Search Results

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.

Strategic Litigation Implementation Monitoring & Advocacy Research Dialogue & Exchange Commentary 1/1 Through commentary, we provide timely, critical and legally grounded analysis of developments affecting human rights, the rule of law and judicial independence in Türkiye. COMMENTARY TANER KILIÇ (NO. 2) V. TURKEY (APP NO. 208/8) The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment in the ground-breaking case of Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey (no. 208/8) on 31 May 2022. The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists submitted a joint third party intervention which concerns the pre-trial detention of Mr. Taner Kılıç, a respected human rights lawyer and former chair –(and currently honorary chair) of Amnesty International Turkey, on account of his activities as a human rights defender (HRD). In its long-awaited judgment, the Court deliberates on some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today. These include the excessive and widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression of HRDs, the abusive resort to criminal law against legitimate activities protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and more particularly the arbitrary application of the anti-terrorism legislation against HRDs, with wide-reaching implications for public debate, participation in public affairs and the protection of human rights in Turkey and beyond. In the Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey judgment, the Court found a violation of Articles 5§1 (lack of reasonable suspicion justifying initial and continued pre-trial detention), 5§3 (failure to provide reasons for decisions concerning pre-trial detention), 5§5 (lack of compensation for unjustified pre-trial detention) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Firstly, the Court found there had been a violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention on account of the detention of Mr. Kılıç despite the lack of reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, both on the date when he was placed in pre-trial detention and after his detention was extended. Mr. Kılıç had been arrested in June 2017 on suspicion of belonging to the organisation FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Two sets of criminal proceedings against him -which were later joined before an Istanbul Assize Court- accused him of being a member of multiple terrorist organisations. The putative basis was his alleged use of the ByLock messaging service and various action related to the defence of human rights. As regards to the alleged use of the ByLock messaging service, the Court referred to its conclusions in the Akgün v. Turkey case (no. 19699/18, §§ 159-185, 20 July 2021), in which it found that, in principle, the mere fact of downloading or using a means of encrypted communication or the use of any other method of safeguarding the private nature of exchanged messages could not in itself amount to evidence capable of satisfying an objective observer that illegal or criminal activity was taking place (paragraphs 106-109). With regard to the other grounds used by the domestic authorities as evidence of criminal activity, the Court noted in particular that the second set of criminal proceedings against Mr. Kılıç relied on facts which appeared to be ordinary peaceful and legal acts of a HRD (paragraphs 110-113). In conclusion, the Court considered that the evidence cited by the national judges had not met the standard of “reasonable suspicion” that was required by Article 5 of the Convention, that the interpretation and application of the legislative provisions relied on by the domestic authorities had been unreasonable, and that the applicant’s detention was therefore arbitrary (paragraphs 114-116). Secondly, in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence, the Court concluded that the initial detention order against the applicant and the subsequent decisions extending his detention lacked sufficient reasoning, which constituted a violation of Article 5§3 (paragraphs 117-120). Moreover, it held that there had been a violation of Article 5§5 on the ground that the Turkish law did not provide an enforceable right to compensation with respect to the unlawful detention. Thirdly, in its assessment under Article 10, which reflected the third party intervention by the NGOs, the Court recalled the importance of the protection and the role of HRDs for the development and realisation of democracy and human rights (paragraph 145). It considered that the principles developed by the Court regarding the detention of journalists and media professionals could be applied mutatis mutandis to HRDs, where the pre-trial detention had been imposed in the context of criminal proceedings brought against them for conduct directly linked to human rights protection (paragraph 147). As Mr. Kılıç’s continued pre-trial detention was based on, among other things, evidence directly related to his activities as a HRD, the Court held that it amounted to an “interference” in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression (paragraphs 149-151). The Court noted that under Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, a person could only be placed in pre-trial detention where the facts give rise to a strong suspicion that they had committed an offence. In this connection, the lack of reasonable suspicion referred to above should, a fortiori, have implied the absence of strong suspicions when the national authorities were invited to review the lawfulness of the detention. In consequence, the Court found the interference in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, was not prescribed by law and violated Article 10 of the Convention (paragraphs 153-158). Lastly, although the Court found serious violations under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, developing its caselaw on the protection of the rights and freedoms of HRDs, it held that there was no need to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 18. The Court considered that under Article 10 it had taken sufficient account of the applicant’s position as leader of an NGO and a HRD (paragraph 159). However, in their partly dissenting opinion Judges Küris and Koskelo stated that the Court, under Article 18, should have examined whether the Turkish authorities had pursued a “hidden agenda” resulting in violations of Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention. Referring to their previous partly dissenting opinions in the cases of İlker Deniz Yücel v. Turkey (no 27684/17, 25 January 2022), Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey no 23199/17, 10 November 2020) and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey (no 13252/17, 13 April 2021), the dissenting judges underlined that the Court should take into account, among relevant factors, the large number of cases brought against Turkey in which Article 18 complaints were raised in circumstances similar to those in the present case. It is a matter of regret that the majority of the Court did not adequately take into account that the applicants’ detention and prosecution was part of a broader pattern of repression against media, civil society and opposition politicians in the aftermath of the attempted coup in Turkey (see also here )despite this, the Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey judgment is undoubtedly significant, by condemning unequivocally the Turkish authorities arbitrary use of criminal law against a high profile HRD on spurious grounds related to his human rights activities. In this judgment, the Court also showed that it will apply strict scrutiny under Article 10 for any interference with the exercise of HRDs’ right to freedom of expression, applying mutatis mutandis principles developed regarding the detention of journalists and media professionals. Considering the widespread nature of ongoing criminal proceedings against HRDs in Turkey, this judgment represents a serious warning for the Turkish authorities. Lastly, the judgment is also relevant to on-going proceedings against Mr. Kılıç himself. He was convicted by the Istanbul Assize Court relying on the same grounds which the Court found insufficient to justify his pre-trial, confirmed on appeal, and the case is currently pending before the Court of Cassation. The Court’s finding concerning the lack of “reasonable suspicion” justifying his pre-trial detention, underscore the imperative of Mr. Kılıç’s acquittal by the domestic courts. ➤ Joint third party intervention ➤ Full Analysis SABUNCU AND OTHERS V. TURKEY (APP NO 23199/17) AND ŞIK V. TURKEY (NO. 2) (APP NO. 36493/17) The European Court of Human Rights (The Court or the ECtHR), recently delivered two judgments in the cases of Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey (application no. 23199/17) and Şık v. Turkey (no. 2) (application no. 36493/17), respectively on 10 November 2020 and 24 November 2020. The cases concerned the initial and continued pre-trial detention of the journalists of the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet. While the Court found a violation of Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention in both cases, it held that there had not been no violation of Articles 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) and 18 (limitation on use of the restrictions on rights) of the Convention. These two cases are blatant examples of media repression in Turkey in the aftermath of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. See here for a detailed analysis of the judgments. ➤ Full Analysis KAVALA V TURKEY (APP NO. 28749/18) On 10 December 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) marked Human Rights Day by issuing a judgment of great potential significance in the case of Osman Kavala, a prominent human rights activist who has been detained for his alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park Protests and the July 2016 coup attempt. In Kavala v Turkey, the Court found violations of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) on the lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence; Article 5(4) of the Convention on the lack of a speedy judicial review on arbitrary detention; and Article 18 of the Convention, on the prohibition of restrictions of rights for unauthorised purposes, in conjunction with Article 5(1). Both the timing and the content of the judgment are significant. Delivered in the weeks before the Turkish court is due to hear Mr Kavala’s criminal case, on 24-25 December 2019, the decision sends a very strong message to the Turkish judiciary. Moreover, the case is emblematic of broader current trends in Turkey and has raised human rights issues of significance to hundreds of other cases underway before the Turkish courts. As a joint third-party intervention before the ECtHR, submitted by the TLSP and PEN International, made clear, these issues include the human rights implications of closing civil society space in Turkey and the repression of human rights defenders including through excessive resort to criminal law. The applicant Osman Kavala was arrested in Istanbul in October 2017 on the alleged suspicion of attempting to abolish constitutional order (Article 309 of the Criminal Code) and overthrow the government (Article 312 of the Criminal Code). The charges relate to his alleged involvement in the 2013 Gezi Park Protests. The protests, which began as a challenge to government plans to destroy Gezi Park in İstanbul and create a shopping centre later triggered a wave of demonstrations against restrictive government policies across Turkey, and were characterised by the prosecutor as a “riot to overthrow the government” and “supported by many terrorists.” On 1 November 2017, Mr Kavala was brought before the 1st Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Peace Judgeship) in Istanbul, where he denied the charges and highlighted that he had been campaigning for peace and for the defence of human rights. At the end of this hearing, Mr Kavala was placed in detention on the grounds that there was evidence to suggest he had organised the Gezi Park Protests and had contacts with the alleged organizers of the July 2016 coup attempt. On 29 December 2017, Mr Kavala lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court claiming violation of, inter alia, Article 19 of the Constitution, corresponding to the rights guaranteed under the Convention. In a controversial majority decision, discussed in detail by TLSP here, the Constitutional Court endorsed the prosecutor’s perception that the Gezi Park Protests had been violent and aimed at overthrowing the government, and that the applicant had taken part in and financed activities and meetings contributing to this aim. Five dissenting judges challenged the majority on the grounds that there was in fact no evidence substantiating links between the applicant’s conduct and the violent incidents highlighted by the authorities. The majority however decided that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful based on a reasonable suspicion and was proportionate given the difficulties in investigating terrorism related offences. In his case before the ECtHR, Mr Kavala relied on Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(3) of the Convention to challenge the lawfulness of his initial and continued pre-trial detention. He argued that the lack of evidence of any plausible grounds for suspecting him of criminal activity rendered the detention unlawful. The ECtHR agreed, finding “in the absence of facts information or evidence showing he had been involved in criminal activity – that the applicant could not be reasonably suspected of having committed the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government.” The Court reached the same conclusion in relation to Mr Kavala’s alleged involvement in the attempted coup (para 153). The Court’s willingness to consider the facts and evidence and find that it provided no reasonable basis for suspicion, or detention, was significant. But in a passage that provokes particular interest in light of Mr Kavala’s impending trial, the ECtHR went further, making clear that the impugned conduct could not reasonably be seen to constitute a crime at all, but rather legitimate human rights related activity. It noted that the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was “based not only on facts that cannot be reasonably considered as behaviour criminalised under domestic law, but also on facts which were largely related to the exercise of Convention rights. The very fact that such acts were included in the bill of indictment as the constituent elements of an offence in itself diminishes the reasonableness of the suspicions in question” (para 157). The Court found a lack of speedy judicial review governing detention under Article 5(4) of the Convention. Mr Kavala argued that several factors (including lack of access to the case file and non-compliance with the principles of equality of arms amongst others) had prevented him from being able to effectively challenge his detention, and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court did not respect the requirement of speedy judicial review. Again, the ECtHR agreed, finding that given what was at stake for the applicant, the total duration of over 16 months of the Constitutional Court’s review could not be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5(4) (para 185). Of special note, with important implications for future cases, is the Court’s observation that “the excessive workload of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as perpetual justification for excessively long procedures […] It is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 5(4) of the Convention” (para 188). Lastly, the applicant submitted that his detention was in breach of Article 18 of the Convention as it was imposed for a purpose other than that envisaged by Article 5, namely to silence him as an NGO activist and human rights defender, to dissuade others from engaging in such activities and to paralyse civil society in the country. Reflecting our third-party intervention, the Court found that following the attempted coup, the government had misused “legitimate concerns in order to redouble its already significant crackdown on human rights, inter alia, by placing dissenters in pre-trial detention.” (para 214). In a significant finding, the second such finding against Turkey following its previous judgment in Selahattin Demirtaş v Turkey (No. 2), the Court held that applicant’s initial and continued detention pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to reduce him to silence as a human rights defender. In support of its finding on Article 18, the ECtHR highlighted the fact that during police interviews, Mr Kavala was asked many questions which had no connection with the charges. This included questions about his meetings with representatives of foreign countries, his telephone conversations with academics, journalists, NGO representatives and the visit of an EU delegation – none of which appeared to be relevant to assessing the “reasonableness” of the suspicion underlying the charges. The Court noted that many of these are the “ordinary and legitimate activities on the part of a human rights defender and the leader of an NGO” (para 223). In an indictment of the Turkish prosecution, the judgment found that “the inclusion of these elements undermines the prosecution’s credibility. In addition, the prosecution’s attitude could be considered such as to confirm the applicant’s assertion that the measures taken against him pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to reduce him to silence as an NGO activist and human-rights defender, to dissuade other persons from engaging is such activities and to paralyse civil society in the country” (para 224). In addition, the Court found the time-frame of the case to be relevant to an assessment of Article 18 of the Convention, specifically the fact that the applicant was arrested more than four years after the Gezi Park Protests and more than a year after the attempted coup (para 226). Lastly, the Court noted that the charges were brought against the applicant in February 2019, over a year after his initial detention of November 2017, and following speeches given by the President of the Republic. The Court made references to two specific speeches the President gave in November and December 2018, in which he spoke about the financing of the Gezi Park events and openly cited the applicant’s name: “I have already disclosed the names of those behind Gezi. I said that its external pillar was G.S., and the national pillar was Kavala.” The Court held it could not overlook the fact that “when these two speeches were given, the applicant who had been held in pre-trial detention for more than a year, had still not been officially charged by the prosecutor’s office. In addition, it can only be noted that there is a correlation between, on the one hand, the accusations made openly against the applicant in these two public speeches and, on the other, the wording of the charges in the bill of indictment, filed about three months after the speeches in question” (para 229). Taking into account these elements, and the consideration that Mr Kavala’s detention was “part of a wider campaign of the repression of human rights defenders in Turkey,” which was endorsed by third-party interveners, the Court found a violation of Article 18 and noted its wider chilling effect on the rest of civil society (para 230). Based on its findings summarised above, the Court invited Turkey to take all necessary measures to end violations and secure Mr Kavala’s “immediate release.” The judgment of the ECtHR is significant in several respects. It is the first case the ECtHR has concluded in relation to the worrying trend of arbitrary use of criminal law against human rights defenders in the country following the coup attempt. The rare findings of Articles 5(1) and, particularly, Article 18 violations, and the strident criticism the Court directed to the investigating authorities and the executive, are noteworthy. It is also the first time that the ECtHR found that the Constitutional Court’s ability to provide a speedy remedy to those challenging their pre-trial detentions, in this case, fell short of the Convention standards, which it had alluded to in its rulings on Mehmet Hasan Altan v Turkey (para 166) and Şahin Alpay v Turkey (para 138). The Court’s unequivocal indication that Mr Kavala must now be released without delay presents a clear test for the Turkish state. As of 19 December 2019, Osman Kavala was still in detention without any indication on his release. ➤ Full Analysis ALPARSLAN ALTAN V. TURKEY (APP NO. 12778/17) On 16 April 2018 the Court issued its judgment in the case of Altan v Turkey. During and after the coup attempt, the Ankara public prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in which some 3,000 judges and prosecutors were taken into police custody and placed in pre-trial detention. Mr Alparslan, a former member of the Turkish Constitutional Court, was detained on 19 July 2016 in connection with this investigation and remains in custody. Mr Alparslan was suspected of seeking to overthrow the constitutional order under Article 309 of the Turkish Criminal Code, and being a member of the FETO/PDY group (a designated terrorist organization under Article 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code) claimed to be behind the 15 July 2019 coup attempt. He was dismissed from the Constitutional Court following a plenary session held by the court on 4 August 2016. Mr Alparslan applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) challenging his pre-trial detention, and the Court delivered its judgement in this case on 16 April 2019. Prior to applying to the ECtHR, Mr Alparslan lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court – complaining of both arbitrary detention and a lack of specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. In addition, he maintained that the domestic courts had not given sufficient reasons for ordering his detention, that the magistrates who ordered his pre-trial detention were not independent and impartial, and that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Lastly, he argued that the process of his dismissal had infringed his rights to a fair trial, to respect for his private life and home, to freedom of expression, and constituted discrimination. With regard to the lawfulness of his detention and his dismissal, the Constitutional Court held on 11 January 2018 that he had failed to bring an appropriate compensation claim under Article 141(1) of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and had therefore not exhausted all remedies. All remaining complaints were held to be manifestly ill founded. Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily placed in pre-trial detention, and argued there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. In particular, he maintained that the domestic courts had given insufficient reasons for the decisions ordering his detention. The ECtHR examined the complaints under Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the Convention – finding Turkey to be in violation of 5(1)(c). In its evaluation, the Court paid special attention to Mr Alparslan’s position as a member of the Constitutional Court, emphasizing the “special role in society of the judiciary, which, as the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a State governed by the rule of law, must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties” (para. 102). The Court noted that they must be “particularly attentive to the protection of members of the judiciary when reviewing the manner in which a detention order was implemented from the standpoint of the provisions of the Convention.” The Court went on to highlight the importance of the general principle of legal certainty and the requirement that any law outlining conditions for deprivation of liberty should be clearly defined, foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of lawfulness. The ECtHR found that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of Article 100 of the CCP, which formed the legal basis of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, to be both in breach of the principle of legal certainty and manifestly unreasonable. The Court found that the national courts’ extension of the scope of the concept of in flagrente delicto and its application in the present case did not take place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law as required by Article 5(1) of the Convention. A leading judgement adopted in October 2017 by the Court of Cassation in Turkey had held that at the time of the arrest of judges suspected of the offence of membership of an armed organisation, there was a situation of discovery in flagrente delicto – warranting pre-trial detention. In the Court’s view, “this amount[ed] to an extensive interpretation of the concept of discovery in flagrante delicto, expanding the scope of that concept so that judges suspected of belonging to a criminal association are deprived of the judicial protection afforded by Turkish law to members of the judiciary […] negat[ing] the procedural safeguards which members of the judiciary are afforded in order to protect them from interference by the executive.” Moreover, the Court held that this extensive interpretation could not be regarded as an appropriate response to a state of emergency. Such an approach (which was not adopted in response to the exigencies of the situation as required under Article 15 of the Convention) was found not only to be problematic in terms of legal certainty, but also negates procedural safeguards affording judges independence from the executive, and has “legal consequences reaching far beyond the legal framework of the state of emergency” which could in no way be justified. Regarding the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed an offence, a safeguard guaranteed by Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention, the Court noted that the items of evidence used to justify the applicants continued detention were gathered long after his pre-trial detention. Given that the case in question concerned his pre-trial detention, it was found that they need not examine the items of evidence to determine whether the suspicion grounding the order for his detention was “reasonable.” Although the subsequent gathering of evidence in relation to the charge against the applicant could have reinforced a suspicion linking him to the commission of terrorist-type offences, it could not have formed the sole basis of a suspicion justifying his initial detention. The Court went on to find that “[t]he detention order was based on a mere suspicion of membership of a criminal organisation. Such a degree of suspicion cannot be sufficient to justify an order for a person’s detention.” As regards the notion of “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the arrest or detention had to be based during the state of emergency, the Court observed that the difficulties facing Turkey in the aftermath of the attempted military coup were undoubtedly a contextual factor which had to be taken into account when interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case. This did not mean, however, that the authorities had carte blanche under Article 5 to order an individual’s detention during the state of emergency without any verifiable evidence or information, or without a sufficient factual basis satisfying the minimum requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) regarding the reasonableness of a suspicion. After all, the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which deprivation of liberty had to be based formed an essential part of the safeguard laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c). The judgment is an important one, highlighting key issues concerning the importance of maintaining procedural safeguards– even in the context of a state of emergency. It is the first decision concerning the pre-trial detention of a judge following the coup attempt, and has the potential to set precedent for other cases concerning the ongoing detention of a number of judges and prosecutors. ➤ Full Analysis CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FINDS VIOLATIONS IN THE ACADEMICS FOR PEACE CASE (APPLICATION NO 2018/17635) On 26 July 2019 the Constitutional Court of Turkey delivered a judgment concerning freedom of expression of ten academics who were convicted under anti-terrorism law for signing a peace petition, a group publicly known as “Academics for Peace”. In this leading case, the judges of the Grand Chamber were evenly divided: whilst eight judges were against finding a violation, the other eight judges, including the President of the Court whose vote had a special weight pursuant to Art.57 of the Rule of the Court, decided that the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was violated. Background On 11 January 2016, a petition called “We will not be a party of this crime” was made public with initial signatures from 1128 academics and researchers from Turkey and abroad, criticising the Turkish government for its implementation of recent curfews and anti-terrorism operations in Kurdish districts of Turkey. In the petition, the use of curfews and employment of heavy weaponry by security forces were criticised as “deliberate and planned massacre” perpetrated by the state violating human rights and other obligations under international law. The authorities were urged to immediately end the violence; to punish those responsible for human rights violations, to provide redress for damages, to allow access of independent observers to the region and lastly, to create conditions for lasting peace in the region. After its publication, the President severely criticised the signatories, accusing them of being “supporters of terrorism”, “dark forces” or “fake academics” and a smear campaign against these academics was disseminated further in pro-government media. Afterwards, public prosecutors across the country filed indictments against the signatories charging them mainly with the criminal offence of disseminating propaganda in support of the PKK pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law (Law no. 3713). Some of the academics were arrested and detained during these proceedings. Administrative and disciplinary sanctions were imposed against them by their Universities and a number of them were dismissed by executive decrees during the state of emergency with ensuing limitations on their passports and employment in public sector. Criminal Proceedings In their decisions, the ‘heavy penal courts’ held that the applicants had justified and legitimised the actions of a terrorist organisation by presenting the state’s military operations as “massacres” causing the death of civilians in the petition, which amounted to propaganda in support of PKK. Taking into account ongoing conflict and security risk in the region during that period concerned, they convicted the applicants under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law. The applicants’ requests for appeal were rejected by the higher courts. As to the execution, the prison sentences were deferred for all convicted applicants, but one, Füsun Üstel, who went into prison to serve her criminal sentence of 15 months following the appeal court’s decision upholding her conviction. For those whose sentences were deferred are subjected to a probationary period during which if any other offence is committed, full sentences would be served for both offences. Complaining that their convictions constituted a violation of their rights to freedom of expression, fair trial and prohibition on restricting rights for illegitimate purposes, as guaranteed under Articles 10, 6 and 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the applicants submitted an individual application to the Constitutional Court (CC). The Judgment of the CC In its judgment, citing its recent judgment in Ayşe Çelik case, the majority of the Court stressed once again that Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law did not criminalise any expression associated with terrorism but only those justifying, praising or inciting to resort to methods constituting coercion or violence used by a terrorist organization (para. 80). In the decision it was asserted that for propaganda for a terrorist organization to be criminalised, two conditions set out under Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism must be met, namely, the special intent for disseminating propaganda and a danger to public order that a terrorist offence of a similar kind would in fact be committed. As to the latter condition, the CC stressed that the prosecuting authorities had to show that danger of a certain level had arisen taking into account the specific circumstances of each case (para.84). Otherwise, criminalizing indirect incitement to terrorism (through criminalizing apology, legitimising or praising a terrorist organization or its conducts) may potentially pressurize freedoms, particularly political expression. Moreover, the majority of the Court challenged the assumptions made by prosecuting authorities and the instance courts that the impugned petition was organised on the basis of a call made by the PKK, having sought support for its aims in the region, due to the lack of evidence (para 89 and 95). Furthermore, the majority rejected any negative inferences being drawn against the applicants from the fact that the petition only called on the state authorities to end conflict and violence but not the PKK (para.96). In this regard the majority noted that one-sided or biased information or opinion could not be a justification for an interference with the freedom of expression, which would otherwise risk limiting the public debate to which civil society contributes through its appeals to public authorities (para.97). To assess the perceived danger and necessity of an interference, the CC called for a complete analysis of all circumstances of the case taking into account content, context, identity of the person who made the impugned expression, timing and impact of the statement as a whole (para.86). On this basis, the majority disagreed with the lower courts’ analysis and found that content of the petition did not praise, justifies or incite the violent methods or terrorism but rather called for the end of conflict and violence and respect for human rights. In this connection it reiterated that even those expressions that are deemed “to offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population” are protected under the right to freedom of expression (European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Handyside v. the United Kingdom, No: 5493/72, 7/12/1976 para.49). Paying special attention to the identities of the applicants as academics, who would enjoy broader freedoms to express their opinions, the judgment confirmed that strict protection is required for academic expressions and also those related to matters of public interest as seen in the instant case. It reiterated that the acts or negligence of public authorities were subjected to public scrutiny in a democratic society and that authorities have to tolerate criticism. In the proportionality assessment, noting the severe chilling effect of resorting to criminal law, even if a criminal sentence is suspended in the end, may result in limiting public debate and silencing different voices in a democratic society. In conclusion, observing that the applicant’s statement had not praised or glorified violence nor had it aimed to instill hatred, the majority decided that the applicants’ conviction under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law did not correspond to “a pressing social need” and thus, their right to freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution was violated. A Brief Assessment of the Judgment This is an important judgment underlining the fundamental principles of freedom of expression particularly in relation to political expression in the context of fight against terrorism. The judgment calls for a stricter interpretation and application of the offence of disseminating propaganda in support of a terrorist organisation under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law, given the relevant international standards and case-law of the ECtHR. It challenges subjective assumptions made by prosecuting authorities or courts, exceeding the legal limits of the impugned provision and requests that a link to be established between the elements of propaganda and the impugned expression and any proof to be shown for the perceived risk of terrorism to justify the criminalisation of propaganda under Art. 7/(2) of Anti-Terror Law. Another positive aspect of the decision is that the judgment stressed the importance of academic freedoms, entailing freedom of opinion and expression by the members of academia not only on issues of their expertise but also on any matters of public interest, calling closer scrutiny for any interference by authorities (para.111). On the other hand, some elements in the judgment raises familiar concerns. For instance, the CC seems to have felt obliged to state that “the Constitutional Court is not in any ways in agreement with the content [of the petition]” and unnecessarily remarked on the tone used in the petition by referring it “biased and offensive containing exaggerated comments” and being “aggressive towards security forces” (para.124). Despite the applicants’ allegation that the real aim of their prosecution was to silence and punish them as part of a larger campaign targeting dissents, the Court conveniently did not find it necessary to examine this claim. The reasonings of dissenting judges presented at the annex of the judgment are noteworthy to show the variation of interpretations on the nature of the crime of propaganda for terrorism and on the limits of freedom of expression in a democratic society.. As presented in the the first published dissenting opinion (signed by judges Serdar Özgüldür, Burhan Üstün, Muammer Topal and Rıdvan Güleç) the dissenting four judges seem to be in complete disagreement with the reasoning and conclusion adopted by the court as they asserted that propaganda against “integrity and unity of the nation and country” and any expression that contradicts with “the principle of loyalty to the state” could not be protected under freedom of expression. This defies established principles and the case-law of the ECtHR on freedom expression. It reflects the findings of the international monitoring bodies, such as the Commissioner for Human Rights, raising concerns about tendencies in the Turkish judiciary to see their primary role to protect “the state” over protecting the rights of individuals. Similarly, the second dissenting opinion (signed by judges Kadir Özkaya, Recai Akyel, Yıldız Seferinoğlu and Selahaddin Menteş) emphasises on the “duties and responsibilities” of individuals, including academics, in exercising their freedom of expression, and criticises the declaration for its accusative statements against the state authorities in the time when the conflict had been at its peak. These judges noted that the offence of disseminating propaganda in the Turkish law is not a crime of “harm” but a crime of “danger” and that state authorities have a “broad margin of appreciation” in criminalising propaganda for terrorism, particularly if the impugned statement has any links with violence. By relying on an abstract risk and reversing the burden of proof against the freedoms, they asserted that the statements in the petition, as negatively portraying the state authorities and its operations against terrorism, would have a potential to incite members of PKK or its sympathisers to resort to violence or to encourage them to commit terrorist crimes at time concerned (paras.35, 36 and 39). Despite its shortcomings, this ruling, as it stands, has set precedent for more than 700 academics whose cases have been pending before the domestic courts and for many others prosecuted under Article 7(2) of Anti-Terror Law, a provision which has been extensively used to restrict legitimate criticism and peaceful expressions in Turkey. The divided opinions in the CC , however, indicates that fluxes in the case-law may continue and the protection provided for expressions critical of the authorities may not reach to the level required by the Art. 10 of the ECHR in every case. Nevertheless, it represents an opportunity for the CC to consolidate the approach taken in this judgment and send clearer messages to the implementing authorities, hopefully with less divided majority in its future rulings. The Turkey Litigation Support Project The Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP), jointly with Amnesty International, ARTICLE 19 and PEN International, submitted a third party intervention before the ECtHR on three applications concerning the cancellation of passports of academics who signed the same petition. The TLSP also provided expert opinions examining international law standards relevant to the criminalisation and prosecution of free expression which have been submitted before the Heavy Penal Courts trying a group of Academics for Peace. It further participated in a number of actions, including urgent appeal calls to the UN Special Procedures, to raise awareness of the situation of academics in Turkey. The TLSP will continue monitoring the developments in these cases and implementation of the CC judgment against the worrying criticism made by the governmental authorities of this important ruling. 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 Analysis COMMENTARY ON THE MAY 2019 JUDGMENTS ADOPTED BY THE TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ON THE DETENTION OF JOURNALISTS AND A CIVIL SOCIETY LEADER May 2019 was a productive month for the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) which delivered long-awaited judgments on eleven applications, concerning the detention and prosecution of ten journalists and a civil society leader after the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016. However, the outcome of the cases caused deep disappointment with the TCC only finding violations of the right to liberty and security and the right to freedom of expression in four cases concerning journalists Ahmet Kadri Gürsel (No. 2016/50978), Murat Aksoy (No. 2016/30112), Ali Bulaç (No: 2017/6592) and Ilker Deniz Yücel (No. 2017/16589). In the remaining applications of Ahmet Hüsrev Altan (No: 2016/23668), Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak (No: 2016/24616), Mehmet Murat Sabuncu (No: 2016/50969), Akın Atalay (B. No:2016/50970), Önder Çelik and Others (No:2016/50971), Ahmet Şık (2017/5375) and finally Mehmet Osman Kavala (No. 2018/1073) the court found no violation of any rights. This note presents a summary of the background to these cases and then analyses the TCC’s judgements. Background In the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016, journalists and media professionals allegedly affiliated with the Gulenists - classified as a terrorist organization under the name of Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETO) and considered to be behind the attempted coup - were detained as part of an investigation of “FETO’s media network.” Critical journalists from various newspapers, such as Ahmet Altan of Taraf newspaper, Nazli Ilicak of Özgür Düşünce newspaper and Ali Bulaç from Zaman newspaper, were accused of attempting to overthrow the Government by force, abrogating constitutional order or being a member of or supporting FETO. Similarly, executives, journalists and employees of Cumhuriyet newspaper, one of the oldest independent daily newspapers in Turkey, were detained in proceedings known as the “Cumhuriyet Trial”. Accusations included support of terrorist groups, including FETO and PKK, manipulating public opinion with news and publications and forming a negative public opinion against the Government. Prosecutions against dissenters continued extensively during and after the state of emergency, which was in force between 21 July 2016 and 19 July 2018, targeting many more journalists, civil society activists and individuals perceived to have raised critical voices against the state’s official politics or the Government. Deniz Yucel, a journalist for the German newspaper Die Welt, was detained for more than one year because of political commentaries, news and interviews which were deemed to have incited hatred or hostility and spread propaganda in support of terrorist organisations. Similarly, Osman Kavala, a philanthropist, civil society leader and activist was placed under detention in proceedings known as the “Gezi Trial” in November 2017, some four years after the Gezi protests, which he was accused of having organised and financed in 2013. These eleven cases, which derive from similar underlying causes, namely use of criminal and anti-terrorism laws against those perceived to have acted contrary to official state interest, raise important issues of the arbitrary criminalisation and detention of dissenters and suppression of freedom of expression and other relevant rights in Turkey. Moreover, these cases raise questions about the effectiveness of response by human rights courts, including the TCC and ECtHR to protect individuals, especially those acting as public watch dogs, from arbitrary and illegitimate criminal prosecutions, and to address the problematic aspects of such practices in a timely manner given the grave chilling effect caused by these prosecutions. Legal Developments Prior to the Judgments Before analysing the recent judgments of the TCC themselves, it is relevant to recall the legal developments that preceded them. On 22 May 2017, the ECtHR decided to give priority to applications where “the applicant is deprived of liberty as a direct consequence of the alleged violation of his or her Convention rights”. Subsequently, the cases lodged by journalists who had been in detention were communicated to the Respondent Government within six-months after being lodged. The ECtHR communicated the cases of Osman Kavala with the Government in August 2018 and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), together with Pen International, submitted a third-party intervention in this case. Whilst these proceedings were pending before the ECtHR, the TCC broke its silence and delivered two leading judgments concerning detention of journalists in the cases of Mehmet Hasan Altan and Şahin Alpay finding that their detentions were unlawful, absent convincing grounds to believe that they had committed the crimes they were charged with. The evidence forming the basis for their detention was mainly their journalistic expressions and writings on topical issues, remaining within the limits of freedom of expression. Even in the context of public emergency, the applicants’ detention was not regarded as a necessary or proportionate interference with their right to liberty and freedom of expression which would be confirmed by the ruling of the ECtHR in March 2018. However, even after the TCC’s judgments, the applicants were not immediately released due to the lower courts’ offered resistance to the ruling of the TCC. Following these developments at the domestic level, the ECtHR ruled on these cases, and confirmed violations of Article 5(1)(c) and 10 of the Convention, and reminded the lower courts of the binding nature of the TCC’s judgements and the potential impact of non-compliance with its judgments. The ECtHR noted that the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention, even after the TCC’s judgments, might raise serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the remedy of an individual application to the TCC in cases concerning pre-trial detention. In both cases, the ECtHR also stressed the importance of the speedy review of lawfulness of continued detention by the TCC. It noted that fourteen or sixteen months would not be considered as “speedy” in an ordinary context, but accepted that special circumstances prevailed following the attempted coup causing considerable increase of applications pending before the TCC. After the adoption of these leading judgments, other pending applications lodged by detained journalists raising similar complaints were expected to be speedily resolved by the TCC or ECtHR. However, in practice applicants had to wait for more than a year to obtain a legal determination by the TCC of cases raising blatant freedom of expression violations. Some were even returned to prison to serve their sentences after their convictions were upheld by higher courts. In May 2019, around three years after the arrest and initial detention of the applicants, the TCC finally delivered its rulings on the above-mentioned 10 journalists and the civil society leader cases. However, the inconsistencies with the outcome of the cases and reasoning of the judgements, resulted in more controversy than legal resolution on the issues the cases raised. Analysis of the May Judgments Among these eleven cases, the TCC found only in Ahmet Kadri Gürsel, Murat Aksoy, Ali Bulaç and Ilker Deniz Yücel that the applicants’ detentions were unlawful amounting to an interference which could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. In those cases, the TCC found a violation of the right to liberty and freedom of expression. However, in the other seven cases, although raising similar issues, namely continued detention of applicants as journalists or a civil society leader based on peaceful expressions or activities, the TCC did not find any violations. All eleven cases together show disagreement among the judges of TCC and fluctuation in the TCC’s performance in upholding relevant human rights standards, particularly with regard the right to liberty and freedom of expression in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Both the outcome of the cases as well as the variations in the number of dissenting opinions attached to those judgments (e.g. six dissenting opinions in Mehmet Murat Sabuncu, five in Ahmet Altan, one in Ahmet Şık) illustrate this fluctuation. The divergence from one case to another exacerbates the legal uncertainty as to the expectation that the TCC would apply human rights standards equal to those established by the ECtHR. All the judgments reveal criminal prosecutions concerning serious charges related to state security were brought against journalists and media professionals on the basis of their journalistic activities and expressions critical of the authorities’ conduct. Articles, news headings, tweets and speeches were used against them as evidence of supporting proscribed groups or terrorism or attempting to overthrow the Government. For example, in the case of Ahmet Şık, the applicant was accused of supporting and making propaganda by way of his writings and tweets for three different terrorist groups; FETO, PKK and DHKP-C, whose aims and methods are fundamentally distinctive from each other. When finding violations in the Ahmet Kadri Gürsel, Murat Aksoy, Ali Bulaç and Ilker Deniz Yücel cases, the TCC challenged the erroneous interpretations of the prosecuting authorities accusing those journalists of aiding or supporting terrorist organisations. It asserted that the impugned expressions and meanings given to them should have satisfied an objective observer that the accusations had some factual basis. However, the TCC failed to uphold the same principles in the Ahmet Hüsrev Altan, Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak, Mehmet Murat Sabuncu, Akın Atalay, Önder Çelik and Others, Ahmet Şık and Mehmet Osman Kavala cases, where overarching interpretations and applications had brought serious charges with no objective grounds or factual basis. The fact that selected phrases were taken out of context from the entirety of the text or speeches or metaphors used in the applicants’ analysis of political issues were interpreted as evidence of criminal conduct by prosecuting authorities, criminal courts and later by the TCC, were criticised by several dissenting judges of the court. In the cases of Ali Bulaç, Kadir Gürsel, Murat Aksoy and Deniz Yücel, the content of journalistic writings and expressions, deemed by the TCC to have not amounted to a call for violence, terrorism, or incitement to hatred, were taken as a decisive factor to rule out the existence of “strong indication”, equivalent to “reasonable suspicion” of having committed a crime, as required by Article 5/1(c) of the ECHR. However, in other journalists’ cases, the context, aim and entirety of impugned expressions were not taken into account as a whole; instead selected phrases were accepted as evidence for alleged charges, despite the absence of a call for violence or incitement or support to terrorism by the TCC. No evidence proving the links between the journalists and proscribed organisations and their intention to contribute to the pursuit of illegal conducts of those organisations, as is required for individual criminal liability, had been referred to. Moreover, despite the legal requirement of a strict justification of the detention of journalists both under Articles 5 and 10 of the ECHR, the TCC failed to carry out a proper and careful assessment of proportionality in those six cases against journalists and media professionals, namely Ahmet Hüsrev Altan, Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak, Mehmet Murat Sabuncu, Akın Atalay, Önder Çelik and Others and Ahmet Şık. In accepting that detention of applicants had not been arbitrary, it limits its assessment to the necessity of the initial detention of the applicants, referring to the “turmoil after the attempted coup d’état” and “general conditions at the time of initial detention” deemed to have heightened the risk of interference with evidence and flight of suspects. However this accepted assessment of risk were general and abstract and not linked with the applicants’ individual circumstances or their alleged conducts. Moreover, by failing to have required the judicial authorities to duly substantiate the alleged risk and demonstrate the need for the continued detention at each stage, the TCC seems to have reversed the relationship between the rule and exception in these cases going against the very idea of the right to liberty and detention as being a measure of “last resort”. However, the TCC rejected as inadmissible the complaints about the length of detentions in these six cases on the basis of the lack of exhaustion of a compensatory remedy provided under Art. 141 of Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently did not take into account the overall length of the applicants’ detention in its assessment of lawfulness and necessity. Moreover, as to the complaint about a violation of freedom of expression, the TCC again briefly referred to its findings related to the lawfulness of initial detention, allegedly based on a reasonable suspicion and pursuing a legitimate aim, and found no violation of freedom of expression either. In this way, the TCC neither carried out a meaningful assessment of “lawfulness” nor the necessity or proportionality of interference with the journalists’ rights under Articles 5 and 10 of the ECHR. Rather, while the TCC paid lip service to standards by stating that compelling reasons and robust control are required in reviewing detention and interference with journalists’ freedom of expression, it gave no meaningful application of these principles in the cases before it. This fragmented approach is also seen in the case of Osman Kavala, in which the applicant was accused of organising and financing the Gezi protests of 2013 on the basis of his activities as a civil society leader. The TCC endorsed the prosecutor’s perception that the Gezi protests had been violent and aimed at overthrowing the Government and that the applicant took part in activities and meetings contributing to this aim (para.70 of the judgment). The five dissenting judges challenged the majority on the ground that no evidence showed substantiating links between the applicant’s conduct and alleged violent incidents referred to by prosecuting authorities, and that the necessity and proportionality of his continued detention had not been justified. One dissenting judge also noted that although the Gezi protests were made the subject of numerous legal actions, no court decision or administrative actions had ever referred to them as “violent rebellion” aiming at overthrowing Government by force. However, the TCC decided by a majority that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful based on a reasonable suspicion and was proportionate given the difficulties in investigating terrorism related offences. Even though the applicant’s pre-trial detention was still continuing at the time of the judgment and that he had not been brought before a judge during the 17 month-long investigation period, the TCC asserted that a compensatory remedy, which does not capable of securing a release of a detained person, was an appropriate remedy which must have been exhausted for this allegation, finding this complaint inadmissible. However, the ECtHR already found that the compensatory remedy available under Turkish law was ineffective in cases where pre-trial detention was ongoing (see for example, Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, § 82). Moreover, with regards the right to an effective challenge against continued detention, Article 5(4) of the ECHR requires an oral hearing of a detainee by a judge at reasonable intervals (see Çatal v. Turkey, § 33; Altınok v. Turkey, § 45). Similarly the applicant’s complaint about the lack of access to the case file, including evidence brought against him by prosecuting authorities during the investigation phase, was not found to be an impediment depriving him of an opportunity to effectively challenge his continuing detention and refute the allegations against him,contrary to the principles of adverserial procedure and equality of arms, applicable as far as possible in the context of detention proceedings . In the end with this approach and reasoning, the TCC may have legitimised the ongoing detention and prosecution of the applicant, causing more harm than good in the given case. Now the ball is again with the ECtHR. Close attention will be paid to the Court’s approach on these important cases representing blatant violations of right to liberty, freedom of expression, and association. In the Osman Kavala case it may be too late to reverse the severe chilling effect already spread by these prosecutions, making any attempt to provide reparation or restitutio integrum impossible for the victims. But the cases certainly highlight the urgent need to critically assess and discuss the role of national and international human rights mechanisms, including the timeliness and quality of their approaches, if effective protection is to be provided not just in theory but also in practice in the future. In Turkish ➤ Full Analysis AYŞE ÇELIK (APP NO. 2017/36722) On 9 May 2019 the Turkish Constitutional Court, as the last instance domestic court for reviewing human rights violation complaints, issued a judgment in a case concerning the criminal conviction of the applicant, Ayşe Çelik, for her statement made on a TV programme. On 8 January 2016, the applicant, a teacher from Diyarbakir, called into a popular TV show and criticised ongoing violence and the death of civilians during counter-terrorism operations taking place in south-east Turkey. In a part of her comments, she stated " [a]re you aware of what is going on in the east, in the south-east of Turkey? Here, unborn children, mothers and people are being killed. Be sensitive as an artist and human being. See, hear and lend us a hand. Do not let those people those children die; do not let the mothers cry anymore. People are struggling with starvation and thirst, babies and children too. Don’t remain silent.” In response to this statement, the Bakirkoy Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant with a criminal charge of disseminating propaganda in support of the PKK pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law. On 26 April 2017, the Bakirkoy 2nd Heavy Penal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced her to one year and three months imprisonment. In its decision the first instance court held that the applicant had justified and legitimised the actions of a terrorist organisation by presenting the state’s military operations against a terrorist organisation as actions causing the death of innocent people, amounting to propaganda in support of PKK. The Istanbul Regional Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds with a final decision and the applicant’s conviction became final. The execution of the applicant’s sentence was postponed for six months for maternity as the applicant gave birth. Subsequently, she had served part of her sentence together with her baby until her request for postponement of the execution of her sentence was once again granted. On 27 October 2017, the applicant submitted an individual application to the Constitutional Court complaining that her conviction had constituted a violation of her right to freedom of expression, the prohibition of punishment without law and the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Articles 10, 7 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Whilst the application was pending before the Constitutional Court, the applicant’s lawyers commissioned an expert opinion to be submitted in the proceedings. In September 2018, the expert opinion prepared by Professors Helen Duffy and Philip Leach of the TLSP, on guiding principles to be taken into account for the prosecution of propagandising of terrorism in the light of Turkey’s international human rights obligations and general rules of criminal law, was submitted to the Constitutional Court. The text of the expert opinion can be found here in English and Turkish. Acknowledging that propaganda of terrorism restricts freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court held that to determine lawfulness special attention must be paid to whether or not a given statement incited to violence and posed a risk of danger for provocation of terrorism. The Constitutional Court observed that Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law did not criminalise any expression associated with terrorism but only those justifying, praising or inciting to resort to methods constituting coercion or violence used by a terrorist organisation. For propaganda of a terrorist organization to be criminalised, the Constitutional Court referred to the two conditions set out under Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, namely, the special intent to disseminate propaganda for terrorism and the risk that a terrorist offence would be committed. To assess the danger and the necessity of interference, the Constitutional Court called for a complete analysis of the circumstances of each case taking into account content, context, intention, timing and impact of the statement as a whole. On this basis, the Constitutional Court disagreed with the lower courts’ analysis and found that the applicant’s statement was a call for stopping the conflict in the region, irrespective of its causes, and aimed at raising public awareness of ongoing incidents of deaths and grievances during security operations, which was an issue of public interest. In this connection, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the freedom enjoyed for expressions related to matters of public interest was a broad one, calling for compelling reasons to justify any interference, and that acts or negligence of public authorities were subjected to public scrutiny in a democratic society. Observing that the applicant’s statement had not praised or glorified those who took an active part in conflict nor had it aimed to instill hatred, the Constitutional Court decided that the applicant’s conviction under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law did not correspond to “a pressing social need” and thus, her right to freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution was violated. In the operative part of its judgment, besides awarding the applicant a sum of compensation, the Constitutional Court urged the first instance court to review its decision according to its ruling and to take measures to cease the violation of the applicant’s right. Upon this ruling, the applicant has been released from prison. It is an important decision in which the Constitutional Court pointed out guiding principles, deriving from both international law and the case-law of the ECtHR, to be taken into account by the domestic legal authorities in the interpretation and application of Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law. However, the Constitutional Court seems to have overlooked the applicant’s complaints about the broad and imprecise nature of the impugned criminal provision resulting in arbitrary prosecution of peaceful expressions. Thus the Constitutional Court missed the opportunity to have addressed the inherently problematic aspects of the the offence of propagandising of a terrorist organisation, as formulated under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law, which does not provide a clear and foreseeable legal basis for restrictions that enable individuals to anticipate the consequences of their conduct and to prevent abuse by authorities. In the end, as the violation was found on the basis of not complying with the condition of necessity in a democratic society and not on the ground for legality of inference, the decision may not have as broad an impact on the protection of freedom of expression in Turkey as it should. Moreover, despite the applicant’s lawyers’ complaint under Article 18 of the ECHR, the Constitutional Court failed to examine or even refer to the applicant’s allegation that the real aim of her conviction was to silence or punish her for having made a public comment perceived to be critical of the authorities’ conduct. Despite these shortcomings, the decision provided for Article 10-compliant interpretation of Article 7(2), which has the potential to set course for the many similar cases, such as those concerning the Academics for Peace, pending before the domestic courts, bearing in mind that in the recent years the impugned provision has been extensively applied to restrict legitimate criticism and peaceful expressions in Turkey. It remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will continue adopting this approach and reinforce the protection of freedom of expression in its future rulings, given the apparent fluctuations in its judicial performance. It is also to be seen whether the prosecuting authorities and instance courts will feel bound to comply with this ruling and refrain from unjustified prosecutions of peaceful expressions, like the one raised in the present case. 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.” ➤ Full Article

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

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

* THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL MONITORING BODIES NGO REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS COMMENTARY RECENT DECISIONS TANER KILIÇ (NO. 2) V. TURKEY (APP NO. 208/8) The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) delivered its judgment in the ground-breaking case of Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey (no. 208/8) on 31 May 2022. The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists submitted a joint third party intervention which concerns the pre-trial detention of Mr. Taner Kılıç, a respected human rights lawyer and former chair –(and currently honorary chair) of Amnesty International Turkey, on account of his activities as a human rights defender (HRD). In its long-awaited judgment, the Court deliberates on some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today. These include the excessive and widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression of HRDs, the abusive resort to criminal law against legitimate activities protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and more particularly the arbitrary application of the anti-terrorism legislation against HRDs, with wide-reaching implications for public debate, participation in public affairs and the protection of human rights in Turkey and beyond. In the Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey judgment, the Court found a violation of Articles 5§1 (lack of reasonable suspicion justifying initial and continued pre-trial detention), 5§3 (failure to provide reasons for decisions concerning pre-trial detention), 5§5 (lack of compensation for unjustified pre-trial detention) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Firstly, the Court found there had been a violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention on account of the detention of Mr. Kılıç despite the lack of reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, both on the date when he was placed in pre-trial detention and after his detention was extended. Mr. Kılıç had been arrested in June 2017 on suspicion of belonging to the organisation FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Two sets of criminal proceedings against him -which were later joined before an Istanbul Assize Court- accused him of being a member of multiple terrorist organisations. The putative basis was his alleged use of the ByLock messaging service and various action related to the defence of human rights. As regards to the alleged use of the ByLock messaging service, the Court referred to its conclusions in the Akgün v. Turkey case (no. 19699/18, §§ 159-185, 20 July 2021), in which it found that, in principle, the mere fact of downloading or using a means of encrypted communication or the use of any other method of safeguarding the private nature of exchanged messages could not in itself amount to evidence capable of satisfying an objective observer that illegal or criminal activity was taking place (paragraphs 106-109). With regard to the other grounds used by the domestic authorities as evidence of criminal activity, the Court noted in particular that the second set of criminal proceedings against Mr. Kılıç relied on facts which appeared to be ordinary peaceful and legal acts of a HRD (paragraphs 110-113). In conclusion, the Court considered that the evidence cited by the national judges had not met the standard of “reasonable suspicion” that was required by Article 5 of the Convention, that the interpretation and application of the legislative provisions relied on by the domestic authorities had been unreasonable, and that the applicant’s detention was therefore arbitrary (paragraphs 114-116). Secondly, in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence, the Court concluded that the initial detention order against the applicant and the subsequent decisions extending his detention lacked sufficient reasoning, which constituted a violation of Article 5§3 (paragraphs 117-120). Moreover, it held that there had been a violation of Article 5§5 on the ground that the Turkish law did not provide an enforceable right to compensation with respect to the unlawful detention. Thirdly, in its assessment under Article 10, which reflected the third party intervention by the NGOs, the Court recalled the importance of the protection and the role of HRDs for the development and realisation of democracy and human rights (paragraph 145). It considered that the principles developed by the Court regarding the detention of journalists and media professionals could be applied mutatis mutandis to HRDs, where the pre-trial detention had been imposed in the context of criminal proceedings brought against them for conduct directly linked to human rights protection (paragraph 147). As Mr. Kılıç’s continued pre-trial detention was based on, among other things, evidence directly related to his activities as a HRD, the Court held that it amounted to an “interference” in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression (paragraphs 149-151). The Court noted that under Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, a person could only be placed in pre-trial detention where the facts give rise to a strong suspicion that they had committed an offence. In this connection, the lack of reasonable suspicion referred to above should, a fortiori, have implied the absence of strong suspicions when the national authorities were invited to review the lawfulness of the detention. In consequence, the Court found the interference in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, was not prescribed by law and violated Article 10 of the Convention (paragraphs 153-158). Lastly, although the Court found serious violations under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, developing its caselaw on the protection of the rights and freedoms of HRDs, it held that there was no need to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 18. The Court considered that under Article 10 it had taken sufficient account of the applicant’s position as leader of an NGO and a HRD (paragraph 159). However, in their partly dissenting opinion Judges Küris and Koskelo stated that the Court, under Article 18, should have examined whether the Turkish authorities had pursued a “hidden agenda” resulting in violations of Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention. Referring to their previous partly dissenting opinions in the cases of İlker Deniz Yücel v. Turkey (no 27684/17, 25 January 2022), Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey no 23199/17, 10 November 2020) and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey (no 13252/17, 13 April 2021), the dissenting judges underlined that the Court should take into account, among relevant factors, the large number of cases brought against Turkey in which Article 18 complaints were raised in circumstances similar to those in the present case. It is a matter of regret that the majority of the Court did not adequately take into account that the applicants’ detention and prosecution was part of a broader pattern of repression against media, civil society and opposition politicians in the aftermath of the attempted coup in Turkey (see also here )despite this, the Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey judgment is undoubtedly significant, by condemning unequivocally the Turkish authorities arbitrary use of criminal law against a high profile HRD on spurious grounds related to his human rights activities. In this judgment, the Court also showed that it will apply strict scrutiny under Article 10 for any interference with the exercise of HRDs’ right to freedom of expression, applying mutatis mutandis principles developed regarding the detention of journalists and media professionals. Considering the widespread nature of ongoing criminal proceedings against HRDs in Turkey, this judgment represents a serious warning for the Turkish authorities. Lastly, the judgment is also relevant to on-going proceedings against Mr. Kılıç himself. He was convicted by the Istanbul Assize Court relying on the same grounds which the Court found insufficient to justify his pre-trial, confirmed on appeal, and the case is currently pending before the Court of Cassation. The Court’s finding concerning the lack of “reasonable suspicion” justifying his pre-trial detention, underscore the imperative of Mr. Kılıç’s acquittal by the domestic courts. SABUNCU AND OTHERS V. TURKEY (APP NO 23199/17) AND ŞIK V. TURKEY (NO. 2) (APP NO. 36493/17) The European Court of Human Rights (The Court or the ECtHR), recently delivered two judgments in the cases of Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey (application no. 23199/17) and Şık v. Turkey (no. 2) (application no. 36493/17), respectively on 10 November 2020 and 24 November 2020. The cases concerned the initial and continued pre-trial detention of the journalists of the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet. While the Court found a violation of Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention in both cases, it held that there had not been no violation of Articles 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) and 18 (limitation on use of the restrictions on rights) of the Convention. These two cases are blatant examples of media repression in Turkey in the aftermath of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. See here for a detailed analysis of the judgments. KAVALA V TURKEY (APP NO. 28749/18) On 10 December 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) marked Human Rights Day by issuing a judgment of great potential significance in the case of Osman Kavala, a prominent human rights activist who has been detained for his alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park Protests and the July 2016 coup attempt. In Kavala v Turkey, the Court found violations of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) on the lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence; Article 5(4) of the Convention on the lack of a speedy judicial review on arbitrary detention; and Article 18 of the Convention, on the prohibition of restrictions of rights for unauthorised purposes, in conjunction with Article 5(1). Both the timing and the content of the judgment are significant. Delivered in the weeks before the Turkish court is due to hear Mr Kavala’s criminal case, on 24-25 December 2019, the decision sends a very strong message to the Turkish judiciary. Moreover, the case is emblematic of broader current trends in Turkey and has raised human rights issues of significance to hundreds of other cases underway before the Turkish courts. As a joint third-party intervention before the ECtHR, submitted by the TLSP and PEN International, made clear, these issues include the human rights implications of closing civil society space in Turkey and the repression of human rights defenders including through excessive resort to criminal law. The applicant Osman Kavala was arrested in Istanbul in October 2017 on the alleged suspicion of attempting to abolish constitutional order (Article 309 of the Criminal Code) and overthrow the government (Article 312 of the Criminal Code). The charges relate to his alleged involvement in the 2013 Gezi Park Protests. The protests, which began as a challenge to government plans to destroy Gezi Park in İstanbul and create a shopping centre later triggered a wave of demonstrations against restrictive government policies across Turkey, and were characterised by the prosecutor as a “riot to overthrow the government” and “supported by many terrorists.” On 1 November 2017, Mr Kavala was brought before the 1st Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Peace Judgeship) in Istanbul, where he denied the charges and highlighted that he had been campaigning for peace and for the defence of human rights. At the end of this hearing, Mr Kavala was placed in detention on the grounds that there was evidence to suggest he had organised the Gezi Park Protests and had contacts with the alleged organizers of the July 2016 coup attempt. On 29 December 2017, Mr Kavala lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court claiming violation of, inter alia, Article 19 of the Constitution, corresponding to the rights guaranteed under the Convention. In a controversial majority decision, discussed in detail by TLSP here, the Constitutional Court endorsed the prosecutor’s perception that the Gezi Park Protests had been violent and aimed at overthrowing the government, and that the applicant had taken part in and financed activities and meetings contributing to this aim. Five dissenting judges challenged the majority on the grounds that there was in fact no evidence substantiating links between the applicant’s conduct and the violent incidents highlighted by the authorities. The majority however decided that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful based on a reasonable suspicion and was proportionate given the difficulties in investigating terrorism related offences. In his case before the ECtHR, Mr Kavala relied on Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(3) of the Convention to challenge the lawfulness of his initial and continued pre-trial detention. He argued that the lack of evidence of any plausible grounds for suspecting him of criminal activity rendered the detention unlawful. The ECtHR agreed, finding “in the absence of facts information or evidence showing he had been involved in criminal activity – that the applicant could not be reasonably suspected of having committed the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government.” The Court reached the same conclusion in relation to Mr Kavala’s alleged involvement in the attempted coup (para 153). The Court’s willingness to consider the facts and evidence and find that it provided no reasonable basis for suspicion, or detention, was significant. But in a passage that provokes particular interest in light of Mr Kavala’s impending trial, the ECtHR went further, making clear that the impugned conduct could not reasonably be seen to constitute a crime at all, but rather legitimate human rights related activity. It noted that the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was “based not only on facts that cannot be reasonably considered as behaviour criminalised under domestic law, but also on facts which were largely related to the exercise of Convention rights. The very fact that such acts were included in the bill of indictment as the constituent elements of an offence in itself diminishes the reasonableness of the suspicions in question” (para 157). The Court found a lack of speedy judicial review governing detention under Article 5(4) of the Convention. Mr Kavala argued that several factors (including lack of access to the case file and non-compliance with the principles of equality of arms amongst others) had prevented him from being able to effectively challenge his detention, and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court did not respect the requirement of speedy judicial review. Again, the ECtHR agreed, finding that given what was at stake for the applicant, the total duration of over 16 months of the Constitutional Court’s review could not be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5(4) (para 185). Of special note, with important implications for future cases, is the Court’s observation that “the excessive workload of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as perpetual justification for excessively long procedures […] It is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 5(4) of the Convention” (para 188). Lastly, the applicant submitted that his detention was in breach of Article 18 of the Convention as it was imposed for a purpose other than that envisaged by Article 5, namely to silence him as an NGO activist and human rights defender, to dissuade others from engaging in such activities and to paralyse civil society in the country. Reflecting our third-party intervention, the Court found that following the attempted coup, the government had misused “legitimate concerns in order to redouble its already significant crackdown on human rights, inter alia, by placing dissenters in pre-trial detention.” (para 214). In a significant finding, the second such finding against Turkey following its previous judgment in Selahattin Demirtaş v Turkey (No. 2), the Court held that applicant’s initial and continued detention pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to reduce him to silence as a human rights defender. In support of its finding on Article 18, the ECtHR highlighted the fact that during police interviews, Mr Kavala was asked many questions which had no connection with the charges. This included questions about his meetings with representatives of foreign countries, his telephone conversations with academics, journalists, NGO representatives and the visit of an EU delegation – none of which appeared to be relevant to assessing the “reasonableness” of the suspicion underlying the charges. The Court noted that many of these are the “ordinary and legitimate activities on the part of a human rights defender and the leader of an NGO” (para 223). In an indictment of the Turkish prosecution, the judgment found that “the inclusion of these elements undermines the prosecution’s credibility. In addition, the prosecution’s attitude could be considered such as to confirm the applicant’s assertion that the measures taken against him pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to reduce him to silence as an NGO activist and human-rights defender, to dissuade other persons from engaging is such activities and to paralyse civil society in the country” (para 224). In addition, the Court found the time-frame of the case to be relevant to an assessment of Article 18 of the Convention, specifically the fact that the applicant was arrested more than four years after the Gezi Park Protests and more than a year after the attempted coup (para 226). Lastly, the Court noted that the charges were brought against the applicant in February 2019, over a year after his initial detention of November 2017, and following speeches given by the President of the Republic. The Court made references to two specific speeches the President gave in November and December 2018, in which he spoke about the financing of the Gezi Park events and openly cited the applicant’s name: “I have already disclosed the names of those behind Gezi. I said that its external pillar was G.S., and the national pillar was Kavala.” The Court held it could not overlook the fact that “when these two speeches were given, the applicant who had been held in pre-trial detention for more than a year, had still not been officially charged by the prosecutor’s office. In addition, it can only be noted that there is a correlation between, on the one hand, the accusations made openly against the applicant in these two public speeches and, on the other, the wording of the charges in the bill of indictment, filed about three months after the speeches in question” (para 229). Taking into account these elements, and the consideration that Mr Kavala’s detention was “part of a wider campaign of the repression of human rights defenders in Turkey,” which was endorsed by third-party interveners, the Court found a violation of Article 18 and noted its wider chilling effect on the rest of civil society (para 230). Based on its findings summarised above, the Court invited Turkey to take all necessary measures to end violations and secure Mr Kavala’s “immediate release.” The judgment of the ECtHR is significant in several respects. It is the first case the ECtHR has concluded in relation to the worrying trend of arbitrary use of criminal law against human rights defenders in the country following the coup attempt. The rare findings of Articles 5(1) and, particularly, Article 18 violations, and the strident criticism the Court directed to the investigating authorities and the executive, are noteworthy. It is also the first time that the ECtHR found that the Constitutional Court’s ability to provide a speedy remedy to those challenging their pre-trial detentions, in this case, fell short of the Convention standards, which it had alluded to in its rulings on Mehmet Hasan Altan v Turkey (para 166) and Şahin Alpay v Turkey (para 138). The Court’s unequivocal indication that Mr Kavala must now be released without delay presents a clear test for the Turkish state. As of 19 December 2019, Osman Kavala was still in detention without any indication on his release. ALPARSLAN ALTAN V. TURKEY (APP NO. 12778/17) On 16 April 2018 the Court issued its judgment in the case of Altan v Turkey. During and after the coup attempt, the Ankara public prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in which some 3,000 judges and prosecutors were taken into police custody and placed in pre-trial detention. Mr Alparslan, a former member of the Turkish Constitutional Court, was detained on 19 July 2016 in connection with this investigation and remains in custody. Mr Alparslan was suspected of seeking to overthrow the constitutional order under Article 309 of the Turkish Criminal Code, and being a member of the FETO/PDY group (a designated terrorist organization under Article 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code) claimed to be behind the 15 July 2019 coup attempt. He was dismissed from the Constitutional Court following a plenary session held by the court on 4 August 2016. Mr Alparslan applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) challenging his pre-trial detention, and the Court delivered its judgement in this case on 16 April 2019. Prior to applying to the ECtHR, Mr Alparslan lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court – complaining of both arbitrary detention and a lack of specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. In addition, he maintained that the domestic courts had not given sufficient reasons for ordering his detention, that the magistrates who ordered his pre-trial detention were not independent and impartial, and that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Lastly, he argued that the process of his dismissal had infringed his rights to a fair trial, to respect for his private life and home, to freedom of expression, and constituted discrimination. With regard to the lawfulness of his detention and his dismissal, the Constitutional Court held on 11 January 2018 that he had failed to bring an appropriate compensation claim under Article 141(1) of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and had therefore not exhausted all remedies. All remaining complaints were held to be manifestly ill founded. Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily placed in pre-trial detention, and argued there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. In particular, he maintained that the domestic courts had given insufficient reasons for the decisions ordering his detention. The ECtHR examined the complaints under Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the Convention – finding Turkey to be in violation of 5(1)(c). In its evaluation, the Court paid special attention to Mr Alparslan’s position as a member of the Constitutional Court, emphasizing the “special role in society of the judiciary, which, as the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a State governed by the rule of law, must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties” (para. 102). The Court noted that they must be “particularly attentive to the protection of members of the judiciary when reviewing the manner in which a detention order was implemented from the standpoint of the provisions of the Convention.” The Court went on to highlight the importance of the general principle of legal certainty and the requirement that any law outlining conditions for deprivation of liberty should be clearly defined, foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of lawfulness. The ECtHR found that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of Article 100 of the CCP, which formed the legal basis of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, to be both in breach of the principle of legal certainty and manifestly unreasonable. The Court found that the national courts’ extension of the scope of the concept of in flagrente delicto and its application in the present case did not take place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law as required by Article 5(1) of the Convention. A leading judgement adopted in October 2017 by the Court of Cassation in Turkey had held that at the time of the arrest of judges suspected of the offence of membership of an armed organisation, there was a situation of discovery in flagrente delicto – warranting pre-trial detention. In the Court’s view, “this amount[ed] to an extensive interpretation of the concept of discovery in flagrante delicto, expanding the scope of that concept so that judges suspected of belonging to a criminal association are deprived of the judicial protection afforded by Turkish law to members of the judiciary […] negat[ing] the procedural safeguards which members of the judiciary are afforded in order to protect them from interference by the executive.” Moreover, the Court held that this extensive interpretation could not be regarded as an appropriate response to a state of emergency. Such an approach (which was not adopted in response to the exigencies of the situation as required under Article 15 of the Convention) was found not only to be problematic in terms of legal certainty, but also negates procedural safeguards affording judges independence from the executive, and has “legal consequences reaching far beyond the legal framework of the state of emergency” which could in no way be justified. Regarding the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed an offence, a safeguard guaranteed by Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention, the Court noted that the items of evidence used to justify the applicants continued detention were gathered long after his pre-trial detention. Given that the case in question concerned his pre-trial detention, it was found that they need not examine the items of evidence to determine whether the suspicion grounding the order for his detention was “reasonable.” Although the subsequent gathering of evidence in relation to the charge against the applicant could have reinforced a suspicion linking him to the commission of terrorist-type offences, it could not have formed the sole basis of a suspicion justifying his initial detention. The Court went on to find that “[t]he detention order was based on a mere suspicion of membership of a criminal organisation. Such a degree of suspicion cannot be sufficient to justify an order for a person’s detention.” As regards the notion of “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the arrest or detention had to be based during the state of emergency, the Court observed that the difficulties facing Turkey in the aftermath of the attempted military coup were undoubtedly a contextual factor which had to be taken into account when interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case. This did not mean, however, that the authorities had carte blanche under Article 5 to order an individual’s detention during the state of emergency without any verifiable evidence or information, or without a sufficient factual basis satisfying the minimum requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) regarding the reasonableness of a suspicion. After all, the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which deprivation of liberty had to be based formed an essential part of the safeguard laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c). The judgment is an important one, highlighting key issues concerning the importance of maintaining procedural safeguards– even in the context of a state of emergency. It is the first decision concerning the pre-trial detention of a judge following the coup attempt, and has the potential to set precedent for other cases concerning the ongoing detention of a number of judges and prosecutors. AHMET TUNÇ AND ORS. V TURKEY (APP NO. 4133/16) & ELÇI V TURKEY (APP NO. 63129/15) On 29 January 2019, the ECtHR adopted two inadmissibility decisions in the cases of Elçi v. Turkey and Ahmet Tunç and Others v. Turkey concerning the alleged human rights violations that occurred during curfews and counter-terrorism operations in South-Eastern Turkey. The curfew cases as a whole address violations of the right to life, arbitrary detention, impact on private and family life, the associated impunity of the security forces and lack of effective remedies for victims in Turkish courts. The applicants in the Ahmet Tunç and Others case, for example, were shot by security forces, denied access to medical care and left to die in an area under curfew, despite an interim measures order in their favour delivered by the ECtHR. Despite the grave allegations of unlawful conduct by security forces, and complaints about the passiveness of the judicial authorities in response to those allegations, the Court found that no special circumstances had been established to exempt the applicants from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies - in this case the Constitutional Court. SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAŞ V TURKEY (NO.2) (APP NO. 14305/17) The ECtHR handed down its judgment in Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) on 20 November 2018. The Court found that the detention of Selahattin Demirtaş, the former co-chair of HDP (a pro-Kurdish political party) and two times presidential candidate, constituted a violation of his rights protected under Article 5(3) and Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. The Court held that the continued detention of the applicant lacked a sufficient legal basis and “pursued the predominant ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate” and was therefore in violation of Article 18 of the Convention (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5(3) (the right to be brought promptly before a judge). SAHIN ALPAY V TURKEY (APP NO. 16538/17) The case concerned the detention of journalist Sahin Alpay. In a judgement handed down on 20 March 2018, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). However, no violation of Article 5(4) (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) was found. While the Court emphasised the fact that the continued use of pre-trial detention, despite the Turkish Constitutional Court’s ruling against such a measure, raised doubts as to the effectiveness of the remedy, it would not depart from the previous finding in Kocintar v Turkey (para. 44) that the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court constituted an effective remedy for those deprived of their liberty. MEHMET HASAN ALTAN V TURKEY (APP NO. 1327/17) The case concerned the detention of professor and journalist Mehmet Altan. In a judgment handed down on 20 March 2018, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). No violation of Article 5(4) (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) was found. While the court emphasised the fact that the continued use of pre-trial detention despite the Turkish Constitutional Court’s ruling against the measure raised doubts as to the effectiveness of the remedy, it would not depart from the previous finding in Kocintar v Turkey (para. 44) that the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court constituted an effective remedy for those deprived of their liberty. Concerning the alleged lack of speedy judicial review of the applicant’s continued detention (14 months and three days) by the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court held that the case was exceptional in light of the Constitutional Court’s current caseload. On the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court rejected the complaint with regard to the lawfulness of detention in police custody. KÖKSAL V TURKEY (APP NO. 70478/16) The case concerns Mr Köksal’s dismissal by legislative decree. On the 6 June 2017, the Court dismissed the application for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, finding that Mr Köksal had to use the remedy provided for under Legislative Decree no. 685. i.e. a newly established Commission tasked with adjudicating appeals against measures adopted directly by Legislative Decrees issued in the context of the state of emergency (including the dismissals of civil servants). The Court found that the line of domestic remedies has to be exhausted before introducing an application to the ECtHR. Decisions of the Commission can be appealed before the administrative courts, and subsequently before the Constitutional Court by individual petition. When that highest court had examined a case and given judgment, then an individual could submit a complaint under the European Court of Human Rights. ÇATAL V TURKEY (APP NO. 2873/17) The applicant was dismissed from his post in accordance with the legislative decrees passed following the attempted coup. The applicant applied straight to the ECtHR and did not seek any domestic remedies on the grounds that the avenues available were not effective. Firstly, he argued that he could not appeal the measures taken under the legislative decree in the context of the state of emergency, and secondly, that the Constitutional Court is not capable of reaching an impartial decision given that several of its members had been arrested and detained. In a judgement delivered on 7 March 2017, the Court rejected these arguments holding that the Supreme Administrative Court and the possibility of individual appeal to the Constitutional Court – were not “obviously futile” avenues of redress. ZIHNI V. TURKEY (APP NO. 59061/16) The case concerns the dismissal of a judge by the Supreme Council of Judges in accordance with a legislative decree adopted during the state of emergency. In a judgement handed down on 29 November 2016, the Court rejected the application on the grounds that she had not exhausted domestic remedies which became available at the time of the decision of the Court. Namely, the new remedy (in Legislative Decree no. 685 adopted in January 2017) allowing for judges and prosecutors to challenge their dismissal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The decision of this body in turn can be challenged via individual application to the Constitutional Court, “putting an end to the dispute as to whether the domestic courts had jurisdiction to judicially review the measures taken by the Supreme Council of Judges.” The Court also held however, that this conclusion did not “in any way prejudice a possible re-examination of the question of the effectiveness of the remedy in question.” RECENT COMMUNICATED CASES HÜSEYIN UZUN V TURKEY On 8 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights communicated the case of Hüseyin Uzun v Turkey with the Turkish Government. The applicant, Mr Uzun, challenges Emergency Legislative Decree No. 677 on the grounds that it violated his right to education protected by Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. On 2 August 2016, the applicant Mr Uzun, was placed in pre-trial detention in Burdur Prison on suspicion of being a member of the FETÖ / PDY organisation. At the time, Mr Uzun was enrolled in a training program at the Anadolu University of the Faculty of Public Administration. On 23 November 2016, the prison administration sent Mr Uzun a copy of decree law no. 677 notifying him that he could not, under Article 4 of the Decree, participate in exams for the duration of the state emergency, and the entire duration of his detention. On 22 December 2016 the applicant lodged an individual petition before the Constitutional Court, alleging that the ban introduced by the emergency decree law violated his right to education. Mr Uzun’s appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 18 June 2018. The Court held that the refusal to allow the applicant to sit his exam was based on an emergency law pursuing a legitimate aim, namely to ensure the discipline and security within the prison establishment. The Court indicated that as a result of the attempted coup, many persons accused of terrorist offences had been detained and/or convicted on similar charges, and therefore the number of officers responsible for the safety and protection of detainees had decreased significantly. In light of these elements and the Court’s previous decision in Mehmet Ali Eneze, it could not be said that the restriction on the applicants right to education was not necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. This case is important as it is one of the first to evaluate interference with the right to education during a state of emergency. KERESTECIOGLU DEMIR V. TURKEY On 5 March 2019, the European Court of Human Rights communicated the case of Kerestecioglu Demir v. Turkey with the Turkish Government. The applicant, Ms Kerestecioglu, challenges the waiver of her parliamentary immunity through a constitutional amendment procedure allowing a prosecutor to pursue a criminal investigation against her on account of her participation in a peaceful public assembly as a Parliamentarian. The applicant alleges that she is being prosecuted due to her political views as an opposition politician, amounting to a violation of her right to freedom of opinion and expression protected under Article 10 of the Convention.On 1 November 2015 the applicant was elected as a deputy and since then she has been carrying out her role as parliamentarian in the National Assembly. A prosecutor filed an investigation report against the applicant for her attendance at a public assembly, which was transmitted to the Parliament for the waiver of her immunity. On 20 May 2016 the National Assembly passed a constitutional amendment by inserting a provisional Article in the 1982 Constitution. Pursuant to the amendment, parliamentary immunity was lifted in all cases where requests for waivers of immunity had been transmitted to the National Assembly before the date of its adoption. This case is important as it is one of the first to evaluate the stripping of parliamentary immunity of an MP and potential repercussions of a criminal prosecution on the freedom of expression and political activities of an opposition politician.