Dilan Kunt Ayan: Judicial reform package is far from democratization
Dilan Kunt Ayan said that the upcoming judicial package does not offer any meaningful steps toward democratization.
Dilan Kunt Ayan said that the upcoming judicial package does not offer any meaningful steps toward democratization.
The 10th Judicial Reform Package, which the ruling government has been working on for some time, is expected to be submitted to the Turkish Parliament in the coming days. On 11 April, Minister of Justice Yilmaz Tunç announced that the package would soon be on the parliamentary agenda. He also stated that a second reform bill, intended to accelerate judicial and administrative proceedings, would be presented during the summer. Although the 55-article package has not yet been formally submitted, several leaked items have already triggered widespread public debate.
Dilan Kunt Ayan, Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Urfa MP and a member of the Justice Commission, told ANF that the 10th Judicial Reform Package not only fails to promote democratization, justice, and equality, but in fact contains new forms of discrimination and legal contradictions.
Here we publish the first part of this interview.
How do you evaluate the judicial reform package, at least based on what has been made public? Are the proposed changes sufficient?
A draft bill titled “Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code and Certain Laws,” consisting of 55 articles, has been leaked to the press and the public, although it has not yet been officially submitted to parliament. The fact that the bill, which was first mentioned a month and a half ago, has still not been brought to the Turkish Grand National Assembly may indicate that the government is delaying it due to the current political atmosphere or internal disagreements. We have reviewed the draft carefully. At a time when broad segments of society have significant expectations for legal reforms, especially in areas like the prison system and the law on the execution of sentences, the proposed legislation falls far short. It fails to deliver any meaningful progress in those areas. Instead of contributing to democratization, justice, and equality, it introduces new forms of discrimination and legal contradictions.
What are those issues?
For instance, introducing concepts such as “public morality” and “biological sex” into the texts and justifications of law, concepts that do not exist in legal terminology, amounts to a rollback of legal and social gains and represents a major regression in terms of gender equality.
One example is a so-called improvement related to the issue of unjust provocation and the perception of impunity, which women have long fought against through legal means. However, this article does not truly address our criticisms. The approach suggests that the problem lies only in the low sentencing resulting from unjust provocation reductions and proposes increasing the sentencing limits. In reality, we are against the transformation of the unjust provocation provision into what is effectively a masculinity discount, used excessively and illegitimately to reduce sentences. These reductions have encouraged violence against women, emboldened perpetrators, and served to legitimize such crimes. Increasing the upper sentencing limits without addressing these concerns will not lead to a transformation in the patriarchal mindset.
Unfortunately, the persistent refusal to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM) continues. For example, Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), titled “Establishing an organization for the purpose of committing crimes,” and Article 314, paragraph 3, titled “Armed organization,” which regulates committing crimes on behalf of an organization, were amended due to legal ambiguities, the vagueness of actions falling within the scope of the crime, and their incompatibility with the Constitution. These articles have already been annulled three times by the Constitutional Court, most recently in the decision published in the Official Gazette on 9 January 2025.
Hundreds of people have been prosecuted and sentenced for alleged membership in armed organizations simply for exercising their constitutional rights, such as participating in press conferences, chanting slogans, or performing traditional dances. As a result, they have been subjected to harsh prison conditions. In its rulings, the Constitutional Court stated that the implementation of these articles must be made clear and specific. Despite appearances that a few positive steps have been taken, the current law does not meet the standards or assessments set by the Constitutional Court. All of this not only contradicts the principle of the rule of law but also reveals the state's reluctance to take democratic steps, particularly when it comes to politically charged offenses.
Moreover, many new crimes are being introduced, and sentences are being increased. The draft includes sentence enhancements in nearly 20 articles. In democratic systems, combating crime should not rely on increasing punishment but rather on addressing the underlying causes, contributing factors, and social transformation. In Turkey’s legal system, however, these paths are overlooked, and the changes serve only to create the appearance of action for public perception.
If the injustices in the legal system are not addressed, if a culture of fair trial is not strengthened, and if trials are not conducted in line with democratic and equal principles by independent and impartial courts, these legal reforms will inevitably lead to a new mass of convicts and detainees.
What kinds of new criminal offenses are being introduced?
When we examine the newly introduced offenses, it is clear that they are not shaped according to the needs and demands of society but rather aim to serve the political agenda of the ruling power through the use of legal force. For example, by expanding the scope of the offense of “obscene behavior” and increasing its penalties, the state seeks to reinforce traditional gender roles and open the door to the punishment of women in particular.
The proposed law fails to address existing expectations or the fundamental problems facing society. It does nothing to resolve injustices and inequalities, combat violence against women, reduce poverty, or promote freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and democracy. On the contrary, it is a bill that will deepen contradictions, intensify polarization, and turn the country into a vast prison by paving the way for practices that will worsen the conditions within correctional facilities. For these reasons, the proposal must be withdrawn before it is even submitted to parliament. It must be revised from the ground up through a fair, participatory, and pluralistic perspective.
To be continued