Mar 10, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ delivered a statement today on the occasion of the interactive dialogue on the oral update by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the situation in Venezuela calling for attention to the persistence of widespread serious human rights violations in the country.
The statements reads as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission’s oral update on the situation in Venezuela.
The ICJ calls attention to the persistence of widespread serious human rights violations, as reported by the FFM in its 2020’s report, including extrajudicial killings.
Venezuelan authorities have wholly failed to comply with the Mission’s recommendations, including the need for “prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent investigations into the human rights violations and crimes”.
This underscores the deficits in judicial and prosecutorial independence that has undermined fair trial rights.
The ICJ is extremely concerned about attacks on human rights defenders and civil society organizations in Venezuela by the authorities, which include the criminalization of the defence of human rights protected under international human rights law.
Civil society organizations that were targeted in 2020 include “Acción Solidaria”, “Provea”, “Alimenta la Solidaridad” and “CONVITE”, and early this year five members of “Azul Positivo” were arbitrarily detained and continue to be harassed.
The ICJ urges that the Venezuelan authorities ensure their full cooperation with the FFM and immediately cease the attacks on human rights defenders; conduct independent investigations and bring to justice those responsible for serious human violations; and remove obstacles to access to justice for victims.
Thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 9, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ joined an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council denouncing attacks on lawyers occurring in Iran.
The statement was delivered by IBAHRI on behalf also of ICJ, Lawyers for Lawyers, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada and The Law Society, during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the ISlamic Republic of Iran.
The statement reads as follows:
“The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (the IBAHRI), the International Commission of Jurists (the ICJ), Lawyers for Lawyers, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, and The Law Society express deep concerns at the arbitrary arrests and detention of lawyers and others sentenced to exorbitant prison terms for legitimately carrying out their professional activities. We draw special attention to the cases of lawyers Nasrin Sotoudeh and Amirsalar Davoodi, who remain imprisoned and were excluded from Covid-19 prisoner release programmes.
Their imprisonment means that access to justice for citizens in Iran is restricted. We are alarmed by the widespread violation of fair trial guarantees, including the denial of access to a lawyer of one’s own choosing, as well as the recent application of the death penalty in Iran. We also condemn Iran’s non-compliance with international standards on conditions of detention and reports of torture of those critical of the regime.
We urge the Iranian authorities to:
- Immediately and unconditionally release Nasrin Sotoudeh, Amirsalar Davoodi and other lawyers who remain in prison after conviction in an unfair trial;
- Pending release, ensure compliance with international standards on conditions of detention;
- Ensure that lawyers and others can carry out their profession free from undue interference, including judicial harassment;
- Establish an immediate moratorium on the death penalty, pending abolishment; and
- Comply with its international legal obligations in respecting, guaranteeing, and protecting human rights.”
Find the statement here: Iran-UN-JointStatement-Lawyers-Advocacy-NonLegal-HRC46-2021-ENG
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 8, 2021 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs
On International Women’s Day 2021, the ICJ publishes a paper considering the ways in which women in Eswatini face systematic discrimination in laws and practices, in violation of the country’s obligations under international human rights law with respect to women and girls’ right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.
The publication concludes with recommendations to the Eswatini authorities on how they may enhance women and girls’ ability to fully and equally benefit from and enjoy their right to health and their other human rights without discrimination.
The paper is entitled “Swazi Women’s right to health during the time of COVID-19: Recommendations to ensure enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. It was launched through a conversation with Zanele Thabede-Vilakati, the National Director of Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) Research and Educational Trust in Eswatini. In the discussion, Thabede-Vilakati outlined the obstacles faced by Swazi women before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Talking about the ICJ publication, she added:
“The ICJ report on Swazi Women’s Right to Health during COVID-19 is an in-depth observation of all the issues which women face in their daily lives in getting access to their basic right to health. The recommendations made by the ICJ can only enrich Eswatini authorities’ approach to protecting and empowering women and I hope that they take these recommendations on.”
The report considers Eswatini’s obligations not only under national law, including under the Swazi Constitution, but also under international law in an effort to assess whether Eswatini is complying with its human rights obligations.
The report reflects on the obstacles that Swazi women have faced before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in exercising their right to health. Some of the key human rights concerns include: lack of access to sexual and reproductive healthcare; the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among Swazi women; obstacles in accessing sexual and gender-based violence-related healthcare services; and inadequate access to shelters and housing for women in Eswatini.
Based on the publication’s assessment, recommendations are addressed to Eswatini authorities for specific measures to be taken to protect women, as well as meet Eswatini’s obligations under national, regional and international law.
Speaking about the report, ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh stated,
“The right to health is a crucial right to everyone, but in a country such as Eswatini – one of the most severely HIV affected countries in the world – women’s right to health is a priority as women remain disproportionally affected by HIV. We hope that this report and its recommendations cause the relevant actors to reflect on ways in which they can assist Swazi women, especially in light of the increased obstacles that women have faced in accessing their right to health due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In order to realize the right to health of women and girls in Eswatini, the report recommends that the Eswatini authorities take certain measures, including the following:
- Ensure access to family planning health services for all women and LGBT persons;
- Parliament must enact domestic legislation, which clarifies the circumstances under which abortion is legally available to women;
- Ensure all health facilities, throughout the country, are equipped with all essential medicines;
- Guarantee access to information and education on sex, sexuality, HIV, sexual and reproductive rights especially for adolescents and youth;
- Prioritise the provision of pre- and post-natal healthcare services in a manner that does not risk COVID-19 transmission; and
- Repeal discriminatory laws, policies and practices in the area of sexual and reproductive health, including restrictive abortion laws and laws and policies that discriminate against LGBT persons;
- Adopt legislation providing for legal aid to enable victims of gender-based violence to be better able to access justice and effective remedies for SGBV, including through courts;
- Ensure comprehensive services for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are available during the pandemic;
- Increase access to healthcare services for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, including medical and psychosocial support and ensure adequate rape kits in all health centres; and
- Increase access to shelters and alternative accommodation for victims of gender based and domestic violence in Eswatini, including accommodation or shelters that should be made available in all parts of the country.
Background
Eswatini is a monarchy. Under its Constitution, customary law, except insofar as it is inconsistent with the former, is recognized as part of Eswatini’s legal system in addition to common law and statutory law. Eswatini is party to several binding international, including regional, human rights treaties guaranteeing the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health, for everyone, including women and girls. Irrespective of the protections afforded in Eswatini’s domestic legal system, as a matter of international human rights law, Eswatini is bound to fulfil its obligations to realize the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.
Contact
Nokukhanya (Khanyo) Farisè, Legal Adviser (Africa Regional Programme), e: nokukhanya.farise(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer (Africa Regional Programme), e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Download
Eswatini-Swazi Women Right to Health during COVID19-Report-2021-ENG
Mar 5, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on situation of human rights defenders calling for measures of protection for lawyers who defend human rights and human rights defenders.
The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements.
The statement was as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s report and agrees with her observation on the absence of political will in some States to protect Human Rights Defenders (HRDs).
As noted by the previous Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1), lawyers are HRDs when they act in their professional capacity to promote or protect human rights. Lawyers, like other defenders, are often targeted for harassment including through death threats and killings. The ICJ has recently documented such cases in Zimbabwe, Egypt and Ukraine.
The ICJ recalls that under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, States have special protective responsibilities, namely that “[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.”
The ICJ welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that the international community, particularly States through Foreign Embassies and the OHCHR must react faster in addressing threats issued against HRDs. This should include situations where lawyers are threatened for doing their work.
The ICJ further welcomes the recommendation to maintain adequately resourced protection mechanisms for HRDs. In this regard, we consider strong and independent Bar Associations to be essential in helping protect the security of lawyers.
Madam Special Rapporteur, are there particular measures you would recommend for protecting lawyers when acting as HRDs?
Thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 5, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism on the need for a human rights-based approach for countering terrorism.
The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements.
The statement was as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ welcomes the attention given by the Special Rapporteur to the human rights impact of counterterrorism policies on the rights of women and girls and the need to incorporate a gender perspective into counter-terrorism policy and law in all areas (See, para. 39b, UN Doc. A/HRC/46/36).
We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern that the critical State obligation to promote economic, social and cultural rights should not be absorbed into a new, generalized, non-rights based category of “economic effects of terrorism (para. 37.) The emphasis must remain squarely on preventing and redressing violations and abuses against victims (para. 36).
We agree with the Special Rapporteur that human rights obligations and counterterrorism are directed at the State and that care must be taken to avoid the blurring of lines between counterterrorism and international humanitarian law (para. 39e). We concur that States must address the rule of law and human rights effects of misuse of sanctions and listing processes to target civil society and persons exercising rights protected by international law.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Council to maintain in this matter a human rights-based approach to victims of terrorism, as stressed by the Special Rapporteur.
Thank you.”
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
