HRiP is part of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. Working with Turkish lawyers and activists and colleagues at the University of Middlesex, the project seeks to support more effective use of the courts and legal strategy to address the immense human rights challenges arising in Turkey today.
NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF ‘KAVALA’ AND ‘DEMIRTAS’ CASES
The non-implementation of ECtHR judgements by Turkey has been flagrant in recent years and a growing area of attention as part of the work of the TLSP. Coordinated legal submissions and advocacy by TLSP and other NGOs (eg. HRW, ICJ, Article 19 and Amnesty) focused on emblematic refusal to implement the unusually direct ECtHR order to release detained philanthropist Osman Kavala and Kurdish politician Selattin Demirtas. Rule 9 submissions in the Kavala and Demirtas cases highlight the reality behind the government attempts to create a smokescreen around non-implementation, e.g. by filing ‘new’ charges for the same facts in respect of which the ECtHR ordered release. This work appeared to pay dividends when the Committee of Ministers referred the Kavala case back to the Court in February 2022; in July 2022 the Grand Chamber ruled that the Republic of Türkiye had failed to implement the judgment. Legal action continues, including further joint Rule 9 submissions and associated advocacy.
‘ACADEMICS FOR PEACE’ case - Before the European COURt of Human Rights
Two briefs were filed at the European Court of Human Rights in the “Academics for Peace” case (Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications, Application nos. 72796/16, 72798/16, 72799/16 et al) in December 2021. The cases emerge from a statement issued on 11 January 2016 by a group of academics from diverse Turkish universities, entitled “We will not be a party to this crime,” which critically questioned the Turkish Government’s role in the conflict in South-east Turkey and associated serious violations. The day after the “Academics for Peace Petition” was published, President Erdoğan described signatories as “so-called intellectuals” and “pseudo academics” and accused them of treason, which was followed by their public vilification as “terrorists,” and they were subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal proceedings across the country. Following the July 2016 coup attempt, hundreds of academics, including the applicants, were then dismissed from their university positions through a series of emergency decrees.
The first third party intervention was presented by Profs. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach (co-supervisors in the Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP)) on 20 December 2021 on behalf of a coalition of leading academics, addressing the nature of academic freedom, its significance for human rights and democracy and its legal protection in international human rights law. The brief calls on the Court to robustly apply the ECHR and international standards to safeguard academic autonomy and freedom of expression on matters of public concern. The issue is timely and pressing given the alarming growth in attacks on academic freedom in Turkey and around the globe, and its insidious implications for human rights and closing democratic space. The submission on academic freedom filed on 20 December 2021 and the list of interveners is available here.
A second third party intervention was submitted in the same case by the TLSP on the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the context of emergency measures leading to dismissals of public sector workers. The submission explains why neither the Inquiry Commission, nor the administrative or Constitutional Court, provides an effective remedy in this context. The third party intervention on effective remedies filed on 10 December 2021 is available here.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PISKIN V TURKEY - COE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
A rule 9 submission urged the Committee of Ministers to review the non-implementation of Pişkin v Turkey judgment, which is emblematic of the widespread arbitrariness in the massive dismissal of public sector workers during the Turkish state of emergency. The submission, which addresses the failure to provide access to justice or reparation, is relevant to tens of thousands workers who have not been reinstated or had independent review of their dismissals, but who are subject to what has been described as civil death in Turkey.
replacing elected officials with ‘trustees’ in s.e. turkey before the UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
We worked with local lawyers on the response to the observations of the Turkish government on admissibility and merits in this crucial communication concerning democratic governance and human rights in Diyakbar region. Elected members of the Bağlar Municipal Council, in the Greater Municipality of Diyarbakır, were removed for support for terrorism under emergency decree, and the government appointed a trustee to replace the elected representatives. The case is an example of direct interference with human rights is also the evisceration of democracy and human rights in SE Turkey.
Ayşe Çelik case - before the turkish CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Ayşe Çelik was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a custodial sentence for the broad-reaching and ill-defined crime of ‘disseminating propaganda’ in favour of a terrorist organisation (under Article 7/(2) of Law no. 3713 on the Fight Against Terrorism). Her purported offence consists of comments made during a telephone call to a television show stating that in South East Turkey “unborn children, mothers and people are being killed” and that the media must “not keep silent”. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach presented a joint expert opinion to the Turkish Constitutional Court in September 2018, examining international law standards on the criminalisation and prosecution of crimes of expression. The opinion is available here.
On 9 May 2019 the Turkish Constitutional Court issued its judgment in the case, finding that the imprisonment of Ayşe Çelik constituted a violation of freedom of expression, requesting both a retrial and an end to the violation. A detailed analysis of the judgment can be found here.
CURFEW CASES - HEARINGS before the European Court of Human Rights
24 hour curfews imposed by the Turkish government in parts of South East Turkey and their devastating human rights impact is being challenged in a series of cases pending before the ECtHR. The applicants in the Tunc v Turkey cases, for example, were shot by the security forces, denied access to medical care and left to die in an area under curfew, despite an interim measures order in their favour from the ECtHR. The curfew cases as a whole address violations of the right to life, arbitrary detention, impact on private and family life, the associated impunity of the security forces and lack of effective remedies for victims in Turkish courts. A third party intervention by the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner in the curfew cases is available here. HRiP acts as adviser to counsel in the Tunc case which was heard by the ECtHR on 13 November 2018. Regrettably as in thousands of cases, the Court refused to admit the case, deferring to national remedies that continue to fail victims in cases of this nature.
KAVALA case BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The case of Mehmet Osman Kavala is emblematic of the crisis facing civil society and democratic dissent in Turkey, where arbitrary detention and prosecution of human rights defenders is widespread. On 10 December 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) marked Human Rights Day by issuing a significant judgment in the case, finding multiple violations arising from the unfounded detention and prosecution of the prominent human rights defender (purportedly for his alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park Protests and the July 2016 coup attempt). In Kavala v Turkey, the Court found violations of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) on the lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence; Article 5(4) of the Convention on the lack of a speedy judicial review on arbitrary detention; and Article 18 of the Convention, on the prohibition of restrictions of rights for unauthorised purposes, in conjunction with Article 5(1). The Court took the unusual step of requiring his immediate release. See here for a detailed summary.
Mr Kavala was subsequently acquitted by domestic courts, and briefly released. However, he was then re-arrested hours later on 19 February 2020. Vague and broad-reaching laws governing support for terrorism, attacks on constitutional order and criminalising protest and dissent, facilitate this type of judicial harassment and the stifling of the legitimate exercise of human rights in Turkey. His rearrest is a flagrant violation of his rights and a rebuke to the authority of the European Court.
Our third party intervention before the European Court, on behalf of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and PEN International, available here, outlines international law standards in such cases, including on the appropriate use of criminal law and free expression, and the duties to protect human rights defenders.