What the article governs
Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs what becomes of the results of genetic analysis obtained through bodily examination and the taking of samples. Its second paragraph was replaced, and three new paragraphs added, by article 14 of law no. 7589.
The amendment was published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326, and entered into force on that date.
It answers two questions: where these data are held and for how long, and when they are destroyed. It also gives the person concerned a right to request deletion.
Where the results are held
Under the new second paragraph, analysis results are entered de-identified in a dedicated system. A copy is sent to the investigating or prosecuting authority to be kept in the file as evidence.
The data therefore exist in two places: de-identified in a central system, and in the file as evidence. The rules on destruction cover both.
The procedures for establishing the system, for retention and for destruction are to be laid down in a regulation issued jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior.
When are the records destroyed?
The article provides two regimes for destruction, distinguished by how the file ended.
Immediate destruction applies where the period for objecting to a decision not to prosecute expires, where the objection is dismissed, or where a judgment of acquittal or a decision that no penalty be imposed becomes final. In those cases the records are destroyed without delay.
Otherwise, destruction takes place on the expiry of twenty years from the judgment becoming final.
The manner of destruction is also fixed: the records are destroyed in the presence of the public prosecutor and the fact is recorded in a report kept in the file. The requirement of a report allows destruction to be verified afterwards.
Can deletion be sought before the period expires?
Yes. This is the most significant right the article creates. A person whose data have been entered in the system may, within the retention period, ask a judge or court to delete them.
The request must rest on one of two grounds: that the purpose requiring retention of the personal data has ceased, or that there is a justified reason.
The article does not define either ground, so the assessment will be made on the facts. A request is expected to be reasoned by reference to the investigation in which the data were taken, the purpose of taking them, and whether that purpose still subsists.
Given the length of the twenty-year period, this route may in practice be the most used part of the article.
For what purposes may the records be used?
The new third paragraph limits use. Data entered in the system may be used for the purpose of establishing the material truth within an investigation or prosecution that is under way, and by decision of a court, judge or public prosecutor.
Both limits apply together: there must be a live file, and a decision must be taken. Use outside that framework falls outside the article.
Routes of challenge are also given: an objection lies against decisions of a court or judge, while against a decision of the public prosecutor an application lies to the magistrate in criminal matters.
The distinction matters in practice, as the forum differs according to who took the decision.
Practical consequences for suspects and defendants
The first is that where a file ends in acquittal or a decision not to prosecute, destruction is not dependent on a request; the law requires it at once. Whether it has in fact been carried out can be checked from the report in the file.
The second is that in files ending in conviction the twenty-year period runs. Within it, deletion may be sought only on the ground that the purpose has ceased or that there is a justified reason.
The third concerns the taking of the sample. Bodily examination and the taking of samples are subject to the conditions in articles 75 and following of the Criminal Procedure Code; where a sample was taken irregularly, the evidential value of the result is a separate question.
On rights at the investigation stage, see our article on police custody; for our work in this field, our criminal law page.
While the regulation is awaited
The fourth paragraph provides that the procedures for entering, retaining and destroying analysis results, and for making use of those records, are to be laid down in a regulation issued jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior.
Secondary legislation is therefore needed for the provision to operate in full. Matters such as the technical working of the system, how deletion requests are handled and the content of the report will be settled there.
As the statutory provision is in force, the right to request deletion may be exercised without waiting for the regulation; the request is addressed to a judge or court.
Resources
- Criminal Procedure Code no. 5271, art. 80 (as amended by article 14 of law no. 7589) — mevzuat.gov.tr
- Law no. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary — Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, issue 33326
- Criminal Procedure Code no. 5271, arts. 75-78 (bodily examination and taking of samples)
You can access the current versions of legal texts via mevzuat.gov.tr.