Türkiye, Prosecutor Asked To Investigate Dog Deaths At Yunusemre Animal Life Centre
An animal rights organisation in Türkiye has taken allegations surrounding the deaths of dogs at a municipal animal facility in Manisa to the prosecutor, calling for a comprehensive investigation into collection practices, veterinary oversight and conditions inside the centre.
The complaint was submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office by the Türkiye representative of the Animal Rights Platform and concerns Yunusemre Municipality’s collection of free roaming dogs and alleged deaths at the Yunusemre Animal Life Centre.
At the centre of the complaint is a community dog named Güleç, who was cared for by volunteers while living on the streets.
According to the complaint, Güleç was collected by a Yunusemre Municipality team on 16 July 2026. It is alleged that a high dose of anaesthetic medication was used during his capture. Two days later, on 18 July, Güleç was reportedly found dead inside a pen at the municipal facility.
The Platform is now asking prosecutors to establish exactly what happened between Güleç being collected and his death.
Questions raised in the complaint include what medication was administered, the dosage used, who administered it, whether that person was authorised to do so and whether the intervention was carried out under appropriate veterinary supervision.
The complaint reportedly raises the possibility that Güleç’s death may have resulted from the dosage of the sedative used without sufficient consideration of his health, or from the procedure not being carried out under veterinary supervision and in accordance with professional standards. These remain allegations and the cause of Güleç’s death has not been established.
The Platform has therefore requested that medication records, treatment and collection documentation and any available necropsy findings be examined. It has also asked for CCTV footage from the facility to be reviewed and, if necessary, for an expert in veterinary pharmacology to be appointed.
But the complaint does not stop with Güleç. It also asks prosecutors to investigate the death of another dog, Dişlek, who was reportedly microchipped and owned.
According to the allegations contained in the complaint, Dişlek died approximately two months earlier after being attacked by other dogs while being kept in a private pen belonging to volunteers at the same facility.
The Platform argues that this death also raises questions about management, supervision and safety within the centre and wants the relevant records and footage examined.
More broadly, the complaint alleges that dogs at the Yunusemre Animal Life Centre have not been kept under adequate supervision and care and that attacks between dogs have resulted in further deaths.
Prosecutors are being asked to investigate records relating to other alleged deaths at the facility, including veterinary documentation and necropsy reports, and to examine whether its care, feeding, veterinary provision, staffing, security and inspection procedures comply with Türkiye’s animal protection legislation.
If responsibility is established, the Platform has requested judicial and administrative proceedings against the public officials concerned.
The case comes at a particularly important time for animal welfare in Türkiye. Following changes to the country’s animal protection legislation, municipalities are under increasing pressure to remove free-roaming dogs from the streets and place them in shelters and designated facilities. In Yunusemre, authorities established a 24 hour reporting line for free-roaming dogs in December 2025, stating that reports would be acted upon by municipal teams.
Dog Desk Animal Action has repeatedly raised concerns about what happens when large scale collection moves faster than the ability of municipalities to provide safe facilities, sufficient veterinary oversight, appropriately trained staff and adequate long-term care.
Removing a dog from the street does not end a municipality’s responsibility for that animal. From the moment a dog is collected, the authority responsible for that collection also assumes responsibility for what happens next: how the dog is caught, what drugs are used, who administers them, how the animal is transported, what condition the dog is in on arrival and whether they remain safe once inside the facility.
If Güleç entered municipal custody alive on 16 July and was dead two days later, there must be a clear and documented account of what happened to him. If Dişlek died following an attack by other dogs inside the facility, the circumstances surrounding that death also deserve proper examination.
And if allegations of further deaths are substantiated, they cannot simply become statistics hidden behind the wider national programme to remove dogs from Türkiye’s streets.
The allegations concerning Yunusemre Animal Life Centre have now been placed before the prosecutor. It is important that the evidence is examined thoroughly, that the causes and circumstances of these deaths are established and that responsibility is determined wherever failures are found.
For Güleç, Dişlek and every dog taken into municipal custody, accountability cannot end at the shelter gate.