In Bolu F-Type Prison, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an inmate on the grounds of books, notes, and writings found in his cell; he was sentenced to 11 days in solitary confinement on charges of “making propaganda for an organization.” The inmate’s mother objected to the punishment, stating that her son was ill, missing one of his hands, had impaired vision, and carried numerous shrapnel fragments in his body, making it impossible for him to take care of himself alone in a solitary cell. She also emphasized that the books had been approved and allowed inside by the prison administration, and therefore a solitary confinement sentence could not be justified. The inmate’s lawyer challenged the decision, arguing that the punishment was unlawful and that imposing solitary confinement for possessing books constituted a violation of freedom of thought and expression. The Enforcement Court found the disciplinary sanction unlawful and annulled it, but following an appeal by the prosecutor’s office, the punishment was upheld. It was underlined that the existence of contradictory rulings in the same case—one court finding the sanction unlawful and another deeming it procedurally valid—created a conflict undermining the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability in the judiciary.