Jul 3, 2020 | News
The ICJ deplores today’s conviction of former Amnesty International Turkey President Taner Kılıç, and former Chair of Human Rights Agenda Association Günal Kurşun, former Director of Amnesty International Turkey İdil Eser and human rights defender Özlem Dalkıran by the Istanbul 35th Heavy Penal Court, on clearly unfounded terrorism charges.
“These convictions, which were clearly revealed to be baseless during the trial, are an alarming setback to efforts to restore the rule of law in Turkey,” said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“This prosecution and conviction constitute harassment of human rights defenders, in violation of a number of Turkey’s international legal obligations. The Turkish authorities should be protecting human rights and supporting the important work of human rights defenders, but instead we have witnessed a continuing pattern of arrests on human rights defenders in the country,” he added.
Taner Kılıç has been sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment for “membership of a terrorist organization. Günal Kuşun, İdil Eser and Özlem Dalkıran were sentenced to one year and 13 months of imprisonment for “assisting a terrorist organisation”. This decision was taken by majority, with one dissenting opinion that called for their acquittal.
The Court acquitted the other defendants in the case: Nalan Erkem, İlknur Üstün, Ali Gharavi, Peter Steudtner, Veli Acu, Nejat Taştan et Şeyhmus Özbekli.
On 6 June 2017, Taner Kiliç, then President of Amnesty International Turkey was arrested on spurious terrorism charges. The other human rights defenders were arrested while attending a training in Istanbul on digital security and information management; also reported arrested were two trainers (reportedly a German and a Swedish national) and the owner of the training venue.
In Turkey, anti-terrorism offences are oftentimes abused and are applied in over-extensive terms to charge and prosecute human rights defenders and political dissenters, as it occurred in this case. The ICJ has highlighted this problem in several reports, including in its submission to the UN Human Rights Council on the universal periodic review of Turkey.
Jun 26, 2020 | Cases, News
The ICJ today welcomed the judgment by the Court in the case of Bagirov v. Azerbaijan. It found that the suspension from legal practice and subsequent disbarment of Khalid Bagirov violated his rights to freedom of expression and to respect for private life under Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Khalid Bagirov’s suspension from the practice of law was based on his public criticism of ill-treatment by the police, following the wide media coverage of the death of an individual in police custody. Later he represented the victim as a lawyer in the proceedings.
His subsequent disbarment arose from his remarks about a judge made in the courtroom when representing his client in another high-profile case.
The ICJ intervened in this case as a third party, providing an evaluation of the State’s obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression of lawyers in light of international standards on independence of the lawyers and the consequences of disciplinary proceedings for lawyers’ rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.
The ICJ calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to fully and promptly implement the judgment, including by taking steps to restore Khalid Bagirov as a member of the Azerbaijan Bar Association.
“Khalid Bagirov must now be reinstated as a lawyer and be allowed to resume his legal practice in Azerbaijan,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“But in addition, this judgment shows that measures need to be taken to address the systemic problem of unjustified disbarments of lawyers who seek to defend human rights in Azerbaijan. Reforms are needed to ensure that the disciplinary process is independent and fair and that penalties are proportionate.”
In its judgment of 25 June 2020, the Court held under Article 10 of the Convention that the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of Khalid Bagirov’s disbarment were not relevant and sufficient, and that the sanction imposed on him was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having highlighted that “the disbarment cannot but be regarded as a harsh sanction, capable of having a chilling effect on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel”.
In relation to Article 8 ECHR, the Court further noted that “…in a series of cases it has noted a pattern of arbitrary arrest, detention or other measures taken in respect of government critics, civil society activists and human rights defenders … Against this background, the Court underlines that, notwithstanding the duties, in particular, with respect to their conduct, with which all lawyers must comply, the alleged need in a democratic society for a sanction of disbarment of a lawyer in circumstances such as this would need to be supported by particularly weighty reasons” which had not been established in this case.
In respect of the suspension of the lawyer, the Government contended that the interference with Mr Bagirov’s rights to private life and freedom of expression had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Court found that, he was not the victim’s lawyer when he made the impugned statements about the police, furthermore, the Court mentioned that it did not find any provision of domestic law preventing a lawyer from calling for peaceful protests against police brutality for the purpose of preventing violence.
The Court further found that while Mr Bagirov’s remarks, about a judge’s lack of capacity, were capable of being offensive, the sanction imposed on him did not struck a fair balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the need to protect his rights to private life and freedom of expression.
In this connection, the Court stated that inter alia, Mr Bagirov had confined himself to making a statement in a courtroom as a lawyer, in the context of his objections to the shortcomings of the proceedings.
Background
In addition to its intervention in Bhagirov v Azerbaijan, the ICJ has also intervened as a third party in other cases of lawyers from Azerbaijan (Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 6477/08 and 10414/08, § 54, 19 April 2018).
In 2019, the ICJ published recommendations to the Azerbaijan Bar Association on the role and independence of Lawyers,
In 2016, the ICJ published a mission report Defenceless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan
Jun 22, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ, the Regional Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for Central Asia and the Nationwide Movement “Yuksalish” are holding an Expert Discussion on the impact of COVID-19 on access to justice for economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) in Uzbekistan and comparative experiences from Europe and Central Asia.
The Fifth Expert Discussion, Access to justice in times of COVID-19, will address issues including access to a lawyer and access to court.
The event will present an opportunity to national and international experts, including lawyers, judges, members of UN human rights bodies, civil society, and other experts to debate questions of fundamental importance for ensuring access to justice and the protection of human rights in Uzbekistan.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has put new challenges before justice institutions around the world, including in Uzbekistan. These measures affected access to lawyers and courts judiciary therefore impeding full access to justice. This event will present an opportunity to discuss the solutions of States from around the globe about their responses to the pandemic. We believe that sharing experience among judges, lawyers and international experts from around the world will enrich the National debate and give an impulse for further development and the independence of the judiciary in Uzbekistan” said Akmal Burkhanov, Chairperson of the Nationwide movement “Yuksalish”.
“The pandemic became the so-called “maturity test” for the justice system and many of the urgent issues should be resolved in the light of the anti-COVID-19 measures taken. Therefore, I would also see the pandemic as an opportunity. The opportunity for transforming, changing for the better the functioning of traditional courts, provided that a high quality of justice and respect for individual rights are at the forefront of all changes,” pointed Eduards Stiprais, EU Ambassador to Uzbekistan.
Ryszard Komenda, Regional Representative of the UN Office for Human Rights for Central Asia quoted the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, who stated that “in order to cope effectively with the pandemic states may need to introduce certain restrictions on the exercise of certain human rights, however, such restrictions need to be necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory”. Mr. Komenda noted that “the impact of the regulations on lockdown affected the day-to-day work of courts and lawyers. From the perspective of international human rights standards, it is crucial that the right of individuals to an operative and independent judicial system, in particular the right to an effective remedy, habeas corpus guarantees and access to a lawyer of one’s choosing are strictly adhered to”.
“Our fifth Expert Discussion on economic and social rights, is devoted to addressing the major problems people have in getting access to justice and defending their rights during the global COVID-19 pandemic,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ Secretary General.
“The ICJ has documented how around the world the pandemic has severely affected peoples’ right to health, to food, to water, to education and to sanitation, and we have also seen the additional difficulties facing people with lower income and access to the levers of power.”
“We aim to discuss how international law and national best practices can help the judiciary and legal system alleviate some of the human rights issues arising from Covid-19 in Uzbekistan, and maybe even build a more responsive and accountable system after the pandemic.”
Background:
The Expert Discussions on ESC rights aim to raise awareness about the implementation of international law and standards on ESC rights by the national justice system, to facilitate access to justice in relation to ESC rights and promote effective use of international law on ESC rights at the national level. Each Expert Discussion is attended by international and national experts.
The first discussion was held in September 2018 on international standards in labour rights. The second meeting, held in December 2018, concerned judicial application of the principle of non-discrimination; the third meeting, held in March 2019, was dedicated to the rights of people with disabilities, and the forth meeting, held in October 2020, discussed the right to adequate housing in Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1995.
The Expert Discussions are organized by the ICJ within the framework of the “Advancing Civil Society in Promoting economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) Standards in Uzbekistan (ACCESS)” Project funded by the EU through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Contact:
Dilfuza Kurolova, ICJ Legal consultant, t: +998 90 9050099 ; e: dilfuza.kurolova(a)icj.org
Agenda:
English version
Russian version
Uzbek version
Jun 4, 2020 | News
The ICJ today raised concern at the threat of criminal proceedings against Judge Igor Tuleya on charges arising from the judge’s independent exercise of his judicial functions. The ICJ called on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court not to lift his immunity at its 9th June hearing.
Judge Tuleya faces prosecution for having allowed the presence of media in a sensitive case concerning the investigations on the 2017 budget vote in the Polish House of Representatives (Sejm) that took place without the presence of the opposition.
He has been charged with ‘failing to comply with his official duties and overstepping his powers’ for having allegedly disclosed a secret of the investigation to ‘unauthorized parties’.
The accusations stem from the initiative of the judge to allow media and the public in the courtroom while issuing his ruling. Usually rulings on investigations are issued behind closed doors in Poland but the criminal procedure code allows judges to make the hearing public “in the interest of justice”.
“Judge Tuleya should not face any criminal proceedings to begin with for his actions in delivering his ruling in public, which is in accordance with national law”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “His immunity must be maintained and the ‘Muzzle Act’ that allowed for these abusive prosecutions should be immediately scrapped.”
These proceedings are the first case of implementation the draconian Act amending the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and Some Other Laws, signed into law on 4 February and widely known as the ‘Muzzle Act’, which gave competence to waive judicial immunity to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“As highlighted by the recent ruling of the EU Court of Justice, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court is not independent and is open to undue influence or interference by political authorities. It should therefore not rule on issues pertaining to the disciplinary or criminal responsibility of judges, including a waiver of their immunity,” Massimo Frigo added.
Background
On 19 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a ruling in the case A.K. and others (C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18), on a preliminary question by the Supreme Court of Poland. The preliminary question asked whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court could be considered to be independent.
The CJEU ruled that a court cannot be considered independent “where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law.”
Based on this ruling, the Labour, Criminal and Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court declared that the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court were not properly constituted and independent.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, judges are entitled to a fair hearing in all disciplinary proceedings (principle 17). In order for such a hearing to be fair, the decision-maker must be independent and impartial.
International and European standards on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges should have immunity from criminal prosecution for decisions taken in connection with their judicial functions in the absence of proof of malice, and any procedure for removing immunity must itself be independent (see for instance, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, paras 65-67 and 98; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, para 68; Consultative Council of European Judges, para 20; ICJ Practitioners Guide no 13, pp. 27-30).
On 26 February 2020, the Polish Prosecutor’s Office requested a waiver of Judge Tuleya’s immunity in order to press criminal charges which might lead to imprisonment. The waiver will be examined on the 9 June 2020 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court appointed by the government.
In an open letter of 5 February 2020, 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members denounced the recent legislative changes adopted by the Polish government threatening the role and the rights of judges and denouncing the risks faced by legal practitioners when fighting for the rule of law. Two weeks later, the risks highlighted by the letter have become reality for an increasing number of Polish judges, including Judge Tuleya.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 22 979 38 00
Jun 3, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers should issue a decision at its 4 June 2020 meeting directing Turkey to release the human rights defender Osman Kavala and drop all charges against him, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The three groups have submitted a detailed submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The groups outlined how Turkey continues to violate Kavala’s rights by flouting a landmark judgment, that became final on May 11 requiring his immediate release.
“The European Court ruled that Kavala’s detention is unlawful, and their binding judgment requires Turkey to release him immediately,” said Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey director at Human Rights Watch. “The Committee of Ministers, at its June 4 meeting, should press Turkey to comply and issue a clear message that no Council of Europe member state should be silencing human rights defenders.”
The judgment is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling against Turkey in which the court determined that in interfering with an individual’s rights Turkey acted in bad faith and out of political motivations, violating Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said that by detaining Kavala since November 2017 and prosecuting him, the Turkish authorities had “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender.”
The European Court judgment in Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) found violations of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), Article 5(4) (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), and the rarely used Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken together with Article 5(1). It required Turkey to release Kavala and said that any continuation of his detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights..
A court ordered Kavala’s detention on November 1, 2017 on bogus allegations that he used the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests as a pretext for an attempted coup, and that he was involved in the July 15, 2016 attempted military coup. On February 18, 2020, Kavala and his eight co-defendants were acquitted on charges of “attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence” in the Gezi Park trial .
But Kavala was not released, and a court detained him again immediately on the charge of “attempting to overthrow the constitution by force and violence” because of an ongoing 2016 coup-related investigation against him. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had publicly criticized his acquittal just before he was detained again. Weeks later a court ordered his detention a second time on another charge (“espionage”) but relying on the same evidence and investigation file.
“The sequence of court orders prolonging his detention and the lack of objective deliberation as to the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty indicates that decisions have been guided by political considerations and there has been a concerted official effort to prevent Kavala’s release,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme . “Since the European Court’s judgment, Turkey has continued to violate Kavala’s human rights.”
The targeted harassment in Turkey of rights defenders is part of a wider trend of arbitrary detentions and abusive prosecutions of journalists, elected politicians, lawyers, and other perceived government critics. This trend has been well-documented in many reports by the Council of Europe, the European Union, and human rights organizations.
“The campaign of persecution against Osman Kavala and the failure to release him and drop all charges have perpetuated a chilling environment for all human rights defenders in Turkey,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, Co-Director of the Turkish Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
The three organizations made detailed recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, urging it to:
- Call on the government of Turkey to ensure the immediate release of Osman Kavala as required by the European Court’s judgment, stressing that the judgment clearly applies to his ongoing detention and persecution;
- Place the Kavala v. Turkey judgment under “enhanced procedures” and treat it as a leading case under Article 18 of the European Convention;
- Recognize that Kavala’s continuing detention violates Article 46 of the convention, concerning the binding nature of final judgments of the European Court, and that a failure to release Kavala may trigger an Article 46(4) procedure (infringement proceedings);
- Emphasize to the Government of Turkey that Kavala’s release is of added urgency in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which increases the risk to his health in detention;
- Ask the Government of Turkey to drop all charges under which Kavala has been investigated and detained to silence him, in conformity with the court’s findings that his rights have been violated and that his exercise of rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association was wrongfully used as evidence to incriminate him.
The groups also identified the general measures that Turkey needs to take to carry out the judgment to end politically motivated detention and prosecution of human rights defenders and other perceived government critics. These measures focus on Turkey’s structural rule of law problems. They include executive control over Turkey’s judiciary and prosecutorial authorities, and the evidence of a clear pattern of direct political interference in court decisions through frequent public speeches by Turkey’s president and proxies. A pattern of criminalizing the exercise of convention-protected rights defines many of the cases against human rights defenders and other perceived government critics.
Turkey’s international partners, including the European Union, should make it clear that the full implementation of the court’s judgment in Osman Kavala’s case will be key in measuring the credibility of any government pledges for reform, the three groups said. Any justice reform and any human rights action plan would remain hollow until the reasons that unjustly led Kavala to prison are addressed and fixed.
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-eng (downaload the submission)
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-tur (download the submission in Turkish)
Türkiye: AİHM Kararı Sonrası Hak Savunucusu Serbest Bırakılsın
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanları Osman Kavala’nın tahliyesinde ısrar etmelidir
(Strazburg, 3 Haziran 2020) – İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesinin 4 Haziran 2020 tarihli toplantısında Türkiye’yi insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasına ve ona yönelik tüm suçlamaların düşürülmesine yöneltecek bir karar alması gerektiğini belirttiler.
Bu üç grup, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleyen Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne detaylı bir bildirim sundu. Gruplar, Türkiye’nin 11 Mayıs’ta kesinleşen ve Kavala’nın derhal tahliye edilmesini gerektiren bu önemli kararı göz ardı ederek, Kavala’nın haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini belirtti.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Türkiye Direktörü Emma Sinclair-Webb, “Avrupa Mahkemesi, Kavala’nın alıkonmasının hukuka aykırı olduğuna ve bağlayıcı kararının gereği olarak Türkiye’nin Kavala’yı derhal tahliye etmesi gerektiğine karar verdi” dedi. Emma Sinclair-Webb, “Bakanlar Komitesi, 4 Haziran toplantısında, hiçbir Avrupa Konseyi üyesi devletin insan hakları savunucularını susturmaması gerektiğine dair net bir mesaj vererek buna uyması için Türkiye’ye baskı yapmalıdır” dedi.
Bu karar, Türkiye’nin kötü niyetle ve siyasi amaçlarla bir bireyin haklarına müdahale ettiğini ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 18. maddesini ihlal ettiğini tespit eden Türkiye aleyhindeki ilk nihai karar olduğundan özel bir önem taşımakta. AİHM, Osman Kavala’yı Kasım 2017’den bu yana alıkoyup yargılayan Türk makamlarının “başvuranın bir insan hakları savunucusu olarak susturulmasını sağlamak için örtülü bir amaç taşıdığını” tespit etmişti.
Avrupa Mahkemesi, Kavala/Türkiye kararında (Başvuru no. 28749/18), madde 5/1 (özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı), madde 5/4 (alıkonmanın yasaya uygunluğuna ilişkin ivedi karar alma hakkı) ve nadiren kullanılan madde 18 (haklara getirilecek kısıtlamaların sınırlanması) ile birlikte madde 5/1’in ihlal edildiğine karar vermiştir. Karar, Türkiye’nin Kavala’yı tahliye etmesini zorunlu kılmış, tutukluluğunun devam etmesinin ihlalleri devam ettireceğini ve Sözleşmenin 46(1) maddesi uyarınca AİHM kararlarına uyma yükümlülüğünü ihlal edeceğini belirtmiştir.
Bir hakimlik 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını darbe girişimine bahane olarak kullandığı ve 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu iddiasıyla, Kavala’nın 1 Kasım 2017’de tutuklanmasına karar vermiştir. 18 Şubat 2020’de Kavala ve diğer sekiz sanık, Gezi Parkı davasında “cebir ve şiddet kullanarak hükümeti ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasından beraat etmiştir.
Ancak Kavala cezaevinden tahliye edilmemiş ve bir hâkim kararıyla 2016 darbesiyle ilgili devam eden bir soruşturmayla ilişkili olarak “anayasal düzeni cebir, şiddet kullanarak ortadan kaldırmaya teşebbüs” suçlamasıyla tekrar tutuklanmıştır. Tekrar tutuklanmasından kısa bir süre önce Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan halka açık şekilde Kavala’nın beraatini eleştirmiştir. Kavala haftalar sonra, aynı delillere ve soruşturma dosyasına dayanan bir başka suçlama ile (casusluk) bir kez daha tutuklanmıştır.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Programı Direktörü, Róisín Pillay, “Tutukluluğun devamına ilişkin yargı kararlarının silsilesi ve tutuklamanın yasallığı konusunda nesnel bir değerlendirmenin olmaması, kararların siyasi beklentiler tarafından yönlendirildiğini ve Kavala’nın tahliyesini önlemek için düzenlenmiş bir siyasi çaba olduğunu göstermektedir.” dedi. Pillay, “Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin kararından bu yana Türkiye, Kavala’nın insan haklarını ihlal etmeye devam etti” tespitinde bulundu.
Türkiye’de insan hakları savunucularına yönelik taciz daha genel olarak gazetecilere, seçilmiş siyasetçilere, hukukçulara, hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere yönelik keyfi alıkoymalar ve yargısal tacizin bir parçası. Bu eğilim Avrupa Konseyi, Avrupa Birliği ve insan hakları örgütlerine ait birçok raporla belgelendirilmiştir.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi Ortak Direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir “Kavala’ya karşı yürütülen yıldırma kampanyası, onun tahliye edilmemesi ve hakkındaki suçlamaların düşürülmemesi, Türkiye’deki tüm insan hakları savunucuları için oluşan baskı ortamının sürmesine sebep olmuştur” dedi.
Üç örgüt, detaylı tavsiyelerde bulunarak Bakanlar Komitesi’ni:
- Avrupa Mahkemesinin kararı gereği Osman Kavala’nın derhal tahliyesinin sağlanması için Türkiye Hükümetine çağrıda bulunmaya, kararın açık şekilde devam eden tutukluluğa ve baskıları da kapsaması gerektiğini vurgulamaya,
- Kavala/Türkiye kararını nitelikli denetim prosedürü altında izlenmek üzere sınıflandırmaya ve Sözleşmenin 18. maddesi altında öncü dava olarak kabul etmeye,
- Kavala’nın devam eden tutukluluğunun kesinleşen AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcılığına ilişkin Sözleşmenin 46. maddesini ihlal ettiği tespit etmeye ve Kavala’nın tahliye edilmemesinin Madde 46/4 prosedürünü (ihlal işlemleri) başlatacağını tespit etmeye,
- Türkiye Hükümetine, Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasının Covid-19 salgını bağlamında ek bir aciliyete sahip olduğunu ve salgının alıkonma esnasında sağlığına yönelik mevcut tehlikeyi artırdığını vurgulamaya
- Mahkemenin, Kavala’nın haklarının ihlal edildiğine, toplantı, örgütlenme ve ifade özgürlüğünü kullanmasının hatalı şekilde kendisini suçlamak için delil olarak kullanıldığına ilişkin tespitleri doğrultusunda, Türkiye Hükümeti’nden Kavala’nın susturulmak amacıyla soruşturulduğu ve alıkonduğu tüm dosyalarda tüm suçlamaların düşürülmesini talep etmeye davet etmiştir.
Örgütler ayrıca, Türkiye’nin insan hakları savunucularının ve diğer hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlerin siyasi amaçlarla alıkonmalarına ve yargılanmalarına son verilmesine yönelik kararın uygulanması için alınması gereken genel tedbirleri belirlediler. Genel tedbirler, Türkiye’nin hukukun üstünlüğüne ilişkin yapısal sorunlarına odaklanmaktadır. Bu yapısal sorunlar arasında yürütmenin Türkiye’de yürütmenin yargısı ve savcılıkları üzerindeki kontrolü; Cumhurbaşkanı ve ona bağlı diğer yetkililer tarafından, sıklıkla yapılan halka açık konuşmalar aracılığıyla mahkeme kararlarına doğrudan siyasi müdahalede bulunmaya yönelik yaygın eğilime ilişkin açık deliller yer almaktadır. Sözleşme ile korunan hakların kullanılmasının suç haline getirilmesi, insan hakları savunucularına ve hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere karşı açılan birçok davanın ortak yönünü oluşturmaktadır.
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-tur (download the submission in Turkish)
Kavala_v_Turkey-Execution-JointSubmissionR9_2-ICJHRWTLP-LegalSubmission-2020-eng (downaload the submission)
For more information, please contact:
Massimo Frigo (English) massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, +41229793800
