Why Are the ECtHR Judgments in the Cases of Osman Kavala, Selahattin Demirtaş and Yüksel Yalçınkaya Not Implemented?
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered significant judgments in the cases of Osman Kavala, Selahattin Demirtaş and Yüksel Yalçınkaya. Yet questions concerning their effective implementation remain. In this report, SRL Swiss examines the obligations arising from each judgment, the individual and wider measures needed to address the violations, and the consequences of continued non-implementation for the rule of law in Türkiye. The report explains why compliance with Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires practical measures that give effect to the Court’s findings.
About this report
Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are binding on the states concerned. Under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, implementation requires measures capable of giving practical effect to the Court’s findings. Depending on the judgment, those measures may concern the position of an individual applicant, the consequences of a violation, or a wider problem affecting other people in comparable situations.
This SRL Swiss report examines the judgments concerning Osman Kavala, Selahattin Demirtaş and Yüksel Yalçınkaya. It considers the implementation issues raised by each case and the extent to which the required measures have been taken. The report also addresses the broader significance of implementation for legal certainty, judicial protection and the rule of law in Türkiye.
The three cases
In the Kavala case, the central question concerns compliance with the Court’s findings regarding his detention and the measures required to bring the violation to an end.
In the Demirtaş case, the report examines the consequences of the Court’s findings for his continuing deprivation of liberty and the effective protection of his Convention rights.
In the Yalçınkaya case, the analysis extends to the consequences of the judgment for other convictions raising comparable legal issues. Effective implementation calls for attention to both the applicant’s position and the wider problem identified by the Court.
Why implementation matters
A judgment cannot achieve its purpose if the violation it identifies continues or its wider consequences remain unaddressed. The report therefore assesses implementation through the practical effect of the measures taken, with reference to Türkiye’s obligations under the Convention.
SRL_Swiss_Implementation_of_ECtHR_Judgments_Kavala_Demirtas_Yalcinkaya_2026_EN