The ICJ joined civil society organisations in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Four years after the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism came into force, more effort is needed to ensure it is implemented in accordance with human rights law obligations, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) and the European Network against Racism (ENAR) said today. The organizations called for the European Commission’s review of the Directive’s implementation to prioritize scrutiny of its impact on human rights.
In assessing the value of the Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) in the Member States, the European Commission must scrutinize how it has affected the human rights of victims, suspects, as well as the wider community and civil society, the organizations said.
The Directive, enacted in 2017 after an expedited legislative process, criminalizes a wide range of conduct related to terrorism. The Directive establishes an overly broad definition of terrorism and requires states to include in their criminal law offences that are often not closely linked to the perpetration of a terrorist act. These include offences of travel for the purpose of terrorism, participation in a terrorist group, and public provocation to commit acts of terrorism. Because the terms of the offences are so widely drawn, safeguards in national law and practice are essential to ensure that they are not applied where there is no clear link to a principal offence of terrorism and/or no intent to contribute to such a principal offence, to prevent arbitrary application, including action based on racial prejudices of perceived dangerousness.
However, the organizations are concerned that EU member states are applying national laws on counter-terrorism in ways that unnecessarily or disproportionately limit the exercise of human rights, including freedom of expression and association, and freedom of religion or belief, and that discriminate against some ethnic or religious groups, in particular Muslims.
The implementation of the Directive by member states is now being reviewed by the European Commission, including through a consultation process, which concludes today.
As the review of the Directive is taken forward, the organizations urge the European Commission to consider in particular:
Background
The EU Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) came into force in April 2017 and was required to be transposed into member state law by September 2018.
The Commission is due to report to the European Parliament on the added value of the Directive, and whether it is fit for purpose, including on its impact on fundamental rights in October 2021.
Several of the NGOs have made submissions to the EU Consultation as part of its review.
The Fundamental Rights Agency is currently also working on a report on the impact of the EU Counter-terrorism Directive on human rights across the EU.
For further commentary on the Directive and on counter-terrorism and human rights in Europe, see:
ICJ, Counter-Terrorism and human rights in the courts: guidance for judges, prosecutors and lawyers on the application of EU Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism https://www.icj.org/eu-guidance-on-judicial-application-of-the-eu-counter-terrorism-directive/
ENAR, research on the impact of counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation policies and measures: https://www.enar-eu.org/ENAR-research-on-the-impact-of-counter-terrorism-and-counter-radicalisation
ECNL, Civic space in the era of securitized Covid-19 responses, https://ecnl.org/publications/civic-space-era-securitised-covid-19-responses
Download the statement here: EU combating directive statement_160621_ENG-2021
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning the arrest and pre-trial detention of Turkish opposition politician Selahattin Demirtaş, on a series of charges relating to the exercise of his freedom of political expression. The applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention was arbitrary and unlawful.
In the intervention, the organisations underline that restrictions on freedom of expression, widespread detention and criminal prosecution under expansive anti-terrorism laws, and the impact on democratic debate and rights protection are now well documented in Turkey. This is particularly striking, and the repercussions serious, when opposition politicians are targeted for their expressions of opinion and engagement in democratic debate.
The interveners address:
Full text of the intervention can be downloaded here.
Today, before the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ called on Ukrainian authorities to ensure the security of lawyers and the independence of the judiciary, essential elements to make effective any human rights technical assistance and capacity building.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
In Ukraine, a number of lawyers, including those who defend human rights, in and outside of courts, including to face threats, harassment, and other attacks on their security.
Lawyers continue to be associated with their clients and may face detrimental consequences for representing them.
For example, in November 2020, lawyer Nikolay Osipchuk was physically attacked by the local Prosecutor and several other people in the court room of a district court. A pattern of such attacks was identified by the ICJ in a report issued last year.
The ICJ is further concerned at recent the attempts of interference by the Government with the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine.
The ICJ welcomes the withdrawal of the presidential draft law by which all judges of the Constitutional Court would have been dismissed. However, it is concerning that, following a criminal case initiated against him, the President of the Constitutional Court was suspended by a decision of the President of Ukraine. This decision, on dubious legal grounds, undermines the independence of the judiciary.
The ICJ urges that Ukraine:
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
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:
Therefore, we urge Belarus to:
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
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:
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:
Find the submission in Turksish: Turkey-Demirtas_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission-2021-TUR
South Africa: Constitutional Court’s affirmation that principles of judicial independence are fully applicable to military courts is a welcome step forward
EU: Lawyers and civil society call for mandatory humanitarian clause in anti-smuggling directive
EU: Access to a lawyer in juvenile justice proceedings remains a key concern in several EU Member States