Sep 11, 2020 | News
Today, the ICJ condemned an ongoing and heightened crackdown on civil society activists and human rights defenders in Cambodia, and called on the Royal Government of Cambodia (“RGC”) to cease arbitrary arrest and other harassment of individuals for merely exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
From end-July to early this week, at least eleven activists have been arrested and detained on spurious charges in an invigorated attempt by authorities to silence critical dissent in the country.
“The Cambodian authorities in recent days have ratcheted up their abuse of domestic laws to target human rights defenders and perceived critics of the government. We fear that without a robust international response, the situation will only deteriorate further,” said Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
“They are now targeting youth in particular, in an apparent bid to curtail their use of social media to amplify dissatisfaction with the ruling regime. Instead of attacking them, the government needs to stop and listen to their people,” he added.
Several arrests have been linked with the detention of prominent union leader, Rong Chhun. On 31 July, Rong Chhun, President of the Cambodian Confederation of Unions, was arrested at his home in suspected retaliation for comments he had made alleging loss of community land in relation to demarcation of the Cambodian-Vietnamese border. He was thereafter charged with “incitement to commit a felony or disturb social security,” under articles 494 and 495 of the Criminal Code. He is currently in detention in Phnom Penh’s Correctional Centre 1.
On 13 August, Hun Vannak and Chhouen Daravy, founding members of the Khmer Thavrak youth activist group, were arrested in relation to a rally they had held outside Phnom Penh Municipal Court in support of Rong Chhun. Daravy was reportedly slapped, then grabbed and hit before being pushed into a vehicle during her arrest. Security officials also reportedly beat and kicked at people in the rally to disperse the crowd, injuring about ten individuals.
On 6 September, Buddhist monk Venerable Koet Saray and Mean Prommony, Vice-president of the Khmer Student Intelligent League Association, were arrested in apparent connection with a rally they had been organizing to call for Rong Chhun’s release. On 7 September, Khmer Thavrak activists Tha Lavy and Eng Malai were arrested. Tha Lavy was arrested on arriving at a protest at Freedom Park. Eng Malai was arrested the day she had left the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Cambodia office, where she had raised her security concerns.
Simultaneous arrests of environmental rights activists and a rapper evidence a wider crackdown beyond the case of Rong Chhun. On 4 September, three members of environmental rights group Mother Nature Cambodia, Thun Ratha, Long Kunthea and Phuong Keorasmey were arrested. They were thereafter charged with incitement under articles 494 and 495 of the Criminal Code. On the same day, rapper Kea Sokun was arrested in Siem Reap province and similarly charged with incitement, in apparent connection with a popular song he had released on YouTube, concerning land at the Cambodian-Vietnamese border.
On 7 September, the Ministry of Interior issued a statement denouncing Khmer Thavrak and Mother Nature Cambodia as unauthorized organizations, calling on the responsible authorities to prosecute them.
The ICJ is concerned that the groups are being targeted for allegedly operating without being registered in accordance with the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations. The requirements under this law are non-compliant with international law and standards that protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, as the ICJ has previously pointed out. The law impermissibly restricts the ability of civil society members to exercise their rights to freedom of association and expression.
The ICJ recalls the responsibility of Cambodia, as expressly stated in the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration, to “take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.” These rights include, among others, freedoms of expression, opinion, peaceful assembly, association and political participation.
“Far from protecting these rights, the government has been systematically violating them,” said Abbott.
“The recent arrests signal yet another sign of further regression that needs to be called out by the international community, including by partners, missions, UN agencies and financial institutions.”
On 7 September, the UN Special Rapporteur on Cambodia expressed concerns about the recent arrests and also highlighted that she “has been closely following reports that seven different CSOs have been searched or informed of pending visits by the authorities since last week.” Similarly, over the past few days, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders has expressed concern about the crackdown, stating “peaceful protest is not a crime”.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Global Redress & Accountability Initiative e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ and 31 organizations jointly urge Governments to call for respect of human rights in Cambodia, 22 July 2020
Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law’, 8 April 2020
Misuse of law will do long-term damage to Cambodia, 26 July 2018
‘Cambodia: deteriorating situation for human rights and rule of law (UN statement), 27 June 2018
‘Cambodia: the ICJ condemns Senate’s approval of draft Law on Associations and NGOs, 24 July 2015
Sep 8, 2020 | Noticias
Jueces de seis países latinoamericanos constataron que existían serios obstáculos, pero también posibilidades de justicia, que enfrentan los poderes judiciales de la región en su trabajo de protección de los derechos humanos de quienes han sido afectados negativamente por la actividad de las entidades empresariales.
Los jueces debatieron en el contexto del Diálogo Judicial Regional sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos organizado por la CIJ el 7 de septiembre.
El Diálogo, moderado por la profesora Mónica Pinto, comisionada de la CIJ, reunió a 17 jueces de Centro y Sudamérica para considerar el papel de los jueces en la garantía del derecho de acceso a la justicia y reparación. Los jueces también consideraron la necesidad de garantizar la independencia del poder judicial y la seguridad de los jueces, abogados y defensores de derechos humanos en el contexto de las actividades empresariales en la región.
La sesión contó con presentaciones de un miembro del Grupo de Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos y de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos. El Diálogo se desarrolló en el marco del V Foro Regional de Empresas y Derechos Humanos para América Latina y el Caribe que tuvo ligar entre el 7 y 11 de Setiembre 2020 de forma virtual.
En el debate sobre el acceso a la justicia y la reparación, los jueces compartieron experiencias y jurisprudencia en casos relacionados con delitos graves, incluidos los de lesa humanidad, cometidos durante el régimen militar argentino, así como casos de corrupción y malversación graves en Guatemala.
En Argentina, en un caso relativo al secuestro y tortura en 1976 de 24 trabajadores empleados por la rama local de la empresa Ford Motor en su fábrica de Buenos Aires durante la dictadura militar de 1976-83, un Tribunal Federal de Primera Instancia oral en lo penal condenó a tres personas, un ex militar y dos ex ejecutivos de Ford a prisión de entre 10 y 12 años, por su participación cómplice en los delitos.
Ex ejecutivos de Ford fueron acusados de brindar información detallada y apoyo logístico a agentes de seguridad que derivaron en el secuestro y tortura de las víctimas, y también permitieron que se instalara un centro de detención dentro de las instalaciones de dicha fábrica. Los tres magistrados del Tribunal en este caso asistieron a la reunión para compartir las lecciones aprendidas y reflexiones sobre la trascendencia del proceso penal en el contexto de los esfuerzos por hacer justicia y reparar los crímenes del pasado.
El proceso y la sentencia definitiva es un hito en la lucha contra la impunidad en Argentina y un mensaje importante a todos para que estos crímenes no se vuelvan a cometer. El caso esclareció las formas en que los particulares (ex ejecutivos de la empresa) participaron en la comisión de los delitos por parte de agentes del Estado (militares y agentes de seguridad), profundizando en las modalidades de atribución de los hechos a los autores accesorios.
También fue una innovación en la forma en que recopiló y evaluó el valor probatorio de las pruebas disponibles de los delitos cometidos hace más de 30 años para que aún pudieran atribuirse a los perpetradores.
La reparación ordenada por el Tribunal en este caso fue “simbólica e histórica”, consistente en el reconocimiento de los hechos por parte del Estado y de los actores privados. Las víctimas pueden exigir ahora otras formas de reparación al Estado, pero no a las personas. La empresa como tal no formó parte del proceso penal ni fue sancionada en sentencia firme, ya que la ley argentina no acepta la responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas como las corporaciones.
Un juez participante de un Tribunal de Alto Riesgo en Guatemala compartió un caso sobre delitos económicos de corrupción, fraude, asociación ilícita y lavado de activos en una ciudad provincial de Guatemala. Aquí, la experiencia y los resultados fueron algo diferentes. El caso involucró al alcalde de la ciudad y varios de sus familiares, así como a unas 20 empresas de las cuales casi 20 personas y siete empresas recibieron sanciones en la sentencia final.
El caso es de especial importancia en Guatemala como uno de los pocos casos de corrupción a gran escala que ha llegado a su etapa final con condenas. En la investigación y recolección de pruebas consideradas durante el juicio, participaron varias oficinas públicas y la entonces Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG), que ya no funciona. Gracias a las recientes leyes sobre corrupción y blanqueo de capitales, es posible imponer sanciones a la empresa, en tanto persona jurídica.
En el presente caso, dichas sanciones consistieron en multas pecuniarias, pero no en la suspensión o disolución de la persona jurídica para permitir que prosigan otros procesos administrativos contra las mismas empresas. De acuerdo con las leyes nacionales y los estándares internacionales, los jueces ordenaron la reparación integral, incluyendo los daños, medidas de satisfacción como declaraciones públicas de disculpas y publicaciones a realizar por los condenados.
Citando una constatación gráfica contenida en la sentencia final, el juez Pablo Xitumul, quien presidió el Tribunal, dijo que “la corrupción y la impunidad son aún más letales que un cáncer o una pandemia, ¡y deben combatirse sin demoras ni excusas!”.
Para leer el artículo completo: Americas-Judges and BHR-News-Feature article-2020-SPA
Sep 8, 2020 | Feature articles, News
Judges from six Latin American countries revealed that there were serious obstacles, but also possibilities for justice, facing regional judiciaries as they try to protect the human rights of those who have been adversely affected by the activity of business entities.
The judges gathered as part of the Regional Judicial Dialogue on Business and Human Rights organized by the ICJ of Jurists on September 7.
The Dialogue, moderated by ICJ Commissioner Professor Monica Pinto, brought together 17 judges from Central and South America to consider the role of judges in guaranteeing the right of access to justice and remedy and reparation. The judges also considered the need to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the security of individual judges, lawyers, and human rights defenders in the context of business activities in the region.
The session featured presentations from a member of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Dialogue took place in the context of the 5th Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Discussing access to justice and remedy and reparation, the judges shared experiences and jurisprudence in cases related to serious crimes, including against humanity committed during the Argentine military regime, as well as cases of serious corruption and embezzlement in Guatemala.
In Argentina, in a case concerning the 1976 kidnapping and torture of 24 workers employed by the local Ford Motor company at their factory in Buenos Aires during the 1976-83 military dictatorship, a Federal Trial Tribunal sentenced three persons, a former military officer and two former Ford executives to prison of between 10 and 12 years, for their complicit involvement in the crimes.
Former Ford executives were accused of providing detailed information and logistical support to security agents that led to the abduction and torture of the victims, and also allowed a detention centre to be set up inside the premises of that factory.
The three judges of the Tribunal in this case attended the meeting to share the lessons learned and the significance of the criminal proceedings in the context of efforts to bring justice and reparations for the crimes of the past.
The process and the final sentence is a landmark in the fight against impunity in Argentina and an important message to all so that these crimes are not committed again. The case clarified the ways in which private individuals (the former company executives) participated in the commission of the crimes by State agents (military and security agents), elaborating upon modalities of attribution of the acts to the accessory perpetrators.
It is also an innovation in the ways it gathered and assessed the probatory value of the available evidence of crimes committed more than 30 years ago so that the crimes could still be attributed to the perpetrators.
The reparation ordered by the Tribunal in this case was “symbolic and historical”, consisting on an acknowledgment of the facts by the State and the private actors. The victims may demand now other forms of reparation from the State, but not from individuals.
The company as such was not part of the criminal proceedings nor was it sanctioned in the final sentence, since Argentinian law does not accept the criminal responsibility of legal entities such as corporations.
A participant judge from Guatemala shared a case concerning economic crimes of corruption, fraud, illicit association and assets laundering in a provincial town in Guatemala. Here, the experience and outcomes were somewhat different.
The case involved the town major and several of his relatives as well as some 20 companies out of which nearly 20 individuals and seven companies received penalties in the final sentence.
The case is of special significance in Guatemala as one of the few, large scale, corruption cases that has reached its final stage with convictions. In the investigation and collection of evidence considered during the trial, participated several public offices and the then International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), which is no longer in operation.
Thanks to recent laws on corruption and money laundering, it is possible to impose sanctions on the company, as a legal entity. In the instant case, those sanctions consisted of monetary fines but not suspension or dissolution of the legal entity to allow other administrative proceedings against the same companies to continue.
In accordance with national laws and international standards, the judges ordered full reparation, including for damages, measures of satisfaction such as public statements of apologies and publications to be made by the convicted.
Citing a graphic statement contained in the final sentence, the judge Pablo Xitumul who presided the Tribunal said “corruption and impunity are even more lethal than a cancer or a pandemic, and should be combated without delay or excuses!”
Read the full story here: Americas-Judges and BHR-News-Feature article-2020-ENG
Sep 7, 2020 | News
Turkish authorities should immediately release human rights defender Osman Kavala, in compliance with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ decision of 3 September 2020, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The decision followed a Committee of Ministers hearing to assess the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Osman Kavala. The Committee, acting in its supervisory capacity for Court Judgments, ordered the Turkish authorities, “to ensure the applicant’s immediate release,” pointing to, “a strong presumption that his current detention is a continuation of the violations found by the Court.”
“After the finding by the European Court of Human Rights that Kavala’s detention is unlawful, the Committee of Ministers has affirmed that Turkey is continuing to violate his rights by keeping him in detention” said Roisin Pillay, director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme at the International Commission of Jurists. “European Court rulings are binding, and Osman Kavala should be released immediately.”
Despite the unlawful detention and an acquittal by the Turkish criminal court presiding over his trial, Osman Kavala has been kept behind bars under a newly issued charge of “espionage” since March 2020. His lawyers are currently challenging the lawfulness of the detention before Turkey’s Constitutional Court. However, the Committee of Ministers indicated in its decision that Turkey should not wait for a ruling of the Constitutional Court but should release Kavala immediately.
In June, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project made a detailed submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. The submission argued that the sequence of events and repeated local court decisions to ensure Kavala’s detention subsequent to the European Court’s ruling in December 2019 demonstrated that Turkey was prolonging the violations found by the European Court.
The European Court judgment in Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) found violations of the following provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights: 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). The Court 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 Convention.
The judgment on Osman Kavala’s case is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights 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.”
Kavala has been held in detention since November 2017, initially on bogus allegations that he used the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests as a pretext for an attempt to overthrow the government, 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 ordered his detention again immediately on one of the grounds for his initial detention on 1 November 2017, namely the charge of “attempting to overthrow the Constitution by force and violence” because of the ongoing July 15, 2016 coup attempt-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 under the same investigation file on the coup attempt and relying on the same evidence.
“The decision by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers confirms our submission that political considerations are behind the court orders prolonging Osman Kavala’s detention , and that there has been a concerted official effort to prevent Kavala’s release,” said Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey director at Human Rights Watch.
“Instead of complying with 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 practice of arbitrary detentions and abusive prosecutions of journalists, elected politicians, lawyers, and other perceived government critics. This practice 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 Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
“Ending this blatantly unlawful detention, which has been ongoing for over 1000 days, will not only play a role in preventing further violations to Osman Kavala’s rights, it will also give a strong signal to the human rights defenders community that the oversight mechanisms in place to ensure Turkey’s compliance with its international human rights obligations can still be effective.”
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director of ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +32-2-734-84-46 ; e: roisin.pillay(a)icj.orgMassimo 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
Türkiye: Osman Kavala Serbest Bırakılmalı
Yetkililer, Avrupa Konseyi’nin İnsan Hakları Savunucusunu Serbest Bırakma Kararına Uymalıdır
(Cenevre, 7 Eylül 2020) Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu (ICJ), İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, yaptıkları açıklamada Türkiye makamlarının insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’yı Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesinin 3 Eylül 2020 tarihli kararına uygun olarak derhal serbest bırakması gerektiğini ifade etti.
Bu karar, Osman Kavala davasında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin kararının uygulanmasını değerlendiren Bakanlar Komitesi oturumunu müteakiben alındı. Mahkeme kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleme yetkisi olan Komite, Türk makamlarına “başvuranın derhal serbest bırakılmasını sağlama” talimatı vererek “mevcut tutukluluğunun mahkeme tarafından tespit edilen ihlallerin devamı olduğuna dair güçlü bir karine bulunduğuna” işaret etti.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Programı Direktörü Roisin Pillay,” Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin, Kavala’nın tutukluluğunun hukuka aykırı olduğunu tespit etmesinden sonra, Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’nin Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu sürdürerek onun haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini doğruladı” dedi. Pillay, “Avrupa Mahkemesi kararları bağlayıcıdır ve Osman Kavala derhal serbest bırakılmalıdır” dedi.
Hukuka aykırı tutukluluğuna ve davasının görüldüğü Ceza Mahkemesinin verdiği beraat kararına rağmen, Osman Kavala yeni ileri sürülen bir “casusluk” suçlaması nedeniyle Mart 2020’den bu yana parmaklıklar ardında tutulmaya devam ediliyor. Kavala’nın avukatları, Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi önünde tutukluluğun hukuksuz olduğuna ilişkin itirazlarda bulunuyorlar. Ancak Bakanlar Komitesi, kararında Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesinin vereceği bir kararı beklemeksizin Kavala’yı derhal serbest bırakması gerektiğini işaret ediyor.
Haziran ayında, ICJ, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetleyen Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne ayrıntılı bir bildirim sundu. Bildirim, Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin Aralık 2019’daki kararının ardından Kavala’nın alıkonmasını sağlamak için gelişen olaylar serisinin ve tekrarlanan yerel mahkeme kararlarının, Türkiye’nin Avrupa Mahkemesi tarafından tespit edilen ihlalleri devam ettirdiğini gösterdiğini savundu.
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. Mahkeme, 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.
Osman Kavala kararı, 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.
Kavala, Kasım 2017’den bu yana, 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını, hükümeti devirme girişimi için kullandığı ve 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu yönündeki asılsız iddialarla tutuklu. 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 hakim kararıyla 2016 darbesiyle ilgili devam eden bir soruşturmayla ilişkili olarak “anayasal düzeni cebir ve 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, yine bu delillere ve soruşturma dosyasına dayanan bir başka suçlama ile (casusluk) bir kez daha tutuklanmıştır.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Türkiye Direktörü Emma Sinclair-Webb,” Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin kararı bildirimimizi doğrulamakta, Osman Kavala’nın tutukluluk halini uzatan mahkeme kararlarının arkasında siyasi değerlendirmelerin olduğunu ve Kavala’nın serbest bırakılmasını önlemek için ortak bir resmi çabanın bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır” dedi.
Sinclair-Webb, “Avrupa Mahkemesi’nin kararına uymak yerine, Türkiye, Kavala’nın insan haklarını ihlal etmeye devam etmiştir” dedi.
Türkiye’de insan hakları savunucularına yönelik baskı, daha genel olarak gazetecilere, seçilmiş siyasetçilere, hukukçulara, hükümeti eleştirdiği düşünülenlere yönelik keyfi alıkoymalar ve yargısal tacizin bir parçasıdır. Bu uygulama Avrupa Konseyi, Avrupa Birliği ve insan hakları örgütlerine ait birçok raporla belgelendirilmiştir.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi Eş Direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir “Kavala’ya karşı yürütülen yıldırma kampanyası, onun tahliye edilmemesi ve hakkındaki suçlamaların düşürülmemesi, Türkiye’deki tüm insan hakları savunucuları için baskı ortamının sürmesine sebep olmuştur” dedi.
“1000 gün boyunca devam eden açıkça hukuka aykırı olan tutukluluğun sona ermesi, yalnız Osman Kavala’nın haklarının daha fazla ihlal edilmesini önlemek konusunda değil, aynı zamanda insan hakları savunucuları topluluğuna Türkiye’nin uluslararası insan hakları yükümlülüklerine uyumunu denetleyen mevcut gözetim mekanizmalarının hala etkili olabileceği yönünde güçlü bir sinyal verecektir.”
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü’nün Türkiye ile ilgili diğer raporları için tıklayınız:
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/turkey
Daha fazla bilgi için :
İstanbul’da, Emma Sinclair-Webb (İngilizce, Türkçe): +90-538-972-4486 (Whatsapp); ya da sinclae@hrw.org. Twitter: @esinclairwebb
Cenevre’de, Massimo Frigo (İngilizce, Fransızca, İspanyolca ve İtalyanca): +41-79-749-99-49; ya da massimo.frigo@icj.org. Twitter: @maxfrigo
Brüksel’de, Róisín Pillay (İngilizce, Fransızca): +32-2-734-84-46 (cep telefonu); ya da roisin.pillay@icj.org
New York’ta, Aisling Reidy (İngilizce) +1-917-378-3178 (cep telefonu); ya da reidya@hrw.org
Sep 7, 2020 | News
Ongoing attacks by United States officials on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its staff amount to a full-frontal assault on international justice and the rule of law, said the ICJ, today.
On 2 September 2020, the US Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, describing the ICC as a “thoroughly broken and corrupted institution,” indicated that the US would place on sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC’s Head of Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko, “for having materially assisted Prosecutor Bensouda” pursuant to the President’s 11 June 2020 Executive Order.
“The US must end these despicable and destabilizing attempts to interfere with the independence of the ICC and the functioning of its mandate to pursue justice for victims of the most serious crimes under international law,” said Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative.
“It is imperative that the 123 countries that are States Parties to the Rome Statute continue to work in solidarity to defend the Court and show the world that even individuals from a global superpower are subject to the rule of law.”
“Retaliating against individual ICC staff for merely working to fulfill the mandate of the Court sets a dangerous precedent and must be condemned specifically in the strongest possible terms,” added Abbott.
Background
On 21 September 2018, the ICJ, together with ten other organisations, sent a joint letter to UN Special Procedures regarding threats made by the then US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, against the ICC and its staff.
On 22 March 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst, and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, issued a press release expressing concern at Bolton’s remarks, reaffirming the important mandate of the ICC and saying they were in contact with the US authorities on the issue.
On 11 June 2020, the ICC issued a statement expressing “profound regret at the announcement of further threats and coercive actions, including financial measures, against the Court and its officials, made earlier today by the Government of the United States.” The Court said the US action “represents an attack against the interests of victims of atrocity crimes, for many of whom the Court represents the last hope for justice.”
On 18 June 2020, the ICJ urged the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures to act in response to steps taken by the United States against staff of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and their families.
On 25 June 2020, UN Human Rights Special Procedures experts issued a statement condemning US attacks on the ICC and its staff saying they “have been in contact with the US authorities on the issues.”
On 2 September 2020, the ICC issued a statement condemning the economic sanctions imposed on the Prosecutor and Phakiso Mochochoko, saying that the attacks “are unprecedented and constitute serious attacks against the Court, the Rome Statute system of international criminal justice, and the rule of law more generally.”
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
