Nov 1, 2019
Today, the ICJ and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) published the briefing paper on the enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey.
This briefing paper, entitled Restricted at discretion: The enjoyment of the freedoms of movement and assembly in Turkey during and after the State of Emergency, reports on the law and practice of Turkish authorities relating to governors’ powers to restrict freedom of movement and assembly in the country.
During the state of emergency many restrictions on meetings and demonstrations were based on broad and vague decisions with insufficient reasoning to meet standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, including the banning of LGBTI events.
The ICJ and IHOP concluded that the current Law on Provincial Administration does not provide a sufficient basis of restrictions of these rights as the governors’ powers are not sufficiently well described in law to be foreseeable or to prevent arbitrary, disproportionate or discriminatory application.
Download
Turkey-FoMA brief-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG (PDF, English)
Turkey-FoEA-Advocacy-analysis brief-2019-TUR (PDF, Turkish)
Oct 19, 2019 | Events, News
On 18 October, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia and the ICJ held a a closed-door roundtable discussion in Madrid on the impact of the application of counter terrorism legislation on freedom of expression and association: implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism.
The discussion took place in the framework of the EU funded project “Judges Uniting to Stop Terrorism with International, Constitutional and European law (JUSTICE) project”.
Judges, prosecutors and lawyers from 10 EU countries shared their practices and experiences in the implementation of the EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism and the application of counter-terrorism legislation and its impact on freedom of expression and association, including humanitarian work within the different legal systems of the European Union (EU) Member States.
The discussion covered the offences of glorification of terrorism and apology for terrorism and its different implementation in various jurisdictions and how legal certainty and proportionality can be ensured. The roundtable further focused on the freedom of expression on-line and the impact of the application of counter-terrorism law on freedom of association and legitimate activities, including humanitarian assistance. These practices were be assessed in light of international human rights law principles in order to identify best practices that could be promoted throughout the EU.
This was a third out of four round-tables organized within this project between April and November 2019 by the ICJ and partners.
See the agenda here.
Oct 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) have jointly sent an international observer to attend the third hearing of the criminal trial on the “Gezi Park” protest at the Silivri Prison Courthouse in Istanbul, scheduled to take place on 18 October 2019.
The ICJ and IBAHRI observer will be monitoring a trial hearing before İstanbul 30th Assize Court with prinicipal defendant Osman Kavala, and 15 others; Ali Hakan Altınay, Ayşe Mücella Yapıcı, Ayşe Pınar Alabora, Can Dündar, Çiğdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yılmaz, Handan Meltem Arıkan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoğlu, İnanç Ekmekci, Memet Ali Alabora, Mine Özerden, Şerafettin Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Yiğit Aksakoğlu and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi.
The observer will report directly to the IBAHRI and ICJ Secretariats on the proceedings following the mission.
The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon turned into nationwide demonstrations.
The protest was quelled by police with the use of tear gas and water cannons against the protesters in Taksim Square. Following a six-year investigation into the events, the 657-page indictment issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was accepted by the 30th A Court in Istanbul on 4 March 2019.
The defendants are to be charged under Turkish Criminal Code Article 312 (attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government or attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury); crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136, and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Oct 15, 2019
Today the ICJ, together with ILGA-Europe, the AIRE Centre and Human Rights Watch, submitted a joint third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Oganezova v. Armenia (Application nos. 71367/12 and 72961/12).
In their written submissions to the Court, the interveners addressed the following issues:
(a)
under European and international human rights jurisprudence, the victim’s identity as an lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) person is relevant to the assessment of whether the threshold for torture and other ill-treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) has been met. Specifically, the discrimination directed towards LGBT persons may indicate a particular motive and intent that may meet the threshold of Article 3 ECHR;
(b)
the Contracting States have a positive obligation to protect persons in their jurisdiction from violence and harassment based on their real or imputed sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression, including the obligation to prevent, investigate, prosecute, punish and remedy such acts. In particular, Contracting States have the additional procedural obligation to take all reasonable steps to establish whether any hatred or prejudice connected to a protected characteristic may have played a role in the violent attack, where acts of violence are motivated in whole or in part by prejudice against an individual’s real or imputed sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression; and
(c)
That the attitudes and practices in responding to violence and harassment against LGBT people in Armenia provide important contextual information in analyzing the case.”
Europe-Oganezova v. Armenia-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2019-ENG (full text of submission, in PDF)
Oct 14, 2019 | Communiqués de presse, Multimédia, Nouvelles
La condamnation ce jour de dirigeants séparatistes catalans du chef de sédition restreint de façon indue le droit aux libertés d’expression, de réunion pacifique et d’association, déclare la CIJ.
« Ces condamnations représentent une atteinte grave à l’exercice des libertés d’expression, de réunion pacifique et d’association des dirigeants politiques. Le recours à la loi sur la sédition dans le but de restreindre l’exercice de ces droits n’était ni nécessaire, ni proportionné et, partant, injustifiable, » a déclaré Massimo Frigo, Conseiller juridique principal pour le programme Europe et Asie Centrale de la CIJ.
La CIJ souligne également le fait que la définition excessivement étendue du crime de sédition appliquée dans le cas présent crée un risque élevé d’arbitraire.
« Nous sommes inquiets de constater que la Cour Suprême ne respecte pas les obligations internationales de l’Espagne en matière des droits de l’homme dans l’examen des accusations visant les prévenus, ce qui affaiblit fortement les condamnations en découlant, » a-t-il ajouté.
Neuf des douze leaders politiques jugés – parmi lesquels des membres haut placés du gouvernement catalan – ont été déclarés coupables de sédition en lien avec leur participation à l’organisation, le 1er octobre 2017, du référendum sur la question de l’indépendance de la Catalogne. Le référendum fut conduit bien que la Cour Constitutionnelle ait prononcé son illégalité.
Le processus de vote référendaire a été interrompu de force à de multiples endroits par la police, laquelle aurait, selon plusieurs signalements sérieux, recouru de façon excessive à la force en violation des obligations internationales incombant à l’Espagne.
« L’ingérence dans l’expression pacifique de volontés politiques ou de manifestations est inacceptable, sauf dans de rares circonstances où elle s’avère strictement nécessaire et proportionnée pour des motifs impérieux tels que la sécurité nationale,» a précisé Massimo Frigo.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Conseiller juridique principal, Programme Europe et Asie Centrale de la CIJ, t : + 41 22 979 38 05 ; e : massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Contexte
Les 12 individus condamnés en lien avec le référendum d’octobre 2017 incluent Oriol Junqueras (photo), ancien vice-président catalan; Carme Forcadell, ancienne parlementaire catalane; huit ancient ministres du gouvernement catalan – Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Santi Vila, Meritxel Borràs, Dolors Bassa, Josep Rull, Carles Mundó –; Jordi Sànchez, l’ancien dirigeant de l’Assemblée Nationale Catalane (ANC); et Jordi Cuixart, ancien dirigeant de l’organisation indépendantiste Òmnium Cultural.
L’Espagne a pour obligation de garantir la liberté d’expression, y compris l’expression politique, telle que protégée par l’article 10 de la Convention Européenne des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) et l’article 19 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques de l’ONU (Pacte I) ; et la liberté de réunion pacifique et d’association protégée par l’article 11 CEDH et les articles 21 et 22 du Pacte I.
Le Comité des Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU, dans son Commentaire Général relatif à la liberté d’expression a déclaré : « les Etats parties doivent prendre les plus grandes précautions pour que toute législation relative à la trahison et toutes dispositions analogues relatives à la sécurité nationale, qu’elles se présentent sous la forme de lois sur les secrets d’État, de lois sur la sédition ou sous d’autres formes, soient conçues et appliquées d’une façon qui garantisse la compatibilité avec les conditions strictes énoncées au paragraphe 3 » de l’article 19 du Pacte I, lequel prévoit que les restrictions à la liberté d’expression doivent être fixées par la loi et nécessaires à la sauvegarde de la sécurité nationale ou de l’ordre public. Le droit de prendre part à la vie publique est protégé par l’article 25 du Pacte I.
