Search Results

ARBITRARY DENIAL OF PAROLE FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS: JOINT UN COMMUNICATION ON THE DETENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER SELÇUK KOZAĞAÇLI On 2 February 2026, five human rights and legal organisations submitted a joint communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“the Working Group”) concerning the ongoing arbitrary detention of prominent human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı. PROJE HAKKINDA. Photo: proleteren.wordpress.com/2020/07/29/potemkin-courts/ On 2 February 2026, five human rights and legal organisations – the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), the Law Society of England and Wales, and Lawyers for Lawyers – submitted a joint communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“the Working Group”) concerning the ongoing arbitrary detention of prominent human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı.* Background Selçuk Kozağaçlı was convicted for ‘membership of a terrorist organisation’ – a charge based entirely on his professional work as a human rights lawyer. He became eligible for conditional release on 11 February 2025 and was briefly released on 16 April 2025, only to be re-arrested the next day after judicial authorities revoked his release. Mr Kozağaçlı remains in prison despite the fact that there is no legitimate basis for his continued detention. He has been repeatedly denied conditional release. His case is not an isolated one – it reflects a broader pattern in Türkiye where political prisoners are systemically denied parole, adding yet another layer of rights violations to already politically motivated detentions, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. Why This Detention is Arbitrary Our communication sets out that Mr Kozağaçlı’s continued detention amounts to arbitrary detention on multiple grounds falling under Category I, II, III and V arbitrary detention as defined by the Working Group: No legal basis: His detention rests on overly broad and vague Turkish legislation on parole, applied arbitrarily by prison and judicial authorities. Punishment for exercising his rights: His parole was revoked because of his participation in hunger strikes protesting prison conditions and fair trial violations – acts of free expression and peaceful assembly. Denial of due process: His rights to liberty and security, a fair trial and an effective remedy have all been violated (Category III violation). Part of a decade-long pattern of harassment: Mr Kozağaçlı and his colleagues have faced sustained persecution for their work defending human rights as lawyers. What We are Asking We are calling on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to urgently confirm that Mr Kozağaçlı’s continued detention violates international law and to recommend his immediate release, along with just compensation for his arbitrary detention and a full investigation into his case. Beyond these individual remedies, we urge the Working Group to call on Türkiye to fundamentally reform its conditional release framework. Eligibility and “good conduct” criteria must be clear, objective, foreseeable, and applied consistently, not wielded as tools to keep political detainees behind bars. The use of vague “remorse” requirements, opaque scoring mechanisms, or minor disciplinary infractions to block release must end. Decisions on conditional release must be made by independent bodies and subject to meaningful judicial review. *Our communication remains pending before the Working Group. Signatories: Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) The Law Society of England and Wales Lawyers for Lawyers FULL INTERVENTION HOME PAGE

ARBITRARY DENIAL OF PAROLE FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS: JOINT UN COMMUNICATION ON THE DETENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER SELÇUK KOZAĞAÇLI On 2 February 2026, five human rights and legal organisations submitted a joint communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“the Working Group”) concerning the ongoing arbitrary detention of prominent human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı. PROJE HAKKINDA. Photo: proleteren.wordpress.com/2020/07/29/potemkin-courts/ On 2 February 2026, five human rights and legal organisations – the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), the Law Society of England and Wales, and Lawyers for Lawyers – submitted a joint communication to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“the Working Group”) concerning the ongoing arbitrary detention of prominent human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı.* Background Selçuk Kozağaçlı was convicted for ‘membership of a terrorist organisation’ – a charge based entirely on his professional work as a human rights lawyer. He became eligible for conditional release on 11 February 2025 and was briefly released on 16 April 2025, only to be re-arrested the next day after judicial authorities revoked his release. Mr Kozağaçlı remains in prison despite the fact that there is no legitimate basis for his continued detention. He has been repeatedly denied conditional release. His case is not an isolated one – it reflects a broader pattern in Türkiye where political prisoners are systemically denied parole, adding yet another layer of rights violations to already politically motivated detentions, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. Why This Detention is Arbitrary Our communication sets out that Mr Kozağaçlı’s continued detention amounts to arbitrary detention on multiple grounds falling under Category I, II, III and V arbitrary detention as defined by the Working Group: No legal basis: His detention rests on overly broad and vague Turkish legislation on parole, applied arbitrarily by prison and judicial authorities. Punishment for exercising his rights: His parole was revoked because of his participation in hunger strikes protesting prison conditions and fair trial violations – acts of free expression and peaceful assembly. Denial of due process: His rights to liberty and security, a fair trial and an effective remedy have all been violated (Category III violation). Part of a decade-long pattern of harassment: Mr Kozağaçlı and his colleagues have faced sustained persecution for their work defending human rights as lawyers. What We are Asking We are calling on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to urgently confirm that Mr Kozağaçlı’s continued detention violates international law and to recommend his immediate release, along with just compensation for his arbitrary detention and a full investigation into his case. Beyond these individual remedies, we urge the Working Group to call on Türkiye to fundamentally reform its conditional release framework. Eligibility and “good conduct” criteria must be clear, objective, foreseeable, and applied consistently, not wielded as tools to keep political detainees behind bars. The use of vague “remorse” requirements, opaque scoring mechanisms, or minor disciplinary infractions to block release must end. Decisions on conditional release must be made by independent bodies and subject to meaningful judicial review. *Our communication remains pending before the Working Group. Signatories: Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) The Law Society of England and Wales Lawyers for Lawyers FULL INTERVENTION HOME PAGE

Strategic Litigation Implementation Monitoring & Advocacy Research Dialogue & Exchange Commentary 1/1 TLSP raises awareness on systemic human rights violations in Turkey, advocating for effective remedies for those whose rights have been affected and Turkey’s full compliance with its human rights obligations under international and regional treaties. We provide analysis to regional and international monitoring mechanisms, engaging in dialogue with the Council of Europe, the European Union and UN bodies. We foster strategic collaboration among civil society actors, lawyer groups and international organisations through joint missions, reports, statements and urgent action initiatives. IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING & ADVOCACY URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES: PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION OF LAWYERS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN TÜRKİYE BY EMAIL Quick Response Desk Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8–14 Avenue de la Paix CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland urgent-action@ohchr.org 6 March 2026 FOR THE ATTENTION OF: • Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression • Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association • Special Rapporteur on minority issues URGENT ACTION: Prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders who are members of Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) on 28 January 2026 in Türkiye. Dear Mandate Holders, We write to express our deep and urgent concern regarding the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) following a decade-long trial before the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court. On 28 January 2026, in proceedings dating back to 2016, the trial court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders, on terrorism-related and expression-based charges, imposing lengthy prison sentences. The prosecutions and resulting convictions appear to be based predominantly on lawyers’ lawful professional conduct — including prison visits, contact with clients, legal correspondence, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues — rather than any credible evidence of criminal conduct. These mirror prior patterns of targeting lawyers for their professional activities. TUAD activists were likewise targeted solely for their legitimate human rights work, including documenting prison conditions, publicly reporting on human rights violations, and advocating for the protection of prisoners’ health and dignity, activities that fall within the protected scope of human rights defence. The convictions follow proceedings marked by serious due process concerns, including extensive reliance on surveillance evidence obtained through wiretapping and technical monitoring measures authorised by judges who were later dismissed or prosecuted in connection with alleged links to the Gülenist organisation, as well as the routine rejection of defence challenges without reasoned judicial assessment. These practices raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international standards protecting the professional independence of lawyers and the lawful activities of human rights defenders. In light of the gravity of these concerns, we respectfully request your urgent intervention. We urge you to call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and to terminate all criminal proceedings against the lawyers and human rights defenders concerned, in accordance with international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We further invite you to urge the authorities to cease all forms of judicial harassment and undue interference with the legal profession and with human rights defence, and to ensure that lawyers and human rights defenders can carry out their lawful activities freely, independently, and without fear of reprisal. BACKGROUND AND SYSTEMIC CONTEXT Since the attempted coup of July 2016, Türkiye has experienced a sustained deterioration of the rule of law and judicial independence, accompanied by widespread persecution of lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the authorities have systematically targeted members of the legal profession and civil society through arbitrary arrests, prolonged pre-trial detention, and criminal prosecutions based on vague and overly broad terrorism provisions, particularly Articles 314 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and Article 7(2) of the Law on Anti-Terrorism. These measures have been repeatedly criticised by international bodies for their lack of foreseeability, their misuse against lawful expression and association, and their chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights. This pattern has been facilitated by profound structural damage to judicial independence, including the mass dismissal and replacement of judges and prosecutors, expanded executive control over judicial appointments, and the routine disregard by domestic courts of binding judgments of the ECtHR. As documented by UN mechanisms and regional bodies, these developments have enabled the instrumentalization of criminal law against lawyers and human rights defenders perceived as critical of state policies, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, political opposition, prison conditions, and allegations of torture and ill-treatment. For instance, in March 2019 the Istanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court sentenced 18 lawyers to a combined total of 159 years, 1 month, and 30 days in prison on terrorism-related charges linked to the outlawed Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C). The defendants included lawyers from the People’s Law Office (HHB) and the Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD), many of whom had been providing legal representation in politically sensitive cases. Human rights organisations and bar associations condemned the verdicts as unjust and politically motivated, stressing that the convictions were based on lawyers’ professional activities rather than any demonstrable criminal conduct. They further warned that the proceedings reflected serious due process violations, political interference in the judiciary, and the systematic criminalisation of legal defence work, undermining the independence of the legal profession in Türkiye. Another illustrative example of the criminalisation of legal defence work took place in Ankara in 2017. In June of that year, 52 lawyers were charged with “membership of a terrorist organization” under Article 314 of the TPC. The prosecution alleged that their professional association, the Law and Life Association, formed part of the Gülen organisation, despite a police report finding no evidence of criminal activity. The indictment relied on routine legal activities such as assigning cases, representing clients linked to the Gülenist organisation, and making public statements on due process as purported proof of “aiding terrorism”. Human Rights Watch condemned the proceedings, warning that treating legal representation as evidence of criminality “threatens the very core of fair trial rights” and undermines the independence of the legal profession. According to reports, more than 1,500 lawyers have been prosecuted in Türkiye since 2016, hundreds have been detained, and many have received lengthy prison sentences. These prosecutions frequently rely on evidence obtained from lawyers’ professional activities, including prison visits, client communications, participation in hearings, and public advocacy on human rights and rule of law. These concerns are reflected in reporting by international media and civil society organisations concerning large-scale police operations carried out in April 2023 in Diyarbakır and other predominantly Kurdish southeastern provinces. According to media reports, Turkish police detained more than 100 individuals — including lawyers, journalists, political actors and civil society representatives — in coordinated raids targeting organisations allegedly linked to the PKK. A series of other ongoing cases further illustrates the entrenched and continuing nature of these practices. In the context of the Gezi Park proceedings, domestic courts have repeatedly refused to give effect to binding ECtHR judgments requesting the release of human rights defender Osman Kavala. Trial courts and the Court of Cassation repeatedly failed to give effect to multiple rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering the release of opposition MP Can Atalay on the basis of his parliamentary immunity and have continued to detain Gezi Park co-defendant Tayfun Kahraman despite a Constitutional Court judgment finding violations of his rights. Parallel concerns arise in relation to the continued imprisonment of human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı, following the arbitrary and punitive refusal of his conditional release. In late 2024, the authorities also initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association in response to a public statement addressing alleged human rights violations in Syria attributed to Turkish security forces. Earlier, in October 2022, prominent forensic expert and human rights defender Şebnem Korur Fincancı was detained and prosecuted for her professional assessment on the allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkish military forces. International human rights monitoring mechanisms has further highlighted the systemic nature of these practices. In its concluding observations adopted in November 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed serious concern about persecution, harassment, intimidation, and reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, Kurdish activists, environmental defenders, opposition politicians, academics, and civil society members perceived as critical of the government. CONVICTION OF ÖHD LAWYERS AND MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS FROM TUAD On 28 January 2026, the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court delivered its judgment in a criminal case initiated in 2016 against lawyers affiliated with the ÖHD, members and staff of the TUAD. At the conclusion of nearly ten years of proceedings, the court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders on terrorism-related and expression-based charges and imposed custodial sentences ranging from several months to multiple years of imprisonment. Among the convicted lawyers were Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan. The conduct relied upon by the prosecution and the trial court as evidence of criminal liability consisted of lawful professional and human rights activities. According to reports, the prosecution was built almost exclusively on unlawfully obtained surveillance material, including wiretapping and technical monitoring measures extended over prolonged periods in breach of procedural safeguards. Throughout the trial, defence lawyers raised serious and persistent concerns regarding violations of fair trial guarantees. The convictions of TUAD members and affiliates further raise grave concerns regarding the criminalisation of human rights defenders’ work. Taken together these violations take place within a broader context of weakened judicial safeguards and increasing executive influence over the courts. TURKEY’S OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Rights of Lawyers and Rule of Law Under international and regional human rights law, the rights of lawyers — including their rights to liberty and security, freedom of expression and association, and the independent exercise of their profession — are protected by a coherent body of standards. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers are entitled to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed under international human rights law insofar as they relate to their professional functions. These guarantees are reinforced and developed at the regional level by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers for routine professional activities constitute a direct violation of these standards. B. Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Legitimate Civil Society Activity TUAD members and activists fall within the definition of human rights defenders. Article 9 of the Declaration affirms the right of everyone to offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. The prosecution and conviction of TUAD members for activities such as documenting prison conditions and supporting prisoners’ families therefore constitute a clear violation of Türkiye’s obligations under international law. Taken together, the prosecution and convictions reflect the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation to suppress lawful professional and human rights activities. ACTIONS REQUESTED In light of the above, we respectfully request that the Special Rapporteurs take the following urgent actions: (a) Call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and sentences imposed on ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members and to ensure their immediate acquittal. (b) Seek detailed information from the Government of Türkiye regarding the use of surveillance and intelligence evidence authorised by judicial officials who were later dismissed or convicted. (c) Urge the authorities to end all forms of harassment against the individuals concerned and against lawyers and human rights defenders more broadly. (d) Raise concerns regarding the criminalisation of legal defence work and prisoners’ rights advocacy. (e) Call on the authorities to immediately cease the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation against lawyers and human rights defenders. (f) Urge Türkiye to take concrete measures to safeguard judicial independence. (g) Remind the Government of Türkiye of its binding international obligations under international human rights law. Ayşe Bingöl Demir Turkey Litigation Support Project Saniye Karakaş London Legal Group (and on behalf of the following organisations) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Conseil des Barreaux Européens, CCBE) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği, IHD) Human Rights Fundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı, TİHV) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders International Observatory of Lawyers at Risk (OIAD) Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) Rights Initiative Association (Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği) Social Policy, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Association (SPoD) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders ➤ Full Letter JOINT BRIEFING TO EU INSTITUTIONS AND MEMBER STATES BY THE TURKEY HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION SUPPORT PROJECT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS The TLSP, HRW, and the ICJ have produced a briefing for institutions and Member States of the European Union concerning Türkiye’s challenge to EU founding values and rule of law standards, building on conclusions from their earlier briefing to the Council of Europe on Türkiye’s defiance of European Court of Human Rights judgments and erosion of judicial independence. Türkiye’s flouting of human rights and the rule of law, including through instrumentalization of the judiciary and widespread use of detention and prosecution to silence political opponents and critics, in defiance of repeated ECtHR rulings on these issues, has direct negative implications for the EU’s external policy. A failure by the EU to take unified action to tie political, financial, and institutional engagement with Türkiye to concrete, measurable progress on human rights, judicial independence, and implementation of ECtHR judgments enables impunity for human rights violations and further undermines the accession process. It risks widening the gap between the EU and Türkiye as strategic partners, sends the wrong signal to countries across the region, and erodes the EU’s credibility and cohesion in promoting democratic standards and human rights in its neighbourhood and globally. The briefing offers recommendations to EU institutions and Member States on key measures and steps to address the profound human rights and rule of law crisis in Türkiye. It can be accessed here. ➤ Full Briefing JOINT BRIEFING TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE INSTITUTIONS BY THE TURKEY HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION SUPPORT PROJECT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AND INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS This briefing to the Council of Europe (CoE) institutions, prepared ahead of an advocacy visit by the TLSP, HRW and the ICJ, joined by Amnesty International and the European Implementation Network in January 2025, addresses some of the main elements underlying Türkiye’s systemic failure to implement ECtHR judgments, which not only perpetuates ongoing Convention violations, but also serves to increase applications to the Court, and positions the country as one of the least compliant Member States with the Convention. The briefing examines the practices and tactics adopted by Turkish prosecutorial and judicial actors and government authorities to evade implementing European Court judgments. It further analyses critical concerns engaging CoE values that are behind those tactics: the lack of an independent and impartial judiciary and the erosion of the rule of law, which lie at the heart of the current crisis between Türkiye and the CoE. Finally, the briefing offers a series of recommendations to the CoE institutions and Member States on how to respond to the Turkish authorities’ conduct, to press for the implementation of ECtHR judgments and to uphold and promote the Convention framework. The briefing can be accessed here. ➤ Full Briefing RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ON THE MEASURES REQUIRED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECTHR’S PIŞKIN V. TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 33399/18) JUDGMENT The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, and Amnesty International (“the NGOs”) presented a Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 January 2025 regarding the execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Pişkin v. Turkey (Application no. 33399/18). The submission complements two earlier submissions jointly made by the NGOs and the International Commission of Jurists dated 29 October 2021 and 1 September 2022 and responds to the Government’s reply to the NGO submissions and action reports. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ON THE MEASURES REQUIRED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECTHR’S SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAŞ (NO. 2) V TURKEY [GC] (APPLICATION NO. 14305/17) AND YÜKSEKDAĞ ŞENOĞLU AND OTHERS V TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 14332/17, 8 NOVEMBER 2022, FINAL ON 3 APRIL 2023) JUDGMENTS The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Human Rights Watch (“the NGOs”) made a joint Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 January 2025. The submission provided updates on developments relevant to the implementation of individual and general measures required by the European Court of Human Rights’ Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) v Turkey [GC] and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and others v Turkey judgments. It also offered recommendations to the Committee, building on previous submissions jointly made by the NGOs, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ON THE MEASURES REQUIRED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS IN KAVALA V. TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 28749/18) AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 46§4 IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TÜRKIYE [GC] The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Human Rights Watch (“the NGOs”) made a joint Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 January 2025. The submission provided updates on developments relevant to the implementation of individual and general measures in the European Court of Human Rights’ Kavala v Turkey judgment and in the proceedings under Article 46 § 4 in the case of Kavala v Türkiye. It also offers recommendations to the Committee in its supervision of these judgments’ implementation, building on previous unimplemented recommendations jointly made by the NGOs and the International Commission of Jurists. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE'S COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASES OF SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAŞ (NO. 2) V TURKEY AND YÜKSEKDAĞ ŞENOĞLU AND OTHERS V TURKEY The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights (“the NGOs”) made a joint Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 12 February 2024 providing the Committee with information and recommendations on the state of implementation of individual and general measures by Türkiye in relation to the European Court of Human Rights’ Selahattin Demirtaş (no. 2) v Turkey [GC] (Application no. 14305/17) and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and others v Turkey (Application no. 14332/17) judgments. The NGOs’ recommendations in the submission presented to the Committee ahead of its 1492nd Human Rights meetings in March 2024 include on the issue of individual measures: Initiating infringement proceedings under Article 46(4) of the Convention in relation to Türkiye’s continued failure to release Mr. Demirtaş and Ms. Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu from detention; and Requesting that Turkish authorities ensure restitutio in integrum to all of the applicants, by annulling criminal proceedings initiated during their term in office pursuant to the constitutional amendment of May 2016 (including in the ongoing “Kobani trial” based on the “6-8 October 2014 events”, which was the subject of the Court’s judgments); and annulling proceedings similarly based on the applicants’ political activities, where they relate to an identical or similar factual context as examined by the Court. Regarding general measures, the NGOs call on the Committee of Ministers to urge Türkiye to: Annul and remedy all criminal proceedings initiated during the HDP MPs’ term in office based on the constitutional amendment of May 2016; Annul and remedy criminal proceedings relying on a decision by the judiciary to set aside parliamentary inviolability, contrary to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court; Put an end to the judicial harassment of parliamentarians, which has unduly impeded the exercise of their political mandate, by ensuring that judicial authorities refrain from submitting summaries of proceedings (fezleke) in connection with their exercise of their Convention rights; Take concrete steps to ensure that parliamentary non-liability under Article 83(2) of the Constitution is systematically and genuinely applied by prosecutorial and judicial authorities; Take concrete steps to ensure the ECtHR jurisprudence on freedom of expression is genuinely and effectively applied by prosecutorial and judicial authorities when applying and interpreting anti-terrorism or national security laws; and secure the implementation of the Committee of Ministers’ and Venice Commission’s recommendations on this issue; Ensure that remedies and safeguards against arbitrary interferences with the rights of elected representatives and other opposition politicians are effective in practice, including by strengthening the effectiveness of the individual application process to the Constitutional Court and protecting its independence; and Take specific measures to address the obstacles described in this submission to opposition politicians’ exercise of their elected mandates in a free and safe environment.underscore the key role that the Committee’s supervision will play in ensuring Türkiye’s compliance with the judgments, and international oversight and provide views on four central issues: The government’s claim that the ongoing detention of Mr Kavala does not fall within the scope of the 10 December 2019 and 11 July 2022 judgments of the ECtHR, which is profoundly misleading and in direct defiance of the Court’s rulings. The government’s false argument that the Grand Chamber did not address the April 2022 conviction of the applicant in its July 2022 judgment. The imperative that Mr. Kavala be released immediately as part of the appropriate and urgent response to the Grand Chamber judgment. The necessity of the Committee increasing its efforts to secure the release of Mr Kavala by effectively using all designated legal, political, diplomatic, and financial tools in hand while continuing to firmly condemn Türkiye’s refusal to implement the judgment. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission JOINT RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TURKEY The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists (“the NGOs”) made a joint Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 26 January 2024 providing information and recommendations on the state of implementation of individual and general measures required by the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments of Kavala v Turkey (Application no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019) and Proceedings under Article 4646§4 in the case of Kavala v Türkiye [GC] (Application no. 28749/18, 11 July 2022). In the submission, he NGOs ask the Committee to call once again for the immediate release of Osman Kavala; to stress that the ECtHR’s two judgments plainly apply to Osman Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence; and to strongly condemn judicial authorities’ decision to uphold this conviction and sentence. They also urge the Committee to affirm its endorsement of the PACE resolution of 12 October 2023; condemn domestic authorities’ bad faith allegations that the PACE pursues political motives; recall the Turkish authorities’ binding obligation under Article 46 of the Convention; intensify its efforts to ensure continued engagement with this case; and identify the implementation of these judgments as one of the main conditions for maintaining constructive co-operation with Türkiye. Regarding the implementation of general measures to put an end to similar violations, to provide redress for such violations, and to prevent other similar violations from reoccurring, the NGOs highlight the continued instrumentalisation of criminal law to silence human rights defenders and suppress scrutiny and criticism of the state. Turkish authorities have consistently failed to adhere to international standards on states' heightened responsibilities in safeguarding human rights defenders due to their pivotal role in a democratic society. The legitimate exercise of Convention rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association is repeatedly being linked to violent events and serious criminal offenses through a manifestly unreasonable interpretation of criminal law and evidentiary standards. In these proceedings against real or perceived dissenting voices, the basic tenets of legality and of a fair trial are systematically violated. The NGOs also underline Turkish authorities’ persistent failure to adhere to Convention standards and to implement key ECtHR judgments finding that an individual’s detention pursued an ulterior purpose, or that judicial authorities’ interpretation and application of criminal law violated the essence of the right to a fair trial and the principle of legality. The NGOs ask the Committee in this respect to urge Turkish authorities to bring an end to punitive prosecutions and misuse of criminal law against human rights defenders and adopt a concrete policy and targeted legislation on the protection of human rights defenders against any form of harassment or persecution and for the creation of a safe and enabling environment for them to pursue their activities. The NGOs provide further recommendations on amending broad and vaguely worded anti-terrorism and national security legislation; addressing non-implementation of ECtHR judgments and ensuring respect for Convention standards; and monitoring and strengthening respect of legality and fair trial rights. The submission also underlines intensifying issues surrounding judicial independence and impartiality in Türkiye. It discusses the lack of structural independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors; the deeply polarised system of judicial appointment; and politically motivated decisions regarding promotions, transfers, disciplinary measures and the dismissal of judges and prosecutors. The NGOs describe, furthermore, the lack of structural independence of the Constitutional Court and the increasingly intense pressure it has faced over cases concerning perceived dissidents. Finally, they point to continuing attempts by the President and his governing coalition to influence criminal proceedings. To address these systemic issues, the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to request that Türkiye address serious shortcomings in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary by reforming the method of appointment of the Council of Judges and prosecutors, in line with international standards, and modifying the problematic appointment system for judges and prosecutors. Türkiye must also be asked to ensure that judges and prosecutors are protected from politically motivated decisions against them by addressing this submission’s recommendations under this heading. These include ensuring that such decisions are based on objective criteria and that affected individuals have access to an effective remedy before an independent judicial body, as well as strengthening judges’ security of tenure and granting them functional immunity both in law and in fact. The NGOs’ recommendations further detail specific measures to strengthen the independence of the Constitutional Court and the effectiveness of the individual application mechanism before that Court, including preventing or ceasing any criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional Court for their decisions. Finally, the NGOs urge the Committee to emphasise that it is imperative for government and state officials to desist from all forms of interference in the administration of justice, including overt comments on ongoing proceedings and covert instructions to members of the judiciary. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission JOINT RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TURKEY Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists presented on 1 September 2022 a joint Rule 9.2 to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgments in the case of Kavala v. Turkey (Application no. 28749/18) and the Proceedings under Article 46 (4) in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye [GC] (Application no. 28749/18). On 11 July 2022, the Grand Chamber of the the European Court of Human Rights issued a historic judgment in the infringement proceedings against Türkiye under Article 46(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights for the state’s failure to implement the Court’s Kavala v. Turkey 2019 judgment. The Court condemned Türkiye’s failure to fulfil its obligation to abide by its ruling in the case, in particular by refusing to release Osman Kavala. Despite this significant finding, in its submission to the Committee of Ministers dated 19 July 2022, the Turkish government continues to defy the Court’s order to release Mr Kavala and purports to justify his continued detention, this time on the basis of his latest conviction by the Istanbul 13th Assize Court. In a widely criticised judgment delivered on 25 April 2022, the Turkish court sentenced Mr Kavala to aggravated life imprisonment on charges of attempting to overthrow the government (under Article 312 of the Criminal Code) for his alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park protests. In the submission presented to the Committee ahead of its 1443rd Human Rights meetings between 20 and 22 September 2022, the NGOs underscore the key role that the Committee’s supervision will play in ensuring Türkiye’s compliance with the judgment, and international oversight and provide views on four central issues: - The government’s claim that the ongoing detention of Mr Kavala does not fall within the scope of the 10 December 2019 and 11 July 2022 judgments of the ECtHR, which is profoundly misleading and in direct defiance of the Court’s rulings. - The government’s false argument that the Grand Chamber did not address the April 2022 conviction of the applicant in its July 2022 judgment. - The imperative that Mr. Kavala be released immediately as part of the appropriate and urgent response to the Grand Chamber judgment. - The necessity of the Committee increasing its efforts to secure the release of Mr Kavala by effectively using all designated legal, political, diplomatic, and financial tools in hand while continuing to firmly condemn Türkiye’s refusal to implement the judgment. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission JOINT RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PIŞKIN V. TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 33399/18) On 1 September 2022, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists presented a Rule 9.2 communication to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers regarding the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Pişkin v. Turkey (Application no. 33399/18). The Pişkin v. Turkey judgment is the first in which the Court has ruled on the incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the widespread dismissals of public sector workers under the state of emergency. The findings of the Court are relevant to the tens of thousands who have been affected by this drastic practice, and whose right to an effective remedy continues to be violated. The submission complements an earlier submission by the same NGOs dated 29 October 2021 (available here) on general measures Türkiye has an obligation to take to implement the Court’s judgment and responds to the Government’s Action Report submitted to the Committee of Ministers on 31 January 2022 requesting the closure of the case. The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to exercise robust oversight of this important case, and to adopt a holistic approach to implementation and reparation in the case. While this includes addressing the situation of the applicant, the Committee’s attention should not be limited to the narrow circumstances of this particular case, as it represents widespread and systematic violations of similar nature which have in no way been addressed or remedied. The submission can be accessed here. ➤ Full Submission 43 BARO, HUKUK VE INSAN HAKLARI ÖRGÜTÜNDEN BIRLEŞMIŞ MILLETLER ÖZEL PROSEDÜRLERINE KÜRT POLITIKACI VE INSAN HAKLARI HUKUKÇUSU AYSEL TUĞLUK’UN SAĞLIK DURUMUNA DIKKAT ÇEKEN MEKTUP Türkiye ve dünyadan 43 baro, hukuk ve insan hakları örgütü bir araya gelerek Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) Özel Prosedürlerine, Kocaeli Kandıra F Tipi Cezaevi’nde tutulan mahpus Aysel Tuğluk’un cezaevinde tutulmasının sağlık ve yaşamını ciddi şekilde tehdit ettiğine dair acil müdahale istemli bir mektup gönderdi (İngilizce mektuba buradan ulaşabilirsiniz). 20 Ocak 2022 tarihli mektup, BM İşkence ve Kötü Muameleye Karşı Özel Raportörü, Hakimlerin ve Avukatların Bağımsızlığı Özel Raportörü, İnsan Hakları Savunucularının Durumu Özel Raportörü, Keyfi Tutuklamalar Çalışma Grubu, Fiziksel ve Zihinsel Sağlık Konusunda Özel Raportör ve Azınlık Hakları Özel Raportörü’ne gönderildi. Mektup, bir yandan Türkiye’deki hapishanelerde bulunan tutuklu ve hükümlülerin sistemli olarak maruz bırakıldığı ciddi insan hakları ihlallerine ve tutulma koşullarına ilişkin genel ve güncel bilgiler verirken, bir yandan da ciddi hastalığına rağmen hapiste tutulmaya devam edilen Kürt politikacı ve insan hakları hukukçusu Aysel Tuğluk’un durumunun detaylı bir analizine yer verdi. Bu bağlamda, mektupta özellikle şu hususlar vurgulandı: Tıbbi raporlar, Aysel Tuğluk’un ziyaretçi ve avukatlarının ifadeleri ve duruma ilişkin kamunun erişimine açık bilgiler göstermektedir ki Aysel Tuğluk’un sağlık durumu, kendisine demans tanısı konulduğundan beri hızla kötüleşmektedir. buna göre mahpusun sağlık durumu Kocaeli Kandıra F Tipi Cezaevinde mevcut koşullarda uzun süre hayatta kalamayacağına işaret etmektedir. Aysel Tuğluk’un bu ciddi sağlık sorunlarına rağmen mevcut hapishane koşullarında ve COVID-19 salgını sırasında hapishanede tutulmaya devam edilmesi yetkili makamların iç hukuka ve uluslararası standartlara uygun davranmadığını göstermektedir. Bu saptamalar ışığında, imzacı kurumlar BM Özel Prosedürlerinden mektupta dikkat çekilen sorunlara ve Aysel Tuğluk’a karşı sürdürülen hak ihlallerine acil müdahalede bulunmalarını talep etti ve onları Türk makamlarına aşağıdaki konularda çağrı yapmaya davet etti: i. Türkiye’nin iç hukuk ve uluslararası hukuktan kaynaklanan yükümlülüklerine aykırı bir şekilde çok ciddi hastalığına rağmen hapishanede tutulmaya devam eden Aysel Tuğluk’un ve benzer durumdaki diğer tutuklu ve hükümlülerin derhal salıverilmesi; ii. hapishanelerdeki tutuklu ve hükümlülerin sağlığa erişim haklarıyla ilgili endişelerin dile getirilmesi ve ağır hasta olanların salıverilme taleplerinin reddedilmesinin ardında yatan nedenlerin araştırılması; iii. bütün hapishanelerde doktorlar da dahil olmak üzere yeterli sayıda tıbbi görevli bulunması ve bunların işlerini müdahalelere maruz kalmadan özgürce yürütebilmesinin sağlanması; iv. bütün hasta tutuklu ve hükümlülerin tıbbi muayenesinin gerçekleştirilmesinde tarafsız ve adil prosedürler öngören ve ağır hastalığı olanların insani sebeplerle salıverilmesini garanti altına alan yasaların geçirilip uygulamaya konulması için Türk yetkililerinin teşvik edilmesi; v. Hesap verebilirlik ve şeffaflık prensipleri ışığında Türk Hükümeti’nin hapishanelere ziyaret ve denetim için bu konuda uzman insan hakları örgütlerine ve hükümet dışı örgütlere izin vermesinin sağlanması. URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON THE IMMINENT RISK TO HEALTH AND LIFE OF ILL PRISONER AYSEL TUĞLUK HELD IN KOCAELI F-TYPE PRISON, TURKEY 43 bar associations and lawyers and human rights organizations from across the world and Turkey wrote an urgent action letter (available here) to the United Nations (UN) special mandate holders drawing their attention to the imminent risk to health and life of ill prisoner Aysel Tuğluk held in Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison, Turkey since December 2016. The letter dated 20 January 2022 has been addressed to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders; the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues. The letter gives a detailed analysis of the case of Aysel Tuğluk, a Kurdish politician and human rights lawyer, who is kept in prison despite being severely ill. The letter underlines that: According to medical reports, statements from Ms. Tuğluk’s visitors and lawyers, and publicly accessible information on the case, Ms. Tuğluk’s health has been rapidly deteriorating since her diagnosis of dementia and she is not healthy enough to survive much longer in the conditions to which she is subject in Kocaeli F-Type Prison. Ms. Tuğluk’s continued imprisonment despite her serious health issues and her vulnerabilities to both conditions in the prison and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic show a failure of Turkish authorities to adhere to both their own domestic laws and international standards with regard to the treatment of prisoners. The letter also provides the UN special mandate holders with general information on the systemic problems related to the condition of detention in Turkish prisons which cause serious human rights abuses. In the light of the foregoing, the organizations request the Special Procedures’ urgent action and invite the mandate holders to call on the Turkish authorities to: i. immediately release Ayşe Tuğluk and other severely ill prisoners who are not fit to remain in prison in compliance with Turkey’s domestic and international law obligations; ii. communicate concerns in relation to violation of prisoners’ rights to medical services and to investigate the circumstances behind the refusal to release severely ill prisoners; iii. ensure that all prisons in Turkey have an adequate number of medical staff, including doctors and that they work freely without any undue interference with their work; iv. urge the Turkish Authorities to introduce and enforce legal provisions guaranteeing impartial and fair procedures for the medical evaluation of all ill prisoners and the release of seriously ill prisoners on compassionate grounds; v. ensure the Turkish Government allows greater accountability and transparency of prison living conditions by enabling visits and inspections from human rights groups and nongovernmental entities. ➤ Full Letter THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE V. TURKEY: WILL ERDOĞAN’S POLITICAL DETENTIONS COST TURKEY ITS MEMBERSHIP? [EXPERT Q&A WITH AYŞE BINGÖL DEMIR OF THE TLSP BY MERVE TAHIROĞLU, POMED] “In recent years, the Turkish government’s recurrent unlawful and unjust detentions of peaceful critics and political opponents have escalated. These detentions, along with other severe human rights violations, have badly damaged Turkey’s international image. Now two political detentions in particular—of Turkish philanthropist Osman Kavala and opposition leader Selahattin Demirtaş—are straining Turkey’s relationship with Europe’s leading human rights body, the Council of Europe. Kavala (unjustly detained since 2017) and Demirtaş (unjustly detained since 2016) are both prominent figures in Turkey and globally and represent a liberal democratic vision for their country. Yet they have been detained unjustly and accused, baselessly, of some of the most serious crimes in the country. Kavala is alleged to have “organized” mass protests against the government and to have supported a coup attempt. Demirtaş, co-leader of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), has been charged with making terrorism propaganda. Both men took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Council of Europe’s judicial body, which ruled the detentions unjust and ordered Turkey to immediately release the men. But Turkey has ignored these orders. Now, in the face of Turkey’s obstinance, the Council is threatening to launch a process that could potentially make Turkey the first member state to ever be expelled from the club. The Council has declared that if Kavala is not released by the time of its November 30 meeting, it will formally initiate infringement procedures against Turkey. Highlighting the growing concern among many of Turkey’s most important foreign partners, in October, 10 embassies in Turkey issued a rare joint statement calling for Kavala’s release. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responded by threatening to expel all 10 ambassadors from the country. Erdoğan fortunately backtracked, and Ankara managed to narrowly avoid a major diplomatic crisis. But the continued detentions of both Kavala and Demirtaş remain serious threats to Turkey’s membership in the Council—and ongoing irritants in its ties with key countries, including the United States. To explain the interplay between Turkey’s domestic human rights issues and what is unfolding at the Council of Europe, POMED’s Merve Tahiroğlu spoke with Turkish human rights lawyer Ayşe Bingöl Demir to unpack why and how the Kavala and Demirtaş cases came to threaten one of Turkey’s most important ties to Europe.” The full text of the Q&A can be accessed at https://pomed.org/expert-qa-the-council-of-europe-v-turkey-will-erdogans-political-detentions-cost-turkey-its-membership/ ➤ Full Q&A JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF OSMAN KAVALA V TURKEY TLSP, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists made a joint Rule 9.2 submission to the Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental body responsible for overseeing the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments. Ahead of the Committee’s March 9-11, 2021 session, the NGOs underlined that the failure to comply with a binding European Court of Human Rights order to release the human rights defender Osman Kavala should prompt Council of Europe action against Turkey. Osman Kavala has been held in pretrial detention since November 2017. ➤ Full Submission URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON THE FAILURE OF TURKEY TO CARRY OUT A GENUINE INVESTIGATION INTO THE KILLING OF MR. TAHIR ELCI The Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP), together with 47 other lawyers’ and human rights organisations wrote a letter to the United Nations (UN) special mandate holders on the killing of human rights lawyer Tahir Elçi on 28 November 2015 and the lack of effective investigation into his death. Turkey must take steps to ensure a fair trial by an impartial and independent tribunal respecting the procedural rights of Tahir Elçi’s family, as well as carry out a prompt, effective, impartial, and independent investigation into Mr. Elçi’s death ➤ Full Letter JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE'S COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAŞ V TURKEY TLSP, Article 19, FIDH, HRW and the ICJ made a detailed joint submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which oversees enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights judgments, asking it to issue the decision at its meeting on March 9-11, 2021. The groups said that Turkey continues to violate Demirtaş’s rights by flouting a landmark judgment issued by the court on December 22, 2020, requiring his immediate release. ➤ Full Submission JOINT RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON THE EXECUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TURKEY TLSP, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists made Rule 9.2 submission on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in Kavala v. Turkey to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. In Kavala v. Turkey, the ECtHR found, on 10 December 2019, 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 (the Convention) in conjunction with Article 5(1). In its judgment, which became final on 11 May 2020, the Court requested the Government of Turkey to take measures to end the detention of human rights defender Osman Kavala, the applicant, and to secure his immediate release. ➤ Full Submission URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON THE CONTINUED DISCRIMINATION AND HATE SPEECH AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX (LGBTI+) PEOPLE IN TURKEY TLSP and several other member organisations of Solidarity Network for Human Rights Defenders wrote a letter to the United Nations (UN) special mandate holders on 10 August 2020, underlining the recent increase in attacks on LGBTI+ people in Turkey. The letter demands an urgent intervention from the UN authorities. ➤ Full Letter URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON ARBITRARY DETENTION AND LONG-TERM IMPRISONMENT OF LAWYERS EBRU TIMTIK AND AYTAÇ ÜNSAL TLSP, together with 17 prominent lawyers' and human rights organisations, sent an urgent action letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs expressing serious concerns regarding arbitrary detention and long-term imprisonment of lawyers Ebru Timtik and Aytaç Ünsal in violation of fair trial principles and their right to freedom of expression. When the letter was sent on 18 August 2020, Timtik and Ünsal were on hunger strike since 2 February 2020 in demand for a fair trial. The TLSP, together with a group of lawyers’ rights organisations, previously submitted another urgent action letter on 20 May 2019, which described further instances of what seems to be a systematic practice of persecuting lawyers in order to silence and intimidate human rights defenders and those critical of the Turkish government. ➤ Full Letter JOINT RULE 9.2 SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON THE EXECUTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KAVALA V. TURKEY Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and TLSP submitted a detailed submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, 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. ➤ Full Submission UN URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES: THE UNLAWFUL AND ARBITRARY DETENTION AND JUDICIAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, INCLUDING MEMBERS FROM THE ROSA KADIN DERNEĞI (ROSA WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION, RWA), FREE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT (TJA) AND KURDISH POLITICIANS IN TURKEY TLSP, alongside other NGOs, submitted an urgent action letter (available in English here) in June 2020 to UN Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expressing grave concern regarding the unlawful and arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of women’s human rights defenders Adalet Kaya, Narin Gezgör, Fatma Gültekin, Gülcihan Şimşek, Özlem Gündüz, Remziye Sızıcı, Sevim Coşkun and politicians Mehmet Ali Altınkaynak, Mehmet Arslan, Celal Yoldaş and Veysi Kuzubla, whose arrest was made in connection to an investigation against the Rosa Kadın Derneği (Rosa Women’s Association). The detention of these human rights defenders is the latest of a series of actions taken by the Turkish State to unlawfully restrict the freedom of expression of human rights defenders, including women’s rights groups, within Turkey. A follow up and update letter was submitted to the UN Special Mandate Holders in August 2020 on the same matter providing information on a police raid taken place in July 2020 resulting in arrest of more than 50 people, including 23 women’s rights defenders, in the Kurdish region and asking for the Special Procedures’ immediate intervention in the matter (available in English here). ➤ Full Letter TLSP AND THE LONDON LEGAL GROUP SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL’S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF TURKEY TLSP and LLG made submissions to the UNHRC as part of Turkey’s third Universal Periodic Review process. The submissions focus on: the effect of the current security situation in the east and southeast of Turkey on fundamental rights and freedoms continued discrimination against the Kurdish population the effect of measures adopted under the State of Emergency (including mass dismissals of civil servants, an increase in reported cases of arbitrary detention, torture and ill treatment, erosion of the independence of the judiciary and the active persecution of legal professionals) ongoing impunity with regards to alleged human rights violations conducted by state officials The submissions can be downloaded here. ➤ Full Submission UN URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES: THE ARBITRARY DETENTION AND LONG-TERM IMPRISONMENT OF LAWYERS FROM HHB (THE PEOPLES’ LAW OFFICE) AND ҪHD (THE PROGRESSIVE LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION) The Turkey Litigation Support Project, together with 24 prominent lawyers' and human rights organisations, sent an urgent action letter (available here) to the UN Special Rapporteurs this week expressing serious concerns regarding the arbitrary detention and long-term imprisonment of 18 human rights lawyers from Halkın Hukuk Bürosu (HHB, the Peoples’ Law Office) and Cağdaş Hukukçular Derneği (CHD, the Progressive Lawyers Association) in violation of fair trial principles and of their right to freedom of expression. The urgent action letter requests the Special Rapporteurs to urge the Turkish authorities to facilitate the immediate acquittal of lawyers Ayşegül Çağatay, Yağmur Ereren, Didem Baydar Ünsal, Yaprak Türkmen, Ahmet Mandacı, Zehra Özdemir, Ebru Timtik, Özgür Yılmaz, Behiç Aşçı, Sukriye Erden, Selçuk Kozağaçlı, Suleyman Gokten, Aytaç Ünsal, Engin Gökoğlu, Aycan Çiçek, Naciye Demir, Ezgi Cakir and Barkın Timtik; and the urgent release of those in detention pending appeal. We further requested the Special Rapporteurs to urge the Turkish authorities to: stop all forms of harassment, including judicial harassment, against these individuals as well as other lawyers and human rights defenders in Turkey, and allow them to perform their professional and lawful functions without intimidation or improper interference immediately stop using oppressive methods against individuals, particularly lawyers and other human rights defenders, who are critical of the human rights violations perpetrated by the State authorities including the security forces ensure the independence of the judiciary by law and practice and to prevent judges, prosecutors and lawyers from undue interferences ➤ Full Letter

Strategic Litigation Implementation Monitoring & Advocacy Research Dialogue & Exchange Commentary 1/1 TLSP uses strategic litigation as a tool to strengthen human rights protection in Turkey and to improve access to justice at a time when institutional safeguards are under significant strain. We aim to advance human rights standards by supporting lawyers, human rights defenders and NGOs in bringing effective cases before domestic courts, the Turkish Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights and UN monitoring mechanisms. STRATEGIC LITIGATION EXPERT OPINION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PROPAGANDISING FOR TERRORISM SUBMITTED TO THE CASE OF AYSE CELIK PENDING BEFORE THE TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT On 4 April 2019, a complaint concerning the suspension of the Council of the Greater Municipality of Diyarbakır in south-eastern Turkey was lodged with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). The Turkey Litigation Support Project worked with Mr Cihan Aydin, representative of the 6 applicants. Under Emergency Decree Law No. 674, the applicants, who were at the time elected members of the Municipal Council, were prevented from holding meetings and participating in public affairs. Their functions were assumed by a ‘trustee’ appointed by the government under Emergency Decree Law No. 674, a situation that continues despite the lifting of the state of emergency. Before the UNHRC, the applicants contend that Turkey, a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has failed to meet the requirements necessary for lawful derogation under Article 4 and that the suspension of the Council of the Greater Municipality of Diyarbakir constitutes violations of Articles 25, 26 and 2(3) of the ICCPR. The notice of derogation was insufficiently precise, the measures were still ongoing at the time the complaint was submitted, and the measures have neither been shown to be necessary or proportionate to the stated aims of the fight against terrorism. Moreover, restrictions adopted by Decree Law No. 674 cannot be said to be lawful and reasonable. The law lacked clarity and foreseeability, and was neither necessary or proportionate in its aim of addressing the perceived national security threat. Additionally, it lacked sufficient legal safeguards and has been applied arbitrarily. There has thus been a violation of the applicants’ and the electorate’s rights under Article 25 (a) and (b) of the ICCPR as they were prevented from exercising their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs through the election of representatives after the suspension of the Municipal Council. The applicants also complained that the law in this case was applied in a manner that targeted predominantly Kurdish politicians and those of a particular political opinion, thereby constituting a violation of the right of the applicants to non-discriminatory treatment under Article 26 of the ICCPR. Lastly, the complaint raises concerns surrounding the independence, impartiality and competence of the judiciary in Turkey. The influence of the executive over these bodies, as well as confusion and lack of access to adequate legal avenues for redress, has contributed to an ineffective basis for legal remedies for rights violations flowing from state of emergency measures. The Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the applicants’ case on the grounds that it is unable to constitutionally review legislative acts, has resulted in a clear lack of accessibility to even the very possibility of an effective domestic remedy for the rights violations suffered by the applicants. In the absence of any other available remedy, or adequate aggregate of remedies, this constitutes a violation of Article 2(3) when read with Articles 25 and 26 of the ICCPR. ➤ Full Submission INTERVENTION BY A GROUP OF LEADING ACADEMICS IN THE CASE OF KAMURAN AKIN AND 80 OTHER APPLICANTS BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (Application No. 72796/16 and 42 Other Applications) Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications 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 brief on academic freedom was presented by Profs. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach (co-supervisors in the TLSP) on behalf of a group of leading academics, and addresses the nature of academic freedom, its significance for human rights and democracy, and its legal protection in international human rights law. The brief focuses first on the nature of ‘academic freedom,’ embracing individual and institutional autonomy from the state, and a public and social role (informing healthy democratic discourse including criticism of government), both of which preclude requiring academic ‘loyalty’ to the state as the Turkish state purports to do. The brief explains the significance of academic freedom for the array of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and broader international human rights law - for the academics directly affected, for the full range of rights of many others, and for the fundamental values underpinning the ECHR and democratic systems. The intervention calls for the Court’s considered attention to the issue of academic freedom which remain relatively underexplored in ECHR jurisprudence, yet has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Convention: informing states’ ‘positive obligations’ to create an ‘enabling environment’ for academic freedom, and requiring a strict approach to permissible restrictions on rights. The brief questions whether measures directed at curtailing the academic function can be justified as restrictions a) provided for in clear foreseeable law, b) as necessary and proportionate, and c) whether they are subject to meaningful remedies and review within Turkey. It questions whether the measures can be justified by reference to the ‘emergency’ following the attempted coup in July 2016. It urges the Court to consider whether they pursued an ‘ulterior purpose’ under Article 18, representing the latest in a line of societal actors to be targeted for their expression of opposition to the Turkish government. 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 in the context of alarming growth in attacks on academic freedom in Turkey and around the globe, and its insidious implications for closing democratic space. In Turkish ➤ Full Submission INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF KAMURAN AKIN AND 80 OTHER APPLICANTS (Application No. 72796/16 and 42 Other Applications) Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications 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 brief filed by the TLSP on 10 December 2021 addresses the issue of the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the context of the application of the state of emergency measures concerning dismissals of public sector workers in Turkey. In doing so, the brief first focuses on the right to an effective remedy and the extent to which the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures (Commission) ensures necessary guarantees. Then, it considers whether it is possible to remedy any shortcomings of the Commission in subsequent appeal proceedings before designated administrative courts or the Turkish Constitutional Court. The intervention points out the serious questions about the independence and impartiality of the Commission and the domestic courts. It shows that domestic authorities have not examined the complaints of dismissed public sector workers in a timely manner. Finally, it also explains how the procedure before the Commission and the administrative courts raise several serious shortcomings and that the remit of those domestic authorities’ decisions is overly restricted. In Turkish ➤ Full Submission JOINT INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF DEMIRTAS V TURKEY (Application No. 13609/20) The case concerns the continued detention of the applicant Selahattin Demirtaş, a prominent Kurdish politician who was co-chair of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP, a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party) between 2014-2018, an elected member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly from 2007 until 2018 and a popular presidential candidate in the August 2014 and June 2018 elections. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 4 November 2016. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered Turkey, on two occasions, to ensure that Mr. Demirtaş’s pre-trial detention “is ended at the earliest possible date” (see the Second Section, Application No. 14305/17, the judgment of 20 November 2018, para. 283) and to “take all necessary measures to secure the immediate release” of Mr. Demirtaş (see the Grand Chamber, Application No. 14305/17, the judgment of 22 December 2020, para. 442). The applicant, however, remained in detention. Drawing on their expertise as organisations specialising in international human rights law and working extensively on human rights and the judicial process in Turkey, the intervening NGOs -the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists- addressed in the intervention two core issues arising in the application: the nature and application of anti-terror criminal laws in Turkey and the implications for Articles 5(1), 10 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court, in particular in cases concerning the detention of government opponents. ➤ Full Submission JOINT INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF KILIC V TURKEY The case concerns the arrest and detention of the applicant, a respected human rights lawyer and former Director of Amnesty International Turkey. It epitomises some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today, involving widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly of human rights defenders (HRDs), a rapidly closing civil society space under the emergency regime, and the broadening reach of anti-terrorism legislation applied against HRDs with wide-reaching implications for public debate, participation in public affairs and the protection of human rights. Against this background, the intervention outlines the factual context of the situation facing HRDs in Turkey. It highlights international and comparative standards governing obligations towards them, including the limits prescribed by Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It further provides comments on key principles necessary for a rule of law approach to the application of the criminal law, against the legal and practical pattern of excessive resort to criminal law against HRDs in Turkey. Based on all these grounds, the intervention concludes that “the criminalisation of HRDs requires particularly rigorous oversight by the Court, given its impact on an array of rights, including in this case Articles 5, 10, 11 and 18, on the authority of criminal law and on the ability to defend human rights in Turkey.” ➤ Full Submission JOINT INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF PISKIN V TURKEY The case concerns the dismissal of a public institution employee pursuant to Emergency Decree no. 667 due to his alleged links to an organisation prescribed as terrorist by the State. Relevant to the situation of almost 130,000 persons dismissed from their jobs during the period of the State of Emergency, the case raises significant questions regarding procedural rights in employment proceedings leading to the dismissal of state employees on grounds related to national security, including under a State of Emergency as well as the application of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity in the field of counter-terrorism. The Interveners address the following matters in the intervention i) the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention) to dismissal proceedings in cases where the proceedings involve a determination of facts which constitute a “criminal offence” as understood under the autonomous meaning of the term in the Convention; ii) the lack of procedural guarantees in the dismissal process necessary to comply with Article 6, in particular the principle of presumption of innocence and iii) the application of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity to dismissal proceedings, where they determine membership of, participation in or association with, a terrorist group, including with regard to Article 7 of the Convention and the application of state of emergency decrees to events that occurred before the declaration of the State of Emergency. ➤ Full Submission JOINT INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF TELEK & OTHERS V TURKEY The case of Telek & Others v Turkey, concerns the cancellation of passports of three academics who, together with more than two thousand others, supported a “Petition for Peace” and as a result were prosecuted, dismissed from academic institutions and banned from public service under state of emergency legislation in Turkey. Despite the state of emergency having come to an end in July 2018, the applicants, like others, are still deprived of a valid passport, unable to travel or to engage in academic work at home or abroad, and have had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the measures taken against them. Their case forms part of what has been described as a severe blow to academic freedom and democratic institutions in Turkey in recent years. On behalf of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Amnesty International, Article 19 and PEN International, a third party intervention was submitted to the Court urging the Court to apply the Convention in light of relevant international standards on academic freedom and on the fundamental nature of the right to remedy in situations of emergency. The brief also addresses the current lack of legal remedies for the widespread practice of passport cancellations in Turkish courts. ➤ Full Submission JOINT INTERVENTION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF MEHMET OSMAN KAVALA V TURKEY The case of Mehmet Osman Kavala v. Turkey, currently before the ECtHR, concerns the October 2017 arrest and pre-trial detention of a highly regarded civil society leader, publisher and human rights defender. Mehmet Osman Kavala has worked with and supported a variety of civil projects aimed at promoting open dialogue, peace, minority and human rights, and democratic values. While an official indictment has not been filed, charges against him include: attempting to abolish the constitutional order and overthrow the government by using force under Articles 309 and 321 of the Turkish Criminal Code, on account of his support of and involvement in the organisation and financing of Gezi protests and alleged involvement in corruption and the failed coup d’etat. The case against Kavala is emblematic of prevalent trends in Turkey, where arbitrary detention and prosecution of human rights defenders is widespread, with insidious implications for human rights and the rule of law. On behalf of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and PEN International, a third party intervention was submitted to the Court, outlining international law standards, including on the protection of human rights defenders. ➤ Full Submission EXPERT OPINION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PROPAGANDISING FOR TERRORISM SUBMITTED TO THE CASE OF AYSE CELIK PENDING 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. In Turkish ➤ Expert Opinion

GET INVOLVED! We welcome interns throughout the year who would like to contribute to our work and gain practical experience in strategic litigation, human rights research, and advocacy. Interns support our ongoing activities, engage with current casework, and take part in collaborative discussions with our team and partners. If you are interested in joining us, please send us your CV and a short motivation letter. *** If you would like to connect, collaborate, or seek support or advice in our areas of work, please reach out to us at: info@turkeylitigationsupport.com Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT info@turkeylitigationsupport.com First Name Last Name Email Message Thanks for submitting! Send

Strategic Litigation Implementation Monitoring & Advocacy Research Dialogue & Exchange Commentary 1/1 We carry out research on the systemic human rights and rule of law challenges shaping Turkey’s current legal and political landscape. Our work focuses on issues identified through our ongoing litigation and collaboration with advocates and focuses on patterns such as the capture of democratic institutions, shrinking civic space, the misuse of criminal and counter-terrorism laws, violations of fair trial guarantees, entrenched impunity, the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments, and the targeting of human rights defenders, minority rights advocates and other critical voices. RESEARCH ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR DISMISSED PUBLIC SERVANTS IN TURKIYE (VOLUME II): AN ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY INQUIRY COMMISSION Following the attempted coup on 15 July 2016, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency that lasted two years, during which 131,922 measures were adopted through 37 emergency decrees. Of these, 125,678 involved the dismissal of public servants, who were accused of links to “terrorist organisations.” Dismissed individuals, including judges, academics, teachers, and police officers, were left without meaningful recourse. Legislative Decree No. 685 established the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures, tasked with assessing applications related to dismissals and other measures. While the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) initially recognised the Commission as an accessible domestic remedy in its Köksal v. Turkey decision, it also cautioned that the Commission’s effectiveness and subsequent judicial review would require further scrutiny to ensure compliance with Convention standards. The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) has been closely monitoring these developments. Its first report, published in October 2019, identified systemic shortcomings in the Inquiry Commission’s processes, concluding that it failed to provide a fair or effective remedy. This latest report builds on those findings by examining the judicial review process of the Commission’s decisions, focusing on the Ankara Administrative Courts, the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, and the Council of State. By analysing the functioning and decisions of these courts, the report assesses whether dismissed public servants are afforded an effective domestic remedy under international human rights law. You can read the full report here. ➤ Full Report ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN TURKEY (VOLUME I): A REVIEW OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY INQUIRY COMMISSION Securing access to justice in Turkey remains a big challenge, especially for those whose rights were violated during the State of Emergency declared in July 2016. During the State of Emergency, the Government adopted a number of “atypical” emergency measures under more than 30 executive decrees seriously limiting and, in some cases, totally waiving numerous fundamental rights and freedoms by relying on exceptional powers under the Constitution. One hundred thousand public sector workers were dismissed and legal entities including newspapers, television companies, associations and foundations were closed down without individualized reasoning or evidence to support these actions. For a long time, the lack of a clear avenue for appeal of these decisions left those affected in obscurity. Following the adoption of the Decree Law No. 685, establishing the State of Emergency Inquiry Commission (“the Commission”), tens of thousands of people who were dismissed and the entities closed under the emergency decree laws have been forced to apply to the Commission before having recourse to a judicial remedy. A year after the operation of the Commission, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), started to carry out a research study to assess whether the Commission offered an effective remedy to challenge measures adopted during the state of emergency or whether it stood as yet another obstacle for victims to overcome in order to access justice in Turkey. During the study our researcher and the TLSP team reviewed the decisions and reasoning adopted by the Commission in 193 applications as well as national legislation, reports and statistics. The project collected qualitative and quantitative data supported by interviews with lawyers, applicants and experts and prepared an evaluation report by analysing this data. In this report, the Commission’s structure and functioning is evaluated by taking into account the main human rights issues with regards access to justice. Moreover, the decisions of the Commission are examined to determine whether it constitutes an effective legal remedy, in theory and in practice, in the light of the standards of the right to an effective remedy under international law. A Turkish translation of the report will be published soon, until then an executive summary in Turkish is available here. ➤ Full Report STATE OF EMERGENCY IN TURKEY A COLLECTION OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES, REPORTS, CASE LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS This collection provides a list of available written resources regarding the human rights situation in Turkey following the attempted coup in 2016. Each source is briefly summarised to indicate the major themes dealt with by the author, and a full reference is provided so that they can be easily accessed. The first section presents a timeline of events and key legislation. The second provides a link to the notices of derogation lodged by Turkey at the Council of Europe and the United Nations. The third contains information regarding cases lodged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The fourth, deals with reports filed by international monitoring bodies, namely the UN Human Rights Council (and associated monitoring bodies), the Council of Europe and The European Union. The fifth is a collection of reports and briefings authored by major NGOs. Lastly, journal articles and academic commentary are collected from a variety of sources such as scholarly journals and blogs. ➤ Resource Collection

PEOPLE The project aims to make use of strategic litigation as a tool to counter the ongoing erosion of the rule of law, the weakening of judicial independence, and the regression of human rights protections, and to provide much-needed support to lawyers and civil society groups within Turkey. The project will carry out a range of activities, supporting human rights lawyers and NGOs in Turkey in bringing cases before the European Court of Human Rights (and other international fora) and to make strategic interventions to expose, and seek to influence the deteriorating situation and the international response. Prof. Phillip Leach Project co-supervisor MEET THE TEAM Róisín Pillay Project co-supervisor Ayse Bingol Demir Project Director Phillip Leach is Professor of Human Rights Law at Middlesex University, a solicitor, and until March 2022 he was Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC). He has extensive experience in human rights litigation, including representing applicants before the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in relation to Russia, Turkey and the UK. He is the author of a number of books, journal and online articles and book chapters on various human rights issues. He has conducted human rights training for the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the British Council, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Arab Lawyers' Union and various NGOs. Róisín Pillay is an international human rights lawyer who has worked for more than 25 years to advance international human rights standards, ensure their effective national implementation and support international human rights litigation, on issues including rule of law, due process, counter-terrorism and migration and asylum. She was Europe and Central Asia Director of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) from 2012-2023, and prior to that was a Senior Legal Advisor at the ICJ. She has also been an advisor to the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and has worked for several national and international NGOs. Róisín is currently an independent consultant providing legal and strategic advice and training in the human rights field. Ayse is a lawyer specialised in international human rights law and domestic law and judicial procedures in Turkey. She practiced in Istanbul between 2003 and 2017 followed by her work at Media Legal Defence Initiative in London as part of the legal team until 2019. She was a research fellow with Middlesex University School of Law between 2017 and 2020. Currently based in New York, she acts as a consultant and country expert for several national and international civil society organisations. Dr. Saniye Karakas Senior Legal Consultant Dr. Beril Onder Project Lawyer Nina Keese Project Lawyer Sanya has been working with the Democratic Progress Institute since 2011. She is a graduate of Dicle University Law Faculty in Turkey. Between 2000 and 2006 she practised as a lawyer in Diyarbakir, Turkey. She has worked for several NGOs through her career and participated in representation of many applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. In January 2022, she completed a PhD at Queen Mary University of London. Her PhD research focused on state criminality and the mechanics of impunity in Turkey. She is also a researcher at the "International State Crime Initiative”. She acts as an expert before the UK courts in matters related to Turkey. Beril is a lawyer specialised in international human rights law. After graduating from Galatasaray University Faculty of Law in 2013, she received an LL.M in International Legal Studies from the NYU School of Law in 2014. She worked as an Assistant Lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights between 2014 and 2019. She holds a joint PhD from the University of Strasbourg and Ghent University. Nina is specialised in international human rights law. She has worked as a researcher specializing in human rights and digital technologies at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, University of Oxford. She holds a Master’s degree in European and International Human Rights Law from Leiden University, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in English and French Law from University College London. She has also completed traineeships at the European Court of Human Rights and the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights. Helen Duffy Former project co-supervisor Helen Duffy is an experienced human rights litigator and professor of human rights and humanitarian law at the University of Leiden. She currently runs ‘Human Rights in Practice’, an international litigation practice based in the Hague specialising in strategic litigation before regional and international human rights courts and bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights. Previously, she held positions of Legal Director (and Litigation Director) of INTERIGHTS, Legal Officer at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Counsel to Human Rights Watch (International Justice, New York), Legal Director of the Centre for Human Rights Legal Action (Guatemala), Legal Adviser to the UK ‘Arms for Iraq’ Inquiry and Legal Officer in the UK government legal service. She has written several books and articles on international law and practice, one of which was recently published on the topic of strategic human rights litigation. She is an Honorary Professor at the University of Glasgow and serves on the advisory boards of a number of organisations.

TURKEY: ATTACKS ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION UNACCEPTABLE Joint Statement by the International Legal and Human Rights Community on Unacceptable Attacks on the Legal Profession in Turkey READ MORE This section features TLSP’s official statements, position notes, and public responses to significant developments affecting human rights and the rule of law in Turkey. In close collaboration with other civil society actors, lawyers and human rights defenders, we draw attention to key issues and cases relating to the capture of democratic institutions and the rule of law; arbitrary restrictions on civic space; the systemic repression of human rights defenders and civil society; fair trial violations, arbitrary detention and rights violations in detention; impunity and the breakdown of legal remedies; and the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments and other international human rights decisions. Through these statements, we provide a legal assessment of the unfolding situations, highlight systemic concerns, and contribute to public discussions by providing clear, evidence-based analysis aimed at securing human rights protection and accountability. 05 January 2026 Turkey: Drop Bogus Charges against Istanbul Bar Association Leadership 06 November 2025 Türkiye: Justice Reforms Central to Fair, Durable Peace 14 April 2025 Joint Statement by the International Legal and Human Rights Community on Unacceptable Attacks on the Legal Profession in Turkey 14 Nisan 2025 Türkiye: Avukatlık mesleğine yönelik saldırılar kabul edilemez 27 January 2025 56 International Lawyers and Human Rights Organisations Condemn Crackdown on Istanbul Bar Association’s Leadership and Call for Action 27 Ocak 2025 56 uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları kurumu, İstanbul Barosu yönetimine yönelik müdahaleleri kınadı ve acil harekete geçilmesi çağrısında bulundu 1 November 2024 Joint NGO statement: Osman Kavala Marks 7 Years Behind Bars 1 Kasım 2024 Osman Kavala (No. 2) başvurusuna 3. taraf görüşü sunan hak örgütlerinden açıklama: Osman Kavala'nın Demir Parmaklıklar Ardındaki 7. Yılı

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL MONITORING BODIES NGO REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS * COMMENTARY AYŞE BINGÖL DEMIR: “2022: A TESTING YEAR FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND TURKEY” In an opinion piece for the European Implementation Network, Ayşe Bingöl Demir shares her analysis about the futher human rights, rule of law and democratic backsliding which took place in 2021 in Turkey, and how the Osman Kavala case will be a test case for the Council of Europe and Turkey relations in 2022: “The human rights community of Turkey was happy to leave behind the difficult year of 2021, but it also welcomed 2022 reluctantly. Because it is not possible to foresee how far -and where else- the non-stop back peddling of the AKP government in human rights, rule of law and democratic standards will go. Led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the government’s adherence to an authoritarian regime, especially since the July 2016 coup attempt, has indeed become more fearless and aggressive over the last couple of years. The extent of the damage of this period to the country’s founding pillars -which already had had serious existential issues before- has caused is yet to be seen. The recent Human Rights Watch report, however, gives us a hint of what it looks like: Turkey’s human rights record has been set back by decades. Not surprisingly, despite this extremely serious human rights, rule of law and democratic backsliding in the country, the reaction of the international community has been considerably limited. Turkey has a long-standing relationship with the EU, it is a NATO member and part of many UN monitoring mechanisms. Thus, the country has been one of the earliest members of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights, the most important guardian of the Council of Europe’s founding principles, has been determining individual applications from Turkey for over three decades. Moreover, the country has been an ally and trade partner of a number of western democracies, including the United Kingdom, Germany and the USA despite some setbacks in relations here and there. In an ideal world, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a country that is part of a vibrant international relations circle would face consequences for its systemic failure to meet its international human rights obligations. But the case of Turkey is a clear illustration that we are far from experiencing the ‘ideal’ as none of these institutions or countries has so far taken an effective and meaningful stand to address the human rights situation in the country. This lack of proper response to the government stifling a whole population with its authoritarian practices has been seen as a contributing factor to the deteriorating situation.” ALICE DONALD & ANNE-KATRIN SPECK: “WHOLEHEARTED? HALF-HEARTED? THE RESPONSE FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKEY” The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has limited tools of sanction and scrutiny at its disposal to respond to serious transgressions of member states. Since the failed coup attempt in Turkey and the government’s subsequent crackdown, sanctions have barely been discussed, let alone used, in the Assembly. However, the monitoring procedure, the most significant tool of scrutiny, has been reopened in respect of Turkey—a step without precedent in the 70 years of the Assembly’s existence. Drawing on documentary sources and interviews, this paper analyses the three key debates about Turkey in the Assembly since the failed coup d’état. The paper documents how Turkey has disputed any criticism of its actions and pushed back against all exceptional treatment as punitive and damaging to long-standing relations. It finds that political support for the Erdoğan regime has been unstable and, if anything, diminishing. The Assembly, like other Council of Europe bodies, has declined to endorse the Turkish authorities' version of the events of 15 July 2016 and their aftermath. Considering its limited powers and scandal-ridden recent history, we conclude that the Assembly’s response to the decay of the rule of law in Turkey has been stronger than one might have expected. LEIGHANN SPENCER: “SHOULD THE ECTHR CONSIDER TURKEY’S CRIMINAL PEACE JUDGESHIPS A VIABLE DOMESTIC AVENUE?” Spencer reviews the viability of Turkey’s Criminal Peace Judgeships against the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 6 the right to a fair trial and Article 5, the right to liberty and security. Evaluating the establishment of the Criminal Peace Judgeships and factors influencing their independence, Spencer concludes that they do not meet the requirements of independence and should not be considered viable avenues for domestic redress. LEIGHANN SPENCER: “THE ECTHR AND POST-COUP TURKEY: LOSING GROUND OR LOSING CREDIBILITY?” Spencer reviews the statements of the Council of Europe and the Turkish Media Law Studies Association (MLSA) released after a meeting in May 2015 convened to discuss criticisms of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the high number of rejected applications and controversial decisions such as Köksal and Bora. The Council of Europe stated it is “aware of a common perception among NGOs that the ECtHR is not giving adequate attention to human rights issues in Turkey, but believes this is based on a lack of information and misconceptions” and reiterates that they have the right to reject applications. Referencing the Sahin Alpay case, it is stated that the court is not barred from reviewing the domestic avenue in the future. The MLSA response comments on the length of pre-trial detention and the practical viability of domestic avenues. Taking these statements together, Spencer argues “in moving forward, the CoE must reconsider the criteria of a viable domestic avenue; at the very least, explain the circumstances in which the State of Emergency Commission and Constitutional Court could be re-evaluated.” TOM RUYS & EMRE TURKUT: “TURKEY’S POST-COUP ‘PURIFICATION PROCESS’: COLLECTIVE DISMISSALS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS” This article critically assesses the dismissal of numerous civil servants under state of emergency measures from the perspective of ECtHR law. Focusing on the application of Article 8 and Article 6 (in conjunction with Article 13), the article uses the Court’s caselaw on lustration proceedings as an analogy to conclude that the “purge” of public servants is incompatible with Turkey’s international law obligations. TOLGA ŞIRIN: “GOVERNING WITH EMERGENCY DECREE LAW WITHOUT REVIEW: A TURKISH CASE” Tolga assesses the decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court in the cases of Mehmet Altan and Sahin Alpay. Specific focus is paid to the way in which the decisions diverge from judgements of a similar nature of the ECtHR. Specifically, the violations of freedom and security did not concern the long duration of pre-trial detention but rather a “strong suspicion” determination concerning the first decision ordering detention (i.e. an Article 5(1) violation rather than Article 5(3)). Additionally, the decision was made on an on-going case. The author argues this focus explains the first instance courts reaction and other criticisms that found the court to be acting as a “super-appeal court.”

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF Türkiye: Proceedings against Istanbul Bar Association board a “direct assault” on independence of legal profession. TLSP and 11 other legal and human rights organisations have submitted an amicus curiae (friends of the court) intervention to the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court in the criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association board, ahead of the trial scheduled for 9-10 September 2025. READ MORE This section provides updates on TLSP’s ongoing work, including new reports, legal analyses, and developments in strategic litigation efforts relating to systemic human rights violations in Turkey. Our work focuses on the capture of democratic institutions and the rule of law; arbitrary restrictions on civic space; the systemic repression of human rights defenders and civil society; fair trial violations, arbitrary detention, and rights violations in detention; entrenched impunity and the breakdown of legal remedies; and the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments and decisions of other international mechanisms. We share information on key human rights cases, relevant decisions of national and international bodies, and significant findings from our research to ensure practitioners and stakeholders have timely access to reliable and authoritative resources that support litigation, advocacy and accountability efforts. TURKEY: DROP BOGUS CHARGES AGAINST ISTANBUL BAR ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP January 05, 2026 The continued prosecution of the president and 10 executive board members of the Istanbul Bar Association, and the prosecutor’s request for their conviction on terrorism charges are a damning reflection of the troubled state of the rule of law and democratic norms in Turkey today, 38 human rights and lawyers’ organisations said today. They called on the authorities to immediately terminate the abusive criminal proceedings and drop charges ahead of the 26th Istanbul Heavy Penal Court’s expected final hearing scheduled for 5 to 9 January 2026. The prosecutor seeks the criminal conviction of all eleven members of the Bar’s elected leadership - President Prof. İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu, Ahmet Ergin, Bengisu Kadı Çavdar, Ekim Bilen Selimoğlu, Ezgi Şahin Yalvarici, Fırat Epözdemir, Hürrem Sönmez, Mehmedali Barış Beşli, Metin İriz, Rukiye Leyla Süren, and Yelde Koçak Urfa - on the charge of “spreading terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, solely for issuing a public statement on 21 December 2024 concerning the killing of two journalists in northern Syria and the arrest of journalists and lawyers at a related peaceful protest in Istanbul the day before. The trial prosecutor’s final opinion confirms and deepens the concerns raised by 56 international organisations in the joint statement of January 2025, condemning the initiation of criminal and civil proceedings against the Bar’s leadership, and in the April 2025 joint statement, which deplored the removal of the elected board and the escalating attacks on lawyers across Turkey. A group of the organisations also submitted a joint amicus curiae brief in which they concluded that the proceedings violate Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law and constitute an unjustified interference with the independence of the legal profession. A clear misuse of criminal law In his final opinion, the prosecutor alleges that by referring to the two individuals killed in Syria as journalists and by citing international humanitarian law applicable to the protection of civilians and media workers in conflict zones, the Bar leadership “treated as a war crime” an operation carried out by security forces, thereby intentionally legitimising and disseminating the ultimate separatist aims of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The prosecutor further asserts that describing those killed as journalists “encouraged” membership of the PKK and “made its methods appear legitimate”, amounting to “press and media–based terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law. These allegations, which claim that a lawful, rights-based statement consciously advanced the objectives of an armed organisation, are wholly unfounded and legally unsustainable. As emphasised in both joint statements in January and April 2025 and the amicus curiae brief in September 2025, the Istanbul Bar Association has a statutory and ethical duty to speak out on violations of human rights and the rule of law. The prosecutor’s position effectively criminalises the Bar Association’s discharge of this duty protected under both domestic law and international human rights law and standards. The prosecutor’s construal of a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression as a terrorism offence amounts to a misuse of criminal law and judicial harassment. Violations of international standards and the Bar’s statutory mandate International and regional human rights standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, and consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, affirm that lawyers and their associations must be able to engage in public debate on matters of justice and human rights without fear of reprisals. Criminalising their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association contravenes the provisions of these instruments safeguarding the rights and role of lawyers and their professional organisations, as well as Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 26, 27 and 33 of the Constitution of Türkiye. As reiterated in the earlier statements and the amicus curiae brief, the Bar Association’s 21 December 2024 statement was a lawful, legitimate and necessary intervention on an issue of public concern: the killing of journalists and the unlawful detention of journalists and lawyers engaged in peaceful assembly. On 27 November 2025, the seven journalists and two others who were also being prosecuted for their participation in the peaceful assembly on 20 December 2024, protesting the killing of the two journalists were acquitted in the final hearing of their trial. The criminal proceedings, therefore, strike at the heart of the independence of the legal profession and amount to a misuse of counter-terrorism laws to silence criticism, suppress human rights monitoring, and undermine self-governance of bar associations. Call for immediate action Ahead of the next hearing due to take place over five days from 5-9 January 2026, the signing organisations urgently call on the Turkish authorities to: - Immediately terminate all criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association’s president and executive board, drop the unfounded charges under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and bring an end to the parallel and politically motivated civil proceedings aimed at removing the Bar Association’s leadership. We further call on the Turkish authorities to ensure systemic change to: - Guarantee the independence and self-governance of bar associations, in line with domestic law and Turkey’s international human rights obligations. - End the misuse of anti-terrorism and criminal laws to target lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors, and instead respect and protect their human rights. - Sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. We call on the international community to: - Sustain close monitoring of the proceedings before the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court; - Condemn publicly the Prosecutor’s final opinion and the escalating threats to the legal profession in Turkey; - Engage directly with Turkish authorities to ensure that the rights of lawyers are respected and upheld and that lawyers and bar associations are protected from harassment, retaliation and unfair prosecution. Signatories (in alphabetical order): Amnesty International Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC, UK) Center of Elaboration and Research on Democracy (CRED) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Le Conseil des barreaux européens, CCBE) Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği (Progressive Lawyers Associaton, Türkiye) Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association (Spain) Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, Germany) Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği (Association for Monitoring Equal Rights, Türkiye) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) The European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) Fédération des Barreaux d'Europe (European Bars Federation, FBE) Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği (Rights Initiative Association, Türkiye) Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi (Truth Justice Memory Center, Türkiye) Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (UK) Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar (Belgium) Human Rights Watch İnsan Hakları Derneği (Human Rights Association, Türkiye) İnsan Hakları Gündemi Derneği (Human Rights Agenda Association, Türkiye) The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Kadının İnsan Hakları Derneği (Women for Women’s Human Rights, Türkiye) Kaos GL Derneği (Kaos GL Association, Türkiye) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW, UK) Lawyers for Lawyers (Netherlands) Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada (LRWC, Canada) Lyon Bar Association (France) National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL, Philippines) Özgürlük İçin Hukukçular Derneği (Lawyers for Freedom Association, Türkiye) PEN Norway (Norway) Sivil Alan Araştırmaları Derneği (Civil Space Studies Association, Türkiye) Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP, UK) Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, Türkiye) Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen VDJ (Association of Democratic Jurists, Germany) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Yurttaşlık Derneği (Citizens Assembly, Türkiye) ➤ Full Statement TÜRKİYE: İSTANBUL BAROSU YÖNETİMİNE İSNAT EDİLEN TEMELSİZ SUÇLAMALAR DÜŞÜRÜLMELİDİR 05 Ocak 2026 İnsan hakları ve hukuk meslek örgütleri bugün yaptıkları ortak açıklamada, İstanbul Barosu Başkanı ve on yönetim kurulu üyesi hakkında süregelen davanın ve baro yöneticilerinin “terör örgütü propagandası yapmak”tan cezalandırılması yönündeki savcılık talebinin, bugün Türkiye’de hukukun üstünlüğü ve demokratik normların içinde bulunduğu vahim durumun çarpıcı bir yansıması olduğunu belirtti. 38 imzacı örgüt, yetkilileri, 5-9 Ocak 2026 tarihleri arasında İstanbul 26. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülecek olan ve karar duruşması olması beklenen duruşma öncesinde, ceza yargılamalarının kötüye kullanılmasına derhal son vermeye ve suçlamaları düşürmeye çağırdı. Savcı, esas hakkındaki mütalaasında, Baro Başkanı Prof. İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu ile yönetim kurulu üyeleri Ahmet Ergin, Bengisu Kadı Çavdar, Ekim Bilen Selimoğlu, Ezgi Şahin Yalvarıcı, Fırat Epözdemir, Hürrem Sönmez, Mehmedali Barış Beşli, Metin İriz, Rukiye Leyla Süren ve Yelde Koçak Urfa’nın yargılandığı davada 11 kişinin, İstanbul Barosu’nun 21 Aralık 2024 tarihinde yaptığı, kuzey Suriye’de iki gazetecinin öldürülmesi ve bu ölümlerle ilgili olarak açıklamadan bir gün önce İstanbul’da düzenlenen bir barışçıl protesto sırasında gazetecilerin ve avukatların gözaltına alınmasına ilişkin basın açıklaması nedeniyle, Terörle Mücadele Kanunu’nun 7/2 maddesi uyarınca “basın ve yayın yoluyla terör örgütü propagandası yapma” suçundan ayrı ayrı cezalandırılmalarını talep etmektedir. Savcının mütalaası, 56 uluslararası örgütün, baro yönetimi hakkında ceza soruşturması başlatılması ve hukuk davası açılmasını kınayan Ocak 2025 tarihli ortak açıklamada ve seçilmiş baro yönetiminin görevden alınmasını ve Türkiye genelinde avukatlara yönelik artan saldırıları şiddetle eleştiren Nisan 2025 tarihli ortak açıklamada ifade ettikleri kaygıları doğrulamakta ve derinleştirmektedir. Bunların yanı sıra, bir grup insan hakları ve hukuk örgütü İstanbul 26.Ağır Ceza Mahkemesine, bu davaların Türkiye’nin uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları hukuku kapsamındaki yükümlülüklerini ihlal ettiği ve avukatlık mesleğinin bağımsızlığına haksız müdahale olduğu sonucuna varan ortak amicus curiae (üçüncü taraf) görüşü de sunmuştu. Ceza hukukunun açıkça kötüye kullanılması Savcı, mütalaasında, baro yönetiminin Suriye’de öldürülen iki kişiden gazeteci olarak bahsederek ve çatışma bölgelerinde sivillerin ve basın mensuplarının korunmasına ilişkin uluslararası insancıl hukuk kuralına atıfta bulunarak, güvenlik güçleri tarafından gerçekleştirilen bir operasyonu “savaş suçu olarak değerlendirdikleri”ni, böylelikle “PKK silahlı terör örgütünün nihai amacı olan bölücülük faaliyetini bilinçsel olarak hem meşru gösterme hem de yayma amacı taşıdıkları”nı öne sürmektedir. Ayrıca, savcı, öldürülen kişilerden gazeteci olarak bahsedilmesinin örgüt üyeliğini özendirici mahiyette olduğunu ve “terör örgütünün yöntemlerini meşru gösterdiği”ni değerlendirerek, bu yolla Terörle Mücadele Kanunu’nun 7/2 maddesi gereğince “basın ve yayın yoluyla terör örgütü propagandası yapma” suçu işlendiğini ifade etmektedir. Hukuka uygun ve hak temelli bir açıklamanın, bilinçli bir şekilde silahlı bir örgütün amaçlarına hizmet ettiğini öne süren bu iddialar tamamen mesnetsizdir ve hukuki dayanaktan yoksundur. Ocak ve Nisan 2025’te yapılan ortak açıklamalarda ve Eylül 2025’te mahkemeye sunulan üçüncü taraf görüşünde vurgulandığı üzere, insan hakları ihlallerini ve hukukun üstünlüğünü ilgilendiren konularda görüş bildirmek İstanbul Barosu’nun yasal ve etik görevidir. Savcının yaklaşımı, baronun hem iç hukuk hem de uluslararası insan hakları hukuku ve standartları uyarınca korunan bu görevini yerine getirmesinin bilfiil suç olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Savcının ifade özgürlüğü hakkının meşru kullanımını bir terör suçu olarak yorumlaması, ceza hukukunun kötüye kullanımı ve yargı tacizi niteliğindedir. Uluslararası standartlara ve baronun kanuna dayalı yetki ve görevlerine yönelik ihlaller BM Avukatların Rolüne Dair Temel İlkeler, Avukatlık Mesleğinin Korunmasına İlişkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin istikrarlı içtihadı da dahil, uluslararası ve bölgesel insan hakları standartları, avukatların ve meslek örgütlerinin, adaleti ve insan haklarını ilgilendiren konularda misilleme kaygısı olmadan kamusal tartışmalara katılabilmesi gerektiğini doğrulamaktadır. Avukatların ve avukatlık meslek örgütlerinin ifade ve örgütlenme özgürlüğü haklarını kullanmalarının kriminalize edilmesi, onların hak ve rollerini güvence altına alan bu belgelerin yanı sıra, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 10. ve 11. maddelerine, Uluslararası Medeni ve Siyasal Haklar Sözleşmesi’nin 19. ve 22. maddelerine ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası’nın 26., 27. ve 33. maddelerine aykırıdır. Önceki tarihli ortak açıklamalarda ve üçüncü taraf görüşünde dile getirildiği üzere, İstanbul Barosu’nun 21 Aralık 2024 tarihli açıklaması hukuka uygun, meşru ve gazetecilerin öldürülmesi ve barışçıl bir toplanmaya katılan gazetecilerin ve avukatların hukuka aykırı olarak gözaltına alınması gibi kamuyu ilgilendiren bir konuda gerekli bir müdahaledir. İki gazetecinin öldürülmesini protesto etmek üzere 20 Aralık 2024’te düzenlenen barışçıl toplantıya katıldıkları gerekçesiyle yargılanan yedi gazeteci ile diğer iki kişi, 27 Kasım 2025 tarihindeki karar duruşmasında beraat etmiştir. Dolayısıyla, söz konusu ceza yargılaması süreci tam anlamıyla hukuk mesleğinin bağımsızlığını hedef almakta ve terörle mücadele yasalarının eleştirileri susturmak, insan haklarının izleme faaliyetlerini bastırmak ve baroların özyönetimini zayıflatmak amacıyla kötüye kullanılması anlamına gelmektedir. Acil eylem çağrısı İmzacı örgütler, 5-9 Ocak 2026 tarihleri arasında beş gün boyunca sürmesi beklenen duruşma öncesinde Türkiye yetkililerini acilen şu adımları atmaya çağırmaktadır: - İstanbul Barosu Başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerine yönelik ceza davasına derhal son verilmeli, Terörle Mücadele Kanunu’nun 7/2 maddesi uyarınca onlara yöneltilen temelsiz suçlamalar düşürülmeli ve baro yönetimini görevden almayı amaçlayan eşzamanlı ve siyasi güdümlü hukuk davası reddedilmelidir. Ayrıca, Türkiye yetkililerini aşağıdaki güvenceleri sağlamak üzere gerekli yapısal değişiklikleri yapmaya çağırıyoruz: - İç hukuk ve Türkiye’nin uluslararası insan hakları yükümlülükleri doğrultusunda, baroların bağımsızlığı ve özyönetimi güvence altına alınmalıdır. - Terörle mücadele ve ceza yasalarının avukatları, insan hakları savunucularını, gazetecileri ve sivil toplum aktörlerini hedef almak için kötüye kullanılmasına son verilmeli ve bu kişilerin insan haklarına saygı gösterilmeli ve korunmalıdır. - Avukatlık Mesleğinin Korunmasına İlişkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi imzalanmalı ve onaylanmalıdır. Uluslararası toplumu şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: - İstanbul 26. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen davanın yakından izlenmesine devam edilmelidir. - Savcının mütalaası ve Türkiye’de avukatlık mesleğine yönelik artan tehditler alenen kınanmalıdır. - Avukatların haklarına saygı gösterilmesini ve bu hakların korunmasını sağlamak, ayrıca avukatların ve baroların taciz, misilleme ve haksız yargılamalara karşı korunmasını güvence altına almak üzere Türkiye yetkilileri ile doğrudan temasa geçilmelidir. İmzacılar (alfabetik sıra ile): Amnesty International (Uluslararası Af Örgütü) Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (İngiltere ve Galler Barosu İnsan Hakları Komitesi, BHRC, UK) Center of Elaboration and Research on Democracy (Demokrasi Çalışmaları ve Araştırmaları Merkezi, CRED) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Avrupa Baroları ve Hukuk Toplulukları Konseyi, Le Conseil des barreaux européens, CCBE) Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği (Türkiye) Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association (Barselona Barosu Savunma Komisyonu, İspanya) Deutscher Anwaltverein (Alman Barolar Birliği, Almanya) Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği (Türkiye) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (Demokrasi ve Dünya İnsan Hakları için Avrupalı Avukatlar Derneği, ELDH) The European Criminal Bar Association (Avrupa Ceza Avukatları Birliği, ECBA) Fédération des Barreaux d'Europe (Avrupa Barolar Federasyonu, European Bars Federation, FBE) Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer (Tehlike Altındaki Avukatlar Günü Vakfı) Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği (Türkiye) Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi (Türkiye) Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (Haldane Sosyalist Avukatlar Derneği, Birleşik Krallık) Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar (Brüksel Barosu İnsan Hakları Enstitüsü, Belçika) Human Rights Watch (İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü) İnsan Hakları Derneği (Türkiye) İnsan Hakları Gündemi Derneği (Türkiye) The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (Uluslararası Demokratik Avukatlar Birliği, IADL) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (Uluslararası Barolar Birliği İnsan Hakları Enstitüsü, IBAHRI) The International Commission of Jurists (Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu, ICJ) International Federation for Human Rights (Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Federasyonu, FIDH, İnsan Hakları Savunucularının Korunması Gözlemevi kapsamında) Kadının İnsan Hakları Derneği (Türkiye) Kaos GL Derneği (Türkiye) The Law Society of England and Wales (İngiltere ve Galler Hukuk Cemiyeti, LSEW, Birleşik Krallık) Lawyers for Lawyers (Avukatlar için Avukatlar, Hollanda) Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada (Kanada Avukat Hakları İzleme Örgütü, LRWC, Kanada) Lyon Bar Association (Lyon Barosu, Fransa) National Union of Peoples Lawyers (Halkların Avukatları Ulusal Birliği, (NUPL, Filipinler) Özgürlük İçin Hukukçular Derneği (Türkiye) PEN Norway (PEN Norveç, Norveç) Sivil Alan Araştırmaları Derneği (Türkiye) Turkey Litigation Support Project (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Birleşik Krallık) Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (Türkiye) Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen VDJ (Demokrat Hukukçular Birliği, Association of Democratic Jurists, Almanya) World Organisation Against Torture (İşkenceye Karşı Dünya Örgütü, OMCT, İnsan Hakları Savunucularının Korunması Gözlemevi kapsamında) Yurttaşlık Derneği (Türkiye) ➤ Tam Açıklama TÜRKİYE: ADİL VE KALICI BARIŞ İÇİN ADALET REFORMLARI KİLİT ÖNEMDE TBMM KOMİSYONU, DEĞİŞİM İÇİN CESUR ÖNERİLERDE BULUNMALI 06 Kasım 2025 TBMM Komisyonu, Değişim için Cesur Önerilerde Bulunmalı Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu, bugün yaptıkları ortak açıklamada, Türkiye’deki partiler arası parlamento komisyonunun, görev ve yetkileri kapsamında Kürtler ve ülkedeki tüm diğer topluluklar için insan haklarını, adaleti ve hukukun üstünlüğünü güvence altına alacak somut hukuki ve kurumsal reformlar önermesi gerektiğini belirtti. Anılan kuruluşlar, komisyona kalıcı ve hak temelli bir barışı mümkün kılacak reformlara öncelik vermesi çağrısında bulunan, birlikte kaleme aldıkları, yazılı bir brifing sundu. Milli Dayanışma, Kardeşlik ve Demokrasi Komisyonu, Kürdistan İşçi Partisi’nin (PKK) silah bırakma ve kendini feshetme kararını açıklamasının ardından, Ağustos 2025’te TBMM tarafından kuruldu. Söz konusu açıklama, Türkiye hükümeti ile PKK’nin cezaevindeki lideri Abdullah Öcalan’ın, kırk yılı aşkın süredir devam eden çatışmayı sonlandırmaya dönük çabalarının ardından geldi. Komisyonun amacı, “toplumsal bütünleşmenin güçlendirilmesi, milli birlik ve kardeşliğimizin pekiştirilmesi ve özgürlük, demokrasi ve hukuk devleti alanlarında çalışmalar yapmak” olarak açıklandı. İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Hugh Williamson, “Kürt sorunu temelli kırk yıllık çatışmanın sona ermesi, yalnızca silahlı çatışmanın bitirilmesiyle değil; şiddet içermeyen siyasi faaliyet ve ifadeleri nedeniyle Kürtler ve diğer gruplara suç isnadında bulunulması ve insanların hapse atılması için uzun süredir kullanılan yasaların değiştirilmesine yönelik somut adımların atılmasıyla mümkün olacaktır,” dedi. Williamson, “Partiler arası komisyonun elinde çatışma sonrası toplumunu şekillendirmeye katkı sunmak için eşsiz bir fırsat var; komisyon insanları susturmak ve ötekileştirmek için kötüye kullanılan yasaların yürürlükten kaldırılması yönünde cesur tavsiyelerde bulunmalıdır,” şeklinde konuştu. Türkiye’deki Kürtler ve Diğer Tüm Topluluklar İçin İnsan Haklarının, Adaletin ve Demokrasinin Güçlendirilmesi başlıklı brifing, yukarıda anılan üç kuruluşun Türkiye’de insan hakları ihlallerini ve hukukun üstünlüğü ile kuvvetler ayrılığına karşı müdahaleleri izleme, belgeleme ve dava takibi konularında yıllardır biriktirdikleri deneyime dayanıyor. Kuruluşlar, Türkiye’de özellikle Kürtler ve muhalif olarak görülen diğer kesimler aleyhine ayrımcı ve siyasi saiklerle uygulanan ceza hukuku hükümlerinin kötüye kullanılmasına odaklanıyor. Brifing, sorunlara dair eksiksiz bir analiz yapmayı hedeflemiyor ancak yapısal reformlara acilen ihtiyaç duyulan dört temel alanı ana hatlarıyla ortaya koyuyor. Kuruluşlar, komisyonun Türkiye’deki tüm bireyler ve topluluklar için insan haklarına saygılı, adil ve demokratik bir çatışma sonrası ortamın temellerini atabilecek uygulanabilir değişiklikler önermesi için çağrıda bulunuyor. Söz konusu dört alan şöyle: Terörle mücadele mevzuatında reform yapılması: Söz konusu mevzuatın silahlı gruplarla fiili ve somut bir bağlantısı bulunmayan çok geniş bir kesimi soruşturmak, özgürlüğünden yoksun bırakmak, kovuşturmak ve mahkum etmek için keyfi ve ayrımcı biçimde kullanılan muğlak ve aşırı geniş hükümleri yürürlükten kaldırılmalı ya da esaslı şekilde değiştirilmeli. Bu şekilde cezai takibatla karşı karşıya kalanlar arasında gazeteciler, avukatlar, insan hakları savunucuları ve diğer aktivistler ile görüşlerini barışçıl biçimde ifade eden insanlar yer alıyor. Seçilmiş temsilcilere karşı ceza hukukunun kötüye kullanılmasına son verilmesi: Milletvekilleri, belediye başkanları ve belediye meclis üyeleri dahil, seçilmiş muhalefet siyasetçilerinin keyfi biçimde özgürlüğünden yoksun bırakılması, haklarında cezai takibat yürütülmesi ve görevden alınması yönündeki yaygın uygulamalara son verilmeli. Söz konusu seçilmiş görevliler, uluslararası insan hakları hukuku kapsamında korunan siyasi ifadeleri veya barışçıl faaliyetleri nedeniyle ve yalnızca bunlar gerekçe gösterilerek görevden alınmaktalar. Komisyon, demokratik alanın korunması ve özgür ve adil seçim hakkının güvence altına alınması amacıyla, seçilmiş birinin görevini icrasına getirilecek her türlü kısıtlamanın istisnai nitelikte olması, ciddi bir suç işlendiğine dair ikna edici kanıtlara dayanması, etkili yargısal denetime tabi olması ve özgür ve adil seçimler ile siyasi katılımı güvence altına alan uluslararası insan hakları hukuku ve standartlarıyla uyumlu olması gerektiğini açıkça ortaya koymalıdır. Barışçıl toplanma hakkının güvence altına alınması: Kamuya açık toplantı ve gösterilere yönelik sistematik kısıtlamalara ve bu hakkı kullanmaya çalışanların hukuki dayanaktan yoksun ve şiddet içeren polis müdahaleleriyle dağıtılmasına son verilmeli. Komisyon, Toplantı ve Gösteri Yürüyüşleri Kanunu ile bu alandaki uygulamalarda reform yapılması yönünde açık tavsiyelerde bulunmalıdır. Bu tavsiyeler, yetkililerin kitlesel toplantı ve gösterilerini demokratik katılımın olağan bir parçası ve katılımcı, çoğulcu bir toplumun göstergesi olarak görmelerini sağlayacak nitelikte olmalıdır. Umut hakkının tanınması: Salıverilme olanağı bulunmayan ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezalarını çeken mahpusların, salıverilme taleplerinin anlamlı ve gözden geçirilebilir bir usulle incelenmesi sağlanmalı. AİHM, Türkiye’deki mevcut sistemin AİHS’nin insanlık dışı veya aşağılayıcı muameleyi yasaklayan 3. maddesini ihlal ettiğini tespit etmiş, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi ise, tüm mahpuslar için gerçek ve nesnel bir salıverilme olanağını güvence altına alacak yasal reformların yapılması yönünde Türkiye’ye defalarca çağrıda bulunmuştu. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan liderliğindeki Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’nin koalisyon ortağı Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi’nin Genel Başkanı Devlet Bahçeli’nin PKK ile çatışmanın sona erdirilmesi hakkında yaptığı Meclis konuşmalarında “umut hakkı”na açıkça atıfta bulunması dikkat çekmişti. Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden Ayşe Bingöl Demir, “Çatışmanın tarafları arasındaki diyalog süreci, kökleşmiş şiddet ve istisna hukuku döngüsünü kırmaya başlamak için tarihi bir fırsat sunuyor,” dedi. Bingöl Demir, “Komisyonun, sivil toplum, hukuk örgütleri ve akademisyenlerin mevcut uzmanlığından yararlanması ve insan hakları ile hukukun üstünlüğünü güvence altına alan, sürdürülebilir bir barışın temelini oluşturmak için gerekli kapsamlı reformları savunma konusunda kapsayıcı ve geniş bir yaklaşım benimsemesi gerekir,” şeklinde konuştu. Brifing ayrıca, komisyonun ele alması gereken, diğer alanları enlemesine kesen iki daha geniş sorunlu alanı da ortaya koyuyor. Bunlardan ilki yargı bağımsızlığı: yargının hukuka aykırı etki ve baskılardan kurumsal olarak korunması ve dışarıdan müdahale ya da ayrımcılık olmaksızın hukukun üstünlüğünü herkes için güvence altına alabilmesi için somut adımlar atılması gerekiyor. İkincisi ise ağır insan hakları ihlallerinde hesap verebilirlik: Komisyon, çatışma sürecine damga vuran ağır insan hakları ihlalleri bakımından uzun süredir devam eden cezasızlık iklimini ele almalıdır. Komisyon, çatışmanın taraflarınca işlenen insan hakları ihlallerinde hesap verebilirliği sağlayacak güvenilir mekanizmalar ile Türkiye’de herkes için hak temelli ve demokratik bir geleceğin inşasının zorunlu koşulları olan hakikatin ortaya çıkarılması ve adaletin sağlanmasına yönelik mekanizmalar önermelidir. Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Program Direktörü Temur Shakirov, “Komisyonun görevini yerine getirebilmesi için sembolik tavsiyelerin ötesine geçmesi ve çatışma, baskı ve cezasızlığı onlarca yıldır ayakta tutan yapısal adaletsizlikler ile ayrımcı hukuki düzenlemeleri ele alması gerekir,” dedi. Shakirov, “Kalıcı bir barışa ulaşmak, bu temellerin yıkılarak onların yerine yaptırım gücü olan insan hakları güvencelerinin tesis edilmesi ve hesap verebilirlik ile demokratik kapsayıcılığın güvence altına alınmasıyla mümkün olacaktır,” şeklinde konuştu. Daha fazla bilgi ve iletişim için: https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/blog, info@turkeylitigationsupport.com ➤ Tam Açıklama TÜRKİYE: JUSTICE REFORMS CENTRAL TO FAIR, DURABLE PEACE November 06, 2025 Parliamentary Commission Should Make Bold Recommendations for Change A cross-party parliamentary commission in Türkiye should use its mandate to recommend concrete legal and institutional reforms that protect human rights, justice, and the rule of law for Kurds and all other communities in the country, Human Rights Watch, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, and the International Commission of Jurists said today. The organizations submitted a joint briefing urging the commission to prioritize reforms that enable a durable, rights-based peace. Parliament established the National Solidarity, Sisterhood/Brotherhood and Democracy Commission in August 2025 after the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK’s) announced its intention to disarm and disband. The announcement followed efforts by the Turkish government and Abdullah Öcalan, the jailed PKK leader, to end the four-decade conflict. The commission’s stated aim is to strengthen social integration, consolidate national unity and sisterhood/brotherhood, and advance freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. “Bringing an end to the four-decade Kurdish conflict requires not just ending fighting but concrete steps to change laws that have long been used to bring criminal charges against and incarcerate Kurds and other groups for nonviolent political activity and speech,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The cross-party commission has a unique opportunity to help shape a post-conflict society and should make bold recommendations to repeal abusive laws used to silence and marginalize people.” The briefing, Advancing Human Rights, Justice and Democracy for Kurds and All Other Communities in Türkiye, draws on years of experience by the organizations in litigation, monitoring and documenting human rights violations and attacks against the rule of law and the separation of powers in Türkiye. The groups focused on abusive criminal law provisions which have been applied in discriminatory and politically motivated ways in Türkiye, particularly against Kurds and other perceived dissenting voices. While not exhaustive, the briefing outlines four key areas in which structural reforms are urgently needed. The groups urged the commission to recommend achievable changes that can lay the foundation for a more rights-respecting, equitable and democratic post-conflict environment for all individuals and communities in Türkiye. These areas include: Reforming anti-terror legislation by repealing or substantially amending vague and overbroad provisions that have been used in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner to investigate, detain, prosecute and convict a wide range of people who have no material connection to armed groups. Those facing criminal charges have included journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and other activists, as well as individuals who peacefully express their opinions; Ending the misuse of criminal law against elected officials by stopping the widespread practice of arbitrarily detaining, prosecuting and removing elected opposition politicians, whether members of parliament, mayors, or municipal council members. The officials have been removed solely on the basis of political speech protected under international human rights law, or in response to peaceful activities. In the interests of protecting democratic space and upholding the right to free and fair elections, the commission should make clear that any restrictions on the exercise of an electoral mandate should be exceptional, based on compelling evidence of serious criminal wrongdoing, subject to effective judicial review, and consistent with international human rights law and standards guaranteeing free and fair elections and political participation; Guaranteeing the right to peaceful assembly by ceasing the systemic restriction of public assemblies and demonstrations and the unwarranted and violent police dispersal of those who attempt to exercise their right to peaceful protest. The commission should make clear recommendations to reform the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations and related practice in this area to ensure that the authorities view public demonstrations as a normal part of democratic participation and evidence of an engaged and pluralistic society. Recognizing the “right to hope,” by ensuring that prisoners who are serving “aggravated life” sentences without the prospect of release can be considered for release on the basis of a meaningful, reviewable process. The European Court of Human Rights has found that Türkiye’s current system violates the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment in the European Convention on Human Rights (article 3), and the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has repeatedly called on Türkiye to reform its law to guarantee all prisoners a real, objective prospect of release. Notably, Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Action Party in coalition with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party, has publicly referred to the “right to hope” in his parliamentary speeches on ending the conflict with the PKK. “The dialogue process between the parties to the conflict presents a historic opportunity to begin dismantling the entrenched cycle of violence and legal exceptionalism,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The commission should draw on the available expertise from civil society, lawyers’ groups and academics and take an inclusive and wide-ranging approach to advocating for comprehensive reforms that uphold human rights and the rule of law, and that are necessary to underpin a sustainable peace.” The briefing also highlights two broader cross-cutting concerns that the commission should address. One is judicial independence: concrete steps are needed to ensure that the judiciary is institutionally protected from undue influence and able to uphold the rule of law for all, without interference or discrimination. The other is accountability for grave human rights violations: the commission should address long-standing impunity for serious human rights violations that has marked the conflict. The commission should propose credible avenues for accountability for these violations committed by abusers on all sides of the conflict, and mechanisms for truth-telling and justice as necessary conditions for building a rights-based and democratic future for everyone in Türkiye. “To fulfill its mandate, the commission should go beyond symbolic recommendations by addressing the structural injustices and discriminatory legal frameworks that have sustained decades of conflict, repression and impunity,” said Temur Shakirov, Europe and Central Asia program director of the International Commission of Jurists. Achieving a durable peace requires dismantling these foundations and, instead, establishing enforceable human rights guarantees and ensuring accountability and democratic inclusion.” For more information please see: https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/blog Contact: info@turkeylitigationsupport.com ➤ Full Statement UMUT HAKKI TANINMALI: GURBAN GRUBU KARARLARI AK BAKANLAR KOMİTESİ GÜNDEMİNDE September 15, 2025 Türkiye’de binlerce mahpus, hiçbir koşulda tahliye veya cezanın gözden geçirilmesi olanağı tanımayan ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezası rejimine tâbi tutuluyor. “Devlet güvenliği”, “anayasal düzen” “milli güvenlik” veya “terörle mücadele” ile ilgili suçlamalarla mahkûm edilen bu mahpuslar, ne kadar süre cezaevinde kalırlarsa kalsın, bireysel durumlarındaki değişiklikler ne olursa olsun, işlevsel, denetlenebilir ve ayrımcı olmayan bir saliverilme mekanizmasına erişemiyor. Bu rejim hem kanunen hem de fiilen cezanın indirilemez ve gözden geçirilemez oluşuyla, işkence ve kötü muamelenin yasaklandığı AİHS’nin 3. maddesini ihlal ediyor. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Gurban grubu kararları (Öcalan (2) dâhil) kapsamında bu durumu açıkça ortaya koyuyor: Ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezalarının tamamı, istisna olmaksızın, gözden geçirilebilir olmalı ve sadece kağıt üzerinde değil, uygulamada da mahpuslara belirli bir sürenin ardından salıverilmeyi talep etme hakkı tanınmalıdır. Türkiye Gurban grubu kararlarına ve Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin talebine rağmen hâlâ gerekli yasal reformları hayata geçirmiş değil. 5275 sayılı Kanun’un 107. maddesi, belirli suç kategorilerini açıkça koşullu salıverilme dışında tutmaya devam ediyor ve mevcut hukukî çerçeve, AİHS standartlarını karşılamıyor. Bakanlar Komitesi’nin 15–17 Eylül 2025 tarihli İnsan Hakları toplantısı öncesinde, Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (TLSP), Demokrasi ve Dünyada İnsan Hakları için Avrupalı Avukatlar Derneği (ELDH), Demokrasi ve Uluslararası Hukuk Derneği (MAF-DAD) ve Londra Hukuk Grubu (LLG) Komite’ye Türkiye’de yapılması gerekenlere dair önerilerde bulunan bir Kural 9.2 bildirimi sundu. Buna göre Türkiye tarafından: * Ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezalarının infazı rejimi, herhangi bir sitisna olmaksızın, hem kanunen hem de fiilen indirilebilir olacak şekilde reforme edilmeli; * Tüm mahpus kategorilerine açık, ayrımcılık içermeyen, etkili ve yargı denetimine açık bir koşullu salıverilme mekanizması oluşturulmalı; * İlk inceleme en geç cezaevinde 25 yıl geçirilmesinden sonra gerçekleştirilmeli, ret halinde makul aralıklarla devam eden periyodik gözden geçirmeler olmalı; * Sadece mahkumiyete konu fiilin niteliğine değil, kişinin durumundaki değişim, tutum ve davranışlar ve toplum açısından risk durumu gibi nesnel ve bireyselleştirilmiş kriterlere dayalı değerlendirme öngürülmeli; * Avukat tarafından temsil, dosyaya ve bilgiye erişim, dinlenilme hakkı ve kararların gerekçeli olması gibi usuli güvenceler sağlanmalı. ➤ Tam Açıklama THE RIGHT TO HOPE MUST BE RECOGNISED – TÜRKİYE’S AGGRAVATED LIFE SENTENCES UNDER SCRUTINY September 15, 2025 Thousands of individuals in Türkiye are serving aggravated life sentences under a legal regime that excludes any possibility of conditional release or sentence review. These prisoners - convicted under laws concerning “State security”, “constitutional order”, “national defence”, or “terrorism” - face lifelong imprisonment without access to a functioning, reviewable, and non-discriminatory mechanism, regardless of the time served or any change in their individual circumstances. This de jure and de facto irreducibility of life sentences violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. As the European Court of Human Rights clarified in the Gurban group of cases, including Öcalan (2), life sentences must be reducible - not only in law, but in practice - offering prisoners a genuine prospect of release after a certain period. Türkiye has yet to introduce the necessary legal reforms. No functioning review mechanism exists. Article 107 of Law No. 5275 expressly excludes certain categories of offences from conditional release, and the current legal framework fails to meet the Convention standards. Ahead of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Human Rights meeting (15–17 September 2025), Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), Democracy and International Law Association (MAF-DAD), and London Legal Group (LLG) submitted a Rule 9.2 communication, calling for: * Legislative reform ensuring all life sentences are de jure and de facto reducible; * An accessible, judicially reviewable mechanism open to all categories of life-sentenced prisoners - without exception; * A first review no later than 25 years after imprisonment, with periodic reviews thereafter; * Individualised assessments based on objective, transparent criteria, not merely the nature of original offence; * Robust procedural safeguards including the right to legal representation, access to information, and judicial review. ➤ Full Analysis TÜRKİYE: İSTANBUL BAROSU YÖNETİM KURULUNA AÇILAN DAVA, HUKUK MESLEĞİNİN BAĞIMSIZLIĞINA “DOĞRUDAN BİR SALDIRIDIR” September 8, 2025 12 hukuk ve insan hakları örgütü, duruşma öncesinde yönetim kuruluna açılan dava için görüş sundu* İstanbul Barosu yönetim kuruluna karşı açılan ceza davasının 9-10 Eylül'deki duruşması öncesi, Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (TLSP) ile birlikte 11 uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları örgütü İstanbul 26. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesine ortak amicus curiae (mahkemenin dostu, üçüncü taraf) görüşü sundu. Örgütler, duruşma öncesinde ortak bir açıklama yayınladı: "İstanbul Barosu yönetim kuruluna açılan dava, hukuk mesleğinin bağımsızlığına 'doğrudan bir saldırıdır'." ➤ Tam Açıklama TÜRKİYE: PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ISTANBUL BAR ASSOCIATION BOARD A “DIRECT ASSAULT” ON INDEPENDENCE OF LEGAL PROFESSION September 8, 2025 Twelve legal and human rights organisations intervene in proceedings against the executive board ahead of trial* TLSP and 11 other legal and human rights organisations have submitted an amicus curiae (friends of the court) intervention to the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court in the criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association board, ahead of the trial scheduled for 9-10 September 2025. In a joint statement, the organisations have warned that the civil and criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association board are a “direct assault” on the independence of the legal profession and are incompatible with Türkiye’s international human rights obligations. ➤ Full Statement JOINT STATEMENT ON UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF LAWYER MEHMET PEHLIVAN AND ESCALATING REPRESSION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN TURKEY July 01, 2025 The undersigned international legal and human rights non-governmental organisations strongly condemn the arbitrary detention of lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan, defence counsel to detained Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, and the intensifying reprisals against members of the legal profession in Turkey. These measures, targeting lawyers for their professional activity and for exercising their right to freedom of expression, constitute a direct attack on human rights and the rule of law and they imped access to justice. I. Targeting, prosecution and detention of lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan Lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan, a member of the Istanbul Bar Association and defence counsel to detained Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, has been subjected to a sustained pattern of judicial persecution since early 2025: - He was arrested by police and accused of alleged “money laundering” (Article 282 of the Penal Code) based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations. He was released under judicial control on 28 March 2025, including a travel ban that obstructed his ability to carry out international legal work. - In March and April 2025, he was targeted again after publicly criticising a report issued by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) which led to the annulment of his client Mr İmamoğlu’s university diploma, a decision which, if finalised, would bar him from running for president. Mr Pehlivan denounced the report as baseless and unlawfully drafted based on concealed documents and withheld information. In March, three members of YÖK who signed this report filed a criminal complaint against Mr Pehlivan. This led the Istanbul Public Prosecutor to open a new criminal investigation and invite him for questioning in April, based on multiple allegations, including “insult” and “attempting to influence a fair trial” (Articles 125 and 288 of the Penal Code). The charges carry a potential sentence of imprisonment of over 13 years. - In May 2025, pro-government media reports claimed that - based on the statement of an individual who decided to cooperate with the prosecuting authorities with a view of obtaining a reduction in punishment under the “effective remorse” provision (etkin pişmanlık) - Mr Pehlivan and Kemal Polat, another defence lawyer of Mr İmamoğlu, were under investigation for the alleged offence of “attempting to coerce witnesses” (Article 277 of the Penal Code). - On 19 June 2025, following a call from the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mr Pehlivan voluntarily went to the Istanbul Courthouse where he was informed that a criminal investigation had been opened against him. He reminded the Prosecutor that, pursuant to Article 58 of Turkey’s Attorneyship Law, authorisation from the Ministry of Justice was required to proceed. The Prosecutor dismissed this and requested his pre-trial detention from a judge. Mr Pehlivan was subsequently remanded into pre-trial detention on alleged charges of “membership in a criminal organisation” (Article 220(2) of the Penal Code), based solely on his legitimate coordination of legal defence strategies, a core element of legal representation. Since the imprisonment of Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu in March, Mr Pehlivan has been subjected to a sustained harassment in pro-government media, attacking both his professional and personal integrity. To date, no evidence of coercion, violence, or otherwise unlawful conduct on his part has been presented. The latest prosecution was initiated without the required authorisation from the Ministry of Justice under Article 58 of Attorneyship Law, a safeguard intended to prevent politically motivated prosecutions of lawyers for acts carried out in connection with their professional duties. The targeting of lawyers representing Mr İmamoğlu or others professionally involved in the same criminal proceedings, including lawyers Kemal Polat, Serkan Günel, Kazım Yiğit Akalın, and Yiğit Gökçehan Koçoğlu, since March strongly indicates a pattern of interference designed to hinder this group of lawyers in the legitimate exercise of their professional activities and to undermine the right to a fair trial of their clients. II. Continuing reprisals against the legal profession and their professional associations The case of Mr Pehlivan and others is not isolated; it is part of a broader, systematic campaign to target legal professionals across Turkey, a pattern that two joint statements issued by members of the international legal and human rights community have previously addressed[1]: - The Istanbul Bar Association is facing both civil and criminal proceedings for its December 2024 public statement calling for an independent investigation into the killings of two journalists from Turkey working for Kurdish media outlets in Syria. Prosecutors have charged the President İbrahim Kaboğlu and ten executive board members of the Istanbul Bar Association with alleged “terrorist propaganda” and “disseminating misleading information,” seeking up to 12 years’ imprisonment and political bans. In parallel, a civil lawsuit seeks their dismissal under Article 77(5) of the Attorneyship Law. - Istanbul Bar Association board member Fırat Epözdemir was arbitrarily detained pending trial on 25 January 2025 on his return from an advocacy visit to the Council of Europe. He was held in pre-trial detention until 29 May 2025 and remains under judicial control. - Since the March 2025 protests - started after the arrest of Mr İmamoğlu - dozens of lawyers, including the former President of the İzmir Bar Association, have been arrested for their support for the protestors and their efforts to provide legal assistance to them. - Lawyers have been prevented from accessing their detained clients; they have been denied entry into courthouses; and have been informed that key hearings took place in their absence. In some instances, the authorities have refused to confirm the identities, whereabouts and current locations of their detained clients, giving rise to serious concern that they have been subjected to enforced disappearance. Acts of reprisal against lawyers reflect a systemic effort by the authorities to undermine the independence of lawyers and bar associations, intimidate those engaged in human rights defence, and obstruct access to justice for political detainees and civil society actors. III. Incompatibility with international legal standards The targeting of Mr Pehlivan, the Istanbul Bar Association, and numerous other lawyers violates a range of binding international human rights standards. Lawyers must not face harassment or sanctions for actions taken in line with their professional duties (UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Principle 16; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation no. R(2000)21, Principle I, paras. 1 and 4; Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, Article 9). They must be able to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes (UN Basic Principles, Principles 23 and 18; CoE Convention on Lawyers, Articles 7 and 6). Bar associations and lawyers’ professional organisations must be independent and self-governing and must be able to speak publicly on legal and human rights issues without fear of reprisal or dissolution (UN Basic Principles, Principle 24; CoE Recommendation, Principle V; CoE Convention on Lawyers, Articles 4 and 7). The baseless criminal investigations, prosecutions and arbitrary detention of Mr Pehlivan, other lawyers, and the judicial harassment of members of the Istanbul Bar Association violate these guarantees and threaten the institutional integrity and independence of the legal profession in Turkey. They also undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and the right to a fair trial, in breach of Articles 19, 22, and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 10, 11, and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which Turkey is a state party. IV. Call to action We, the undersigned legal and human rights organisations, call for immediate and coordinated action: To the Government of Turkey: - Immediately and unconditionally release Mehmet Pehlivan, and drop all charges and proceedings arising from his carrying out his professional activities or exercising his right to freedom of expression or peaceful exercise of his human rights; - Cease all legal and administrative actions against the Istanbul Bar Association and other bar associations engaging in rights-based advocacy; - End the intimidation and politically motivated and arbitrary prosecution of lawyers, their arbitrary detentions, as well as travel bans and surveillance against them; - Ensure compliance with Article 58 of the Attorneyship Law and respect international standards protecting legal professionals and their associations. To the United Nations, Council of Europe and European Union: - Publicly condemn the detention of Mr Pehlivan and the broader pattern of reprisals against lawyers in Turkey; - Engage the Turkish authorities through all available diplomatic and monitoring mechanisms to demand respect for the legal profession; - Initiate urgent communications, conduct monitoring, and consider dispatching observation missions to Turkey; - Support independent bar associations and human rights lawyers through trial observation, legal assistance, and international advocacy. We stand in full solidarity with Mehmet Pehlivan, the Istanbul Bar Association and all other legal professionals in Turkey defending human rights and the rule of law. Their prosecution is not only an attack on their individual liberty but a threat to justice and the rule of law itself. Signatories (in alphabetical order): 1. Amnesty International 2. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) 3. Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association 4. Défense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires (Lawyers Without Borders - Solidarity Lawyers, DSF-AS) 5. Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, DAV) 6. European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) 7. European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) 8. Fédération des Barreaux d'Europe (European Bars Federation, FBE) 9. Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer 10. Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar Association 11. Indian Association of Lawyers 12. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) 13. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) 14. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 15. Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) 16. Lawyers for Lawyers 17. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) 18. National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) 19. New York City Bar Association 20. Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) 21. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders [1] https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/blog/2025/1/27/56-international-lawyers-and-human-rights-organisations-condemn-crackdown-on-istanbul-bar-associations-leadership-and-call-for-action and https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/blog/2025/4/14/joint-statement-by-the-international-legal-and-human-rights-community-on-unacceptable-attacks-on-the-legal-profession-in-turkey TÜRKİYE: TUTUKLU BÜYÜKŞEHİR BELEDİYE BAŞKANI’NIN AVUKATI DA TUTUKLANDI June 26, 2025 Muhalefet Partisine mensup tutukluların avukatlığını yapan üç kişi daha hedef alınıyor İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ile Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davası Destek Projesi, bugün yaptıkları ortak açıklamada, İstanbul’da mahkemenin 19 Haziran 2025’te, tutuklu İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanı Ekrem İmamoğlu’nun önde gelen savunma avukatlarından biri hakkında verdiği tutuklama kararının, avukatın müvekkiline yönelik yürüttüğü avukatlık faaliyetlerine karşı bir misilleme niteliği taşıdığı izlenimini doğurduğunu belirttiler. Hakkında “suç örgütüne üye olmak” iddiasıyla bir soruşturma yürütülen ve bu kapsamda muğlak tanık ifadelerine dayanılarak tutuklanan avukat Mehmet Pehlivan derhal serbest bırakılmalıdır. Suç örgütü kurmak ve yönetmek İmamoğlu’nun da tutuklandığı suçlamalardan biridir. İmamoğlu’nu ya da çalışma arkadaşlarını savunan en az üç avukat daha hedef alınmış ve basına konuştukları ya da adil yargılamayı etkilemeye teşebbüs ettikleri iddiasıyla haklarında soruşturma başlatılmıştı. İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Hugh Williamson, “Erdoğan hükümetinin yalnızca ana muhalefetin cumhurbaşkanı adayına değil, aynı zamanda onun savunma avukatlarına da hukuka aykırı şekilde saldırıyor olması son derece kaygı verici,” dedi. Williamson, “Mehmet Pehlivan’ın tutuklanması, siyasi saikli bir yetki suistimali izlenimi veriyor; Pehlivan derhal serbest bırakılmalıdır,” şeklinde konuştu. Ortak açıklamayı yapan kuruluşlara göre, Pehlivan’ın serbest bırakılmaması, yalnızca onun kişi özgürlüğü ve güvenliği ile avukatlık görevini yerine getirme haklarının değil, müvekkilinin adil yargılanma hakkının da ihlali anlamına gelecektir. Pehlivan’ı hedef alan soruşturmalar, İmamoğlu’nun 23 Mart’ta tutuklanmasından birkaç gün sonra başladı. Pehlivan, daha önce 25 Şubat’ta düzenlediği bir basın toplantısında ve başka açıklamalarında, İmamoğlu’nun cumhurbaşkanı adayı olmasını engellemek amacıyla üniversite diplomasının iptal edilmesinin keyfi ve hukuksuz bir uygulama olduğunu belirtmişti. Pehlivan, 28 Mart’ta kara para aklama şüphesiyle polis tarafından gözaltına alındı. Mahkeme, kendisini yurt dışına çıkış yasağı şartıyla serbest bıraktı. İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı, Pehlivan’ı 19 Haziran’da yeniden ifade vermeye çağırdı. Pehlivan, avukatlar hakkında soruşturma açılabilmesi için adalet bakanlığının izninin gerekli olduğunu belirterek ifade vermeyi reddetti. Mahkeme, savcılığın, Pehlivan’ın İmamoğlu ile İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nde görev yapan 200’ü aşkın kamu görevlisi ve belediyeyle iş yapan iş insanlarını hedef alan ceza soruşturması kapsamında tutuklanmasına yönelik talebini kabul etti. Savcılığın dayanağı, soruşturmada şüpheli olarak yer alan ve ceza kanununda yer alan etkin pişmanlık düzenlemesi kapsamında ifade veren iki kişinin beyanları. Söz konusu yasal düzenleme, soruşturmaya yardımcı olunması halinde ceza indirimi imkânı tanıyor. İstanbul’daki mahkeme tutuklama kararını yalnızca bu beyanları esas alarak verdi. Soruşturmayı yürüten savcıya göre Pehlivan’ın bir suç şebekesinin örgütsel hiyerarşisi içinde hareket ettiği değerlendirmesinin dayandığı muğlak ve mesnetsiz tanık ifadelerinde Pehlivan’ın belirli avukatların şüphelilerin vekaletini üstlenmesi ve onlarla görüşmesi için görevlendirilmesini organize ettiği gizli soruşturma dosyalarına ve tanık beyanlarına erişmeye çalıştığı ve tanıklara baskı uyguladığı iddia ediliyor. Pehlivan hakkında, İmamoğlu’nun üniversite diplomasının iptaliyle ilgili olarak kamuoyuna yaptığı açıklamalar nedeniyle, Yükseköğretim Kurulu üyeleri tarafından hakaret ve iftira iddiasıyla suç duyurusunda bulunuldu ve bu kapsamda kendisi hakkında ikinci bir ceza soruşturması açılması ihtimali bulunuyor. Bu soruşturmanın yürütülmesi de Adalet Bakanlığı’nın iznine bağlı. Savcılar, diğer üç avukat hakkında da, soruşturmanın gizliliğini basına açıklama yaparak ihlal ettikleri ya da soruşturma altındaki kişileri bilgilendirerek adil yargılamayı etkilemeye teşebbüs ettikleri iddiasıyla soruşturma başlattı. Medyaya yansıyan haberlere göre, savcılık dördüncü bir avukatı daha soruşturma kapsamına almayı planladı ancak bu kişi şu ana kadar ifadeye çağrılmadı. Hakkında soruşturma yürütülen üç avukattan biri, aynı zamanda Pehlivan’ın da avukatlığını üstlenmişti. Bu üç avukat, adli kontrol şartıyla ve yurt dışına çıkış yasağıyla serbest bırakıldı. Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir, “Avukatlar, temel hakların korunmasında vazgeçilmez bir rol üstlenmekle kalmaz; kamuoyundaki güçlü duruşlarıyla, hükümetin anlatıyı tek yönlü olarak belirleme çabalarını da boşa düşürürler. Bu baskı dalgası, etkili bir hukuki savunmanın hükümet tarafından bir tehdit olarak görüldüğünü ortaya koyuyor. Uluslararası toplum bu duruma kararlı biçimde karşı durmazsa, giderek artan otoriterleşmeye karşı daha fazla zemin kaybedilmesi kaçınılmaz olacaktır,” şeklinde konuştu. ➤ Tam Açıklama TURKEY: JAILED MAYOR’S LAWYER DETAINED June 26, 2025 Three Others also Targeted for Representing Opposition Party Detainees An Istanbul court’s decision on 19 June 2025, to allow the detention of a leading defense lawyer for the jailed Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu appears to be in reprisal for his legal representation of his client, Human Rights Watch and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today. Turkish authorities should immediately release the lawyer, Mehmet Pehlivan, whose detention is based on vague witness statements pending an investigation into his alleged “membership of a criminal organization,” an offense carrying a possible sentence of two to four years in prison. Leading a criminal organization is one of the charges İmamoğlu was also detained on. The authorities have targeted at least three other lawyers defending İmamoğlu or his colleagues, initiating investigations against them for speaking to the media or allegedly attempting to interfere with a fair trial. “It is alarming to see that the Erdoğan government is unlawfully attacking not only the main opposition presidential candidate but also his defense lawyers,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Detaining Mehmet Pehlivan looks to be a retaliatory abuse of power, and he should be released immediately.” Failure to release Pehlivan would not only constitute a violation of his right to liberty and security but also his right to discharge his professional duties as a lawyer and his client’s right to a fair trial, the organizations said. Investigations targeting Pehlivan began days after İmamoğlu’s detention on March 23. Pehlivan had previously said at a February 25 news conference and elsewhere that the authorities’ move to revoke İmamoğlu’s university diploma to prevent him from being eligible as a presidential candidate had been arbitrary and unlawful. Police had previously arrested Pehlivan on March 28 allegedly on suspicion of money laundering. A court released him subject to an international travel ban. The Istanbul prosecutor called Pehlivan again to testify on June 19. Pehlivan refused on the grounds that the justice minister had not granted permission to investigate him, a necessary prerequisite to opening investigations into lawyers. A court then accepted the prosecutor’s request to detain Pehlivan in the scope of the ongoing criminal investigation targeting İmamoğlu and over 200 officials and businesspeople working with the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Prosecutors are relying on witness statements by two suspects in the investigation under the “effective repentance” law, which potentially allows reduced sentences for helping with the investigation. The Istanbul Court ordered Pehlivan’s detention solely on the basis of these statements. The witnesses alleged in vague and unsubstantiated terms that Pehlivan operated within what the prosecutor argues was a criminal network’s organizational hierarchy to orchestrate the appointment of particular lawyers to represent and meet with suspects, to attempt to access confidential investigation files and witness statements, and to pressure witnesses Pehlivan faces another possible criminal investigation after members of Turkey’s Higher Education Board filed a criminal complaint accusing him of defamation and insult on the basis of his public remarks about the board regarding the revocation of İmamoğlu’s university diploma. Progress in this investigation also depends on Justice Ministry authorization. The prosecutors opened the investigations against the three other lawyers, alleging that they violated the confidentiality of the investigation by commenting on it in the media or that they allegedly attempted to influence a fair trial by briefing those who were under investigation. Media reports indicate that the prosecutor’s office planned to investigate a fourth lawyer, but so far he has not been summoned to testify. One of the three lawyers under investigation also acted on behalf of Pehlivan. The three have been conditionally released under court orders that also imposed an international travel ban. “The judicial harassment of lawyers like Mehmet Pehlivan, who represent clients facing politically motivated charges, is part of a broader pattern of shrinking democratic space and disregard of the rule of law in Turkey,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir of the Turkey Litigation Support Project. “Lawyers are essential to upholding fundamental rights, and their strong public stance challenges government-led efforts to control the narrative. This crackdown signals that effective legal defense is seen as a threat, and unless firmly addressed by the international community, it risks losing more ground to the growing authoritarianism.” OPEN LETTER TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT URSULA VON DER LEYEN AND EUROPEAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANTÓNIO COSTA: ASSAULT ON THE RULE OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN TÜRKİYE May 16, 2025 Ms Ursula von der Leyen President of the European Commission European Commission Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels Mr António Costa President of the European Council European Council Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 175 1048 Brussels CC: Ms Kaja Kallas, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President European Commission Ms Marta Kos, European Commissioner for Enlargement RE: Open letter to President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa regarding the assault on the right to political participation, the rule of law and human rights in Türkiye 15 May 2025 Dear President von der Leyen, Dear President Costa, We write as 58 human rights organizations, media freedom groups, journalists’ organisations and representatives of the international legal community to raise profound concern over the extraordinary assault by the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the right to political participation, the rule of law and human rights in Türkiye and to call for an effective and robust response by the EU, its member states and its institutions. We wish to stress that the attack by President Erdoğan’s government on Türkiye’s main political opposition seriously undercuts the right to political participation which is an essential component of the country’s rule of law and human rights framework. It is the government’s boldest step to date towards a full consolidation of power and the eradication of political opposition. In an apparent politically motivated move, the removal of the Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu who was elected to represent 16 million residents in 2024 was set in motion by the cancellation of his university diploma. This was immediately followed by police arrest and a court order to detain him along with dozens of other municipal officials and two district mayors from his party. This came on the day he was selected as the Republican People’s Party’s candidate to run in the next election against President Erdoğan. The Turkish government’s attack on the main political opposition in Türkiye is a major escalation in the actions taken by the authorities for years to silence dissenting voices, among them Kurdish politicians, journalists, civil society activists, human rights defenders, lawyers and other real or perceived critics and opponents. We have for years been documenting and tracking the authorities’ crackdown on human rights, through expanding executive control and political influence over the judiciary, including the widespread misuse of criminal law, courts’ systematic acceptance of bogus indictments and willingness to issue detention decisions devoid of credible reasoning to justify the measure. The government has also actively instrumentalised Türkiye’s overly broad anti-terrorism legislation for these aims. The European Court of Human Rights has already determined in landmark judgments in the cases of politicians, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and human rights defender, Osman Kavala, that Turkish authorities have used detention as a measure to stifle the political opposition and the right to political participation and to silence a human rights defender. The authorities have flagrantly defied the Court’s judgments and countless Committee of Ministers’ decisions and resolutions in these cases, refusing to implement the rulings despite the exceptional measure of infringement proceedings in the case of Osman Kavala. Reflecting public outrage over the government’s stifling of lawful political activities and escalating crackdown on dissent, the detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu has sparked the largest protests Türkiye has seen in over a decade. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have taken to the streets in overwhelmingly peaceful protests. Police have used unlawful and unwarranted force against largely peaceful protesters in some cases possibly amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The detention of – and rushed mass trials against – many young people, students and journalists for allegedly participating in the protests, seeks to send a clear warning to anyone wishing to exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. EU journalists have not been spared with Joakim Medin, a Swedish journalist who travelled to Istanbul to cover the protests, detained on arrival where he remains. On April 30, Medin was convicted on the charge of “insulting the president,” and received an 11-month suspended sentence, in the first of two prosecutions against him in which the main evidence relates entirely to his legitimate journalistic activities over many years. Meanwhile Turkish news channels and social media platforms were pressured to suppress information about unfolding events, with several facing fines, suspensions and orders to block access to the social media accounts of journalists, civil society organizations, human rights defenders and women’s collectives. After the initial arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, social media users in Istanbul faced bandwidth reduction (internet throttling) for nearly two days, limiting access to platforms. Lawyers have in some cases been arrested while attempting to provide legal assistance or have faced serious obstacles to guaranteeing their clients’ defence and fair trial rights. In an alarming affront to the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law, on 21 March, an Istanbul court ruled to remove the entire executive board of the Istanbul Bar Association. This decision and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the Bar’s leadership, stem from a statement the Bar issued, calling for an investigation into the killing of two Kurdish journalists from Türkiye in northern Syria in December 2024. Taken together, this wide-ranging crackdown has led to a pervasive chilling effect on human rights and civil society and further eroded the right to political participation. We consider that the EU’s response to these developments has been overly mild and manifestly fails to match the scale and gravity of the clampdown unfolding in the country. Particularly, EU efforts to pursue the deepening of economic ties during the EU-Türkiye High-Level Economic Dialogue without insisting on human rights improvements upfront, has reinforced perceptions that business as usual with the EU continues amid the ongoing repression. Rather than offering a lifeline to those in Türkiye who continue to defend human rights, this approach risks emboldening the Turkish authorities while further isolating Türkiye’s already embattled civil society. Any steps to re-engage the authorities need therefore to be accompanied by robust denunciations of Türkiye’s human rights crackdown and concrete asks to reverse the government’s repressive policies. It is incumbent upon the EU – including in view of its legal obligations under Article 21 of the Treaty of the European Union to protect and promote human rights in its foreign policy – to take a strong position to denounce this major setback for the future of the rule of law, human rights and the right to political association and participation in Türkiye. We therefore urge you to: Issue an unequivocal public statement denouncing the hollowing out of the right to political association, participation and representation in Türkiye as well as the associated crackdown on lawyers, independent media, civil society and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Türkiye. Such statements should clearly signal that the deteriorating human rights situation will hamper relations based on shared values and mutual interests. Use forthcoming high-level engagements, such as the EU-Türkiye High-Level Dialogue on Trade to stress, both publicly and directly with the authorities, that the EU expects a reversal of negative rule of law and human rights trends, including the release of detained elected officials, members of civil society and media. Reiterate that human rights are a non-negotiable and integral part of the EU’s relations with Türkiye and that therefore tangible human rights improvements are essential to deepening bilateral trade and investment, including the modernisation of the EU-Türkiye Customs Union. At these high-level opportunities, publicly insist on Türkiye’s full implementation of ECtHR judgments, particularly in the cases of Selahattin Demirtaş, Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Osman Kavala, and on their immediate and unconditional release and full restoration of their rights, as well as that of other arbitrarily detained civic activists, lawyers, journalists, and human rights defenders, including dropping pending charges as well as vacating any convictions against them and fully restoring their civil and political rights. Call for independent, effective and prompt investigations into allegations of torture, and other ill-treatment, violations of fair trial rights and unlawful use of force by police during the protests and rehabilitation for victims. Ensure the EU delegation and member state missions in Türkiye step up their monitoring of trials of the protesters, journalists and civil society actors facing prosecution for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Increase support to civil society in Türkiye, including through more flexible and sustainable funding and more robust political support to human rights defenders and other actors facing unjust prosecution, restrictive legislation and closure proceedings. We remain at your disposal should you require any further information and thank you in advance for your continued action on human rights. Yours sincerely, AED-EDL European Democratic Lawyers AEJ Belgium - The International Association of European Journalists in Belgium Albanian Human Rights Group (AHRG) Amnesty International Araminta ARTICLE 19 Articolo 21 Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España Civil Rights Defenders Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Community Media Forum Europe Danish PEN Demokratische Jurist*innen Schweiz English PEN EuroMed Rights European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) European Democratic Lawyers European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) Fackförbundet ST Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos de España Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer Human Rights Watch (HRW) IFEX ILGA-Europe İnsan Haklari Derneği International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) International Press Institute (IPI) International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims Lawyers for Lawyers Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada LDH (Ligue des droits de l'Homme) Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens Liga voor Mensenrechten vzw Mensenrechten Zonder Grenzen Nederland National association Democratic Jurists Italy Netherlands Helsinki Committee Norwegian Helsinki Committee Omega Research Foundation Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa [OBCT] Ossigeno.info Österreichische Liga für Menschenrechte PEN International PEN Norway PEN Sweden Protection International REDRESS Reporters sans frontières (RSF) Society of Journalists (Warsaw) South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) Stockholm Center for Freedom Sveriges Författarförbund Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) TÜRKİYE: AVUKATLIK MESLEĞİNE YÖNELİK SALDIRILAR KABUL EDİLEMEZ April 14, 2025 Uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları toplumu, avukatların bağımsızlığını ve hukukun üstünlüğünü zayıflatmaya yönelik girişimleri kınıyor. Avukatlar, barolar ve insan hakları örgütlerinden oluşan uluslararası bir koalisyon bugün yayımladıkları ortak açıklamada, Türkiye yetkililerinin İstanbul Barosu’na, baro başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerine ve avukatlara karşı artan müdahalelerin, avukatlık mesleğinin bağımsızlığına ve hukukun üstünlüğüne yönelik bir saldırı olduğu konusunda uyarıda bulundu. Seçilmiş baro başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerinin görevden alınması 21 Mart 2025 tarihinde İstanbul 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, Avukatlık Kanunu’nun 77/5 Maddesi uyarınca İstanbul Barosu’nun seçilmiş yönetiminin görevden alınmasına karar verdi. Karar, kesinleşmesi halinde, baro başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerinin görevlerinden uzaklaştırılmasını ve yeniden seçim yapılmasını gerektiriyor. Bu girişim, avukatlık mesleğinin bağımsızlığını zayıflatmakta ve Türkiye’de temel adalet ilkelerini ve hukukun üstünlüğünü açıkça hiçe saymaktadır. Baro başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerine yönelik ceza soruşturması Buna paralel olarak, İstanbul Barosu Başkanı İbrahim Kaboğlu ve on yönetim kurulu üyesine, “basın yoluyla terör örgütü propagandası yapmak” ve “halkı yanıltıcı bilgiyi alenen yaymak” suçlamalarıyla dava açıldı ve savcılık avukatlar için 12 yıla kadar hapis ve siyasi yasak talep etti. Bu suçlamalar ve ilgili hukuk davası doğrudan, Baro’nun Aralık 2024’te gazeteciler Nazım Daştan ve Cihan Bilgin’in Suriye’de öldürülmesine ilişkin yaptığı, gazetecilerin ölümlerinin bağımsız olarak soruşturulması çağrısında bulunan açıklamasına dayanıyor. Bir meslek örgütünün, böyle ilkeli ve hak temelli bir müdahale nedeniyle ceza soruşturmasıyla karşı karşıya kalması, Türkiye’de insan hakları savunuculuğu yapan avukatların karşılaştığı ağır baskıları gözler önüne seriyor. Yönetim kurulu üyesinin tutuklanması İstanbul Barosu’nun yönetim kurulu üyelerinden avukat Fırat Epözdemir’in keyfi olarak tutuklanması da Baro yönetimini hedef alan yargı tacizinin bir diğer örneği. 23 Ocak 2025 tarihinde, Avrupa Konseyi’ne yaptığı savunuculuk ziyareti dönüşünde gözaltına alınan Epözdemir’e, Savcılık tarafından, 8 Nisan 2025 tarihli iddianame ile “terör örgütü üyeliği” ve “terör örgütü propagandası yapmak” suçlamaları isnat edildi. Epözdemir’in devam eden tutukluluğu ve yargılanması, Türkiye’de devletin politikalarına itiraz eden ve insan haklarını savunan avukatlara yönelik baskıların arttığını gösteriyor. Mart 2025 protestoları bağlamında avukatlara yönelik artan saldırılar İstanbul Belediye Başkanı Ekrem İmamoğlu’nun 19 Mart 2025 tarihinde gözaltına alınmasından bu yana, Türkiye ülke genelinde yaygın protestolara ve yüzlerce kişinin gözaltına alınmasına tanıklık ediyor. Bu kitlesel gözaltılara, hukuki destek sağlamak amacıyla müdahil olan avukatlar bizzat baskıların hedefi oldular. Evine gerçekleştirilen şafak baskınıyla gözaltına alınan eski İzmir Barosu Başkanı Özkan Yücel de dahil, İzmir ve İstanbul’da çok sayıda avukat, gözaltına alınan protestoculara destek olmaya çalışırken gözaltına alındı. Ekrem İmamoğlu’nun avukatı Mehmet Pehlivan da 28 Mart 2025 tarihinde gözaltına alındı ve daha sonra adli kontrol şartıyla serbest bırakıldı. Bu gözaltıların yanı sıra, gözaltındaki kişilerin müdafiliğini üstlenmek isteyen avukatlar da müvekkilleriyle iletişim kurmakta ve mesleki görevlerini yerine getirmekte ciddi engellerle karşılaştı. Birçok vakada avukatların, emniyette gözaltında tutulan müvekkillerine erişimleri engellendi veya müvekkilleriyle yalnızca, gizliliği ve etkili temsili olumsuz etkileyen kısıtlı koşullarda görüşmelerine izin verildi. Yapılan bildirimlere göre, avukatların kilit sorgu süreçlerinde mahkeme salonuna girmelerine izin verilmedi veya hakimlikteki ifadelerin kendileri hazır bulunmadan alındığı söylendi. Bazı durumlarda avukatların, gözaltındakilerin nerede tutulduğunu tespit etmeleri bile engellendi. Gözaltındaki kişilerin akıbeti ve nerede tutulduğunu kabul etmeyi, bildirmeyi veya doğrulamayı reddetmek, zorla kaybetme suçunun bir unsurudur. Türkiye yetkililerinin bu eylemleri, savunma hakkına doğrudan müdahale teşkil etmekte, adalete erişimi engellemekte ve barışçıl protestolara ve muhalif seslere verilen hukuki desteği kriminalize etmektedir. Bu müdahaleler, avukatlık mesleği üzerindeki baskıların tehlikeli bir biçimde arttığını ve adil yargılanma güvenceleri ile hukukun üstünlüğünün aşındığını göstermektedir. Çağrılar Bu artan saldırılar, insan haklarını ve hukukun üstünlüğünü korumak amacıyla oluşturulmuş usul güvencelerini ve mekanizmalarını hiçe sayan bir baskı modelini ortaya koymaktadır. Bunlar aynı zamanda, avukatlık mesleğini hedef alarak, avukatların ve meslek örgütlerinin, mesleki işlevlerini yerine getirirken oynadıkları rolü ve sahip oldukları hakları koruyan uluslararası standartları zayıflatma çabalarının bir örneğidir. Açıklamanın imzacıları olarak uluslararası toplumu şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: İstanbul Barosu Başkanı ve yönetim kurulu üyelerine yönelik tüm hukuk ve ceza davalarına derhal son verilmesi talep edilmelidir. Türkiye yetkililerinin bağımsız avukatlık mesleğini ve kurumlarını bastırmak için adalet sistemini kötüye kullanması ve hukukun üstünlüğüne olan kamu güvenini zayıflatması alenen kınanmalıdır. Av. Fırat Epözdemir’in ve yalnızca mesleki görevlerini yerine getirdikleri için tutuklanan diğer tüm avukatların derhal ve koşulsuz serbest bırakılması konusunda ısrarcı olunmalıdır. Türkiye yetkililerine İstanbul Barosu’nun sindirme, taciz veya misilleme olmadan, bağımsız bir biçimde faaliyet göstermesine uygun ortamı oluşturma çağrısı yapılmalıdır. Avrupa Konseyi, Birleşmiş Milletler ve Avrupa Birliği kuruluşları da dahil uluslararası mekanizmalara, Türkiye’de avukatlık mesleğinin bağımsızlığını, insan haklarını ve hukukun üstünlüğünü korumak için kararlı ve etkili adımlar atma çağrısı yapılmalıdır. İmzacılar (alfabetik sıra ile): Amnesty International Asociación Americana de Juristas (American Association of Jurists, AAJ) Berlin Bar Association Défense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders-Solidarity Lawyers, DSF-AS) Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, DAV) European Association of Criminal Bars (ECBA) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) Federation of European Bars (FBE) Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Geneva Bar Association Giuristi Democratici (Italian Democratic Lawyers) Human Rights Watch (HRW) Indian Association of Lawyers International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) Lawyers for Lawyers Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (European Association of Judges and Public Prosecutors, MEDEL) Milan Bar Association National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa) National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (Philippines) Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (Republican Lawyers' Association, RAV) The Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association The International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD) The New York City Bar Association Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen (Association of Democratic Lawyers, VDJ) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders ➤ Tam Açıklama JOINT STATEMENT BY THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY ON UNACCEPTABLE ATTACKS ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN TURKEY April 14, 2025 Turkey: Attacks on the Legal Profession Unacceptable International legal and human rights community condemns moves to undermine the independence of lawyers and the rule of law The escalating attacks by Turkish authorities on the Istanbul Bar Association, its leadership, and members of the legal profession are an affront to the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law, an international coalition of lawyers, bar associations and human rights organizations warned today. Removal of Elected Leadership On 21 March 2025, the Istanbul 2nd Assize Court issued a ruling to remove the elected leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association under Article 77/5 of the Attorneyship Law. The decision mandates the dismissal of the Bar’s president and executive board and orders new elections. This move undermines the independence of the legal profession and makes a mockery of the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law in Turkey. Criminal Proceedings Against Bar Leadership In parallel, Istanbul Bar President İbrahim Kaboğlu and ten executive board members have been charged with “making propaganda for a terrorist organisation through the press” and “publicly disseminating misleading information,” with the prosecution seeking up to 12 years’ imprisonment and political bans. These charges and the related civil proceedings stem directly from a public statement issued by the Bar regarding the killing of two journalists, Nazım Daştan and Cihan Bilgin, in Syria in December 2024, and calling for an independent investigation into their deaths. That a professional association is now facing criminal prosecution for such a principled, rights-based intervention illustrates the severe restrictions faced by legal professionals in Turkey who engage in human rights advocacy. Arbitrary Detention of Board Member The arbitrary detention of Istanbul Bar board member Fırat Epözdemir further exemplifies the judicial harassment targeting the Bar's leadership. Arrested on 23 January 2025, after returning from an advocacy visit to the Council of Europe, Epözdemir has been charged with alleged “membership in a terrorist organisation” and “making propaganda for a terrorist organisation” under an indictment dated 8 April 2025. His continued detention and prosecution reflect an intensifying crackdown on legal professionals in Turkey who challenge state policies and defend human rights. Escalating Attacks on Lawyers Amidst March 2025 Protests Since the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on 19 March 2025, Turkey has witnessed widespread protests and the detention of hundreds of people across the country. Lawyers responding to these mass arrests to provide legal assistance have themselves become targets of repression. In İzmir and İstanbul, a number of lawyers were arrested while attempting to support detained protesters, including the former Chair of the İzmir Bar Association, Özkan Yücel, who was detained in an early morning raid on his home. On 28 March 2025, Mehmet Pehlivan, a lawyer representing Ekrem İmamoğlu was also arrested and later released under a judicial control order. In addition to these arrests, lawyers seeking to represent those in custody faced serious obstacles trying to contact their clients and carry out their professional duties. In many cases, they were denied access to clients held in police custody or were only allowed to meet under restricted conditions that undermined confidentiality and effective representation. Reports indicate that lawyers were barred from entering courthouses during key questioning procedures, or were told hearings had taken place in their absence. In some instances, they were prevented from even confirming the whereabouts of those detained. Refusals to acknowledge, provide or confirm the fate or whereabouts of detained individuals is an element in the crime of an enforced disappearance. These actions by the Turkish authorities constitute a direct interference with the right to legal defence, impeding access to justice and further criminalising legal support for peaceful protest and dissent. They mark a dangerous intensification of pressure on the legal profession and an erosion of fair trial guarantees and the rule of law. Call to Action These escalating attacks reveal a pattern of repression trampling over human rights and due process safeguards and mechanisms established to protect the rule of law. They also exemplify efforts to target the legal profession, undermining international standards that protect the role and rights of lawyers and their professional associations in the exercise of their professional functions. We call upon the international community to: Demand the immediate cessation of all civil and criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association’s leadership and members. Publicly condemn the Turkish authorities’ misuse of the justice system to suppress independent legal professionals and institutions and undermine public confidence in the rule of law. Insist on the immediate and unconditional release of Fırat Epözdemir and all other lawyers detained solely for carrying out their professional duties. Call on the Turkish authorities to allow the Istanbul Bar Association to operate independently and without any intimidation, harassment or reprisals. Urge international mechanisms, including the Council of Europe, United Nations, and European Union bodies, to take robust and effective actions to uphold the independence of the legal profession, human rights and the rule of law in Turkey. Signatories (in alphabetical order): Amnesty International Asociación Americana de Juristas (American Association of Jurists, AAJ) Berlin Bar Association Défense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders-Solidarity Lawyers, DSF-AS) Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, DAV) European Association of Criminal Bars (ECBA) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) Federation of European Bars (FBE) Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Geneva Bar Association Giuristi Democratici (Italian Democratic Lawyers) Human Rights Watch (HRW) Indian Association of Lawyers International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) Lawyers for Lawyers Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (European Association of Judges and Public Prosecutors, MEDEL) Milan Bar Association National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa) National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (Philippines) Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (Republican Lawyers' Association, RAV) The Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association The International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD) The New York City Bar Association Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen (Association of Democratic Lawyers, VDJ) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 56 ULUSLARARASI HUKUK VE İNSAN HAKLARI KURUMU, İSTANBUL BAROSU YÖNETİMİNE YÖNELİK MÜDAHALELERİ KINADI VE ACİL HAREKETE GEÇİLMESİ ÇAĞRISINDA BULUNDU January 27, 2025 Uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları kurumları, savcılık yetkililerinin yakın zamanda İstanbul Barosu’na, özellikle de Baro Başkanı İbrahim Kaboğlu ve yönetim kuruluna karşı açtığı ceza soruşturmasından ve davadan derin kaygı duymaktadır. Bu eylemler, İstanbul Barosu’nun 21 Aralık 2024’te yayımladığı, 19 Aralık 2024 tarihinde Suriye’nin kuzeyinde, bölgedeki gelişmeleri takip ettikleri sırada öldürülen gazeteciler Nazım Daştan ve Cihan Bilgin’in ölümlerine dikkat çeken açıklamasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu açıklama, çatışma bölgelerinde gazetecilerin hedef alınmasının uluslararası insancıl hukukun ihlali olduğuna dikkat çekti ve olayla ilgili etkili bir soruşturma çağrısında bulundu. Açıklamanın ardından İstanbul Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı, baro yönetimi hakkında “terör örgütü propagandası yapmak” ve “halkı yanıltıcı bilgiyi alenen yaymak” suçlarından soruşturma başlattı. 14 Ocak 2025’te Savcılık bir girişimde daha bulunarak, Avukatlık Kanunu’nun 77(5) Maddesi uyarınca Baro Başkanı ve yönetim kurulunun görevlerine son verilmesi istemiyle dava açtı. Dava gerekçesinde, baronun açıklamasının kendisine verilen yetkileri aştığı ve resmi göreviyle uyuşmadığı öne sürüldü. Bu soruşturma ve dava, Türkiye’de insan haklarının güvence altına alınmasında ve hukukun üstünlüğünün korunmasında hayati rol oynayan bir kurum olan İstanbul Barosu’nun bağımsızlığına ve işleyişine doğrudan bir meydan okuma anlamına gelmektedir. İstanbul Barosu yönetim kurulu üyelerinden Fırat Epözdemir’in, 23 Ocak 2025’te, Avrupa Konseyi kurumlarına yaptığı savunuculuk ziyareti dönüşünde gözaltına alınması, bu kaygıları daha da derinleştirmiştir. 25 Ocak 2025’te Sulh Ceza Hakimliği, Sayın Epözdemir’in “terör örgütü üyeliği” ve “terör örgütü propagandası yapmak” suçlarından tutuklanmasına karar verdi. Bu karar, Türkiye’deki hukuk toplumu tarafından güvenilir gerekçelerden yoksun olduğu gerekçesiyle sert bir dille eleştirilmekte ve soruşturmanın İstanbul Barosu’nu hedef alan misilleme girişimlerinin bir parçası olabileceği algısını güçlendirmektedir. İstanbul Barosu’na yönelik bu girişimler, uluslararası insan hakları hukukuna ve hukuk mesleğini düzenleyen ilkelere açıkça aykırıdır. İfade Özgürlüğü İstanbul Barosu’nun yayımladığı açıklama, doğrudan Uluslararası Medeni ve Siyasal Haklar Sözleşmesi’nin 19. Maddesi ile Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 10. Maddesi'nde ve Avukatların Rolüne İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Temel İlkeleri’nin 23. İlkesi'nde yer verildiği üzere, koruma altındaki ifade özgürlüğü alanına girmektedir. Barolar da dahil meslek örgütleri, kamuoyunu ilgilendiren konularda, özellikle de bunlar hukukun üstünlüğünü ve insan haklarını ilgilendiren konular olduğunda görüş bildirme hak ve görevine sahiptir. Hukuk Mesleğinin Bağımsızlığı Avukatların Rolüne İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Temel İlkeleri’nin 16., 23. ve 24. ilkeleri, avukatların ve baroların, yetkililerin yersiz müdahalesine maruz kalmadan bağımsız bir şekilde faaliyet göstermesi gerektiğinin altını çizmektedir. Bağımsızlık ilkesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin, hukuk mesleğinin icra özgürlüğü hakkındaki 2000(21) Sayılı Tavsiye Kararı ile de güvence altındadır. Yetkililerin, bir baronun seçilmiş üyelerini yalnızca haklarını kullandıkları ve mesleki görevlerini yerine getirdikleri için yargılama ve görevden alma girişimleri, baroların bağımsızlığına yönelik birer saldırıdır; bu durum, hukuk profesyonellerinin yetkilerini kullanma becerilerine zarar verir, hukukun üstünlüğünü ve adil yargılanma hakkının gerçekleşmesini zayıflatma riski taşır. Savunmaya Karşı Misilleme Bu dava ve soruşturma, İstanbul Barosu’na karşı, hesap verebilirliği ve uluslararası hukuka bağlı kalınmasını savunmadaki meşru rolünü yerine getirdiği için yapılmış misillemelerdir. Bu girişimler, Avukatların Rolüne İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Temel İlkeleri’nin, avukatlara ve barolara karşı mesleki görevlerini yerine getirdikleri için misillemede bulunmayı açıkça yasaklayan Önsözü ile 16. ve 17. İlkeleri’ne aykırıdır. Bu tür adımlar, hukuk mesleğine yönelik kamu güvenini zedelemekte ve Türkiye’deki avukatlar ve barolar üzerinde caydırıcı bir etki yaratmaktadır. Çağrılar: Türkiye yetkililerini, şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: İstanbul Barosu yönetimini, mesleki görevlerini yetkileri doğrultusunda yerine getirdikleri için hedef alan tüm soruşturmalara ve kovuşturmalara acilen son verilmelidir. Fırat Epözdemir derhal ve koşulsuz serbest bırakılmalıdır. Türkiye’nin uluslararası hukuk uyarınca sahip olduğu, hukuk mesleğinin bağımsızlığını ve ifade özgürlüğü hakkını güvence altına alma yükümlülüklerine riayet edilmelidir. Baroların mesleki görevlerini müdahale veya yıldırma olmadan yerine getirebilmesi güvence altına alınmalıdır. Hakimlerin ve Avukatların Bağımsızlığına İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Özel Raportörü ve özel yetki sahibi diğer ilgili mercileri, şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: Türkiye Hükümeti’ne acilen, İstanbul Barosu’na yönelik girişimlerle ilgili kaygıları ifade eden bildirimler iletilmelidir. Tüm dünyada hukuk profesyonellerinin bağımsızlığını korumaya yönelik geniş çaplı çabalar kapsamında durum izlenmeli ve raporlanmalıdır. Avrupa Konseyi İnsan Hakları Komiseri ve Avrupa Hukuki İşbirliği Komitesi’ni, şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: İstanbul Barosu’na yönelik girişimler ve bunların Türkiye’nin AİHS kapsamındaki yükümlülüklerine uygunluğu hakkında acil bir soruşturma yürütülmelidir. Baroların bağımsız bir şekilde ve misilleme kaygısı olmadan faaliyet gösterebilmesi için Türkiye yetkilileri ile temasa geçilmelidir. Avrupa Birliği’ni, şu adımları atmaya çağırıyoruz: Türkiye yetkilileri ile kurulan temaslarda İstanbul Barosu’na yönelik girişimler kınanmalıdır. Türkiye’de insan hakları ve hukukun üstünlüğü ile ilgili tartışmalarda hukuk profesyonellerinin bağımsızlığının korunması temel bir unsur haline getirilmelidir. Uluslararası hukuk ve insan hakları kurumları, İstanbul Barosu ve Türkiye’de adalet, insan hakları ve hukukun üstünlüğü ilkelerini savunmaya devam eden tüm hukuk profesyonelleriyle dayanışma içindedir. Gelişmeleri dikkatle izlemeye devam edeceğiz ve Türkiye’de hukuk mesleğinin bağımsızlığını ve bütünlüğünü korumak için gerekli tüm tedbirleri savunmaya hazırız. İmzacılar (alfabetik sıraya göre): Amnesty International Arab Lawyers Association (UK) Arab Lawyers Union Asociación Americana de Juristas (Association of American Lawyers) Asociación de Derecho Penitenciario Rebeca Santamalia (Rebeca Santamalia Penitentiary Law Association, ASDEPRES) Associação Portuguesa de Juristas Democratas (Portuguese Association of Democratic Jurists, APJD) Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) Behatokia (Basque Observatory of Human Rights), Basque Country Berlin Bar Association (Germany) Center for Research and Elaboration on Democracy ( CRED) Commission Défense et Droits humains du Barreau de Marseille (Defense and Human Rights Commission of the Marseille Bar Association, CDDH) Conselho Regional do Porto da Ordem dos Advogados (Porto Regional Council of the Bar Association, Portugal)) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) Défense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders-Solidarity Lawyers, DSF-AS) Democratic Lawyers Association of Bangladesh (DLAB) Demokratische Jurist*innen Schweiz (Democratic Lawyers of Switzerland, DJS) Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, DAV) Droit-Solidarité (Law-Solidarity, DS) European Association of Criminal Bars (ECBA) European Democratic Lawyers (AED) Federation of European Bars (FBE) Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Frantz Fanon Foundation Geneva Bar Association (Switzerland) Giuristi Democratici (Italian Democratic Lawyers) Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers Human Rights Watch (HRW) IACTA Cooperativa de Abogadas de Barcelona (IACTA Barcelona Women Lawyers' Cooperative) Indian Association of Lawyers Institut des droits de l’Homme du barreau de Bruxelles (Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar, Belgium) International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) La Conférence des Avocats au Barreau de Paris (The Paris Bar Lawyers’ Conference) Lawyers Rights’ Watch Canada International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD) International Publishers Association (IPA) La Conférence des bâtonniers de France (The Conference of French Bar Associations) Lawyers for Lawyers Legal Team Italia London Legal Group Lyon Bar Association (France) Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) Marseille Bar Association (France) National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa) National Lawyers Guild International Committee New York City Bar Association (USA) Rennes Bar Association (France) Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (Republican Lawyers' Association, RAV) Socialist Lawyers Association of Ireland The Defence Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (Philippines) ➤ Tam Açıklama 56 INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS CONDEMN CRACKDOWN ON ISTANBUL BAR ASSOCIATION’S LEADERSHIP AND CALL FOR ACTION January 27, 2025 The international legal and human rights community is deeply concerned by prosecuting authorities’ recent criminal investigation and lawsuit against the Istanbul Bar Association, particularly its President, İbrahim Kaboğlu, and the executive board. These actions stem from a statement issued by the Bar Association on 21 December 2024, drawing attention to the deaths of journalists Nazım Daştan and Cihan Bilgin, killed on 19 December 2024 in northern Syria while monitoring developments in the region. The statement highlighted that the targeting of journalists in conflict zones constitutes a violation of International Humanitarian Law and called for an effective investigation into the incident. In response, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched a criminal investigation against the Bar’s leadership, citing allegations of "making propaganda for a terrorist organisation" and "publicly disseminating misleading information." On 14 January 2025, the Prosecutor’s Office escalated its actions by filing a lawsuit seeking the dismissal of the Bar Association’s president and executive board under Article 77(5) of the Turkish Attorneyship Law. The grounds for the lawsuit allege that the Bar’s statement exceeded its professional mandate and constituted conduct incompatible with its official role. This criminal investigation and lawsuit represent a direct challenge to the independence and functioning of the Istanbul Bar Association, an institution that plays a vital role in safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law in Turkey. The arrest of lawyer Fırat Epözdemir, an executive board member of the Bar Association, on 23 January 2025, upon his return from an advocacy visit to Council of Europe institutions has further deepened these concerns. On 25 January 2025, a judge ordered Mr. Epözdemir’s detention on remand on allegations of ‘membership in a terrorist organization’ and ‘making propaganda for a terrorist organization’. This decision has been strongly criticized by the legal community in Turkey as lacking credible grounds, and reinforces the perception that the investigation may be part of retaliatory actions targeting the Istanbul Bar. The actions taken against the Istanbul Bar Association are in stark violation of international human rights law and the principles governing the legal profession: Freedom of Expression The statement issued by the Istanbul Bar Association falls squarely within the protected realm of freedom of expression as outlined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as Principle 23 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Professional organisations, including bar associations, have a right and a duty to speak out on issues of public concern, particularly where they pertain to the rule of law and human rights. Independence of the Legal Profession Principles 16, 23, and 24 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers underscore that lawyers and bar associations must operate independently without undue interference from authorities. The principle of independence is also enshrined in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation (2000)21 on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer. The authorities' attempts to prosecute and dismiss elected members of a bar association simply for exercising their rights and fulfilling their professional duties constitute an attack on their independence, undermining the ability of legal professionals to carry out their mandate and risking the erosion of the rule of law and the realization of the right to a fair trial. Retaliation Against Advocacy The lawsuit and criminal investigation constitute reprisals against the Istanbul Bar Association for fulfilling its legitimate role in advocating for accountability and adherence to international law. These actions contravene the Preamble and Principles 16 and 17 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which explicitly prohibit retaliation against lawyers and bar associations for fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Such measures undermine public trust in the legal profession and create a chilling effect on lawyers and bar associations in Turkey. Calls for Action We call on Turkish authorities to: ● Immediately cease all investigations and legal proceedings targeting the Istanbul Bar Association’s leadership for exercising their professional duties and in line with their mandate. ● Release Mr. Epözdemir immediately and unconditionally. ● Respect Turkey’s obligations under international law to ensure the independence of the legal profession and the right to freedom of expression. ● Guarantee that bar associations can fulfil their professional duties without interference or intimidation. We urge the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and other relevant special mandate holders to: ● Issue an urgent communication to the Government of Turkey expressing concern about the actions against the Istanbul Bar Association. ● Monitor and report on the situation as part of broader efforts to safeguard the independence of legal professionals worldwide. We call on the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Committee on Legal Co-operation to: ● Conduct an immediate inquiry into the actions taken against the Istanbul Bar Association and their compliance with Turkey’s obligations under the ECHR. ● Engage with Turkish authorities to ensure that bar associations can operate independently and without fear of reprisal. We urge the European Union to: ● Condemn the actions against the Istanbul Bar Association in its communications with Turkish authorities. ● Make the protection of legal professionals’ independence a central element in its discussions on human rights and rule of law in Turkey. The international legal and human rights community stands in solidarity with the Istanbul Bar Association and all legal professionals in Turkey who continue to uphold the principles of justice, human rights, and the rule of law. We remain vigilant in monitoring developments and are prepared to advocate for all necessary measures to protect the independence and integrity of the legal profession in Turkey. Signatories (in alphabetical order): Amnesty International Arab Lawyers Association (UK) Arab Lawyers Union Asociación Americana de Juristas (Association of American Lawyers) Asociación de Derecho Penitenciario Rebeca Santamalia (Rebeca Santamalia Penitentiary Law Association, ASDEPRES) Associação Portuguesa de Juristas Democratas (Portuguese Association of Democratic Jurists, APJD) Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) Behatokia (Basque Observatory of Human Rights), Basque Country Berlin Bar Association (Germany) Center for Research and Elaboration on Democracy ( CRED) Commission Défense et Droits humains du Barreau de Marseille (Defense and Human Rights Commission of the Marseille Bar Association, CDDH) Conselho Regional do Porto da Ordem dos Advogados (Porto Regional Council of the Bar Association, Portugal)) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) Défense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders-Solidarity Lawyers, DSF-AS) Democratic Lawyers Association of Bangladesh (DLAB) Demokratische Jurist*innen Schweiz (Democratic Lawyers of Switzerland, DJS) Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, DAV) Droit-Solidarité (Law-Solidarity, DS) European Association of Criminal Bars (ECBA) European Democratic Lawyers (AED) Federation of European Bars (FBE) Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Frantz Fanon Foundation Geneva Bar Association (Switzerland) Giuristi Democratici (Italian Democratic Lawyers) Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers Human Rights Watch (HRW) IACTA Cooperativa de Abogadas de Barcelona (IACTA Barcelona Women Lawyers' Cooperative) Indian Association of Lawyers Institut des droits de l’Homme du barreau de Bruxelles (Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar, Belgium) International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) La Conférence des Avocats au Barreau de Paris (The Paris Bar Lawyers’ Conference) Lawyers Rights’ Watch Canada International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD) International Publishers Association (IPA) La Conférence des bâtonniers de France (The Conference of French Bar Associations) Lawyers for Lawyers Legal Team Italia London Legal Group Lyon Bar Association (France) Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL) Marseille Bar Association (France) National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa) National Lawyers Guild International Committee New York City Bar Association (USA) Rennes Bar Association (France) Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein (Republican Lawyers' Association, RAV) Socialist Lawyers Association of Ireland The Defence Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (Philippines) ➤ Full Statement İNSAN HAKLARI ÖRGÜTLERİ, AİHM'E KAOS GL/TÜRKİYE (BAŞVURU NO. 27507/23 VE 5797/22) DAVASINA İLİŞKİN ORTAK BİR ÜÇÜNCÜ TARAF GÖRÜŞÜ SUNDU December 18, 2024 Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği, Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi, Kadının İnsan Hakları Derneği, Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı ve Üniversiteli Kuir Araştırmaları ve LGBTİ+ Dayanışma Derneği Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne (AİHM) Kaos GL / Türkiye (Başvuru no. 27507/23 ve 5797/22) davasına ilişkin ortak bir üçüncü taraf görüşü sundu. Türkiye Hükümetine 5 Haziran 2024 tarihinde bildirilen iki başvurudan ilki 2016 yılında Ankara’da düzenlenmesi planlanan Onur Yürüyüşü’nün Valilik tarafından yasaklanmasına ilişkin iken ikincisi ise Valiliğin Kasım 2017 tarihinde ilan ettiği süresiz LGBTI+ etkinlik yasağını konu alıyor. Hükümete bu başvurularla ilgili AİHM tarafından yapılan bildirim, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 10 (ifade özgürlüğü), 11 (toplantı ve dernek kurma özgürlüğü), 13 (etkili başvuru hakkı) ve 14. maddelerinin (ayrımcılık yasağı) ihlal edilip edilmediğine yönelik sorular içeriyor. Sembolik öneme sahip bu iki başvuruyla ilgili olarak hazırlanan üçüncü taraf görüşü, bir yandan Türkiye’de LGBTI+’ların ve LGBTI+ hak savunucularının barışçıl toplantı ve gösteri yürüyüşü hakkına yönelik son dönemde dozu gittikçe artan sistematik ihlallere odaklanırken, bir yandan da idari yasakların ve kolluk kuvvetlerinin uygulamaların ayrımcı niteliğinin altını çiziyor. Görüşün hazırlanmasına katılan kurumlar, Türkiye’de toplantı ve gösteri yürüyüşü hakkına ilişkin mevzuatın Sözleşme standartları ile uyumlu olmadığını, LGBTI+’ların ve hak savunucularının toplantı ve etkinliklerinin, AİHM içtihadına aykırı bir şekilde, idari yasaklarla, kolluk kuvvetlerinin aşırı güç kullanımıyla ve yargısal tacizle engellendiğini ortaya koyuyor. Ayrıca bu ihlallere karşı etkili bir iç hukuk yolu bulunmadığına da dikkat çekiyor. Bunları yaparken de son yıllarda idarenin ve yargının uygulamalarından çarpıcı örnekler ve istatistikler sunuyor. Görüş, son olarak bu ihlalllerin yoğunlaşan bir şekilde LGBTI+’ları hedef almasının Hükümetin LGBTI+ karşıtı politikası ile bağlantısına dikkat çekip bunun ayrımcılık yasağı kapsamında değerlendirmesi gerekliliğini vurguluyor. ➤ Tam Açıklama JOINT NGO STATEMENT: OSMAN KAVALA MARKS 7 YEARS BEHIND BARS November 01, 2024 NGOs Intervene in the Case of Wrongly Detained Rights Defender Awaiting New European Court Ruling Türkiye’s continued unlawful detention of the human rights defender Osman Kavala is a result of prosecutors and courts effectively operating under the political control of the government, three human rights organizations, including Turkey Litigation Support Project, said in a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights regarding his case. The groups called for Kavala’s immediate release and for his conviction to be overturned, to give effect to the binding judgements of the European Court. Kavala, who as of November 1, 2024, has spent seven years behind bars, was convicted on baseless charges of attempting to overthrow the government following a manifestly unfair trial. He remains in prison despite two binding judgements from the European Court holding that his detention is arbitrary and serves political purposes. Kavala is serving a life sentence without parole and four others convicted with him are serving prison terms of 18 years for their alleged roles in the 2013 mass protests triggered by an urban transformation plan around Istanbul’s Gezi Park. In January, Kavala submitted a new application to the European Court, alleging that there had been multiple further violations of his rights since the court’s 2019 ruling, which found that he had been detained without reasonable suspicion and that his detention was politically motivated to silence him. In this recent application, Kavala’s lawyers focus on his continuing unlawful detention and contend that, taken together, multiple violations of Kavala’s right to a fair trial, and to freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as violation of the principle of legality, demonstrate that the Turkish authorities have continued to pursue the political aim of silencing and punishing Kavala as a human rights defender. They also contend that the proceedings against him and life sentence without parole amount to a violation of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. The European Court is expected to issue a judgment in the coming months. The European Court has accepted the Turkey Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists as intervenors in the case. On September 16, the groups submitted a third-party intervention to provide further relevant information and context for the court to consider as it adjudicates Kavala’s application. The submission focuses on a well-documented pattern of conduct in Türkiye designed to circumvent the implementation of European Court judgments in politically sensitive cases, notably those involving perceived dissidents. The rights groups also point to the following features of the domestic system: the capture of the judiciary by the ruling political parties; the lack of independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, which has become a mechanism for consolidating undue influence over the judiciary; serious concerns as regards the independence and effectiveness of the Turkish Constitutional Court; and persistent defiance toward European Court judgments and standards in its caselaw. ➤ Full Statement OSMAN KAVALA (NO. 2) BAŞVURUSUNA 3. TARAF GÖRÜŞÜ SUNAN HAK ÖRGÜTLERİNDEN AÇIKLAMA: OSMAN KAVALA'NIN DEMİR PARMAKLIKLAR ARDINDAKİ 7. YILI November 01, 2024 Hukuksuz olarak Hapiste Tutulan İnsan Hakları Savunucusu Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin Yeni Kararını Bekliyor Aralarında Türkiye Dava Destek Projesinin de bulunduğu üç insan hakları örgütü, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'ne Kavala'nın davasıyla ilgili olarak sundukları üçüncü taraf görüşünde, insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala'nın Türkiye'de hukuka aykırı olarak hapiste tutulmaya devam etmesinin, savcılıkların ve mahkemelerin fiilen yürütmenin siyasi kontrolü altında çalışmalarının bir sonucu olduğunu belirtti. Örgütler, Kavala'nın derhal serbest bırakılması ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin bağlayıcı kararlarının uygulanarak, hakkındaki mahkumiyet kararının kaldırılması çağrısında bulundu. 1 Kasım 2024 itibariyle cezaevindeki yedinci yılını dolduran Kavala, açıkça adil olmayan bir yargılama sonucunda, hükümeti devirmeye teşebbüs gibi mesnetsiz bir suçtan hüküm giymişti. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin keyfi ve siyasi saiklerle hapiste tutulduğuna dair verdiği iki bağlayıcı karara rağmen Kavala hala cezaevinde. 2013’te İstanbul Gezi Parkı’ndaki kentsel dönüşüm planına karşı yapılan kitlesel protestolarda oynadığı iddia edilen rol sebebiyle ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezasına çarptırılan Kavala ile birlikte hüküm giyen diğer dört hak savunucusuna da 18’er yıl hapis cezası verilmişti. Kavala, Ocak ayında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne yeni bir başvuru yaparak, Strazburg Mahkemesinin 2019’da verdiği kendisini susturmak amacıyla siyasi saiklerle ve makul şüphe olmaksızın hapiste tutulduğunu saptayan kararından bu yana birçok başka hak ihlaline maruz kaldığını ileri sürdü. Bu son başvuruda Kavala'nın avukatları, başvurucunun hukuka aykırı bir şekilde cezaevinde tutulmaya devam etmesine odaklanarak, Kavala'nın adil yargılanma hakkı ile ifade, toplanma ve örgütlenme özgürlüklerine yönelik çok sayıda ihlalle birlikte, yasallık ilkesinin de ihlal edildiğini, bunun da Türkiye makamlarının Kavala'yı bir insan hakları savunucusu olarak susturmak ve cezalandırmak gibi siyasi bir saik gütmeyi sürdürdüğünü gösterdiğini iddia ediyorlar. Ayrıca, Kavala aleyhindeki yargılamaların ve ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapis cezasına çarptırılmış olmasının, insanlık dışı ve aşağılayıcı muamele ve işkence yasağının ihlali anlamına geldiğini ileri sürüyorlar. Avrupa İnsan Hakları mahkemesinin kararını önümüzdeki aylarda vermesi bekleniyor. Strazburg’daki mahkeme Türkiye Dava Destek Projesi, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonunun davaya üçüncü taraf görüşü sunma taleplerini kabul etti. Örgütler, Kavala'nın başvurusunu karara bağlarken Mahkeme'nin göz önünde bulundurması için ek bilgi vermek ve bağlama ilişkin açıklamalar yapmak amacıyla 16 Eylül'de bir üçüncü taraf görüşü sundular. Sunulan görüş, Türkiye'de, özellikle muhalif olarak algılanan kişileri ilgilendiren siyasi davalarda Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarını uygulamaktan kaçınmak amacıyla özellikle tasarlanmış ve bu amaçla kullanılan usule iyi belgelendirilmiş örnekler ışığında odaklanıyor. İnsan hakları örgütleri ayrıca ulusal sistemin şu özelliklerine de dikkat çekiyorlar: yargının iktidardaki siyasi partiler tarafından ele geçirilmiş olması; Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulunun bağımsızlığını yitirerek yargı üzerinde uygulanan hukuk dışı etkinin pekiştirilmesi amacıyla kullanılan bir mekanizmaya dönüşmüş olması; Anayasa Mahkemesinin bağımsızlığı ve etkinliğine ilişkin ciddi kaygılar; Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin kararlarının ve içtihatlarında yer alan standartların ısrarla hiçe sayılması. ➤ Tam Açıklama ULUSLARARASI HAK ÖRGÜTLERİNDEN BM ÖZEL RAPORTÖRLERİNE TAHİR ELÇİ DAVASINDA ETKİLİ SORUŞTURMA YÜRÜTÜLMEMESİNE DİKKAT ÇEKEN ACİL MÜDAHALE İSTEMLİ İKİNCİ MEKTUP June 10, 2024 Türkiye, tarafsız ve bağımsız bir mahkeme tarafından (Tahir Elçi'nin ailesinin usuli haklarına saygı göstererek) adil bir yargılama yapılmasının ve Tahir Elçi'nin ölümünden sorumlu olan herkesin hesap vermesinin ve uygun cezaları almasının sağlaması konusunda uluslararası hukuk yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmelidir. Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, 29 diğer hukuk ve insan hakları kurumu ile birlikte BM Özel Raportörlerine bugün Tahir Elçi’nin 28 Kasım 2015’de öldürülmesi sonrası Türkiye tarafından etkili bir soruşturma ve yargı süreci işletilmesi yükümlülüklerinin devam eden ihlaline işaret eden bir mektup daha gönderdi (İngilizce mektuba buradan, Türkçe’sine buradan ulaşabilirsiniz). Mektup BM Hakimlerin ve Avukatların Bağımsızlığı Özel Raportörü, İnsan Hakları Savunucularının Durumu Özel Raportörü, Yargısız ve Keyfi İnfazlar Özel Raportörü, İfade Özgürlüğünün Korunması ve Geliştirilmesi Özel Raportörü, Terörle Mücadele Edilirken İnsan Haklarının Korunması Özel Raportörü ve Azınlık Hakları Özel Raportörlerine gönderildi. Üç polis memurunun yargılandığı ve Diyarbakır 10. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesinde görülen davada, Nisan 2024’te Diyarbakır Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı dosyaya esas hakkında görüşlerini sundu ve sanık polis memurlarının beraatini etti. Bu, soruşturma ve yargılama sürecinde Elçi ailesine ve avukatlarına yönelen çok sayıda ciddi hak ihlali ile bir arada değerlendirildiğinde, hayatını insan haklarının korunmasına ve cezasızlık ile mücadeleye adayan Tahir Elçi’nin öldürülmesinin de cezasızlık kalkanı ile kapatılmakta olduğu kaygısını güçlendiriyor. Mektup, çoğunluğu aynı olan kurumlarca BM Özel Raportörlerine gönderilen benzer talepli Mart 2021’de tarihli mektuptaki analizlerin yanında Tahir Elçi'nin öldürülmesi olayına ilişkin soruşturma ve dava sürecinde devam eden eksikliklerin ve kusurların detaylı bir değerlendirmesine yer veriyor. İmzacı kurumlar Türkiye’nin bu soruşturma ve dava sürecinde uyması gereken uluslararası insan hakları hukuku yükümlülüklerinin altını çiziyor ve BM Özel Raportörlerden bu dava konusunda Türkiye makamları nezdinde aşağıdaki adımların atılması için çalışmalar yürütmelerini talep ediyor: Davaya bakan Diyarbakır 10. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi, yaşam hakkı kapsamında, tüm sorumluların yargı önüne çıkarılmasını ve Elçi'nin öldürülmesinden dolayı uygun cezalara mahkum edilmesini sağlama yükümlülüğünü yerine getirmeli ve diğer hususların yanı sıra, üst düzey yetkililerin astlarının ihlalleriyle ilgili yasal sorumluluklarını göz önünde bulundurmalıdır; Bu amaçla, soruşturmadaki ciddi eksikliklerin yanı sıra davaya müdahil olan savcılar ve güvenlik güçleri hakkındaki ciddi işkence ve kötü muamele iddiaları ışığında mahkeme, Tahir Elçi'nin ailesinin cinayeti aydınlatabilecek önemli delil ve tanıklara ilişkin taleplerini dikkate almalıdır; Yargı makamları, Elçi ailesinin avukatlarına dinlenilme ve talepte bulunma konusunda makul imkânlar tanınması ve Elçi ailesine ya da avukatlarına karşı düşmanca görünen bir tutumdan kaçınılması da dâhil olmak üzere, bu mektupta tespit edilen ve davada mağdurların haklarını zedeleyen uygunsuz önyargı ve ciddi usul ihlallerini gidermek için gerekli tüm adımları atmalıdır; Tahir Elçi'nin mesleki faaliyetleri ışığında mahkeme, Elçi'nin öldürülmesinde olası bir siyasi saik olup olmadığını, ilgili makamların Elçi'yi korumak için yeterli tedbirleri alıp almadığını ve belirli devlet yetkililerinin olaya karışmış olup olmadığını araştırmalıdır; Savcıların davadaki tanıklara işkence ve kötü muameleye karıştığını iddia eden çok ciddi iddialar, bağımsız ve tarafsız bir yargı organı tarafından incelenmeli ve iddiaların itibar görmesi halinde, savcılar hakkında kovuşturma başlatılmalı, Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu tarafından ilgililer hakkında disiplin soruşturması başlatılmalı ve ilgili deliller Diyarbakır 10. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi nezdindeki dosyadan çıkartılmalıdır; Elçi'nin ailesi için; AİHM, BM Avukatların Rolüne İlişkin Temel İlkeleri ve Minnesota Protokolü de dahil olmak üzere Türkiye'nin uluslararası yükümlülükleri uyarınca, kendilerinin ve yakınlarının maruz kaldığı ihlallerin uygun bir şekilde giderilmesi sağlanmalıdır. BM mektubunun yanı sıra, 30’un üzerinde uluslararası kurum bu talepleri tekrar eden ortak bir çağrıya imza attı (açıklamanın Türkçesine buradan ulaşabilirsiniz). BM mektubunun imzacısı kurumlar şunlar: Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, TLSP); Almanya Barosu (Deutscher Anwaltverein, German Bar Association, DAV); Amerikan Hukukçular Derneği (American Association of Jurists, Asociación Americana de Juristas, AAJ); Avrupa Baro ve Hukuk Toplulukları Konseyi (the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, CCBE); Avrupa Barolar Federasyonu (the European Bars Federation, FBE); Avrupalı Demokrat Avukatlar (European Democratic Lawyers, AED); Avukatlar için Avukatlar (Lawyers for Lawyers); Avukatlara Saldırılar İzleme Komitesi (Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers); Bangladeş Demokratik Avukatlar Derneği (Democratic Lawyers Association of Bangladesh, DLAB); Brüksel Barosu (Ordre des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles); Brüksel Barosu - İnsan Hakları Enstitüsü (Institut des droits de l’homme du barreau de Bruxelles); Cumhuriyetçi Avukatlar Derneği, Almanya (the Republican Lawyers Association/Republikanische Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein, RAV, Germany); Demokrasi ve Dünyada İnsan Hakları için Avrupalı Hukukçular Derneği (European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, ELDH); Demokratik Avukatlar Derneği, Almanya (Association of Democratic Lawyers/Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen, VDJ, Germany); Demokratik Avukatlar Uluslararası Derneği (International Association of Democratic Lawyers, IADL); Halkın Avukatları Ulusal Birliği, Filipinler (National Union of People’s Lawyers, Philippines, NUPL); Halkın Avukatları Uluslararası Derneği (International Association of People's Lawyers, IAPL); Halkın Avukatları Uluslararası Derneği - Avustralya Şubesi (International Association of People's Lawyers, Australian Branch); Hindistan Avukatlar Derneği (Indian Association of Lawyers); İngiltere ve Galler Barosu İnsan Hakları Komitesi (Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, BHRC); İngiltere ve Galler Hukuk Topluluğu (the Law Society of England and Wales); İtalyan Demokratik Hukukçular (Italian Democratic Lawyers/Giuristi Democratici); Nantes Barosu, Fransa (Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Nantes); Rennes Barosu, Fransa (Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Rennes); Rotterdam Barosu, Hollanda (Rotterdam Bar Association, the Netherlands); Seine-Saint Denis Barosu, Fransa (the Bar Association of Seine-Saint Denis, France); Sınır Tanımayan Savunma - Avukat Dayanışması, Fransa (Défense sans frontière avocats solidaires/Defence Without Borders - Lawyers in Solidarity, DSF-AS, France); Tehlikedeki Avukatlar için Uluslararası Gözlemevi (International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger, OIAD); Tehlikedeki Avukatlar İzleme, İtalya Ceza Baroları Birliği (Osservatorio Avvocati Minacciati, UCPI, Observatory Endangered Lawyers - Italian Union Of Criminal Chambers); ve Uluslararası Barolar Derneği İnsan Hakları Enstitüsü (the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, IBAHRI). Ortak açıklamaya bu kurumların yanında İnsan Hakları Savunucuları Gözlemevi (Observatory Human Right Defenders); Levros Hukuk Merkezi (Legal Centre Lesvos); Lyon Barosu, Fransa; Turin Barosu, İtalya (Turin Bar Association, Italy); ve Uygulamada İnsan Hakları (Human Rights in Practice) katıldı. URGENT ACTION LETTER TO THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON TURKEY'S CONTINUING FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE KILLING OF MR. TAHIR ELÇİ June 3, 2024 The Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP), along with 29 other lawyers’ and human rights organizations, has sent a letter (available here) to the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs regarding the killing of human rights lawyer and then-chair of the Diyarbakır Bar Association, Tahir Elçi on November 28, 2015, and the continuing lack of an effective investigation into his death. Ahead of the next hearing in on June 12, 2024, expected to be the last, in the criminal trial of those accused of killing lawyer Tahir Elçi, the oganisations urge the Special Rapporteurs once again to request the Turkish authorities to ensure a fair trial by an impartial and independent tribunal, respecting the procedural rights of Tahir Elçi’s family, as well as to ensure that all those responsible for Tahir Elçi’s death are held accountable and serve adequate sentences. The letter is addressed to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism; and Special Rapporteur on minority issues. The mandate holders are invited to call on the Turkish authorities to ensure: i. The court hearing the case complies with its obligation, under the right to life, to ensure that all those responsible are brought to justice and serve appropriate sentences for the killing of Mr. Elçi, and considering, inter alia, the legal responsibility of superior officials for violations by their subordinates; ii. To this end, in light of the severe shortcomings in the investigation as well as serious allegations of torture and ill-treatment by prosecutors and security forces involved in the case, the court take into account the requests by Tahir Elçi’s family concerning important evidence and witnesses in the case capable of elucidating the killing; iii. Judicial authorities take all necessary steps to redress the improper bias and serious procedural breaches identified in this letter, which have undermined the victims’ rights in the case, including by giving the Elçi family’s lawyers reasonable opportunities to be heard and to make requests and refraining from an attitude appearing hostile to the Elçi family or its lawyers; iv. In light of Tahir Elçi’s professional activities, the court explores whether there was a possible political motive for his murder, whether the relevant authorities have taken adequate measures to safeguard Mr. Elçi and whether certain State officials could have been involved; v. The very serious complaints alleging prosecutors’ involvement in the torture and ill-treatment of witnesses in the case is examined by an independent and impartial judicial body and in case of a credible claim, a criminal proceeding to be instigated against them, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to start a disciplinary proceeding against those involved and the related evidence is excluded from the file before the Diyarbakır 10th Assize Court; vi. Mr. Elçi’s family is provided with appropriate redress for the violations they and their loved one have suffered in accordance with the international obligations of Turkey, including under the ECHR, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the Minnesota Protocol. The letter was endorsed by the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, American Association of Jurists (Asociación Americana de Juristas, AAJ), Association of Democratic Lawyers (Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen, VDJ, Germany), Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC), Bruxelles Bar Association (Ordre des avocats du Barreau de Bruxelles), Bruxelles Bar Association - Human Rights Institute (Institut des droits de l’homme du barreau de Bruxelles), Defence Without Borders - Lawyers in Solidarity (Défense sans frontière avocats solidaires, DSF-AS, France), Democratic Lawyers (Giuristi Democratici, Italy), Democratic Lawyers Association of Bangladesh (DLAB), European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), European Democratic Lawyers (AED), German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein, DAV), Indian Association of Lawyers, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), International Association of People's Lawyers, International Association of People's Lawyers-Australian Branch, International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD), Lawyers for Lawyers, Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers, Nantes Bar Association - France, National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL, the Philippines), Observatory Endangered Lawyers - Italian Union of Criminal Chambers (Osservatorio Avvocati Minacciati, UCPI), Rennes Bar Association (Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Rennes, France), Rotterdam Bar Association - the Netherlands, Seine-Saint Denis Bar Association - France, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), the European Bars Federation (FBE), the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), the Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW), and the Republican Lawyers Association (Republikanische Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein, RAV, Germany). Joined by Human Rights in Practice, Legal Centre Lesvos, the Lyon Bar Association, the Observatory for Human Rights Defenders, and the Turin Bar Association, the organizations also released a joint public statement (see here) calling for for justice for Tahir Elçi.

TLSP, son on yılda Türkiye’de yaşanan demokratik gerileme ve devletin kurumsal yapısının aşınmasıyla bağlantılı sistematik insan hakları ihlallerine karşı yürütülen hukuki mücadele ve hak savunuculuğu faaliyetlerini desteklemektedir. TÜRKİYE: İSTANBUL BAROSU YÖNETİMİNE İSNAT EDİLEN TEMELSİZ SUÇLAMALAR DÜŞÜRÜLMELİDİR 38 imzacı örgüt ceza yargılamalarının kötüye kullanılmasına derhal son vermeye ve suçlamaları düşürmeye çağırdı. Fotograf: İbrahim Kaboğlu / X our work PROJE HAKKINDA. TLSP, son on yılda Türkiye’de yaşanan demokratik gerileme ve devletin kurumsal yapısının aşınmasıyla bağlantılı sistematik insan hakları ihlallerine karşı yürütülen hukuki mücadele ve hak savunuculuğu faaliyetlerini desteklemektedir. Bu ihlaller; yargı bağımsızlığına yönelik yapısal tehditlerden, sivil alanın daraltılmasına, terörle mücadele mevzuatının keyfi ve orantısız kullanımından, eleştirel görüş ve aktörlerin hedef alınmasına kadar uzanan geniş bir yelpazeyi kapsamaktadır. Proje; dava avukatları, insan hakları savunucuları, sivil toplum kuruluşları ve uluslararası örgütlerle işbirliği içinde çalışarak, stratejik davalamayı güçlendirmeyi, hak ihlaline uğrayan kişiler için etkili hukuki giderim yollarını geliştirmeyi ve bölgesel ile uluslararası insan hakları mekanizmalarıyla etkileşimi derinleştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. TLSP, 2018 yılında kurulmuş olup Middlesex Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi bünyesinde faaliyet göstermektedir “Türkiye’de hukukun üstünlüğü, insan hakları ve demokrasi krizine yönelik stratejik hukuki mücadele desteği” Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (TLSP), akademisyenleri, insan hakları hukukçularını ve araştırmacıları bir araya getiren; Türkiye’de giderek derinleşen hukukun üstünlüğü, insan hakları ve demokrasi krizine karşı hukuki mücadele ve hak savunuculuğu yoluyla hukuki hesap verebilirliği güçlendirmeyi amaçlayan, işbirliğine dayalı ve bağımsız bir girişimdir.. READ MORE who are we EKİBİMİZ. Prof. Phillip Leach Proje Eş-Sorumlusu Dr. Saniye Karakas Kıdemli Hukuk Danışmanı Róisín Pillay Proje Eş-Sorumlusu Dr. Beril Onder Proje Avukatı Helen Duffy Eski Proje Eş-Sorumlusu Nina Keese Proje Avukatı Ayse Bingol Demir Proje Direktörü statements GÜNCEL ÇALIŞMALAR & HABERLER. HABERLER. AÇIKLAMALAR. DEVAMINI OKU. Türkiye: Adil ve Kalıcı Barış İçin Adalet Reformları Kilit Öneme Sahiptir; TBMM Komisyonu, Değişim İçin Cesur Önerilerde Bulunmalı Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü ve Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu, bugün yaptıkları ortak açıklamada, Türkiye’deki partiler arası parlamento komisyonunun, görev ve yetkileri kapsamında Kürtler ve ülkedeki tüm diğer topluluklar için insan haklarını, adaleti ve hukukun üstünlüğünü güvence altına alacak somut hukuki ve kurumsal reformlar önermesi gerektiğini belirtti. Anılan kuruluşlar, komisyona kalıcı ve hak temelli bir barışı mümkün kılacak reformlara öncelik vermesi çağrısında bulunan, birlikte kaleme aldıkları, yazılı bir brifing sundu. Umut Hakkı Tanınmalı: Gurban Grubu Kararları AK Bakanlar Komitesi Gündeminde Bakanlar Komitesi’nin 15–17 Eylül 2025 tarihli İnsan Hakları toplantısı öncesinde, Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (TLSP), Demokrasi ve Dünyada İnsan Hakları için Avrupalı Avukatlar Derneği (ELDH), Demokrasi ve Uluslararası Hukuk Derneği (MAF-DAD) ve Londra Hukuk Grubu (LLG) Komite’ye Türkiye’de yapılması gerekenlere dair önerilerde bulunan bir Kural 9.2 bildirimi sundu. DEVAMINI OKU. “Seçimlerden Altı Ay Sonra – Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Alandaki Rolü” TLSP Direktörü Ayşe Bingöl Demir’in Falling Walls Science Summit 2023 kapsamında düzenlenen “Seçimlerden Altı Ay Sonra – Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Alandaki Rolü” başlıklı yuvarlak masa toplantısına katılımı, Kasım 2023, Berlin/Almanya. 06 Kasım, 2025 Türkiye: Adil ve Kalıcı Barış için Adalet Reformları Kilit Önemde 26 Haziran 2025 Türkiye: Tutuklu Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanının Avukatı da Tutuklandı 14 Nisan 2025 Türkiye: Avukatlık Mesleğine Yönelik Saldırılar Kabul Edilemez 27 Ocak 2025 56 Uluslararası Hukuk ve İnsan Hakları Kurumu, İstanbul Barosu Yönetimine Yönelik Müdahaleleri Kınadı ve Acil Harekete Geçilmesi Çağrısında Bulundu 18 Aralık 2024 İnsan Hakları Örgütleri, AİHM’e Kaos GL/Türkiye (Başvuru No. 27507/23 ve 5797/22) Davasına İlişkin Ortak Bir Üçüncü Taraf Görüşü Sundu 01 Kasım, 2024 Osman Kavala (No. 2) başvurusuna 3. taraf görüşü sunan hak örgütlerinden açıklama: Osman Kavala'nın Demir Parmaklıklar Ardındaki 7. Yılı BİZE ULAŞIN. Stratejik hukuki mücadele ve davalama alanlarında pratik deneyim kazanmak ve çalışmalarımıza katkı sunmak isteyen stajyerleri yıl boyunca memnuniyetle kabul ediyoruz. Stajyerler, devam eden faaliyetlerimize destek olmakta, güncel dava çalışmalarına katılmakta ve ekibimiz ile ortaklarımız arasında yürütülen işbirlikçi tartışma süreçlerine dâhil olmaktadır. Bizimle çalışmakla ilgileniyorsanız, lütfen özgeçmişinizi ve kısa bir motivasyon mektubunuzu gönderiniz. Middlesex Üniversitesi, The Burroughs, Hendon, Londra NW4 4BT, Birleşik Krallık info@turkeylitigationsupport.com Email İsim Başlık Teşekkürler. İLET

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL MONITORING BODIES * NGO REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS COMMENTARY Freedom House FREEDOM HOUSE - TURKEY PROFILE International Commission of Jurists JUSTICE SUSPENDED: ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IN TURKEY Amnesty International WEATHERING THE STORM: DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKEY'S CLIMATE OF FEAR Amnesty International NO END IN SIGHT: PURGED PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS DENIED A FUTURE IN TURKEY Human Rights Joint Platform IHoP - UPDATED SITUATION REPORT- STATE OF EMERGENCY IN TURKEY 21 JULY 2016 – 20 MARCH 2018 Human Rights Joint Platform IHoP - IS THE STATE OF EMERGENCY INQUIRY COMMISSION, ESTABLISHED BY EMERGENCY DECREE 685, AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY?