This study examines how victims of serious human rights violations in Türkiye experience and perceive reparations awarded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While the ECtHR typically awards financial compensation for non-pecuniary damages, it also has the authority to recommend investigative and remedial measures as part of just satisfaction. Drawing on expectancy-disconfirmation theory and victimological approaches to reparative justice, the study explores how a select group of survivors, both recipients and non-recipients of ECtHR judgments, assess the extent to which these measures meet their expectations and justice needs. Findings show that ECtHR acknowledgment holds deep significance for survivors, especially where national recognition is lacking. Symbolic forms of reparation, such as acknowledgment, truth-telling, and accountability, are consistently viewed as more meaningful than monetary compensation. Participants across both groups prioritized ending ongoing harm and ensuring non-repetition. Legal recognition alone did not strongly shape perceptions of justice, and some participants reported added distress when reparative processes were delayed or obstructed. By highlighting the mismatch between the ECtHR’s current remedial framework and the more expansive, collective, and recognition-oriented expectations of victims, this study calls for a more victim-centered and contextually responsive approach to reparation in cases of widespread or systemic harm.
Abdulaziz Bengi ve Diğerleri Başvurusu (2020) Turkish constitutional court, second section, application No. 2014/14048, decision date 10 June 2020. Available at: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/14048 (accessed 4 April 2025).
2.
AhıskaM (2014) Counter-movement, space and politics: How the Saturday Mothers of Turkey make enforced disappearances visible. In: SchindelEColomboP (eds) Space and the Memories of Violence: Landscapes of Erasure, Disappearance and Exception. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 162–175.
3.
Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (1996) European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 21893/93, 16September. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58062 (accessed 19 December 2024).
4.
Aksoy v. Turkey (1996) European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 21987/93, 18December. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-58003 (accessed 3 March 2025).
AlıcıN (2023) Imagining transitional justice in Turkey’s ongoing Kurdish conflict. In: DestrooperTGisselLECarlsonKB (eds) Transitional Justice in Aparadigmatic Contexts. 1st ed. London: Routledge, pp. 52–67.
7.
AltıparmakK (2009) Kopya Davalar ve Pilot Kararlar: Bir Kararda Bin Adaletsizlik? [Copy cases and pilot judgements: Thousand injustices in one decision?]. In: AltıparmakK (ed.) 50. Yılında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi: Başarı Mı, Hayal Kırıklığı Mı? [Fifty Years of the European Court of Human Rights: Failure or Success?]. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara Barosu Yayınları, pp. 60–107.
8.
Amnesty International (2017) No End in Sight: Purged Public Sector Workers in Turkey Denied a Future. London: Amnesty International. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/6272/2017/en/ (accessed 15 July 2024).
9.
Ayder and Others v. Turkey (2004) European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 23656/94, 8 January. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61560 (accessed 9 November 2024).
10.
AydınHLangleyW (2021) Introducing human rights in Turkey. In: AydınHLangleyW (eds) Human Rights in Turkey: Philosophy and Politics—Critical Explorations, vol. 15. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–22.
11.
BakınerO (2013) Is Turkey coming to terms with its past? Politics of memory and majoritarian conservatism. Nationalities Papers41(5): 691–708.
12.
BakınerO (2017) How did we get here? Turkey’s slow shift to authoritarianism. In: BaşerBÖztürkAE (eds) Authoritarian Politics in Turkey. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 21–46.
13.
BakınerO (2020) Truth, justice, and commemoration initiatives in Turkey. In: TezcürGM (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 669–688.
14.
BaldeRWemmersJ-A (2021) Perceptions of justice and victims of crimes against humanity in Guinea. International Review of Victimology27(2): 138–161.
15.
BaltaA (2019) Victims and retributive responses at the European Court of Human Rights: Scrutinizing the coercive dimension of reparations. SSRN Electronic Journal. Epub ahead of print 19 February. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3337689.
16.
BaltaA (2020) What’s law got to do with it?: Assessing international courts’ contribution to reparative justice for victims of mass atrocities through their reparations regimes. Doctoral Thesis, PrismaPrint, Tilburg.
17.
BaltaABaxMLetschertR (2019) Between idealism and realism: A comparative analysis of the reparations regimes of the international criminal court and the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice45: 15–38.
18.
BaltaADe WaardtMVaesM (2024) ECCC reparations inside and out: Unpacking rhetorics on reparative justice for victims of mass crimes. In: SpijkersOFraserJGiakoumakisE (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2022, vol. 53 (Netherlands Yearbook of International Law). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 207–234.
19.
BaserBAkgönülSÖztürkAE (2017) ‘Academics for peace’ in Turkey: A case of criminalising dissent and critical thought via counterterrorism policy. Critical Studies on Terrorism10(2): 274–296.
20.
BassiouniMC (2006) International recognition of victims’ rights. Human Rights Law Review6(2): 203–279.
21.
BaxM (2023) The development of collective reparations in international courts and truth commissions. Doctoral Thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
22.
BaxMDe WaardtMLetschertR (2023) Massavictimisatie [Mass victimization]. In: Van DoornJ (ed.) Slachtoffers: Onderzoek, Beleid en Praktijk [Victims: Research, Policy, and Practice]. Deventer: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 383–398.
BegicevicA (2023) Bosnian voices from the bottom of the well: Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and victims’ right to remedies. International Review of Victimology29(1): 75–105.
25.
Benzer and Others v. Turkey (2013) European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application No. 23502/06, 12November. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-128036 (accessed 22 December 2024).
BijleveldC (2019) Conflicts and International Crimes: An Introduction to Research Methods. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
28.
BonnerMJamesM (2011) The three R’s of seeking transitional justice: Reparation, responsibility, and reframing in Canada and Argentina. International Indigenous Policy Journal2(3): 3.
29.
ÇalıB (2010) The logics of supranational human rights litigation, official acknowledgment, and human rights reform: The Southeast Turkey cases before the European Court of Human Rights, 1996–2006. Law & Social Inquiry35(2): 311–337.
30.
ÇamanME (2021) Authoritarianization and Human Rights in Turkey: How the AKP legitimizes human rights violations. In: AydınHLangleyW (eds) Human Rights in Turkey. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 179–197.
31.
ChapmanARBallPD (2001) The truth of truth commissions: Comparative lessons from Haiti, South Africa, and Guatemala. Human Rights Quarterly23(1): 1–43.
32.
CodySStoverEBalthazardM, et al. (2015) The victims’ court?A study of 622 victim participants at the international criminal court. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2982534 (accessed 21 June 2025).
33.
ColsellKSimićO (2022) ‘It’s not about the money—Stop the trauma’: Victims’ responses to reparations in Argentina and Australia. Human Rights Review23(2): 163–181.
Council of Europe (CoE) (2023) Main Issues before the Committee of Ministers—Ongoing Supervision—Turkey. Department For the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/mi-turkey-eng/1680a23cae (accessed 30 October 2024).
36.
Cülaz and Others v. Turkey (2014) European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application Nos. 7524/06 and 39046/10, 15April. [Online] Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148461 (accessed 10 December 2024).
37.
Cyprus v. Turkey (2001) European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 25781/94, 10May. [Online] Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59454 (accessed 23 February 2025).
38.
CzitromCG (2002) Executive Summary of ‘Truth Commissions: An Uncertain Path?’ By Victor Espinoza Cuevas, Maria Luisa Ortiz Rojas, and Paz Rojas Baeza. Geneva: Association for the Prevention of Torture.
39.
DavidRChoiYPS (2005) Victims on transitional justice: Lessons from the reparation of human rights abuses in the Czech Republic. Human Rights Quarterly27(2): 392–435.
40.
De WaardtM (2013) Are Peruvian victims being mocked?: Politicization of victimhood and victims’ motivations for reparations. Human Rights Quarterly: A Comparative and International Journal of the Social Sciences, Philosophy, and Law35(4): 830–849.
41.
De WaardtM (2016) Naming and shaming victims: The semantics of victimhood. International Journal of Transitional Justice10(3): 432–450.
42.
De WaardtMGeorgiouDCelalE (2021) Attempts at redress through the lens of social identity: Housing, land and property of the displaced in Cyprus. International Journal of Transitional Justice15(1): 169–189.
43.
DemirçiviF (2025) Victimology of state repression: A grounded theory of victimization under democratic backsliding in Türkiye. PhD Thesis, Ghent University, Ghent.
44.
DinsmoreDS (2017) Forced displacement in Turkey: Pushing the limits of the ECHR system. International Migration55(5): 180–191.
45.
ElçiT (2012) Yakın Geçmişte İnsan Haklarının Ağır İhlallerini Soruşturma(ma) Sorunu [The problem of (not) investigating severe violations of human rights in the recent past]. In: PişkinL (ed.) Geçmişle Yüzleşme Ve Mevcut Davalar [Confronting the past and Existing Court Cases]. Istanbul, Turkey: Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), pp. 10–14.
FaveroNKimM (2021) Everything is relative: How citizens form and use expectations in evaluating services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(3): 561–577.
49.
FikfakV (2020) Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state. Leiden Journal of International Law33(2): 335–369.
50.
FultonS (2014) Redress for enforced disappearance: Why financial compensation is not enough. Journal of International Criminal Justice12(4): 769–786.
51.
García-GodosJ (2016) Victims in focus: Review essay. International Journal of Transitional Justice10: 350–358.
52.
Göral ÖS (2017) Enforced disappearance and forced migration in the context of Kurdish conflict: Loss, mourning and politics at the margin. Unpublished PhD Thesis, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris.
53.
GoughN (2008) Life stories. In: GivenLM (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 484–485.
54.
GreadyPRobinsS (2014) From transitional to transformative justice: A new agenda for practice. International Journal of Transitional Justice8(3): 339–361.
55.
GreeleyRAOrwiczMRFalconiJL, et al. (2020) Repairing symbolic reparations: Assessing the effectiveness of memorialization in the inter-American system of human rights. International Journal of Transitional Justice14(1): 165–192.
56.
GreenPWardT (2000) State crime, human rights, and the limits of criminology. Social Justice 27(1(79)): 101–115.
57.
GroenhuijsenMSPembertonA (2011) Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: A victimological perspective on international criminal justice. In: LetschertRHavemanRDe BrouwerA-M, et al. (eds) Victimological Approaches to International Crimes: Africa. Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 9–34.
HjortskovM (2019) Citizen expectations and satisfaction over time: Findings from a large sample panel survey of public school parents in Denmark. American Review of Public Administration49(3): 353–371.
63.
HjortskovM (2020) Interpreting expectations: Normative and predictive expectations as seen by citizens. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration3(1): 1–11.
ImmlerN (2018) Narrating (in)justice in the form of a reparation claim: Bottom-up reflections on a postcolonial setting—The Rawagede case. In: AdlerN (ed.) Understanding the Age of Transitional Justice: Crimes, Courts, Commissions, and Chronicling. Ithaca, NY: Rutgers University Press, pp. 149–174.
70.
JongerdenJ (2018) Looking beyond the state: Transitional justice and the Kurdish issue in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies41(4): 721–738.
71.
KarakaşS (2022) Turkish state criminality against Kurds and victimization through impunity. State Crime Journal11(2): 209–236.
72.
Kavala v. Turkey (2020) European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, (Article 46§4), Application No. 28749/18, 11May. [Online] Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-199515 (accessed 11 October 2024).
73.
KendallSNouwenS (2013) Representational practices at the international criminal court: The gap between juridified and abstract victimhood. Research paper, no. 24/2013, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2313094 (accessed 14 December 2024).
KurbanD (2020) Limits of Supranational Justice: The European Court of Human Rights and Turkey’s Kurdish Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
LaplanteLJ (2004) Bringing effective remedies home: The inter-American Human Rights system, reparations, and the duty of prevention. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights22(3): 347–388.
77.
LaplanteLJ (2013) The plural justice aims of reparations. In: Buckley-ZistelSBeckTKBraunC, et al. (eds) Transitional Justice Theories. Routledge. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3038951 (accessed 22 May 2025).
78.
LaplanteLJ (2015) Just repair. Cornell International Law Journal48: 513–578.
79.
LeachP (2013) What is justice? Reflections of a practitioner at the European Court of Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review4: 392–400.
80.
LetschertRParmentierS (2014) Repairing the impossible: Victimological approaches to international crimes. In: VanfrachemIPembertonANdahindaF (eds) Justice for Victims. London: Routledge, pp. 210–228.
81.
LetschertRVan BovenT (2011) Providing reparation in situations of mass victimization: Key challenges involved. In: LetschertRHavemanRDe BrouwerA-M, et al. (eds) Victimological Approaches to International Crimes: Africa. 1st ed. Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 153–184.
82.
LiraE (2021) Recognition, reparation, justice, and memory: Chile 1990–2020. In: López LópezWTaylorLK (eds) Transitioning to Peace. Peace Psychology Book Series. Cham: Springer, pp. 13–28.
83.
Makbule Kaymaz and Others v. Turkey (2014) European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application No. 651/10, 25February. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-141616 (accessed 12 October 2024).
84.
ManirabonaAMWemmersJ-A (2014) It doesn’t go away with time: Victims’ need for reparation following crimes against humanity. In: WemmersJ-A (ed.) Reparation for Victims of Crimes against Humanity. London: Routledge, pp. 71–91.
85.
MégretF (2009) The international criminal court statute and the failure to mention symbolic reparation. International Review of Victimology16(2): 127–147.
86.
MoffettL (2017) Transitional justice and reparations. In: LawtherCMoffettLJacobsD (eds) Research Handbook on Transitional Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 377–400.
87.
MoffettL (2021) Victims, victimology and transitional justice. In: YusufHOVan der MerweH (eds) Transitional Justice: Theories, Mechanisms and Debates. London: Routledge, pp. 30–53.
88.
MoonC (2013) Money as the measure of man: Values and value in the politics of reparation. In: CowburnMDugganMRobinsonA, et al. (eds) Values in Criminology and Community Justice. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 255–272.
89.
Odier Contreras-GardunoD (2018) Collective Reparations: Tensions and Dilemmas Between Collective Reparations and the Individual Right to Receive Reparations. 1st ed. Cambridge: Intersentia.
90.
OjasaloJ (2001) Managing customer expectations in professional services. Managing Service Quality11: 200–212.
91.
OliverRL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research17: 460–469.
92.
OlkkonenLLuoma-AhoVL (2015) Broadening the concept of expectations in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research27(1): 81–99.
93.
OttendoerferE (2018) Translating victims’ ‘right to reparations’ into practice: A framework for assessing the implementation of reparations programs from a bottom-up perspective. Human Rights Quarterly40(4): 905–931.
94.
ParmentierSWeitekampE (2014) Victimisation during and after war. In: RotheDLKauzlarichD (eds) Towards a Victimology of State Crime. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 149–169.
95.
ParmentierSValiñasMWeitekampE (2009) How to repair the harm after violent conflict in Bosnia? Results of a population-based survey. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights27(1): 27–44.
96.
PembertonALetschertR (2022) Victimology of atrocity crimes. In: HoláBNzitatiraHNWeerdesteijnM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Atrocity Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 461–480.
97.
Roht-ArriazaN (2004) Reparations in the aftermath of repression and mass violence. In: StoverEWeinsteinHM (eds) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–140.
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (2020) European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 14305/17, 22December. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-207173 (accessed 17 December 2023).
100.
SperfeldtC (2022) Practices of Reparations in International Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (CUP).
101.
SveaassNSønnelandAM (2015) Dealing with the past: Survivors’ perspectives on economic reparations in Argentina. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation4(4): 223–238.
102.
TomuschatC (2002) Reparation for victims of grave human rights violations. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law10: 157–184.
TurkutEGarahanS (2020) The ‘reasonable suspicion’ test of Turkey’s post-coup emergency rule under the European Convention on Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights38: 264–282.
105.
TutkalS (2022) Trustees instead of elected mayors: Authoritarian neoliberalism and the removal of Kurdish mayors in Turkey. Nationalities Papers50(6): 1164–1186.
106.
ÜngörUÜIşıkA (2021) Violence against the Kurds in the Turkish Republic. In: JongerdenJ (ed.) The Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Turkey. 1st ed. London: Routledge, pp. 24–36.
107.
Van BovenT (2007) Reparative justice—Focus on victims, SIM lecture 2007. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights25(4): 723–735.
108.
Van BovenT (2013) Victim-oriented perspectives: Rights and realities. In: BonackerTSafferlingC (eds) Victims of International Crimes: An Interdisciplinary Discourse. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 17–27.
109.
VerdejaE (2008) A critical theory of reparative justice. Constellations15(2): 208–222.
110.
VinckPPhamPBaldoS, et al. (2008) Living with Fear: A Population-Based Survey on Attitudes about Peace, Justice, and Social Reconstruction in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9738b4pm (accessed 16 September 2024).
111.
WalkerMU (2006) Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
112.
WalkerMU (2013) The expressive burden of reparations: Putting meaning into money, words, and things. In: MacLachlanASpeightA (eds) Justice, Responsibility and Reconciliation in the Wake of Conflict. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 205–225.
113.
WemmersJ-A (2014) Restoring justice for victims of crimes against humanity. In: WemmersJ-A (ed.) Reparation for Victims of Crimes against Humanity. London: Routledge, pp. 38–50.
114.
WillemsEDe WaardtM (2022) Van vervreemding tot verzet in post-conflict samenlevingen [From alienation to resistance in post-conflict societies]. Tijdschrift Over Cultuur & Criminaliteit12(1): 19–41.
115.
WolfeS (2022) Reparations and the role of apologies. In: HoláBNzitatiraHNWeerdesteijnM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Atrocity Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 725–754.
116.
YaylaA (2016) Turkey’s July Coup Attempt: ‘A Gift from God’ to a New Authoritarianism (My Testimony to the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
117.
YazıcıS (2015) Turkey in the last two decades: From democratization to authoritarianism. European Public Law21(4): 635–656.
118.
YıldızK (2005) The Kurds in Turkey: EU Accession and Human Rights. London: Pluto Press.
119.
Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye (2023) European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 15669/20, 26September. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-14187 (accessed 17 December 2024).
ZhangJChenWPetrovskyN, et al. (2022) The expectancy-disconfirmation model and citizen satisfaction with public services: A meta-analysis and an agenda for best practice. Public Administration Review82: 147–159.
