Aug 7, 2020 | Advocacy, Agendas, News
On 6-7 August the ICJ co-hosted a symposium on threats to judicial independence in East and Southern Africa.
The event was held with the collaboration of the Africa Judges and Jurists Forum, the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists Kenya Section, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, Southern Africa Development Community Lawyers Association, Malawi Law Society, Pan African Lawyers Association, East Africa Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association.
Recent actions taken to undermine judicial independence in East and Southern Africa include proposed constitutional amendments, executive interference with the functioning of the Judicial Service Commissions and verbal as well as physical threats against judges.
Participants in the symposium included judges, lawyers, academics and civil society representative. ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of Kenya Dr Willy Mutunga, and Professor Jill Ghai of Katiba Institute delivered the key note addresses.
Dr Willy Mutunga speaking to challenges of judicial independence in the political context of Kenya in his keynote address, said “I believe that the independence of the judiciary… is about the integrity of the judicial officers… Building peoples’ confidence in the judiciary and the judicial officers depends on the integrity of the institution and its judicial officers and staff.”
In her address, Professor Jill Ghai evaluated various ways in which independence of the judiciary is undermined, taking into account examples from various countries.
“We must not relent in letting the Executive know that we are watching whenever there are attempts to undermine the judiciary,” Ghai said in closing.
ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi that judicial independence was facing genuine threats, not just in Africa but throughout the world.
“The issue of judicial independence has been at the heart of the ICJ’s work for the last 70 years almost… We have been defending the rule of law and human rights. For both of those the independence of the judiciary is absolutely essential,” Zarifi said.
On the second day of the symposium, participants into four groups discussed the nature of challenges and weaknesses in the Executive-Judiciary relations, litigation as a strategy for protecting judicial independence, strategies for increasing social and political activism in defence of judicial independence, and the prospects and strategies for regional and international advocacy in the age of COVID-19 respectively.
In his closing remarks, outgoing ICJ Regional Director Arnold Tsunga flagged Malawi as a recent case study where the judiciary had demonstrated its independence when the Constitutional Court nullified the 2019 presidential election results, citing widespread irregularities.
Watch the proceedings of the symposium here:
Welcome and keynote address
Closing remarks
Contact:
Justice Mavedzenge (ICJ Legal Advisor) t: +27793889990 e: justice.mavedzenge(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim (ICJ Media Officer) t: +27716706719 e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
Jul 30, 2020 | Advocacy
The ICJ is concerned that in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan the COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken purportedly to contain it, have significantly curtailed access to justice. Restrictions have affected the operation of the courts and impeded lawyers’ ability to provide effective legal assistance to their clients.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic — whether under a state of emergency or not — States’ obligations under international human rights law to uphold the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, and to ensure access to effective remedies for violations of human rights endure.
The right to a fair trial entails the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, which, in turn, requires the opportunity to communicate with one’s lawyer effectively and in confidence.
In light of this, the ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure that, while COVID-19 restrictions are in place, access to a lawyer continues to be ensured, and that measures be put in place so that lawyers are able to communicate with their clients safely, effectively and confidentially, including in places of detention or during online hearings.
In addition, wherever and whenever the authorities put in place restrictions on physical meetings or travel with the stated purpose of containing the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICJ calls on Central Asian States to ensure that access to court is guaranteed through specific legal, administrative and practical measures.
ICJ research and discussions with lawyers have shown that across Central Asia, regulations adopted during COVID-19 relating to the administration of justice have suffered from vague language, inconsistencies and unclear guidance.
In practice, this had serious implications for the right to fair trial of defendants: in some cases defence lawyers were not allowed to meet their clients who were charged with serious crimes; in other instances lawyer-client meetings were very short, undermining the ability of lawyers to take proper instructions from their clients and to advise them accordingly; in other cases defence lawyers met their clients in circumstances where the confidentiality of their communication was compromised as a result of the virtual communication platforms they were forced to use.
The restriction measures relating to the administration of justice that the authorities have imposed have also had negative consequences for access to justice and effective remedies for victims of human rights violations; notably, access to legal assistance in domestic violence cases was impeded across the region.
In many court buildings social distancing requirements were not adjusted in such a way as to uphold the right to a public hearing. There has been a lack of sufficient guidance on how the right to a public hearing may be ensured online, including as to how the right to equality of arms and the right to legal representation would be protected.
Download
Central Asia-Statement COVID-19-Advocacy 2020-ENG (full article with additional information, in PDF)
Jul 8, 2020 | News
Draft law reduces leading bar associations’ authority, leads to creation of rival groups, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said today. The Turkish government’s plan to allow for multiple bar associations appears calculated to divide the legal profession along political lines and diminish the biggest bar associations’ role as human rights watchdogs, they added.
The current bar associations have not been consulted, and 78 bars out of 80 signed a statement opposing the plan.
The ICJ and Human Rights Watch have published a question and answer document explaining the draft law, scheduled for a vote in parliament in the coming days. The document outlines the government-led effort to reduce the influence of leading bar associations, reflecting the executive’s growing dissatisfaction with the bar associations’ public reporting on Turkey’s crisis for human rights and the rule of law.
“Turkey’s prominent bar associations play a key role in defending fair trial rights and scrutinizing human rights at a time when flagrant violation of rights is the norm in Turkey,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“The government move to create multiple bars and dramatically cut leading bars’ representation at the national level is a clear divide-and-rule tactic to diminish the bar associations’ authority and watchdog role,” he added.
The proposed amendments provide that in provinces with over 5,000 lawyers, a group of at least 2,000 lawyers can establish alternative bar associations.
In big cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, several bar associations could be established. The amendments would also greatly reduce the representation of the largest bar associations at the national level within the Union of Turkish Bars, the Ankara-based umbrella body with significant financial resources it controls and distributes to provincial bars.
The fact that the vast majority of elected legal profession representatives oppose the move and that the likely impact will be to greatly diminish the authority of leading provincial bars that have been critical of certain government initiatives demonstrates that the aim of the proposed change is to shield the government from justified criticism, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
Drastically cutting the number of delegates from large bar associations representing thousands of lawyers to the national Union of Turkish Bar Associations would reduce the influence of the large bar associations in electing the national group’s president and participating meaningfully in other decision-making functions.
A provincial bar association with fewer than 100 lawyers, such as Ardahan in northeastern Turkey, for example, would be represented by 4 delegates, compared with 3 at present.
But a bar association such as Izmir in western Turkey, with over 9,500 lawyers, which sends 35 delegates, would be entitled to only 5. Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir Bar, which represent 55 percent of the lawyers in Turkey, would be entitled to only 7 percent of all delegates within the national union.
The atmosphere of conflict in which the draft law has been introduced, its timing, and the lack of consultation with the bar associations themselves provides credible grounds for great concern and skepticism over the government’s motives, the groups said.
Over the past year, Turkey’s presidency and government have made public statements strongly criticizing leading bar associations in response to the bars’ legitimate expression of concerns about Turkey’s rule of law crisis and executive interference in the justice system.
The government has reacted strongly against the bars’ scrutiny of its failure to uphold human rights obligations through bar association publication of reports on torture, enforced disappearances, and other rights abuses ignored by the authorities.
For these reasons, the government’s proposed amendments are clearly designed to achieve a political purpose unrelated to an effort to advance or strengthen standards in the legal profession, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said.
The government’s move is politically divisive and will contribute to undermining the appearance of independence and impartiality in the justice system.
“The government should immediately withdraw the current proposed amendment and embark on a process of full consultation with bar associations,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“The government’s plan as it stands will only deepen mistrust in Turkey’s justice system as lacking independence by dividing the legal profession along political lines. This could have disastrous long-term consequences for upholding the role and function of lawyers and for fair trial rights.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32-2-734-84-46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41-79-749-99-49 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org ; Twitter: @maxfrigo
Download
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-ENG (Q & A, in PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-News-Press releases-2020-TUR (Story in Turkish, PDF)
Turkey-Q and A on the bar associations-Advocacy-2020-TUR (Q & A in Turkish, PDF)
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
