07.08.2026 12:31
At the 13th Digital Media Workshop held in Iğdır, Ekrem Teymur, Chairman of the Board of Haberler.com, asked striking questions to Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek regarding AI copyrights and the responsibility of officials in murder cases solved years later. Minister Gürlek, who described the questions as 'fine and deep,' stated that while explaining the steps for AI in the judiciary, public employees who intentionally failed to perform their duties in past murder files were penalized.
Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek attended the 13th Digital Media Workshop organized by the Turkish Internet Journalism Association (TİGAD) in Iğdır. Chairman of the Board of Haberler.com, Ekrem Teymur, asked critical questions about "artificial intelligence" and "unsolved murders" to Minister Gürlek, who chatted with journalists and answered their questions.
The 13th Digital Media Workshop, which has become a tradition by the Turkish Internet Journalism Association (TİGAD), is being held in Iğdır between August 6-10, 2026. In addition to Chairman of the Board of Haberler.com Ekrem Teymur and Editor-in-Chief of Haberler.com Attorney Bedia Teymur, approximately 150 journalists, media executives, academics, and industry representatives from all over Turkey attended the organization, where the future of digital media and the transformation of internet journalism were comprehensively discussed.
OFFICIAL OPENING HELD The official opening of the workshop took place at the Iğdır Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism Conference Hall. At the opening program, Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek, Iğdır Governor Mustafa Fırat Taşolar, TİGAD President Okan Geçgel, TİGAD Iğdır Provincial Representative Halit Öztürk, Global Journalists Council President Mehmet Ali Dim, members of parliament, and protocol members delivered speeches. In the Q&A session of the program, Chairman of the Board of Haberler.com Ekrem Teymur asked Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek questions about "artificial intelligence" and "unsolved murders."
EKREM TEYMUR: WHAT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AI COPYRIGHTS AND MURDERS SOLVED YEARS LATER? The questions that Chairman of the Board of Haberler.com Ekrem Teymur directed to Minister Gürlek were as follows: "My first question is about artificial intelligence. When an artificial intelligence generates a text, if the owner of the original text that inspired it claims rights from the owner of this derived text, how will the proof, determination, and trial of this be conducted? Do you have any study on this?
Secondly, let me briefly say this. In the community of solving these unsolved murders, is there a new study, digitally or artificially? This is very important. But there is also a situation like this. For example, as a press member, I follow that a murder was solved 15 years later. Now let's think like this; a file solved today was like a file not solved 15 years ago. Now, after 15 years have passed, after many witnesses may have died or disappeared, after much evidence has been obscured, if this murder can still be solved even 15 years later, will any responsibility be directed towards the security and judicial officials who looked at this file 15 years ago and did not solve it?"
MINISTER GÜRLEK: FINE AND DEEP QUESTIONS Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek, who responded to Ekrem Teymur's questions by saying "You asked fine and deep questions," made the following statements regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary and the processes of solving unsolved murders: "Let me start with the first question. Artificial intelligence, of course, technology is now artificial intelligence. You know, China is the center of artificial intelligence. We, especially at the Ministry of Justice, have established an infrastructure within our General Directorate of Information Technologies regarding artificial intelligence. We are developing an application for using artificial intelligence in our practices, especially for judges to benefit from artificial intelligence. We are currently benefiting from it.
"UYAP AND OUR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ARE WORKING" As you mentioned, regarding opening a social media account through artificial intelligence or making news here, we currently do not have a technical study. I am saying this because you asked, but we have started new studies on artificial intelligence. Especially regarding citizens' access to justice and judges using artificial intelligence for practicality in similar decisions they have made in similar cases, UYAP and our General Directorate of Information Technologies are working. They have also carried out major projects. We will announce this to the public soon. Hopefully, this artificial intelligence will be useful.
"A MURDER THAT COULD NOT BE SOLVED 15 YEARS AGO..." Regarding the other issue, what you mentioned in your other question; a murder not solved 15 years ago is solved 15 years later. Here, it is necessary to pay attention to this: Why was the murder that was not solved 15 years ago not solved? Of course, the technologies back then were different. Actually, the purpose of the unit we established here is to look at these files only. Our colleagues only look at these files.
Now, we have a rule: evidence is collected within 48 hours. We have personnel from the police and gendarmerie. If you collect evidence after 48 hours, it does not become healthy evidence. That is, there may be evidence that was not collected promptly. It is necessary to look from a different perspective. There may have been a witness who could not be heard at that time, or a base station study was not conducted at that time. Currently, DNA matches can be made, you know, with new technology. It is not necessary to look for a fault there.
"WHAT MATTERS HERE IS SOLVING A MURDER" But this is important: if a public official or a public servant intentionally did not perform their duty at that date, we punish them. Look, in the current incident, they were arrested. There are police personnel among those arrested, and health personnel who deleted the health report from the system. Intent is different, but negligence can certainly occur. In the end, our prosecutor colleagues and police officers may not have collected evidence promptly due to workload. But looking at this 15 years later with a different eye, putting it on the table, having technical colleagues examine it, and using new technologies is a different matter. What matters here is solving a murder. Those who committed this murder accounting for it. That is what we want. If there is bad faith, of course, we do what is necessary about them."