Turkey: Access to Justice to Fight Impunity in Turkey – Past and Present

Turkey: Access to Justice to Fight Impunity in Turkey – Past and Present

The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a conversation on the past and current situation of the fight against impunity in Turkey with eminent international and Turkish expert.

Registation is on a first come first served basis by writing to: ihop@ihop.org.tr

Join our speakers:
– Juan Mendez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
– Wilder Taylor, Former Secretary-General of ICJ and chair of Uruguary NPM
– Luciano A. Hazan, Member of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance
– Melis Gebeş, Lawyer, Truth Justice and Memory Center:
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of Human Rights Joint Platform

IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)

IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-ImpunityTurkey-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)

The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.

Turkey: 2nd politically motivated trial for rights defender Osman Kavala

Turkey: 2nd politically motivated trial for rights defender Osman Kavala

A new bogus indictment against human rights defender and businessman, Osman Kavala, and US academic, Henri Barkey, for allegedly spying and attempting to overthrow Turkey’s constitutional order is politically motivated and bereft of legal credibility, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.

The indictment, alleging the two were involved in the July 15, 2016, attempted military coup, demonstrates Turkey’s blatant refusal to abide by a European Court of Human Rights judgment, finalized in May 2020, which ordered Kavala’s release, and not only prolongs ongoing violations of his rights but gives rise to new ones.

An Istanbul court on October 8 accepted the indictment and has scheduled a first trial hearing against Kavala, who was been in Istanbul’s Silivri Prison since November 2017, and Barkey, who lives in the US, for December 18.

“The new case against Osman Kavala and Henri Barkey demonstrates the Turkish authorities’ flagrant misuse of the courts for political ends and their fundamental disregard for the basic principles of criminal justice,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“Defying the European Court of Human Rights order to release Kavala has confirmed the Court’s conclusion that Turkey is using detention and prosecution to silence a human rights defender.” 

The 64-page prosecutor’s indictment, dated September 28, accuses Kavala and Barkey of “securing for purposes of political or military espionage information that should be kept confidential for reasons relating to the security or domestic or foreign policy interests of the state” (under Turkish Penal Code article 328), punishable with up to 20 years in prison, and “attempting through force and violence to overthrow the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey or introduce a different order or prevent this order” (article 309), punishable with life in prison without parole.

The indictment recycles unsubstantiated accusations, which previously circulated in the pro-government Turkish media, that Kavala and Barkey were involved in espionage and in the 2016 attempted military coup. The indictment provides no credible evidence linking them with any criminal activities. (Further details about the content of the indictment are provided below.)

In a December 2019 judgment, which became final on May 11, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the evidence on which Kavala was detained for the Gezi protests and the 2016 coup attempt was insufficient and agreed that Kavala’s detention and the charges against him “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as a human rights defender.”

On September 3, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, acting in its supervisory capacity for the implementation of European Court judgments, issued a decision ordering the Turkish government to ensure Kavala’s release, pointing to “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”

On September 29, pro-government media reported that the Istanbul prosecutor’s office had prepared the new indictment against Kavala and Barkey. On the same day, Turkey’s Constitutional Court postponed its review of Kavala’s application regarding the legality of his continuing detention, which had been scheduled for that day.

On October 1, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issued a second decision calling on Turkey to ensure Kavala’s immediate release, expressing “deep concern that the applicant has still not been released” and announcing that an interim resolution would be issued at the Committee of Ministers’ December 1-3 session if Kavala had not yet been released.

“Turkey is bound by the ruling from European Court to free Kavala immediately, and the ruling covers his detention under the latest case against him,” said Roisin Pillay, director of the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

“The new indictment presents no new grounds to justify his detention, and it is imperative that Turkey ends the persecution campaign against him by releasing him and dropping all charges.”

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Turkey, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey

For more ICJ work on Turkey, please visit:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search

Contact
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-22-979-3800; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org

Turkey-Kavala case-News-press release-2020-ENG (story with additional information, in PDF)

Turkey: dismissal of judges and prosecutors fundamentally unfair

Turkey: dismissal of judges and prosecutors fundamentally unfair

The ICJ condemned the dismissal of eight judges and three prosecutors by Turkey’s Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) on 14 October 2020, for alleged membership of or connections with the Gülenist movement as a violation their right to a fair trial.

The ICJ calls on the CJP to revoke its order. In case any further is to be taken, the cases should be re-examined under the ordinary dismissal procedures.  The ICJ also urges the Turkish Government and Parliament to modify the constitutional rules on the CJP to ensure its full independence.

“This decision not  only affects the rights of the judges and prosecutors at stake, but also the Turkish population as whole, which damages the functioning of a fair and independent justice system bound by the rule of law,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser with the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.

The decision by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is particularly problematic because it was not accompanied by any reasoning on the individual situation of each judge and prosecutor.

International law provides that judges may be dismissed only through a fair hearing before an independent authority. The lack of individual reasoning in dismissal decisions strikes at the heart of the right to a fair hearing.

As the ICJ demonstrated in the 2018 report Justice Suspended, within the current constitutional framework, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP) is itself  not provided with the guarantees necessary to ensure its institutional independence.

Despite the state of emergency having been lifted since July 2018, extraordinary powers given to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to dismiss judges and prosecutors during the State of Emergency still apply, having been extended for three  years by Law no. 7145.

“It is unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law that judges and prosecutors – whatever charges may be against them – be dismissed without a fair procedure, in disregard of international law,” added Massimo Frigo.

Background

On 14 October the Council of Judges and Prosecutors made use of special powers to dismiss judges and prosecutors without complying with the ordinary procedure, invoking extraordinary powers enacted by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018. The decision was issued in the Official Gazette on 30 October 2020. This legislation inserted into ordinary law several powers that had previously applied under the state of emergency legislation. More than 30 judges have so far been dismissed under this procedure since the end of the state of emergency.

One of the amendments made by Law No 7145 of 31.07.2018 was to the Decree Law No 375 dated 1989. A Temporary Article (Article 35) was added to the Decree. On the basis of this article, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court, the Presidency Councils of Court of Appeal, the Council of State, the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a Commission set up by the Ministry of National Security, and the Presidency of the Court of Audit, were each authorized to take dismissal decisions for public officials/judges and prosecutors under their mandate for three years from the date of the endorsement of the law No 7145

The decision to dismiss the nine judges and two prosecutors was made on 14 October 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 20 October 2020. After recalling Law no 7145 that enables the dismissal of judges and prosecutors by the Board, the decision states that all defendants have asked to submit their written defences. The decision also indicates that this is not a criminal conviction. The decision is based on complaints received and refers to investigations on their social environment, criminal investigations and prosecutors conducted by judicial authorities in general on the Gülenist organisation/FETÖ, minutes of hearings, contents of the communication app Bylock, statements by witnesses and suspects. However, the decision does not include any reasoning relating to the individual situation of each judge or prosecutor.

International law and standards provide that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority or a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial and provide the judge with the right to challenge the decision and sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate.

The UN Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary set out international standards for discipline, suspension and removal of judges, including in order to ensure impartiality and independence of courts and tribunals as required by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Basic Principles state that a “charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.”

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) adds that “a Head of State, Minister of Justice or any other representative of political authorities cannot take part in the disciplinary body.”

Contact

Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org

 

Belarus: revoke disbarment of lawyer Aleksandr Pylchenko

Belarus: revoke disbarment of lawyer Aleksandr Pylchenko

The ICJ calls on the Belarus authorities to revoke the disbarment of lawyer Aleksandr Pylchenko and to end harassment or other interference with the work of lawyers in the country.

His disbarment appears to be arbitrary and in violation of rights to freedom of expression as well as international standards on the role of lawyers.

The decision of 15 October 2020 of the Ministry of Justice to disbar the lawyer is clearly related to his work in defence of human rights and his representation of clients, including, opposition leaders or protesters.

This disbarment is part of a pattern of increasing obstruction of lawyers who represent those associated with recent protests in Belarus, including through arrests and detention of lawyers, and prevention of their access to clients.

Aleksandr Pylchenko represented Viktor Babariko and Maria Kolesnikova, two leaders of the opposition in Belarus.

Disbarment proceedings against Mr Pylchenko started as a result of his public criticism of the response of the law enforcement authorities to claims of ill-treatment of protesters.

On 14 August 2020, in a media interview Mr Pylchenko called on the Prosecutor General’s Office to take action, in particular to launch criminal investigations into the ill-treatment of protesters by the police and to remove the Minister of Interior and other officials from their posts because of their involvement in human rights violations.

According to the Ministry of Justice, Mr Pylchenko called for “illegal actions, including blocking and disarming military units” and his statements “mislead the public about the powers of state bodies and do not comply with procedural norms”.

Belarus has obligations under international law to protect the right to freedom of expression (Article 19 ICCPR).  Lawyers have a particular role in publicly raising concerns about violations of the human rights of their clients, or problems in the justice system that lead to violations of human rights.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers, like others, are entitled to freedom of expression and in particular, have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.

Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that governments must ensure that lawyers ‘are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”. (Principle 23). Lawyers should not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics (Principle 16). They should never be identified with their clients’ causes.

Background:

Following the presidential elections of 9 August 2020 in Belarus, widespread protests across Belarus took place.

On 18 June and 7 September 2020, Victor Babaryka and Maria Kolesnikova, opposition leaders in Belarus, were detained.

There are reports that defence lawyers were denied access to those arrested including in high-profile cases, such as the case of the former presidential candidate Victor Babaryka whose lawyer was not allowed to see his client in the detention centre for significant period of time.

On 9 September 2020, lawyers Ilya Salei and Maxim Znak, were detained allegedly on politically motivated charges.

On 25 September 2020, the Minsk city Oktyabrsky District Court sentenced Luidmila Kazak, lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, to a fine (220 Euro) for “disobeyance to a lawful order” of a police officer (Article 23.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The lawyer stated that the arrest and administrative fine are connected to her legal representation of the opposition leader Maria Kolesnikova.

The ICJ has previously called on Belarus to comply with its international human rights obligations, including by releasing those arbitrarily detained and ceasing abusive prosecutions as well as harassment of lawyers.

European Union: rule of law report must be followed by action

European Union: rule of law report must be followed by action

The ICJ today welcomed the first annual rule of law report of the European Commission, which analyses the compliance of all EU Member States with rule of law standards, including on judicial independence, freedom of the media and civil society.

The report is a welcome recognition that rule of law guarantees cannot be taken for granted in any European country, and that all EU institutions must be particularly vigilant in their defence.

But the ICJ warns that the report is only valuable if it leads to strengthened EU enforcement action to address the serious rule of law crises in Poland and in Hungary.

“This report is further testimony to the actions of governments of Poland and Hungary, to deliberately and systematically dismantle protections for judicial independence and other essential rule of law protections,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme Director.

“We need the EU to use its powers of enforcement promptly and to the full, to defend these fundamental guarantees, including through prompt progression of Article 7 and enforcement proceedings. It is welcome that the European Commission calls on Member States to accelerate the resolution of problems raised under the Article 7 proceedings against Poland and Hungary. This report should lead to renewed efforts of all the institutions to urgently progress these proceedings,” she added.

Additional information

The full text of the European Commission report is available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2020-rule-law-report-communication-and-country-chapters_en

The International Commission of Jurists has repeatedly expressed serious concern at the deteriorating rule of law situation in both Poland and Hungary, see for example:

https://www.icj.org/poland-judges-and-lawyers-from-around-the-world-condemn-rapidly-escalating-rule-of-law-crisis/

And here: https://www.icj.org/european-union-icj-joins-call-for-urgent-eu-response-to-hungarys-covid-19-emergency-law/

Contact:

Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme Director, t: +32 476 97 42 63; e: roisin.pillay@icj.org

Karolina Babicka, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32 475 46 20 67; e: karolina.babicka@icj.org

Translate »