Mar 19, 2021 | News
The ICJ called today on the Turkish authorities to immediately release human rights defender and lawyer Öztürk Türkdoğan, who was arrested this morning after an unlawful search of his home. The charges against him, if any, are unkown and he is currently being held without access to his lawyer.
Öztürk Türkdoğan is the chair of the Human Rights Association and a lawyer and member of the Ankara Bar Association.
“The arrest and search of Öztürk Türkdoğan’s continues a systematic pattern of misuse of the criminal law to harass and persecute human rights defenders and lawyers in Turkey in recent years,” said Roisin Pillay, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme Director. “Öztürk Türkdoğan must be released immediately. If he remains in detention then he must be ensured immediate and confidential access to a lawyer, and be informed of the nature of any charges against him and brought promptly before a court.”
The arrest occurred during a search of Öztürk Türkdoğan’s home without the presence of a lawyer, which is in direct contravention of Turkish criminal procedural law.
While no information has been made available on the charges against Öztürk Türkdoğan, he is currently being detained without access to a lawyer for 24 hours, which indicates that the charges are likely related to terrorism or to offences against the State. These offences, contrary to obligations under international human rights law, are vaguely and broadly defined and have been long used and abused by prosecutors in Turkey to suppress human rights defenders, lawyers and political opponents.
Under international human rights law, anyone arrested has a right to prompt and confidential access to a lawyer, and to information on the charges against them. Arrests and searches of homes must not be arbitrary and must be carried out in compliance with international standards and national laws and procedures.
“Hundreds of lawyers, judges and prosecutors have been improperly arrested, harassed and detained in the past few years by Turkish authorities ” said Roisin Pillay. “Using the criminal justice system in this way is contrary to the most fundamental principles of the rule of law.”
Background
Systematic violations of human rights in investigation and prosecution of counter-terrorism offences in Turkey have also been documented by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, theWorking Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
The ICJ has extensively documented these violations:
Mar 17, 2021 | News
All children regardless of their age must have access to procedural rights when they are accused of criminal acts, the Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights decided in a landmark case (No. 148/2017) brought by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) with support from the Prague-based Forum for Human Rights.
The ICJ and Forum lodged a complaint challenging the failure of the Czech Republic to provide for legal assistance to children under the age of 15 (the age of criminal responsibility in the Czech Republic) in the pre-trial stage of proceedings and failure to provide alternatives to formal judicial proceedings for them.
The European Committee of Social Rights, which is responsible for oversight of the European Social Charter of 1961, found the Czech Republic was violating the rights of children under 15, who face proceedings in the child justice system but are below the age of criminal responsibility. The Committee found that the failure to provide these due process safeguards violated the rights of the children to social protection under Article 17 of the 1961 Charter. Human rights protected under the European Social Charter are legally binding on States party to it.
“The Committee’s decision is ground-breaking in many ways, yet two implications are revolutionary. First, it clearly emphasises the inter-dependence between fair-trail rights and child’s well-being. In modern human rights law, there is no such a thing as a clear-cut division between civil and political rights and social rights. But most importantly, the decision undermines paternalistic attitudes towards young children who enter the juvenile justice system and makes clear that all children – regardless their age – must be ensured adequate procedural protection in the course of the whole proceedings, based on the restorative justice principles,” said Maroš Matiaško, senior legal consultant of Forum.
The decision of the European Committee on Social Rights should lead to fundamental changes in the Czech child justice system, Forum for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists said today.
“We brought this case to ensure that children below the age of criminal responsibility do not have lower standards of protection of their rights compared to the older children in the child justice system,” said Karolína Babická, ICJ Legal Adviser. “We expect the Czech Republic to swiftly implement the decision of the Committee and ensure that all children regardless their age have access to procedural rights and alternative procedures like settlements and conditional termination or withdrawal of prosecution.”
Background
The legal findings come following a collective complaint submitted to the European Committee on Social Rights by Prague-based Forum for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists in 2017.
The Committee’s decision is built on two legal grounds, (I) mandatory legal representation for all children in conflict with the law regardless of age already in the pre-trial stage and (II) their access to alternatives in line with restorative justice principles.
On the first ground, the Committee found that the State must ensure mandatory legal assistance to children below the age of criminal responsibility already in the pre-stage of the proceedings. The reasoning is built on four grounds:
–Children below the age of criminal responsibility are not always able to understand and follow pre-trial proceedings due to their relative immaturity. It cannot therefore be assumed that they are able to defend themselves in this context.
–Children below the age of criminal responsibility should be assisted by a lawyer in order to understand their rights and the procedure applied to them, so as to prepare their defence. The failure to ensure legal assistance for children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of proceedings is likely to impact negatively on the course of the proceedings, thereby increasing the likelihood of their being subjected to measures such as deprivation of liberty.
–Legal assistance is necessary in order for children to avoid self-incrimination and fundamental to ensure that a child is not compelled to give testimony or to confess or acknowledge guilt.
–The assistance of a lawyer is also necessary in situations where parents/legal guardians have interests that may conflict with those of the child and where it is in the child’s best interest to exclude the parents/legal guardians from being involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the Committee concluded that mandated separate legal representation for children is crucial at the pre-trial stage of proceedings.
In relation to the second legal ground, the Committee emphasised that diversion (alternatives to proceedings, such as settlement or conditional termination or withdrawal of criminal proceedings) from judicial proceedings should be the preferred manner of dealing with children in the majority of cases and diversion options should be available from as early as possible after contact with the system, before a trial commences, and throughout the proceedings. The principle applies to an even greater degree to a situation in which children below that age can still be engaged in the child justice system.
It may be left to the discretion of States Parties to decide on the exact nature and content of diversion measures, and to take the necessary legislative and other measures for their implementation, though there are relevant standards that should be taken into account, especially those developer by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Collective complaints alleging violations of obligations under the European Social Charter, may be brought against States which have ratified the 1995 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter. On the basis of the European Committee on Social Rights’ decision on a collective complaint, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers may recommend that the State take specific measures to implement the decision.
Read the full decision here.
See more information about the case here.
Watch our talk on the case and its importance:
Contact:
Karolína Babická, Legal adviser Europe and Central Asia Programme; karolina.babicka(a)icj.org
Mar 11, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to guarantee transparency and participation in its activities in Venezuela in an oral statement delivered during the interactive dialogue on the oral update by the UN’s High Commissioner of Human Rights on Venezuela.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the High Commissioner’s oral update on the situation of human rights in Venezuela, particularly regarding the cooperation between her office and the Venezuelan authorities.
The ICJ underscores the importance of transparency on the activities conducted under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by both parties. Publication of the MoU to inform the public and ensure the optimal engagement of stakeholders is critical to its success.
The ICJ stresses that in addition to civil and political rights, economic, social, cultural rights continue to be violated in Venezuela, a situation aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As of January 2021, at least 37 health workers have died due to the lack of protective equipment and basic supplies in healthcare centers.
In light of recent announcements by Venezuelan authorities, political considerations appear to be a driving factor in the COVID-19 vaccine prioritization plan, instead of objective and public health criteria, which could lead to discrimination and a denial of equal protection of law.
The ICJ recommends that the High Commissioner monitor and report on the status of the Venezuelan authorities’ compliance with her previous recommendations, and on her broader engagement with local civil society with a view to protecting human rights.
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
