The ICJ and the Colombian Commission of Jurists today jointly addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Interactive Dialogues on the Reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
The Turkish government’s 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, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project said today.
The three nongovernmental organizations presented the recommendation in a 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. The committee is to review Turkey’s noncompliance with the Strasbourg court’s judgment on Kavala’s case for the fourth time at its March 9-11, 2021 session. Kavala has been held in pretrial detention since November 2017.
“Turkey’s flagrant disregard for the European Court of Human Rights order to release Osman Kavala should trigger the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to start infringement proceedings against Turkey,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “It is crucial for the Committee of Ministers, at its March session, to leave the Turkish government in no doubt that European Court of Human Rights judgments are binding on Turkey and that persistent failure to implement the ruling in Osman Kavala’s case constitutes a serious breach requiring exceptional measures.”
The Committee of Ministers may opt to take infringement proceedings against a Council of Europe member state that refuses to implement European Court of Human Rights judgments. It was used for the first time in 2017 when the government of Azerbaijan continuously refused to secure the unconditional release of a wrongfully jailed opposition politician, Ilgar Mammadov.
Infringement proceedings are provided for under Article 46/4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Their commencement requires the vote of two-thirds of the Committee of Ministers. Once the process is triggered, the case is referred back to the European Court of Human Rights for a further opinion on the legally binding obligation to comply. If the Court confirms that Turkey has failed to implement the ruling, the Committee of Ministers may then take additional measures, including ultimately suspending Turkey’s voting rights or membership of the Council of Europe.
The Committee of Ministers has already considered the status of Turkey’s compliance with the judgment on multiple occasions, issuing two decisions and, in December 2020, an interim resolution that each strongly urged Turkey to comply with the court’s judgment by unconditionally releasing Kavala.
However, since the December resolution, local courts in Turkey have prolonged Kavala’s detention four more times. A court of appeal has overturned his acquittal in the Gezi Park protests trial, and Turkey’s Constitutional Court has also flouted the European Court of Human Rights judgment by finding no violation of Kavala’s right to liberty.
“The Kavala case is emblematic of the crisis facing civil society and the rule of law in Turkey,”. said Helen Duffy of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “We recognize that infringement proceedings are exceptional, but if there is a case where they are justified, it is this one.”
“Turning a deaf ear to the Strasbourg court’s clear order to release and the Committee of Minister’s repeated calls for compliance, Turkey’s government and courts have worked hand in glove to prolong and deepen the crisis and the violation of Mr. Kavala’s rights. Infringement proceedings against Turkey provide the strongest legal mechanism to signal the shame of not complying with European Court of Human Rights’ binding judgments.”
The organizations said in their submission that, throughout the criminal proceedings against him, judges and prosecutors involved have abused criminal procedural rules to unlawfully extend Kavala’s detention based on allegations that he organized and financed the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests and that he was involved in the July 15, 2016 attempted military coup.
A key aspect of this effort has been the practice of different courts over the three years and four months of Kavala’setention successively joining, separating, and rejoining case files against Kavala to justify prolonging his incarceration.
At the most recent local court hearing against Kavala, on February 5, 2021, the Istanbul 36th Assize Court ruled that the case against him concerning the coup attempt should be joined with the Gezi Park protests case, which is before the Istanbul 30th Assize Court. A hearing of the newly joined cases will take place on May 21.
The organizations said in their submission that the decision to merge the proceedings against Kavala voids Turkey’s repeated argument before the Committee of Ministers that Kavala’s current detention is connected to a separate prosecution not covered by the Strasbourg court judgment. The groups also said that the Turkish government needs to address the structural problems raised in the Kavala judgment by revising its action plan to implement the ruling.
“Separating cases or merging them again will not correct the injustice to which Turkey’s courts and government have subjected Osman Kavala for over three years,” said Róisín Pillay, Europe and Central Asia director of the International Commission of Jurists. “This case is part of a systemic practice in which the Turkish courts, which are not independent, apply criminal law and procedures arbitrarily against critics of the government. The action plan needs to address these structural failings in the judicial system.”
The European Court of Human Rights judgment in Kavala v. Turkey is particularly significant because it is the first final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey in which the court determined that, in interfering with an individual’s rights, the Turkish judicial authorities served ulterior political motivations, contrary to Article 18 of the ECHR.
The court said that by holding Kavala in pretrial detention since November 2017 and prosecuting him, the Turkish authorities had “pursued an ulterior purpose, namely to silence him as human rights defender.” The court found violations of articles 18 and 5 of the ECHR.
Find the submission here: Turkey-Kavala_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission3-HRWICJTHRLP-2021-ENG
For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Turkey, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
For more ICJ work on Turkey, please visit:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
For more on TLSP work, please see:
https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/
Türkiye: Osman Kavala’nın haklarının ihlali ağırlaşıyor
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi Türkiye’ye Yönelik İhlal Prosedürünü Başlatmalıdır
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi, Türkiye hükümeti tarafından Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin insan hakları savunucusu Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararına uyulmamasının, Avrupa Konseyi tarafından Türkiye’ye yönelik işlem yapılmasını gerektirdiğini belirtti.
Üç sivil toplum kuruluşu, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının uygulanmasını denetlemekten sorumlu Avrupa Konseyi hükümetler arası organı olan Bakanlar Komitesi’ne tavsiyeler içeren bir bildirimde bulundu. Bakanlar Komitesi, 9-11 Mart 2021 tarihli oturumunda Türkiye’nin AİHM’in Kavala başvurusuna ilişkin kararını uygulamamasını dördüncü kez gözden geçirecek. Kavala, Kasım 2017’den bu yana tutuklu.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Kıdemli Hukuk Danışmanı Aisling Reidy, “Türkiye’nin, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Osman Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararını açıkça göz ardı etmesi, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ni Türkiye’ye karşı ihlal prosedürünü başlatmaya yöneltmelidir” dedi. Reidy, “Bakanlar Komitesi’nin Mart ayında yapacağı oturumda, Türkiye hükümetinde şüpheye yer bırakmayacak şekilde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarının Türkiye için bağlayıcı olduğunu ve Osman Kavala başvurusunda kararın yerine getirilmemesinin istisnai önlemler gerektiren ciddi bir ihlal teşkil ettiğini ortaya koyması çok önemlidir.” dedi.
Bakanlar Komitesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarını yerine getirmeyi reddeden bir Avrupa Konseyi üyesi devlete karşı ihlal prosedürünü başlatmayı tercih edebilir. İhlal prosedürü ilk olarak 2017’de, haksız yere hapsedilen muhalif politikacı Ilgar Mammadov’un koşulsuz olarak serbest bırakılmasının Azerbaycan hükümeti tarafından sürekli olarak reddedilmesi üzerine uygulanmıştı.
Bu prosedür, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin (AİHS) 46/4. maddesinde düzenlenmekte olup,başlatılması Bakanlar Komitesi’nin üçte ikisinin oyunu gerektirmekte. Prosedür başlatıldıktan sonra, dava hukuken bağlayıcı olan karara uyma yükümlülüğü hakkında görüş sunması için Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne geri gönderilir. Mahkeme, Türkiye’nin kararı yerine getirilmediğini doğrularsa, Bakanlar Komitesi Türkiye’nin nihayetinde oy haklarını veya Avrupa Konseyi üyeliğini askıya almaya varan ek önlemler alabilir.
Bakanlar Komitesi, halihazırda Türkiye’nin kararı uygulayıp uygulamadığını birden fazla kez değerlendirerek bu konuda iki karar verdi. Komite bu kararlarında ve Aralık 2020’de verdiği ara kararda Türkiye’yi AİHM’nin Kavala’nın koşulsuz olarak serbest bırakılması kararına uymaya çağırdı.
Ancak Aralık’ta verilen ara karardan bu yana Türkiye’deki yerel mahkemeler Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu dört kez daha uzattı. İstinaf mahkemesi, Gezi Parkı protestoları davasında Kavala hakkında verilen beraat kararını bozdu. Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi de Kavala’nın özgürlük hakkının ihlal edilmediğine karar vererek Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararını dikkate almamış oldu.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden Helen Duffy, “Kavala davası, Türkiye’de sivil topluma ve hukukun üstünlüğüne yönelik krizin bir simgesidir” dedi. Duffy, “İhlal prosedürünün istisnai olduğunu kabul ediyoruz, ancak bu prosedürün işletilmesini haklı kılacak bir dava varsa, Kavala davası odur. Türkiye hükümeti ve mahkemeleri, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kavala’nın serbest bırakılması kararını ve kararın yerine getirilmesi konusunda Bakanlar Komitesi’nin tekrar eden çağrılarını görmezden gelerek bu krizi ve Osman Kavala’nın haklarının ihlalini sürdürmek ve derinleştirmek için birlikte hareket etmiştir. Türkiye aleyhine işetilecek bir ihlal prosedürü, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin bağlayıcı kararlarına uymama utancına işaret eden en güçlü yasal mekanizmayı sunmaktadır.” dedi.
Sivil toplum kuruluşları bildirimlerinde, Osman Kavala’ya karşı açılan ceza davaları süresince ilgili hâkim ve savcıların, 2013 İstanbul Gezi Parkı protestolarını düzenlediği ve finanse ettiği, 15 Temmuz 2016 askeri darbe girişimine müdahil olduğu iddialarına dayanarak Kavala’nın tutukluluğunu hukuka aykırı bir şekilde uzatmak için ceza muhakemesi kurallarını kötüye kullandıklarını ifade etti.
Bu çabanın önemli bir yönü, farklı mahkemelerin Kavala’nın üç yıl dört ay boyunca tutukluluğunun sürdürülmesini meşrulaştırmak için ona karşı açılan dava dosyalarını birleştirmesi, ayırması ve tekrar birleştirmesi uygulaması oldu.
Osman Kavala’nın en yakın tarihli yerel mahkeme duruşması olan 5 Şubat 2021’de, İstanbul 36. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi, Kavala’ya açılan darbe girişimine ilişkin davanın, İstanbul 30. Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi’nde görülen Gezi Parkı protestoları davasıyla birleştirilmesi gerektiğine karar verdi. Birleşen davaların duruşması 21 Mayıs’ta yapılacak.
Sivil toplum kuruluşları, bildirimlerinde Osman Kavala aleyhindeki davaların birleştirilmesi kararının, Türkiye’nin Bakanlar Komitesi önünde Kavala’nın mevcut tutukluluğunun AİHM kararı kapsamında olmayan ayrı bir dava dolayısıyla olduğu argümanını geçersiz kıldığını belirtti. Kuruluşlar ayrıca, Türkiye hükümetinin, Kavala kararını uygulamak için hazırladığı eylem planını gözden geçirerek kararda değerlendirilen yapısal sorunları ele alması gerektiğini ifade etti.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Róisín Pillay, “Davaları ayırmak veya yeniden birleştirmek, Türkiye mahkemelerinin ve hükümetinin üç yıldan fazla süredir Osman Kavala’yı maruz bıraktıkları adaletsizliği düzeltmeyecektir” dedi. Pillay, “Bu dava, bağımsız olmayan Türkiye mahkemelerinin, hükümeti eleştirenlere karşı ceza yasalarını ve ceza muhakemesi usulünü keyfi olarak kullandığı sistematik uygulamanın bir parçasıdır. Eylem planının yargı sistemindeki bu yapısal bozuklukları ele alması gerekiyor.” dedi.
Kavala/Türkiye kararı, AİHM’in Türkiye yargı makamlarının, bir bireyin haklarına müdahale ederken AİHS’in 18. maddesine aykırı olarak, örtülü siyasi amaçlara hizmet ettikleri tespitinde bulunduğu kesinleşme tarihi bakımından ilk karar olması dolayısıyla özel bir önem taşımaktadır.
Mahkeme kararında, Osman Kavala’yı Kasım 2017’den bu yana özgürlüğünden mahrum bırakıp kovuşturmakla, Türk makamlarının “insan hakları savunucusu olan Kavala’yı susturmak yönünde bir örtülü amaç taşıdıklarını” ifade ederekAİHS’in 18. ve 5. maddelerinin ihlal edildiğini tespit etmişti.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü’nün Türkiye hakkında daha fazla raporu için:
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/turkey
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu’nun Türkiye hakkındaki diğer faaliyetleri için:
https://www.icj.org/search/?fwp_search=Turkey&submit=Search
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nin çalışmaları için:
https://www.turkeylitigationsupport.com/
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the context of the 2020 presidential election.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The International Commission of Jurists welcomes the High Commissioner’s report on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/HRC/46/4).
The ICJ stresses the need to address the systemic issues underlying unfair trial, arbitrary detention, torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance in Belarus. In particular, it is crucial to ensure an independent judiciary and bar association.
Without comprehensive reforms to these institutions, there is little prospect of fair trial, or of effective remedies or accountability for the widespread human rights violations occurring after the 2020 election.
The ICJ is alarmed at recent arrests and disbarments of lawyers in connection with the protests. Disbarred lawyers include Aleksandr Pylchenko as well as Liudmila Kazak, the fourth lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, a detained opposition figure, to have suffered consequences as a result of their professional activities. Furthermore, criminal cases have been initiated against lawyers Ilya Saley and Maxim Znak.
We call on the Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence, identify perpetrators, and support accountability for gross human rights violations in Belarus.
The Council should further call on Belarus to
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
The ICJ, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), the Defender Center for Human Rights (DCHR), Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) and the Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace (LWPP) have issued today a joint statement on the assassination of lawyer and political activist Hanan al-Barassi .
The undersigned human rights groups are appalled by the assassination of lawyer and political activist Hanan al-Barassi in Benghazi on 10 November 2020, and call on the competent authorities to launch an independent, impartial and effective investigation into the killing and bring those responsible to justice through fair trials.
On 10 November, a group of unknown armed men shot al-Barassi in Benghazi city centre in broad daylight. Al-Barassi was known for her political engagement and criticism of the human rights violations and abuses and corruption allegedly committed by authorities in Eastern Libya and their affiliated militias. Al-Barassi was active on social media, and often posted videos on Facebook in which she criticised the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF). Her last video was posted a few hours before her killing.
Al-Barassi’s murder follows a disturbing pattern in recent years of violent attacks against prominent women activists who are critical of the authorities and affiliated militias. In June 2014, gunmen assassinated prominent human rights activist and lawyer Salwa Bugaighis. This was followed by the killing of former Derna Congress member Fariha Al-Berkawi on 17 July 2014, and human rights activist Entisar El Hassari on 24 February 2015. Women’s rights defender and member of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Seham Sergiwa was abducted from her home by armed men on 17 July 2019, and her whereabouts remains unknown.
The failure of Libyan authorities to effectively investigate these attacks, despite public commitments to do so, has created an environment of impunity, in which women are frequently targeted, both online and offline, with threats, smear campaigns and violence for their political or human rights views. Al-Barassi’s assassination is also a stark demonstration of how online violence against women can carry over to have lethal consequences on the ground.
Such atrocities are prevalent in Libya today. The pattern of violence including enforced disappearances and assassinations of activists, human rights defenders, judges and journalists across the country is alarming, and will only continue in the absence of any effective, independent and impartial investigations. Addressing these crimes by holding the perpetrators to account must be a priority, including within any political process.
Al-Barassi’s killing has taken place as the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) continues talks aimed at ending the conflict and preparing for national elections, underscoring the importance of ensuring accountability and justice in the country. There can be no meaningful democratic transition in Libya until the basic security and human rights of the population are guaranteed.
Given the absence of any real commitment to effectively investigating ongoing crimes under international law being committed in Libya, the newly established Independent Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Libya must be urgently provided with the necessary resources to begin its investigations and preserve evidence without delay. We urge the Libyan authorities to fully cooperate with the FFM, and UN Member States to swiftly provide the needed support and adequate resources.
Signatories
Find the Joint Statement in Arabic and English here:
Lybia-Hanan_Albarassi -JointStatement-2020-ARA
Lybia-Hanan_Albarassi -JointStatement-2020-ENG
While reports suggest a decrease in crime during lockdown due to restricted movement, violence against women, including gender-based violence (GBV), continues unabated, and has likely worsened throughout Africa, replicating global trends in this regard.
Africa has a serious GBV crisis, which domestic legislative frameworks and accountability mechanisms have failed to fully address.
Various factors contribute to the increasing incidence of GBV in Africa. These factors are facilitated by the failure of States to adequately discharge their obligations to protect persons from gender based violence, through legal reform and administrative actions.
The issues manifest in gender insensitive actors and institutions that administer justice, impunity for abuses, and limited capacity of justice actors to properly handle cases due to lack of training and resources.
There are also challenges in issuance of restraining and protection orders. All these problems are reinforced by a widespread lack of willingness to recognize, understand and engage with women’s rights by State actors.
In Africa, more than one in three women (36.6%) report having experienced physical, and/or sexual partner violence or sexual violence by a non-partner. Studies have also found that the highest prevalence of child sexual abuse is in Africa.
This GBV crisis in Africa has been worsened by the coronavirus pandemic, which has contributed to a surge in GBV. The pattern of rape, sexual violence, and killing of women continues to spread across the continent, even during this health crisis.
On 27 May, the news of the rape and killing of a 22-year-old student while she studied in an empty church in Nigeria sparked outrage and protests in many parts of the country.
In South Africa, the body of 28-year-old woman Tshegofatso Pule was found on 8 June. She had been stabbed and hanging from a tree; she was eight-months pregnant at the time.
There have been several reports of femicide since some COVID-19 restrictions were lifted in South Africa. In Zimbabwe, increasingly there have been reports of rape and other sexual violence being used as political weapons to suppress political opposition in Zimbabwe.
Recently, there have been reports that three leaders of the MDC-A party were abducted and subjected to torture which included sexual violence after staging a flash demonstration against failure of the government to address livelihood issues during the Covid-19 lockdown.
While the demonstrations were led by both men and women, allegations focused on sexual violence against women by State agents have been made on numerous occasion especially following protests against the government. In both instances the response by the State authorities has been to challenge the allegations before conducting a thorough investigation.
In the recent case of the MDC-A leaders, officials have not only refuted the allegations but also charged the victims for breaching Covid-19 regulations and recently arrested them for allegedly ‘faking abduction’ and lying about torture..
Global Standards
All States must protect against gender based violence, whether by State or private actors, pursuant to their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Prevention of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most African countries are parties to these international treaties.
In addition, States of the African Union are bound to respect a range of international law and standards which prohibit gender based discrimination and sexual violence, most notable are the African Charter, and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women (the Maputo Protocol) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol provides that “every woman shall be entitled to respect for her life and the integrity and security of her person. All forms of exploitation, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.
States parties shall take appropriate and effective measures to enact and enforce laws to prohibit all forms of violence against women, including unwanted or forced sex whether the violence takes place in private or in public.” Article 16 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child includes sexual abuse of children as a form of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
As explained by the CEDAW Committee, all States, including African States, have a due diligence obligation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish rape and other GBV.
It is noteworthy that, 17 years into its existence, not all African countries have ratified or signed the Maputo Protocol, with only 42 out of 55 AU member states having ratified the convention. Of the few countries which have comprehensive domestic legal frameworks to eliminate all forms of violence against women, they too often face challenges in implementation.
States have the primary responsibility to take effective measures to eradicate GBV. States have an obligation to take the necessary action at all levels to ensure the elimination of harmful gender norms and stereotypes, as well as to ensure the elimination of GBV.
African countries need to urgently respond to the scourge of GBV in the region. The ICJ intends to publish a series of legal briefs on the “State of Rape Law” as provided in various jurisdictions in Africa, in order to highlight the challenges in criminal justice systems in relation to addressing the crime of rape and to provide concrete recommendations for reform.