Following the announcement by Turkey’s Ministry of Justice on 21 May that the draft of the 10th Judicial Reform Package had been finalised, and a meeting lasting more than two hours between the pro-Kurdish DEM Party and the ruling AKP on 28 May concerning reforms, the legislative package was officially presented to Parliament on Thursday.
Related Articles:
Turkey’s new judicial package faces scrutiny amid amnesty concerns
Turkey’s pro-Kurdish DEM Party and ruling AKP discuss reform as political thaw continues
Turkey’s 10th Judicial Reform Package proposes a series of changes to the penal system to ease overcrowding and improve efficiency, and is now under parliamentary discussion. The proposed legislation addresses sentencing execution and includes broader eligibility for supervised release for crimes committed before 31 July 2023. It also permits the expanded use of home detention for women, children, and elderly prisoners while imposing harsher penalties for offences such as unauthorised firearm use. It also introduces minimum prison sentences for minor offences in response to criticism of impunity.
While the government presents the package as a step towards justice reform and rehabilitation, opposition parties and human rights groups have criticised its limitations and drawbacks. The pro-Kurdish DEM Party warns that the package could create new inequalities and facilitate the bypassing of the issue of political prisoners. Human rights organisations have also emphasised the lack of a general amnesty and the exclusion of individuals imprisoned under Turkey’s extensive anti-terror legislation.
Related Article:
Recently, the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party voiced concerns regarding exclusions in the legislative package. Gülistan Kılıç Koçyiğit, deputy chair of the party’s parliamentary group, warned that the package falls short of public expectations and could jeopardise peace efforts. She argued that, unless it addresses political detainees and supports the democratic resolution of the Kurdish issue, it will disappoint many people. Koçyiğit added, “While political prisoners are excluded for writing a letter or chanting a slogan, men convicted of femicide or child abuse benefit from early release provisions.”
Related Article:
Turkey: Political prisoners denied release while violent offenders go free, says MP
On 28 May, Sezai Temelli, co-chair of the DEM Party, also voiced criticism during an interview. He argued that the reform lacks legal guarantees for all citizens and does not address systemic issues in the judiciary. According to Temelli, the proposal maintains authoritarian control mechanisms rather than advancing democratic justice. He emphasised that genuine reform must be based on inclusive principles to deliver lasting change. Temelli also clarified that the legislative package only makes adjustments to certain regulations and does not address the root causes of judicial dysfunction. He emphasised the critical distinction between temporary reform packages, which are often limited to technical or procedural amendments, and comprehensive judicial reform, for which structural transformation, institutional independence, and long-term legal guarantees are required to ensure equal access to justice for all citizens.
Speaking on Wednesday, Temelli stated that the anticipated reform package would be limited to sick prisoners and convicts rather than encompassing the release of dozens of inmates, regardless of their health status, as alluded to earlier in the month. Prison overcrowding has become a major issue in Turkey. As of March, the Turkish Ministry of Justice reported that the country’s 395 correctional facilities were housing 398,694 inmates, which is almost 99,000 more than their combined capacity of 299,940. In the first three months of 2025 alone, the prison population increased by over 14,000, despite the closure of ten prisons. The Stockholm Center for Freedom reports that 1,026 prisoners have died in Turkish custody in less than two years, many of whom were political prisoners. The inhumane treatment of prisoners in these facilities is in fact the primary cause of their illnesses.
Related Article:
Sick prisoners central to Turkish judicial reform talks amid historic peace efforts
Prominent human rights defender and lawyer Eren Keskin has sharply criticised the legislative package for overlooking the most urgent humanitarian concern surrounding the release of ill and political prisoners. Referring to the PKK’s recent declaration to end armed struggle, Keskin argued that this political moment offers a rare opportunity to pursue democratic solutions. “If a new era has begun,” she wrote, “then what is preventing the release of terminally ill prisoners?” Keskin drew attention to long-standing violations of international law and the political dependency of Turkey’s Forensic Medicine Institute, which she claims prevents the recognition of independent medical reports and perpetuates inhumane conditions for inmates.
Related Article:
From a conservative perspective, the political scientist Mümtaz’er Türköne has also expressed concerns about the package’s underlying motives. Writing in The Turkish Post, he argued that the ruling government is not genuinely interested in structural reform, but is instead using the judicial process to gain political leverage. “Everyone is doing their part,” Türköne noted, “but the Palace is blocking the process,” implying that the reforms may be strategically delayed to influence electoral dynamics. He criticised the government’s weakened ability to shape public perception, warning that failure to deliver authentic change could further erode institutional trust.
The 10th Judicial Reform Package arrives in the wake of significant political developments, including the decision of the PKK to dissolve itself on 12 May following Abdullah Öcalan’s call to end the armed struggle. While the government presents the package as part of a wider reconciliation and reform initiative, critics argue that it does not address political imprisonment or deeply entrenched judicial inequalities. The timing of the package has sparked debate over whether the reforms represent genuine structural change or are a strategic move to manage dissent amid shifting political dynamics.
