European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Strengthens Safeguards on Digital Evidence in Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye
- Joint Defense Team
- Aug 16
- 3 min read
Updated: Aug 24
A Landmark Judgment for Fair Trial Rights
On 22 July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its Chamber judgment in Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye. The case concerned criminal convictions based on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application ByLock, which Turkish authorities claimed was linked to terrorist organisations.
The Court found that Türkiye had violated Article 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment reaffirms that untested electronic evidence cannot be used in a way that undermines the core principles of justice.
As the ECtHR stated:
“The domestic courts’ failure to put in place appropriate safeguards vis-à-vis the key piece of evidence at issue … was incompatible with the very essence of the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 6 § 1.”
The Broader Context: From Yalçınkaya to Demirhan
This ruling builds directly on the Grand Chamber judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, where the ECtHR had already identified systemic violations of Articles 6 and 7.
In both cases, the problem was not merely the use of digital evidence, but the lack of transparency and safeguards:
The raw ByLock data was never disclosed to the defence.
Applicants could not test the integrity, reliability, or completeness of the evidence.
Courts relied heavily on this electronic material without ensuring it could be meaningfully challenged.
According to the Court, such deficiencies strike at the heart of a fair trial and jeopardise trust in the justice system.
Why This Judgment Matters
The Demirhan case highlights a critical issue in modern criminal law: the growing reliance on digital evidence. Encrypted communication, metadata, and server logs can be powerful tools for law enforcement, but without procedural safeguards, they pose a serious risk to defendants’ rights.
“Digital evidence can be decisive in trials,” explains Bojana Franović Kovačević, Joint Defense Team Co-Founder.
“But this judgment reminds us that even in cases involving national security, fundamental rights cannot be set aside. Courts must guarantee that evidence is both reliable and open to adversarial testing. Otherwise, convictions rest on shaky ground.”
The Court further emphasised that access to raw data is essential. Even if summary reports are provided to defendants, this does not replace the right to examine the underlying material. Without such access, the defence cannot effectively challenge the prosecution’s case or present exonerating evidence.
Practical Implications for Future Cases
For defendants, this judgment strengthens the argument that they must be given full access to digital evidence used against them. For lawyers, it provides an additional basis to challenge convictions based on secret or inaccessible data.For journalists and observers, it illustrates how the ECtHR continues to safeguard fair trial rights in the digital age.
As Franović Kovačević notes:
“This is not only about Turkey. Across Europe and beyond, we see a trend of states relying on encrypted data as proof of guilt. The ECtHR has now made clear: evidence that cannot be tested cannot be trusted.”
Conclusion
The Demirhan judgment is another step in the ECtHR’s evolving case-law on human rights and digital evidence. It confirms that in a democratic society, the right to a fair trial cannot be sacrificed for expediency, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
If you are facing proceedings where digital or encrypted evidence plays a role, or if you represent clients in such cases, our team can help.
Contact us for expert assistance in ECtHR cases and international human rights litigation.
The full text of the decision can be found here.