The bombing carried out by ISIS on 10 October 2015 in front of Ankara Train Station during the “Labour, Peace and Democracy Rally” stands as the deadliest civilian massacre in Turkey’s history. The attack claimed the lives of 103 people and left hundreds injured. Yet, ten years later, the trial remains unresolved.
On the anniversary of the massacre, the legal aspects of the case and the pursuit of justice have once again drawn public attention. Lawyer Ilke Işık, who has followed the case from the beginning, offered a comprehensive assessment of the legal shortcomings and the state’s stance throughout the process.
Işık criticized the judiciary’s refusal to classify the massacre as a crime against humanity, stressing that this ten-year period reflects the overall pattern of judicial practice in Turkey.
Işık said, “Ten years have passed since the country’s largest mass massacre. For us, these ten years have also meant a lament of justice. From the very beginning of the process and throughout its continuation, the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court issued two rulings. Yet with its most recent decision it maintained an attitude of refusing to see the crime as one against humanity. This aligns with the general line of judicial practice.
Three judicial panels were replaced over the course of this trial. This file, which contains hundreds of folders and requires meticulous examination, was not recognized at the first hearing as the country’s greatest massacre. Yet in 2026 the first panel itself had stated how important the file was.”
Ilke Işık stated that the changes in the judicial panels revealed how carelessly the case had been handled. She also said, “In a file this extensive and one that requires such careful examination, the replacement or removal of judicial panels, especially when dealing with a politically motivated massacre, shows how politically the judiciary has acted. The demands were ignored; the decisions seemed predetermined.
After ten years, what they summed up for us was this: ‘We will punish only ISIS members. We will treat only them as defendants and punish them.’”
A decision that twists political reality
Ilke Işık stated that although the number of defendants in the case had increased over time, no public officials had ever been prosecuted. Işık said: “In the first trial, there were nine defendants. With the ruling issued in 2024, the number rose to ten. These ten defendants were sentenced for 101 counts of ‘aggravated murder and attempted murder.’ In total, there were nineteen detained defendants.
The remaining nine were sentenced for various crimes such as membership in an organization and possession of explosives. We can say that this is the only case in the country where ISIS members were tried while in custody and actually received sentences. Because we know that these defendants, whether fugitives or not, had not been previously apprehended. And when they were, they were released shortly afterward. This practice of release has been internalized by the judiciary.”
Işık explained that the trial process conducted under the category of crimes against humanity was also limited for political reasons. Işık also said: “In 2019, the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office prepared an indictment on crimes against humanity, which was accepted by the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court. However, in 2024, the court acquitted the defendants of that charge. It ruled that the crime had not been committed against the entire society and claimed it was carried out to put the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in a difficult position before the November elections.
This is a decision that bends both legal and political reality. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, avoided making a ruling on the substance of the case, arguing that the victims had no legal standing. We have appealed this decision, and the process is still ongoing in the higher court.”
No action taken against any public official
Işık pointed out that no action had been taken regarding the responsibility of public officials. She said, “This massacre was not carried out solely by ISIS. ISIS was used as an instrument. The planners of the massacre, the fugitive defendants, and all the missing links are present in the case file. Yet no public official has been prosecuted. Even the riot police officers who used tear gas at the scene were not brought to trial. For ten years, all state institutions have built a unified wall to prevent public officials from being prosecuted. She said, “We are fighting for justice, and they are fighting to avoid accountability,” and drawed attention to the political nature of the process.
Finally, Işık stated that the applications made to the Constitutional Court had also yielded no results. She concluded: “The ruling concerning the detained defendants was issued in 2018 and its reasoning written in 2019. Since then, it has been pending before the Constitutional Court. Our substantive objections have been ignored. This case is Turkey’s test in confronting crimes against humanity and the judiciary has failed that test.”
What has happened in those ten years?
On the morning of 10 October 2015, two suicide bombers detonated themselves one after another at 10:04 a.m. in the middle of a crowd gathered in front of Ankara Train Station for the “Labour, Peace and Democracy Rally.” The explosions killed 103 people and injured hundreds more. Recorded as the deadliest terrorist attack in Turkey’s history, the massacre left a deep scar on the conscience of society. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.
In the aftermath, a three-day national mourning period was declared. Trade unions called for strikes, and political parties suspended their election campaigns. The immediate police intervention at the scene and the harsh treatment of those trying to help the wounded drew strong public outrage.
The peace rally, which was the target of the attack, had been organized at the call of anti-war political parties, civil society organizations, and professional associations. The massacre was seen not only as a failure of security but also as a profound political turning point.
Negligence ignored
The investigation eventually traced the attack to an ISIS cell based in Antep. One of the suicide bombers was Yunus Emre Alagöz, whose brother, Abdurrahman Alagöz, had carried out the Suruç bombing in July 2015 that killed 34 people. It was later revealed that both attacks were planned by individuals connected to the same ISIS network.
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office identified İlhami Balı, allegedly the ISIS commander responsible for Turkey, as the organizer of the bombing.
In total, indictments were filed against 35 people, 16 of whom remained fugitives. The trial began in 2016. Nine defendants were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment, one for “violating the constitutional order” and 100 for “premeditated murder,” receiving a total of 101 aggravated life sentences each.
They were also sentenced to over 10,000 years in prison for “attempted murder.”
Throughout the trial, victims’ families and their lawyers repeatedly argued that the state had prior intelligence about the attack but failed to take the necessary precautions. These allegations were frequently raised in court, yet no investigation was ever launched against public officials. For those who believed justice should address not only the perpetrators but also those responsible for negligence, this became a profound source of disappointment.
In 2024, on the ninth anniversary of the attack, the court announced its final ruling. However, the fugitive defendants remain at large, and Ilhami Balı, accused of masterminding the massacre, has still not been found. Although the judicial process has technically been concluded, there is a prevailing belief in society that true justice has not been served.
One of the heaviest prices paid for the demand for peace
Throughout the trial of the 10 October Ankara Train Station Massacre, the harshest criticism centered on the judiciary’s refusal to hold public officials accountable. Lawyers stated that intelligence had been obtained prior to the attack regarding the existence of an ISIS cell; the suspects’ identities, phone numbers, and even wiretapped conversations were known. Yet, the court ignored this information.
It later emerged that a report prepared by inspectors from the Ministry of Interior had been censored by the General Directorate of Security, and key files were withheld by prosecutors. Despite this, the Ankara 4th High Criminal Court did not consider these documents in its reasoned decision.
Lawyers argued that the attack should be classified as a “crime against humanity,” but the court rejected this definition, issuing verdicts only for “violating the constitutional order” and “premeditated murder.” Institutions such as the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and the Ankara Bar Association also attended the hearings, drawing attention to the shortcomings in the legal process. Political parties, meanwhile, criticized the government of the time for its rhetoric surrounding the attack and its failure to take preventive measures.
The 10 October Ankara Train Station Massacre brought fundamental issues such as counterterrorism, judicial independence, and public accountability back into the national spotlight. The commemorations held on its anniversaries continue to honor not only the victims but also the enduring struggle for justice.
This date remains etched in collective memory as the day when the call for peace met its heaviest price.