{{Short description|Encrypted messaging application for smartphone}} {{for|the author|Maj Bylock}} {{Infobox software | name = ByLock | developer = | released = March and April 2014 | discontinued = February 2016 | programming language = | operating system = Android, iOS, iPad | language = Turkish | genre = Instant messaging }}
'''ByLock''' was a smartphone application that allowed users to communicate via a private, encrypted connection. It was launched in March 2014 on Google Play, Apple App Store<ref name="guardian2016">{{cite news |title=Turkey coup plotters' use of 'amateur' app helped unveil their network |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/03/turkey-coup-gulen-movement-bylock-messaging-app |newspaper=The Guardian |agency=Reuters |date=2016-08-03 |issn=0261-3077 |access-date=2019-02-16 }}</ref> The app was downloaded over 600,000 times from its launch in April 2014 until March 2016, when it was permanently shut down.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/opinion-on-the-legality-of-the-actions-of-the-turkish-state/|title=Opinion on the Legality of the Actions of the Turkish State in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt in 2016 and the Reliance on Use of the Bylock App as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation - 2 Bedford Row - Criminal Barristers Chambers|date=2017-09-04|website=2 Bedford Row|language=en-GB|access-date=2019-02-10}}</ref> The Turkish National Intelligence Organization ({{langx|tr|Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı}}, MİT) stated that the app was downloaded mainly in Turkey and the users were “Fetullahist Terror Organisation (FETÖ) which was formerly known as “Gülen movement” members.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.taz.de/!5439466/|title=Nachrichten-App "ByLock" in der Türkei: Verdachtsmoment Messenger|last=Celikkan|first=Ali|date=2017-08-13|work=Die Tageszeitung: taz|access-date=2019-02-16|language=de|issn=0931-9085}}</ref>
== Gülen Movement controversy == In Turkey, possession of the app is deemed evidence of membership in the Gülen Movement, which was allegedly connected to the failed Turkish coup d'état attempt in July 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.stern.de/digital/smartphones/bylock--diese-app-macht-in-der-tuerkei-zum-mutmasslichen-terroristen-7806966.html|title=Diese App macht zum mutmaßlichen Terroristen – in den Augen der türkischen Regierung|date=2018-01-03|website=stern.de|language=de|access-date=2019-02-16}}</ref> Users of ByLock were deemed terrorists in Turkish courts.<ref name=Gokce2018>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.diin.2018.06.002 |title=The Bylock fallacy: An In-depth Analysis of the Bylock Investigations in Turkey |journal=Digital Investigation |volume=26|pages=81–91|year=2018 |last1=Gokce|first1=Yasir|s2cid=64978465 }}</ref> According to ''Deutsche Welle'', of the 215,000 former ByLock users, an estimated 23,000 have been detained by Turkish authorities. Some believe that the MİT and other Turkish authorities manipulated the ByLock database in order to arrest suspected members of the Gülen Movement.<ref name=Gokce2018 /> Tuncay Beşikçi, a computer forensic expert in Turkey, emphasized that "the demands to investigate and analyze ByLock data from independent institutions are refused by the Turkish courts. But it is not normal".{{Citation needed|date=November 2020}} Tuncay Beşikçi believes that this application is precisely one of the channels for Gülen molecules to communicate and can also monitor the activities of other members of the organization.<ref>{{Cite news|title='Terrifying': How a single line of computer code put thousands of innocent Turks in jail {{!}} CBC News|language=en-US|work=CBC|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/terrifying-how-a-single-line-of-computer-code-put-thousands-of-innocent-turks-in-jail-1.4495021|access-date=2020-11-15}}</ref> He also stated that the developers behind the Mor Beyin app, deliberately set a plan in motion that would put thousands of innocent people in prison as a cover for the Gülen movement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Farooq|first=Umar|date=2018-04-17|title=The App that Makes You a Terrorist|url=http://bostonreview.net/global-justice/umar-farooq-app-turns-you-terrorist|access-date=2020-11-15|journal=Boston Review|language=en}}</ref>
In December 2017, Turkish authorities revealed that almost half the people who had been prosecuted for having ByLock on their smartphones would have their legal cases reviewed, as they could have been redirected to the app without their knowledge.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dw.com/en/turkey-to-review-over-10000-arrested-coup-suspects-linked-to-bylock-mobile-app/a-41951847|title=Turkey to review over 10,000 arrested coup suspects linked to ByLock mobile app {{!}} DW {{!}} 28.12.2017|website=DW.COM|language=en-GB|access-date=2019-02-16}}</ref>
Following the failed coup attempt on 15 July 2016, the use of the ByLock messaging application by members of the Gülen Movement was the sole evidence in investigations and prosecutions to justify arrests and convictions for "membership in an armed terrorist organization." However, these decisions have been considered human rights violations by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Some of the relevant decisions include the following:
===Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights=== On 20 July 2021, in the case of Tekin Akgün v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the use of the ByLock messaging application, unless supported by other evidence, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a crime.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/ecthr-man-detained-under-terror-suspicions-had-human-rights-violated-by-turkish-authorities#:~:text=The%20court%20considered%20that%20the,suspicions%20for%20the%20alleged%20offences|title=ECHR: Man detained under terror suspicions had human rights violated by Turkish authorities|date=2021-07-20|website=Irish Legal|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref> Based on this reasoning, the court found that the detention order violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to liberty and security.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://tr.euronews.com/2021/07/21/aihm-bylock-kullan-c-s-olmak-tek-bas-na-makul-suphe-olusturmaz|title=The European Court of Human Rights: Being a user of ByLock alone does not constitute 'reasonable suspicion.'|date=2021-07-21|website=euronews|language=tr}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/ecthr-man-detained-under-terror-suspicions-had-human-rights-violated-by-turkish-authorities#:~:text=The%20ECtHR%20concluded%20that%20the,under%20Article%205%20of%20ECHR|title=ECHR: Man detained under terror suspicions had human rights violated by Turkish authorities|date=2021-07-23|website=Irish Legal|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref> In the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey decision on 26 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined an appeal against a conviction based on the use of ByLock. The Court ruled that the failure to provide an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the ByLock data violated the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/turkey-echr-strasbourg-ruling-on-turkish-app-service-a-test-for-thousands-of-post-coup-cases/#:~:text=The%20court%20ruled%20that%20Yuksel,Human%20Rights%20had%20been%20violated|title=The court ruled that Yalcinkaya's rights to a fair trial and freedom of association were violated.|website=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref> The Court also stated that the mere use of ByLock could not be considered sufficient evidence for membership in an armed terrorist organization.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/conviction-based-app-use-violated-turkish-teachers-rights-european-court-says-2023-09-26/#:~:text=In%20its%20ruling%2C%20the%20ECHR,for%20use%20by%20Gulen%20followers|title=The court noted Yalçınkaya's 2017 conviction was solely based on ByLock usage, which couldn't justify the verdict.|website=Reuters|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref> It further noted that local courts had established an automatic presumption of guilt based solely on ByLock use, creating a broad and unpredictable interpretation of the law, making it nearly impossible for the accused to exonerate themselves.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/turkey-echr-strasbourg-ruling-on-turkish-app-service-a-test-for-thousands-of-post-coup-cases/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20ECHR%2C%20“anyone,”|title=The ECHR stated that ByLock use alone could lead to a conviction for membership in an armed terrorist organization.|website=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref> Therefore, the Court concluded that the conviction based on the use of ByLock violated the principle of no punishment without law (Article 7 of the ECHR).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/conviction-based-app-use-violated-turkish-teachers-rights-european-court-says-2023-09-26/#:~:text=Turkish%20courts%20have%20said%20was,for%20use%20by%20Gulen%20followers|title=The ECtHR noted the issue is systemic, with 8,500 similar cases pending, and urged Turkey to revise its approach to ByLock evidence. | website=Reuters|language=en|access-date=2025-07-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.politikyol.com/yalcinkaya-kararinin-anlami-baglayiciligi-ve-muhtemel-sonuclari/|title=The Meaning, Binding Nature, and Potential Consequences of the Yalçınkaya Decision|website=PolitikYol.com|language=tr |access-date=2025-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231012174933/https://www.politikyol.com/yalcinkaya-kararinin-anlami-baglayiciligi-ve-muhtemel-sonuclari/|archive-date=2023-10-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://tr.euronews.com/2023/09/26/aihm-bylock-ve-banka-asya-davasinda-turkiye-aleyhine-ihlal-karari-verdi|title=ECHR Ruling Against Turkey in ByLock and Bank Asya Case|website=Euronews Türkiye|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref> On 22 July 2025, in the Demirhan and 238 Others case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) consolidated the applications of 239 individuals who had been convicted of "membership in an armed terrorist organization" based on their use of ByLock, as determined by 239 separate courts in Turkey. The Court ruled that the convictions violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 and the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-türkiye-7#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20Demirhan,right%20to%20a%20fair%20trial|title=Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye: Violation of Article 7 and Fair Trial Rights|website=European Court of Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref> The ruling stated that the Turkish courts' "categorical approach" to the use of ByLock lacked legal foundation. In this context, it was emphasized that anyone who had used ByLock could not be convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization based solely on this reasoning.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-türkiye-7#:~:text=judgment%2C%20the%20Court%20found%20that,and%20their%20fair%20trial%20rights|title=ECHR Judgment on ByLock Use and Fair Trial Rights|website=European Court of Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref name="guardian2016" /> The ruling also stated that, due to the large number of similar applications, the issue was "systemic in nature" and it called for a national solution to be developed by Turkey.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-türkiye-7#:~:text=who%20had%20used%20the%20application,and%20their%20fair%20trial%20rights|title=ECHR Ruling on ByLock Use and Fair Trial Rights|website=European Court of Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref> While the Court did not order compensation for the 239 applicants, it emphasized that reopening the trial to ensure the enforcement of the violation ruling was the most appropriate remedy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dw.com/tr/ai%CC%87hmden-toplu-bylock-karar%C4%B1-t%C3%BCrkiyeye-bir-mahk%C3%BBmiyet-daha/a-73374102|title=ECHR Ruling on ByLock Use and Fair Trial Rights|website=Deutsche Welle|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref name="guardian2016" /> This ruling, which confirms the violation finding in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case of 26 September 2023, is considered a continuation of the ECHR's case law concerning trials based on ByLock evidence.
=== Decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Working Group === In the İsmet Özçelik and Turgay Karaman v. Turkey decision, dated 28 May 2019 (Application No. 2980/2017), the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the use of ByLock and allegations of depositing money into Bank Asya could not justify the applicants' arrests.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/2019.03.26_Ozcelik_v_Turkey.pdf|title=UN Human Rights Committee Finds Turkey in Violation of Article 9 ICCPR|website=WorldCourts|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.diken.com.tr/bmden-turkiyeye-ultimatom-devlet-partisi-iki-supheliyi-birakmak-zorunda/|title=UN Gives Turkey 'Ultimatum': The State Party Must Release Two Suspects|website=Diken|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tr724.com/ilk-uluslararasi-mahkeme-karari/|title=First International Court Decision: UN Ruling Opens the Door to Releases|website=TR724|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref> In the Mestan Yayman v. Turkey decision (Opinion No. 42/2018 – 21 August 2018) by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it was stated that using a public messaging application like ByLock cannot be considered criminal evidence, and that the use of such an application falls under the scope of freedom of thought and expression.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/WGAD/2018/42|title=Opinion No. 42/2018: Mestan Yayman v. Turkey|website=United Nations Human Rights Council|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ukraynahaber.com/2018/10/29/bylock-suclamasini-curuten-ilk-uluslararasi-karar/|title=The First International Ruling that Refutes the ByLock Allegation|website=UkraynaHaber.com|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tr724.com/birlesmis-milletler-bylock-tek-basina-suc-delili-olamaz-mestan-yayman-karari-4/|title=United Nations: ByLock Cannot Be Used as Sole Criminal Evidence (Mestan Yayman Decision-4)|website=Tr724|language=tr| access-date=2024-04-04}}</ref> The dozens of decisions later issued by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group are of the same nature.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/LRWC.Turkey.Letter.Murat-Arslan.30March2022.F.No_.Sig_.pdf#:~:text=arbitrary%20detention,Bylock%20on%20a%20phone%20cannot|title=LRWC Letter on Arbitrary Detention and ByLock|website=Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada|language=en|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://tr.euronews.com/2020/04/03/bm-turkiye-de-ic-hukuku-beklemeden-keyfi-tutuklama-dosyasini-kabul-etti-khk-by-lock-ihrac|title=UN Accepted 'Arbitrary Detention' Case in Turkey Without Waiting for Domestic Legal Process|website=Euronews|language=tr|access-date=2025-07-31}}</ref>
== References == {{Reflist}}
Category:Application software Category:Human rights abuses in Turkey Category:2016 Turkish coup attempt Category:2014 software