The investigation into the Gülistan Doku case intensifies as legal and judicial statements highlight new evidence and procedural developments.
The long-running investigation into the disappearance of university student Gülistan Doku, who has not been heard from since Jan. 5, 2020, in Tunceli, eastern Türkiye, has entered a renewed phase following recent operational and evidentiary developments.
Legal representatives and judicial authorities have provided contrasting yet complementary assessments regarding the scope and direction of the case.
Speaking in Erzurum, eastern Türkiye, on Tuesday, lawyer Ali Çimen, representing the Doku family, stated that recent activities carried out by the Tunceli Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office have strengthened public confidence in the justice system.
Çimen emphasized that 12 suspects have been detained within the scope of the investigation, while one suspect remains at large and three others are under judicial control. He argued that earlier procedural shortcomings had negatively affected public trust and claimed that additional individuals, including certain law enforcement officials from the period in question, may also become subject to investigation.
Çimen further suggested that witness statements and case materials indicate broader institutional responsibility, asserting that some official records may have been manipulated. He also reiterated the family’s expectation that a second wave of operational steps could follow as the investigation expands.
Addressing the issue of Doku’s remains, Çimen stated that he expects the prosecution to provide the family with conclusive information and urged patience as investigative procedures continue.
On the detention of former Tunceli Governor Tuncay Sonel, Çimen said that the legal justification included four separate charges and claimed that repeated violations had been identified. He further argued that additional charges could be incorporated into the file and suggested that full legal concurrence should be applied.
Çimen also made claims regarding alleged prior violence against Gülistan Doku, stating that she had been subjected to assault and an attempted sexual attack, and that she was later taken to the hospital after sustaining injuries. He argued that, under the legal duty of care, the then-governor had a responsibility to ensure her protection, which he said was not fulfilled.
He further claimed that no protective measures were implemented and that the individuals involved were not properly restrained, alleging that subsequent actions contributed to her death. On this basis, he stated that responsibility could extend under guarantor liability principles and said that legal efforts would continue to seek Sonel’s detention on homicide-related charges.
In parallel, Türkiye’s Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek commented on the case during a televised interview on CNN Türk, framing the investigation as an evidence-driven judicial process. Gürlek noted that the case, initially launched in 2020, gained renewed momentum following the emergence of new evidence in 2025, including secret witness testimony and technical data such as phone records, base station data, and surveillance footage.
He emphasized that the ministry does not intervene in prosecutorial processes, underscoring the independence of judicial authorities. According to Gürlek, the objective of the investigation is to determine the whereabouts of Doku’s remains, stating that providing closure to the family remains a central priority.
Gürlek also confirmed that a fugitive suspect, identified as Umut Altaş, is subject to an international Red Notice, and that multiple lines of inquiry, including alleged confessions and forensic data, are currently being evaluated. He added that the absence of a recovered body does not preclude the classification of a homicide under established judicial precedent.
The Ministry of Justice also indicated that internal review mechanisms have been activated to reassess sensitive case files, aiming to ensure that no evidentiary gaps or procedural oversights remain unaddressed.