I answered a very similar question (asked by you, I believe!) some months ago, so I'll just post the link to that comment and briefly summarise it here. Let me know if you have trouble viewing the comment though: (1) Turkey held trials for the leaders of the armenian and greek massacres, and sentenced many to death. So why is the armenian genocide still an issue for Turkey and the world? : AskHistorians (reddit.com)

Briefly, the Istanbul trials do not at all mean Turkey as such recognised the killing of Armenians as a genocide, because modern Turkey is the continuation of the government in Ankara, which rose against the government in Istanbul behind these trials. Turks thought that these trials were done under the very much real threat of Allied occupation. The background to all this is that the Ottoman Empire lost WWI and in 1920, the Allies tried to impose the Treaty of Sevres on the Ottoman side, which would leave only a rump Turkish statelet in Anatolia, basically. But there was already a parallel government in Ankara, led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, that had been challenging the pro-British, anti-Unionist and anti-nationalist Istanbul government and struggling for the creation of an independent Turkey. Even before the Sevres, Izmir was occupied by Greek forces, for instance, besides other 'disturbing' facts like the occupation of many cities (some with the participation of voluntary Armenian revenge corps side by side with the French), so nearly all individuals on the Turkish side knew what was coming. Then came the Turkish War of Independence, led by the Ankara government and actively discouraged and sometimes even actively resisted by the Istanbul government. The result was the toppling of the Istanbul government and the Sultan Vahdeddin, and the eventual proclamation of Turkey as a republic. Gone was any legal weight those trials could carry with the toppling of the pro-Allied government in Istanbul, deemed to be not proper, just trials but merely power politics on part of the Allies. Considering the fact that Istanbul was under the control of the Allies at the time, you can see why Turkey did not have much difficulty simply ignoring those trials. And, of course, this goes for the international community at large too. I am not a scholar of this particular subject but I have not come across any attempts to demand recognition based on Istanbul trials, which the Turkish side would deny as being based on improper judicial procedure: who were the witnesses, what was the relationship between the witnesses, the judges, and the convicted individuals under the CUP, were there any political and personal motives behind the accusations, etc.