Legal expert Alaaddin Varol has criticized Turkish courts for handing down prison sentences in cases involving ByLock, an encrypted messaging application widely used in prosecutions after Turkey’s July 15, 2016 coup attempt, saying defendants were being punished even when case files contained no message content.
Speaking on a CNN Türk discussion program, Varol said judges and prosecutors should treat pretrial detention as an exceptional measure, not an automatic response to allegations involving ByLock.
“There must be judges and prosecutors watching us,” Varol said. “They should really use the measure of pretrial detention carefully, whether regarding ByLock or other issues.”
“If there is no content, proceed with the trial, but the pretrial detention measure should be used as a last resort,” he added.
ByLock became one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence in post-coup prosecutions.
Turkish authorities claimed the app was used by members of the Gülen movement, while defendants and rights advocates have argued that courts often treated alleged ByLock use as decisive evidence without examining individual conduct, message content or the reliability of digital records.
Ankara blames the coup attempt on the Gülen movement, a transnational civic initiative inspired by Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, and designates the movement as a terrorist organization. The movement denies involvement in the coup or any terrorist activity.
Varol said he was not objecting to trials being held when ByLock allegations existed, but to courts using detention and convictions without substantive evidence.
“Put them on trial, I am not arguing against that,” he said. “We have discussed this here. Even experienced members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors could not be convinced.”
The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, known at the time by its Turkish initials HSYK, is Turkey’s top judicial appointments and disciplinary body.
Varol said the core problem was that courts were issuing heavy sentences despite empty case files.
“There is absolutely nothing in the case file, yet sentences of nine to 10 years are being handed down,” he said. “This is not judging.”
His remarks came nearly two years after the coup attempt, as courts across Turkey were processing tens of thousands of cases involving alleged Gülen movement links.
Many defendants were accused on the basis of alleged ByLock records, bank accounts, union membership, school enrollment, newspaper subscriptions or other claimed indicators of affiliation rather than direct involvement in the coup attempt.
Varol said judges should no longer hesitate to release defendants when the evidence did not justify continued detention.
“Judges must no longer be afraid to issue release orders,” he said.
He also warned that politicized behavior in the judiciary would deepen the damage caused by the prosecutions.
“Acting like partisans in this matter causes even more damage to the process,” he said.
The comments were notable because they were made on CNN Türk, a mainstream television channel, at a time when criticism of post-coup prosecutions and ByLock-based convictions was often politically sensitive.
Varol’s central point was that alleged use of an application, without content or individualized evidence, should not be enough to justify prolonged detention or lengthy prison sentences.
