Turkey: The legacy of the state of emergency for access to justice today

Turkey: The legacy of the state of emergency for access to justice today

The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a Zoom workshop where Turkish and international experts will discuss the legacy of the 2016-2018 state of emergency in Turkey for access to justice today.

To participate, please register by writing an email to ihop@ihop.org.tr (the Human Rights Joint Platform)

Join our great panel of speakers:

– Professor Sarah Cleveland, ICJ Commissioner
– Dr. Dilet Kurban, Hertie School
– Lawyer Ziynet Özçelik, Ankara Bar Association
– Dinçer Demirkent, Human Rights School
– Roisin Pillay, Director of ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme
– Kerem Altiparmak, ICJ Turkey Legal Adviser

The workshop will address how state of emergency measures, such as dismissals and closures of legal entities, still impact on the human right of people in Turkey today.

The experts will discuss whether the remedies set up by Turkish authorities are up to standard with Turkey’s international human rights law obligations.

IHOPICJ-ZoomWorkshop-StateofEmergency-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)

IHOPICJ-ZoomWorkshop-StateofEmergency-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)

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

Turkey: Joint submission to Council of Europe’s Ministers calls for release of Osman Kavala

Turkey: Joint submission to Council of Europe’s Ministers calls for release of Osman Kavala

Today, the ICJ, jointly with Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project presented a submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on the Execution of the judgment Kavala v. Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights.

The ICJ, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project have reported to the Committee of Ministers that new charges against Osman Kavala lack concrete evidence and have been brought in disregard of the ECtHR’s judgment whose execution the Committee is supervising.

The three NGOs have invited the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. consider adopting the relevant recommendations formulated in their submission of 29 May 2020;
  2. take further steps to end immediately Mr. Kavala’s ongoing detention, which has now exceeded three years;
  3. recognise at its 1390th 1-3 December 2020 meeting that the continuing detention of Osman Kavala violates Article 46 of the Convention concerning the binding nature of final judgments of the ECtHR and may trigger Article 46(4) infringement proceedings against Turkey; and
  4. take the necessary general measures identified in the NGOs submission of 29 May 2020 to implement the ECtHR’s ruling concerning Article 5 and 18 of the Convention in Kavala v. Turkey and its findings in relation to human rights defenders.

In their initial submission dated 29 May 2020, the NGOs underlined that decisions taken to prolong Mr. Kavala’s detention had been guided by political expediency and there had been a concerted political effort by the Turkish authorities to prevent Mr. Kavala’s release. These bases for their action are evident in the sequence of court orders prolonging Mr. Kavala’s detention, the actions of the executive and prosecutors in relation to the judicial procedures against him, and the lack of due consideration of the ECtHR’s findings and objective deliberation as to the legality of any deprivation of liberty. The NGOs made several recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, on the issues of the general and individual measures, to ensure full implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment and Mr. Kavala’s immediate release on the ground that the Court’s judgment clearly applies to his ongoing detention.

In its judgment on Kavala v. Turkey, the EUropean Court of Human Rights, on 10 December 2019, 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 Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 5(1). The Court required the Government of Turkey to take measures to end the detention of human rights defender Osman Kavala and to secure his immediate release. The Court stated that any continuation of Mr. Kavala’s detention would prolong the violations and breach the obligation to abide by the Court’s judgment in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention. The judgment became final on 11 May 2020.

Despite the Court’s clear findings and mandatory order, Mr. Kavala remains in detention as of the date of this submission.

Turkey-Kavala_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission2-HRWICJTHRLP-2020-ENG

Poland: ICJ intervenes before European Court in case on Supreme Court’s independence

Poland: ICJ intervenes before European Court in case on Supreme Court’s independence

The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in a key case challenging the independence of the Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of Poland’s Supreme Court.

In the case of Reczkowicz and Others v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights will consider whether the recently established Disciplinary and Extraordinary Chambers of the Supreme Court of Poland may be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” in order to satisfy the requirements of the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its third party intervention, the International Commission of Jurists has submitted that a court cannot be considered as independent whenever the body that has appointed its members lacks guarantees of independence from the executive and legislative powers as enshrined in standards of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including that at least half of its members be judges elected by their peers.

It further concluded that a court composed by judges appointed by a non-independent body or via a non-independent procedure will not be capable of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 ECHR.

Poland- ECtHR-Reczkowicz and Others v Poland – TPI – ICJ – 2020 -ENG (download the third party intervention)

 

ICJ Guidance on extraditions and expulsions in Central Asia

ICJ Guidance on extraditions and expulsions in Central Asia

The ICJ published today its new Guidance on Extraditions and Expulsion in Central Asia, an essential tool for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, lawyers and NGOs in the region to implement these procedures in full respect of international law.

The Guidance is the fruit of the long-term work of the ICJ to bring proceedings for the transfer of suspects in Central Asian countries, in particular extraditions and expulsions,  in line with States’ obligations under international law, including international human rights and refugee law. It addresses the application by judges and prosecutors of international law and standards in extradition and expulsion proceedings.

This Guidance has been informed by a comparative legal study conducted by the ICJ on the practices of national security-based transfers in countries of the Commonwealth of the Independent States, the European Union and the United States of America. In this study, the ICJ identified shortcomings and provided recommendations to all the countries examined.

Following this mapping, the ICJ, together with the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC), the Regional Office for Central Asia of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan convened two Central Asia international expert workshops for judges and prosecutors from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with the participation of international experts from several European countries.

This Guidance provides practical recommendations for judges and prosecutors in the region to uphold international law in extraditions and other procedures for transfer of suspects.

Their purpose is not only to promote the legal compliance of such measures and the rights of those subject to them, but also their effectiveness, in particular in the fight against impunity.

Universal-Extradition&ExpulsionsCA-Publications-Guidance-2020-ENG (Guidance in English)

Universal-Extradition&ExpulsionCA-Publications-Guidance-2020-RUS (Guidance in Russian)

Watch the ICJ, OHCHR and UNODC event on extraditions and expulsion in Central Asia and how to comply with human rights law

 

 

Poland: ICJ and Amnesty International intervene in case of removal from National Judicial Council

Poland: ICJ and Amnesty International intervene in case of removal from National Judicial Council

The ICJ and Amnesty International have presented today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the premature dismissal of Judge Waldemar Zurek from his position in the National Judicial Council.

In the case Zurek v. Poland, the ICJ and Amnesty International presented submissions on the scope of application of the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases relating to the role of an independent judiciary and its members through self-governance mechanisms (such as the National Council of the Judiciary) in light of international standards on judicial councils, judicial appointments, the judicial career and security of tenure; of the Court’s Convention jurisprudence; and of general principles on the rule of law and the role and independence of the judiciary.

They further submitted obervations on the scope of  the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR as applied to judges, including those engaged in the administration of the judiciary.

ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Zurek_v_Poland-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2020-ENG (download the third party intervention)

Translate »