Mar 15, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ joined IBAHRI, Human Rights House Foundation and the OMCT in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council condemning human rights violations against lawyers in the country.
The joint statement delivered during the debate on the outcome of the UPR of Belarus reads as follows:
“The IBAHRI, the International Commission of Jurists, the Human Rights House Foundation and the OMCT would like to echo concerns that have been raised during the UPR review and are reflected in the UPR outcome document.
We strongly condemn the numerous, widespread human rights violations committed in the aftermath of the 2020 Belarus Presidential election, in particular:
- First – The disproportionate use of force by security forces against peaceful protestors, the arbitrary arrest and detention of thousands of people, systematic torture and ill-treatment following arrest or during detention, reports of enforced disappearances and denied access to a lawyer.
- Second – The systematic control of the executive over the judiciary and the court system. The judiciary continues to selectively use legislation to intimidate dissenting voices and tightly controls the licensing and activities of lawyers working under threat of being targeted.
- Third – The Illegal and arbitrary restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to peaceful assembly, free expression and access to information. From violent targeting of journalists and the media, to state sanctioned internet shutdowns resulting in censorship.
Therefore, we urge Belarus to:
- Immediately and unconditionally release all individuals arbitrarily detained and stop any practices of torture and ill-treatment of detainees;
- Undertake impartial, independent, effective and prompt investigations into allegations of human rights abuses;
- Bring perpetrators to justice, ensuring effective remedy and reparation for victims;
- Allow professionals – including legal and media professionals – to conduct their work without fear of targeting;
- Ensure respect and practice for all human rights, including free expression, online and offline, providing unconstrained access to information for all; lastly
- Adopt all necessary measures to prevent further human rights violations, without delay.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 4, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers should direct Turkey to release the Kurdish opposition politician Selahattin Demirtaş in compliance with a European Court of Human Rights judgment, five human rights groups said today.
The five are ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
The groups have made a detailed joint submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which oversees enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, asking it to issue the decision at its meeting on March 9-11, 2021. The groups said that Turkey continues to violate Demirtaş’s rights by flouting a landmark judgment issued by the court on December 22, 2020, requiring his immediate release.
“President Erdogan and senior Turkish officials have responded to the European Court’s judgment ordering Demirtaş’s release with false arguments that it does not apply to his current detention and that the court’s rulings are not binding on Turkey,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “The Committee of Ministers should call on Turkey to release Demirtaş immediately and leave no doubt that disregarding or attempting to bypass judgments of the Strasbourg court is unacceptable.”
Selahattin Demirtaş, former co-chair of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish rights opposition party to the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been held in Edirne F-Type prison in western Turkey since November 4, 2016.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that in initially detaining Demirtaş and then prolonging his detention for over four years, the Turkish government pursued an ulterior purpose of preventing him from carrying out his political activities, depriving voters of their elected representative, and “stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate: the very core of the concept of a democratic society.”
Ordering Demirtaş’s immediate release, the court found that Turkey had violated rights protected by Articles 5.1 and 5.3 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression), Article 3 Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections), and Article 18 (misuse of limitations on rights in the Convention), by pursuing Demirtaş’s detention for political ends.
In finding the government acted in bad faith (Article 18 violation), the court notably refers to Demirtaş’s current detention, from September 20, 2019 which relates to an investigation into deadly protests in southeast Turkey on October 6-8, 2014. The Strasbourg court said what Turkey was attempting to do was “a new legal classification” of the same facts, because the same “acts and incidents” had formed the basis on which Demirtaş had been detained up until September 2, 2019, and for which he is already on trial.
Finding a continuity between Demirtaş’s pretrial detention from November 4, 2016, to September 2, 2019, and again from September 20, 2019, to the present, the court termed the September 20 order a “return to pre-trial detention.” The Turkish government has rejected this finding and contends that Demirtaş is currently detained in the context of a case not covered by the European Court judgment.
“As the European Court of Human Rights made clear, Demirtaş’s detention on September 20, 2019, was in fact not a separate detention but a ‘return to pre-trial detention’ and a continuing violation of his Convention rights,” said Róisín Pillay, Europe and Central Asia Director of the International Commission of Jurists. “The Committee of Ministers should press Turkey to immediately end this abuse of judicial proceedings aimed at harassing an opposition politician.”
The groups’ submission provides a full analysis of political and legal developments since the issuing of the ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment – including a new indictment against Demirtaş – and repeated statements from Turkey’s president and senior officials that the Demirtaş judgment and European Court judgments in general are not binding on Turkey.
“Charging such a prominent political figure with 30 serious ‘new’ offences based on political speeches mostly 6 years ago, which the Court already found to be protected, is pure repackaging – a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent compliance with the Court’s judgment requiring immediate release,” said Helen Duffy of the TLSP. “The Grand Chamber already rejected earlier ‘reclassification’ attempts, and it is time for a robust response by the Committee of Ministers to break the cycle of evasion.”
The groups urged the Committee of Ministers to place Demirtaş’s case under their enhanced procedures, treating it as a lead case, and to indicate that continued refusal to carry out the judgment may lead them to refer Turkey to the European Court for non-compliance. The groups urged the Committee of Ministers to call on the Turkish government to:
- Immediately release Demirtaş as required by the ECtHR judgment, and make clear that the judgment applies to his ongoing detention and to any future charges or detentions in which the factual or legal basis is substantially similar to that which the ECtHR has already addressed in its judgment;
- Halt all criminal proceedings initiated against Demirtaş following the constitutional amendment lifting his immunity, which was deemed unlawful by the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber;
- End the abuse of judicial proceedings to harass Demirtaş, stifle pluralism, and limit freedom of political debate, emphasizing that this cessation is essential to the restoration of Demirtaş’s rights;
- End interference in Demirtaş’s cases, especially by attempting to pressure or unduly influence judicial authorities; and
- Publicly correct false claims promoted by senior Turkish government officials that the Grand Chamber judgment in the Demirtaş case and European Court judgments more generally, are not binding.
Find the intervention here: Turkey-Demirtas_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission-2021-ENG
Türkiye: AİHM Kararı Sonrasında Siyasetçi Serbest Bırakılsın
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’den Demirtaş Kararının Uygulanmasını Talep Etmelidir
(İstanbul, 4 Mart 2021) — Beş ayrı insan hakları örgütü bugün yaptıkları açıklamada, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin, Türkiye’yi Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararına uyarak muhalif Kürt siyasetçi Selahattin Demirtaş’ı serbest bırakmaya yönlendirmesi gerektiğini belirtti. Bu beş insan hakları örgütü ARTICLE 19, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu, Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Federasyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden oluşuyor.Hak örgütleri, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) kararlarının uygulanmasının denetiminden sorumlu Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne detaylı bir ortak bildirimde bulunarak, Komitenin 9-11 Mart 2021 tarihli toplantısında bu konuda karar almasını talep ettiler. Örgütler, Türkiye’nin AİHM’in 22 Aralık 2020 tarihli Demirtaş’ın serbest bırakılmasını gerektiren önemli kararını görmezden gelerek Demirtaş’ın haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini ifade ettiler.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Kıdemli Hukuk Danışmanı Aisling Reidy, “Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan ve üst düzey yetkililer, Demirtaş’ın serbest bırakılmasını öngören AİHM kararına, kararın mevcut tutukluluğa uygulanmadığı ve Mahkemenin kararlarının Türkiye için bağlayıcı olmadığı yönündeki yanlış argümanlarla cevap verdiler” dedi. Reidy, “Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’yi Demirtaş’ı derhal serbest bırakmaya çağırmalı, AİHM kararlarını görmezden gelmenin veya etrafından dolanmaya çalışmanın kabul edilemez olduğuna dair şüpheye yer bırakmamalıdır” dedi.
Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın hükümetine muhalif Kürtlerin haklarını destekleyen politik çizgideki Halkların Demokratik Partisi (HDP) eski eş başkanı Demirtaş, 4 Kasım 2016’dan bu yana Türkiye’nin batısındaki Edirne F Tipi Cezaevi’nde tutuluyor.
AİHM Büyük Dairesi, kararında “Türkiye hükümetinin, Demirtaş’ı tutuklayıp, tutukluluğunu 4 yıldan fazla sürdürerek onun siyasi faaliyetlerini engellemek, seçmenleri seçilmiş temsilcilerinden mahrum bırakmak, demokratik bir toplumun temeli olan çoğulculuğu ve siyasi tartışmayı kısıtlamak yönünde örtülü amaçlar taşıdığı” ifadelerine yer verdi.
Demirtaş’ın derhal serbest bırakılması gerektiğine karar veren Mahkeme, Türkiye’nin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 5/1 ve 5/3. maddeleri (özgürlük hakkı), 10. madde (ifade özgürlüğü hakkı), 1. Ek Protokol 3. madde (serbest seçim hakkı) ve 18. madde (haklara getirilecek kısıtlanmaların sınırlanması) ile korunan hakları ihlal ettiğini tespit etti.
Mahkeme, hükümetin hakların kısıtlanmasında kötü niyetle hareket ettiğini tespit ederken (madde 18 ihlali), 6-8 Ekim 2014’te Türkiye’nin güneydoğusunda ölümlerin yaşandığı protestolara ilişkin bir soruşturma kapsamında Demirtaş’ın 20 Eylül 2019’dan bu yana tutuklu olduğunun altını çizdi. AİHM, Türkiye’nin bu soruşturmada yapmaya çalıştığı şeyin aynı olguların “yeni bir hukuki vasıflandırması” olduğunu, çünkü aynı “eylemler ve olayların” Demirtaş’ın 2 Eylül 2019’a kadar sürdürülen tutukluluğuna ve hakkında o süreçle bağlantılı olarak devam eden yargılamaya esas alındığını belirtti.
Demirtaş’ın 4 Kasım 2016’dan 2 Eylül 2019’a kadarki tutukluluğu ile 20 Eylül 2019’dan bu yana devam eden tutukluluğu arasında bir süreklilik tespit eden Mahkeme, 20 Eylül tarihli kararı “tutukluluğa geri döndürme” olarak tanımladı. Türkiye Hükümeti ise bu tespiti reddetti ve Demirtaş’ın şu an AİHM kararı kapsamında olmayan bir dava dolayısıyla tutuklu olduğunu iddia ediyor.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Róisín Pillay, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin açıkça belirttiği gibi, Demirtaş’ın 20 Eylül 2019’da tutuklanması aslında ayrı bir tutuklama değil, ‘tutukluluğa geri döndürmedir’ ve Sözleşme’de yer alan haklarının ihlalinin sürdürülmesidir” dedi. Pillay, “Bakanlar Komitesi, muhalif bir siyasetçiyi taciz etmek amacıyla adli işlemlerin kötüye kullanılmasına derhal son vermesi için Türkiye’ye baskı yapmalıdır” dedi.
Hak örgütlerinin bildirimi, Demirtaş aleyhindeki yeni iddianame, Türkiye’nin Cumhurbaşkanı ve üst düzey yetkililerinin Demirtaş kararının ve genel olarak AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcı olmadığına ilişkin tekrar eden açıklamaları da dahil olmak üzere AİHM Büyük Dairesinin kararı sonrasında gerçekleşen siyasi ve hukuki gelişmelere ilişkin kapsamlı bir analiz sunuyor.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden Helen Duffy, “bu kadar önemli bir siyasi figürü, Mahkemenin koruma kapsamında olduğunu tespit ettiği ve çoğunlukla 6 yıl önceki siyasi açıklamalarına dayanan 30 “yeni” ve ciddi suçla itham etmek, Mahkemenin derhal serbest bırakma kararına uymaktan kaçınma girişiminin bir tekrarıdır.” dedi. Duffy, “Büyük Daire daha önceki ‘yeniden vasıflandırma’ girişimlerini reddetmiştir, Bakanlar Komitesinin kararı uygulamaktan kaçınma döngüsünü kırmak için buna güçlü bir yanıt vermesinin zamanı gelmiştir.” dedi.
Hak örgütleri, Bakanlar Komitesini Demirtaş’ın davasını nitelikli denetim prosedürü altında izlenmek üzere sınıflandırmaya ve öncü dava olarak kabul etmeye, Türkiye’nin kararın uygulanmasını reddetmeye devam etmesinin, bu nedenle AİHM’e yönlendirilmesine yol açabileceğini dile getirmeye davet ettiler. Örgütler, Bakanlar Komitesinin Türkiye hükümetine yönelik şu çağrılarda bulunmasını talep ettiler:
- AİHM kararının gereği olarak Selahattin Demirtaş’ın derhal serbest bırakılması için çağrıda bulunulmalı, Büyük Daire kararının Demirtaş’ın devam eden tutukluluğunu da kapsadığı, kararın AİHM tarafından da değinildiği gibi olgusal ya da yasal dayanakları ciddi ölçüde benzer olan, gelecekte ileri sürülebilecek suçlamaları veya yapılabilecek tutuklamaları da kapsayacağı vurgulanmalıdır.
- AİHM Büyük Daire tarafından hukuka aykırı bulunduğu üzere, Demirtaş’ın dokunulmazlığını kaldıran Anayasa değişikliğinden sonra kendisine yöneltilen tüm ceza yargılamalarının durdurulması konusunda çağrıda bulunulmalıdır.
- Demirtaş’ın yargı yollarının kötüye kullanılması yolu ile taciz edilmesini durdurmaya, çoğulculuğun bastırılması ve siyasi tartışma özgürlüğünü sınırlanmasına son vermeye ve bunun Demirtaş’ın haklarının iadesi için önemli olduğunu vurgulamaya çağrılmalıdır.
- Yargı makamlarına baskı yapmaya veya onları hukuka aykırı bir şekilde etkilemeye çalışarak Demirtaş’ın davalarına doğrudan müdahale etmeye son vermeye çağrılmalıdır.
- Üst düzey yetkililer tarafından savunulan Demirtaş davasındaki Büyük Daire kararının ve daha genel olarak AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcı olmadığı yönündeki yanlış iddiaları kamuya açık bir şekilde düzeltmeye çağırılmalıdır.
Find the submission in Turksish: Turkey-Demirtas_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission-2021-TUR
Feb 25, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the context of the 2020 presidential election.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The International Commission of Jurists welcomes the High Commissioner’s report on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/HRC/46/4).
The ICJ stresses the need to address the systemic issues underlying unfair trial, arbitrary detention, torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance in Belarus. In particular, it is crucial to ensure an independent judiciary and bar association.
Without comprehensive reforms to these institutions, there is little prospect of fair trial, or of effective remedies or accountability for the widespread human rights violations occurring after the 2020 election.
The ICJ is alarmed at recent arrests and disbarments of lawyers in connection with the protests. Disbarred lawyers include Aleksandr Pylchenko as well as Liudmila Kazak, the fourth lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, a detained opposition figure, to have suffered consequences as a result of their professional activities. Furthermore, criminal cases have been initiated against lawyers Ilya Saley and Maxim Znak.
We call on the Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence, identify perpetrators, and support accountability for gross human rights violations in Belarus.
The Council should further call on Belarus to
- promptly and fully implement the High Commissioner’s recommendations;
- co-operate with and facilitate access of the Special Rapporteur to the country;
- uphold the independence of judges and lawyers, in accordance with international law and standards.
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy
On 15 October 2020, Polish lawyer Roman Giertych was detained by the Central Anticorruption Bureau (CBA) on accusations of money laundering. His house and office were searched and prosecutors imposed preventive measures, including suspension of his right to practice law.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned that the manner in which these measures were taken is inconsistent with international standards on the independence of the legal profession.
Roman Giertych has worked on a series of high-profile cases against the governing Law and Justice party. He has also represented various prominent opposition figures, including Donald Tusk, the former Polish prime minister and head of the Civic Platform opposition party, and former president of the European Council.
Mr. Giertych’s arrest happened one day before the scheduled detention hearing in another politically significant high-profile case, concerning Leszek Czarnecki, in which Roman Giertych was appointed as defence counsel.
According to the information available to Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association, Mr. Giertych was arrested merely to serve him with charges. He was not given a chance to appear voluntarily.
On 22 October 2020, Mr Giertych’s defense lawyers filed four complaints with the court about the actions of the Poznań prosecutor’s office relating to his arrest and the search of his home and office.
Professional lawyers’ associations such as the National Council of Attorneys-at Law, the Association of Attorneys-At-Law “Defensor Iurius”, the Polish Bar Council and the Council of the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates have expressed “great concern” about Mr. Giertych’s detention, the search of his house and office, and the preventive measures that were taken against Mr. Giertych.
Lawyers for Lawyers, the ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are concerned about the circumstances of Mr. Giertych’s arrest, in particular the fact that the arrest seems to have only been made in order to present him with charges.
L4L, ICJ and the Amsterdam Bar Association are also concerned by the fact that the searches of his house and office were conducted without proper safeguards of attorney-client privilege and by the suspension of Mr. Giertych’s right to practice his legal profession by a public prosecutor. We will continue to monitor the case of Mr. Giertych closely.
Download
Poland-Roman Giertych-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full statement with additional information, in PDF)
Nov 16, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ calls on the Ukrainian authorities to abandon a draft law which would dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, as a means of retaliation for a decision adopted by the Court and in order to circumvent the decision.
The authorities should also refrain from any other actions, including harassment of judges, which undermine the independence of the Constitutional Court.
“This draft law constitutes a direct attack on the ability of the judiciary to exercise its functions independently. It is incompatible with basic principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and with international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“By the nature of their role, the judiciary, and especially constitutional courts may be required to decide on controversial matters. It is however essential that particularly in such cases, courts are able to operate without fear of retaliation or repression for the decisions they take,” she added.
The draft law on Restoring Public Confidence in the Constitutional Court, submitted by President Zelensky to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), aims to pronounce a decision of the Constitutional Court on anti-corruption legislation “void” and without legal consequences.
This runs contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution according to which “[d]ecisions and opinions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be binding, final and may not be challenged” (Article 151-2).
The draft law would terminate the mandate of the judges of the Constitutional Court, in contravention of the Constitution of Ukraine as well as basic principles of independence of the judiciary, governing appointments, dismissal and security of tenure of judges.
The draft law provides that the powers of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in force at the time of the decision on the anti-corruption law would be terminated from the date of entry into force of the law.
According to the explanatory note to the Draft Law, one reason the adoption of the law would be justified is because there had not been a “proper substantiation” of its judgment on the anti-corruption law. The note alleges that Court’s decision was adopted in the private interests of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, that its proper substantiation was not provided and that it contradicts the principle of the rule of law and denies the European and Euro-Atlantic choice of the Ukrainian people. The ICJ considers these allegations are inappropriate as they directly interfere with the judicial function of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contrary to the national legislation and international law on the independence of the judiciary.
On 2 November 2020, Oleksandr Tupitsky, the President of the Constitutional Court was summoned for interrogation by the State Investigation Bureau in connection with allegations against him of committing crimes as part of an organized group. The ICJ fears that this may be a form of pressure in relation to the Constitution Court’s decision.
Following these incidents, the Constitutional Court has stopped working as four of the judges refuse to take part in its sessions. The Court therefore lacks the necessary quorum to operate.
The ICJ calls on Ukraine to withdraw the draft law, and to refrain from any further reprisals against judges for their decisions.
Download
Ukraine-draft law constitutional court-News-ENG-2020 (full statement with background information)
