Courts Cannot Do This: Ignoring Evidence is Forbidden
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 19/2/2026 with application number 2021/9171
The Constitutional Court has evaluated the failure to address evidence favorable to a soldier and his substantive defenses in the conviction decision in the cases involving the 15 July coup attempt as a violation of the “right to a reasoned decision.”
Details of the Regulation
The applicant, Serdar Uzel, was serving as a sergeant in a regiment on the date of the incident and left the barracks with a mobile team upon the order of his superiors. During the proceedings, the applicant alleged that he was unaware of the coup attempt, made statements opposing the coup, did not resist the police, and did not use a weapon, and submitted witness statements as evidence. The local court, however, issued a conviction decision without sufficiently discussing these allegations and the witness statements favorable to the applicant, particularly the statements of the defendant S.A.
In its review, the Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court emphasized that, in order to demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the courts were not arbitrary, the courts are obliged to respond to the parties’ substantive allegations and defenses with reasonable reasoning. It was determined that the decision did not explain why the concrete data supporting the applicant’s allegations of innocence were not taken into account or were rejected by the local court.
Consequently, it was decided unanimously that the “right to a reasoned decision,” guaranteed under Article 36 of the constitution within the scope of the right to a fair trial, had been violated. The Court ruled that a copy of the decision be sent to the relevant High Criminal Court for retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation.
Questions You Might Have
- Will the applicant be released immediately as a result of this decision?
- No. AYM merely determined that the trial was erroneous; the decision on release is within the discretion of the local court where the case will be retried.
- Did AYM rule that compensation be paid to the applicant?
- No. AYM rejected the compensation claim, stating that the finding of a violation and the decision for retrial constituted sufficient non-pecuniary redress for the applicant.
- Why did the Court examine the case only under the “Right to a Reasoned Decision”?
- Because the applicant’s principal allegation was that the evidence favorable to him had not been discussed at all by the local court, and this is a fundamental element of the right to a fair trial.
Key Terms
- Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı
- The obligation of courts to explain, in a manner that persuades the parties, the legal and factual grounds on which their decisions are based.
- Yeniden Yargılama
- The process of the case being reheard by the relevant court when a legal error or violation of a right is identified in a finalized decision.
- Masumiyet Karinesi
- The principle that a person shall be presumed innocent until their guilt is established by a judicial decision.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 47 items in the Official Gazette of 17 September 2026; we published only 6 of them here.
REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.
The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.
REGAS Commentary
This decision confirms that it is not sufficient for courts merely to say that the defendant is “guilty”; they are obliged to refute or assess, one by one, the concrete evidence submitted by the defendant saying, “I am innocent because…”. For citizens, this guarantees that the trial must not be merely a procedure, but a process in which allegations are taken seriously.