AI system in Turkish justice ministry
The Turkish government has begun using artificial intelligence to detect potential connections to groups it has declared as terrorist. The system, called the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office Organization Prediction Project, is designed to automatically identify suspected affiliations within legal documents. Created by the ministry’s Directorate General of Information Technology, the AI scans data from the National Judiciary Informatics System, known as UYAP. It compares it against databases of groups Ankara has labeled as terrorist. This initiative has drawn criticism from legal professionals. Human rights advocates argue it could further entrench problematic judicial practices.
The system is part of a broader effort to integrate technology into legal processes in Turkey. The Justice Ministry claims the AI is not a substitute for human judgment but a tool to prevent mistakes in data entry. According to Servet Gül, the ministry’s Information Technology Director General, the system helps public prosecutors match new case information with known records of designated terrorist groups. He stated the project aims to improve accuracy in judicial statistics and to better meet the demands of international monitoring bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Critics question AI’s use in justice
Lawyer Hatice Yıldız voiced concerns on X, challenging the rationale behind the system. In her post, she asked whether the need for AI implies that prosecutors are unable to properly assess the case files they handle. She also questioned whether the tool was more of an automated “terrorist affiliation detector” than a neutral aid. Yıldız’s remarks reflect a broader skepticism about the system’s transparency and the possibility that it could reinforce unjust legal assumptions.
The Justice Ministry claims the AI has already helped standardize procedures and reduce clerical errors. By April 2025, seven of the ministry’s nine AI projects were being used nationally, according to Gül. By June 2026, the ministry had expanded the organization prediction tool to all judges and prosecutors. Despite this rollout, critics argue that the system’s underlying data and algorithms remain opaque, with little public explanation of its design, data sources, or risk-mitigation strategies.
AI risks repeating flawed legal logic
Ali Yıldız, a human rights lawyer based in Belgium, raised a key issue. He said AI systems, when trained on flawed historical data, can reproduce and even amplify those flaws. In the context of Turkey’s legal system, he noted that many past terrorism-related cases have been criticized. They are said to violate international human rights standards. For instance, in the 2026 case of Şaban Yasak, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Turkish courts had failed to provide sufficient evidence. It showed the defendant was aware of a group’s objectives. AI trained on such data might replicate the same errors. It could give the illusion of impartiality through algorithmic neutrality.
Yıldız also pointed to the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case from 2026. In that case, the ECtHR ruled that Turkish courts had unjustly assumed guilt based on the use of the ByLock messaging app. This case exemplifies the risk that AI models may reinforce outdated legal reasoning. This is particularly true when trained on flawed data. He warned that if the Justice Ministry’s system is built on such problematic precedents, it could further entrench biased outcomes. It could do so in the Turkish judiciary.
The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice has established guidelines for AI in judicial systems, emphasizing the need for transparency, fairness, and accountability. It calls for secure data use, external audits, and user control over AI systems. However, Yıldız noted that the Turkish ministry has provided minimal information about the training data, performance metrics, or safeguards against algorithmic bias in its system. He also highlighted that defendants are not informed when an AI’s analysis may have influenced their case, a violation of basic legal transparency principles.
The concerns over the AI system emerge within a broader context. It is that of a judiciary increasingly shaped by political influence. Since 2013, the Turkish judiciary has undergone significant changes. This was especially true after a corruption investigation targeted high-level government figures. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused the prosecutors and judges involved. He claimed they acted on behalf of the Gülen movement, a religious group critical of his administration. Following a 2016 coup attempt, the government launched a wide-scale crackdown. Over 4,000 judges and prosecutors were disbarred. They were accused of ties to the Gülen movement. Critics argue this has deepened the judiciary’s entanglement with political power. The use of AI could further solidify these problematic dynamics.
As the use of AI in judicial processes continues to expand, the debate over its ethical and legal implications remains critical. While proponents argue that technology can increase efficiency and reduce errors, opponents caution that without proper oversight, AI can become a tool for reinforcing bias, limiting due process, and undermining the rule of law.