10]

Loyalty to the client and professional independence are protected together. Openly explaining the difficulty of a file, not concealing unfavorable possibilities and explaining why a step is being taken all nourish trust. The lawyer’s duty is both far from adopting every opinion of the client and equally far from inventing events in the client’s place.

Separating media visibility from legal effect

A press statement can explain the basic approach of the defense to the public. However, submitting a legal request to the court, arguing the evidence and filing a legal remedy are separate acts. It cannot be assumed that a statement widely shared on social media has the same legal effect on the file.

There is a boundary, to be carefully protected, between informing the public and exerting pressure on the court. The scope of the statement, its effect on the ongoing proceedings, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the victim and confidentiality must be considered together. A lawyer’s fame does not reduce these obligations.

Professional reputation does not consist of visibility alone. The effort of a lawyer who follows the file regularly, notices the small detail, remains reachable for the client or protects the deadline may never appear in public view. Writing the history of the defense tradition only from television and newspaper archives gives an incomplete picture of this broad professional field.

Working principles that can be carried from the past to the present

Historical examples do not offer a ready formula for success. Nevertheless, some questions that recur across different periods can help improve today’s working arrangements. Personalizing the charge, making a technical objection understandable, raising procedural guarantees in time and protecting professional secrecy are parts of this continuity.

Applying these principles is more productive than imitating the personality of a past lawyer. Each defense counsel can develop their own style; yet fidelity to the record, legal reasoning and professional responsibility remain a common standard.

Conclusion

The usable inheritance of the Turkish criminal defense tradition today is the joint protection of command over the file and the will to speak independently. Listening to the person, personalizing the charge, showing the limits of the evidence and turning procedural guarantees into concrete requests connect different periods. New communication and psychology approaches are valuable only to the extent that they develop this working discipline.

A strong defense does not merely offer the court one outcome; it opens up the path of reasoning that leads to that outcome, or that stands in the way of the opposite one. The shared aim of professional courage, technical knowledge and effective oral presentation is to make sure that this path is genuinely debated.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a renowned lawyer’s method be applied in every file?

No. The type of case, the evidence, the stage of the proceedings and the rules in force all vary. A past approach can be used only after these differences have been examined. A person’s reputation does not show that their method suits every file.

In a political case, does legal defense fall into the background?

No. Discussing the political context does not remove the need to examine the elements of the offense, the evidence and procedural guarantees. The link between the context and the legal claim must be clearly established.

Does the history of the defense consist only of cases ending in acquittal?

No. Securing a right on the record, developing an important technical objection, or creating a document for later applications can also carry professional and historical value. Still, it is not right to romanticize an adverse outcome or to downplay the loss the client suffered.

Is the Hybrid Rupture Defense a binding rule of law?

No. It is a theoretical model developed by Fahrettin Kayhan. It can help in thinking about the timing and intensity of intervention, but it does not change the legal conditions of procedures such as asking questions, objecting, challenging a judge or using legal remedies.

What is the most concrete present-day equivalent of the art of defense?

It is being able to explain a complex file clearly enough for the person deciding and for the client to follow. This skill gains its value together with research and evidence review. An impressive sentence does not complete a missing legal basis.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği), “We Respectfully Commemorated Our Founding Chairman Faruk Erem” (Kurucu Başkanımız Faruk Erem’i saygıyla andık), October 16, 2011. https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Haberler/kurucu-baskanimiz-faruk-erem-i-saygiyla-andik-10454

[2] Union of Turkish Bar Associations, E-Barobirlik, issue 73, Halit Çelenk biography, printed p. 25. https://medya.barobirlik.org.tr/ebarobirlik/Ebulten/sayi73/26/

[3] Hamit Emrah Beriş, A Dark Stain on Democracy: 12 September 1980 (Demokrasiye Kara Bir Leke: 12 Eylül 1980), TBMM, Ankara, 2022, pp. 267–269. https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/TbmmWeb/Yayinlar/Dosya/f9997e97-e21d-4ff8-af6f-7f1881e5245b.pdf

[4] Fikret İlkiz, “Our Teacher Duygun Yarsuvat and the Road of Tears” (Duygun Yarsuvat Hocamız ve Gözyaşı Yolu), September 13, 2021. Professional testimony. https://bianet.org/yazi/duygun-yarsuvat-hocamiz-ve-gozyasi-yolu-250141

[5] Bianet, “Toward a Verdict in the Cumhuriyet Case: Everything Beyond Law Is in This Case” (Cumhuriyet Davasında Karara Doğru: Hukuk Dışında Her Şey Bu Davada), April 25, 2018. Hearing report. https://bianet.org/haber/cumhuriyet-davasinda-karara-dogru-hukuk-disinda-her-sey-bu-davada-196513

[6] Constitutional Court (AYM), General Assembly, Sencer Başat and others, Application No. 2013/7800, June 18, 2014; especially §§27–74, 75–91 and the judgment. Official record: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2013/7800 — Accessible text of the decision: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/anayasa-mahkemesi/genel-kurul-k-2013-7800-t-18-6-2014

[7] Ersan Şen, “Order of Speech in Criminal Cases” (Ceza Davalarında Söz Sırası), October 7, 2025. The author’s legal opinion. https://www.sen.av.tr/tr/makale/ceza-davalarinda-soz-sirasi

[8] Gazete Duvar, “Who Is Şevket Kazan?” (Şevket Kazan kimdir?), March 9, 2020; Duvar English, biographical news report dated March 10, 2020. https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/gundem/2020/03/09/sevket-kazan-kimdir — https://www.duvarenglish.com/domestic/2020/03/10/former-justice-minister-and-lifetime-ally-of-erbakan-dies-at-86

[9] Hamide Zafer, “Right to Defense and Its Limits” (Savunma Hakkı ve Sınırları), Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2013, 19(2), pp. 507–540. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/maruhad/article/621931

[10] Law No. 1136 on Attorneyship (1136 sayılı Avukatlık Kanunu), especially Articles 34 and 36; Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Meslek Kuralları). https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Avukatlik-Kanunu — https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Meslek-Kurallari

[11] Faruk Erem, “Defense and the Fundamental Defects of Criminal Proceedings” (Savunma ve Ceza Yargılamasının Temeldeki Kusurları), TBB Dergisi, 1988/1, pp. 91–99; especially pp. 93–97. https://medya.barobirlik.org.tr/tbbdergisi/App_Themes/Dergi/1988-19881-1086.pdf

[12] European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), Nikula v. Finland, Application No. 31611/96, March 21, 2002, especially §§49–56. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60333

[13] Fahrettin Kayhan, “Five Degrees of the Hybrid Rupture Defense in Criminal Procedure” (Ceza Muhakemesinde Hibrit Kopuş Savunmasının Beş Derecesi), March 30, 2026. https://www.hukukihaber.net/ceza-muhakemesinde-hibrit-kopus-savunmasinin-bes-derecesi

[14] Fahrettin Kayhan, “Games Played in the Criminal Courtroom: Defense Rhetoric from the Perspective of the Grand Theory of the Courtroom” (Ceza Duruşma Salonunda Oynanan Oyunlar: Duruşmanın Büyük Teorisi Perspektifinden Savunma Retoriği), March 13, 2026. https://www.hukukihaber.net/ceza-durusma-salonunda-oynanan-oyunlar-durusmanin-buyuk-teorisi-perspektifinden-savunma-retorigi

[15] Fahrettin Kayhan, index of defense writings on his personal website. https://www.fahrettinkayhan.com/?SyfNmb=1&DosNo=2

[16] Ender Serdar Önaldı, “Evaluation of Vergès’s Harmony and Rupture Defense Theory through the Defenses of Socrates and Lubanga” (Vergès’in Uyum ve Kopuş Savunması Teorisinin Sokrates ve Lubanga’nın Savunmaları Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi), Kırklareli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2023, 1(1), pp. 1–46; especially pp. 36–41. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kluhfd/article/1263644

[17] Abdullah Teltik Law Office, “From Cicero to Vergès: Narrative, Evidence and Strategic Perception Management in Criminal Defense” (Cicero’dan Vergès’e: Ceza Savunmasında Anlatı, Delil ve Stratejik Algı Yönetimi), March 11, 2026. https://www.abdullahteltik.av.tr/haberdetay/cicero-dan-verges-e-ceza-savunmasinda-anlati-delil-ve-stratejik-algi-yonetimi.html