One hearing in this week’s Turkey tribunal exposes the insecurity and the lack of respect for the fundamental rights of the press by the Turkish government

In the Turkey tribunal held over this week, there have been presentations of reports as well as testimonies of key witnesses on issues concerning Turkey. One such issue in which a report was presented and witness was heard was concerning the press freedom of Turkey.

In this article, the focus will be on the victims who have suffered human rights violations on account of disagreeing with the Turkish government and expressing dissent in order to encourage democracy and hold the government accountable for its actions.

One victim who was a journalist who testified in front of the judges who are a part of the tribunal claimed that the police applied charges such as insulting the president, Propaganda for the terrorist organization, overturn the Turkish govt through an armed rebellion, and being a member of a certain opposition movement and propaganda against the Turkish state. All of these charges combined attracted a combined prison sentence of 22.5 years by Turkish law.

As if these points are not enough the contention of the individual is that fleeing the country was the only option because some of his colleagues expressed fears that he could be part of a government-mandated hit list or what in the words of the individuals was an assassination list. While it couldn’t be ascertained for certain whether the individual was a part of the hit list or not at the time of fleeing the country, the individual did confirm that the name was a part of the hit list two years ago and that the Turkish media went so far as to display the name of the individual concerned in front of the media.

The victim who worked for a magazine in Turkey was one among the many at the time who exposed corruption in the government in 2013. Due to this four ministers had to resign. Since this time the Turkish government has been involved in silencing the voices of journalists who write against the government on various issues such as LGBT rights in Turkey, corruption among many issues. The victim is one among the many journalists.

The serious nature of the claims in front of the judges of the tribunal shows that the Turkish government is willing to do anything to ensure that journalists tow their line. The allegations of the government maintaining a potential hit/murder list and people’s name, in this case, a journalist’s appearing on the hit/murder list are very serious allegations that require the immediate and urgent attention of the international community, if required there needs to be an investigation to understand these claims. Everything has to be done to hold the Turkish state accountable for its actions against journalists. Only then can journalists can practice journalism without pressure. While the hit/murder list is the gravest allegations of many, other developments cannot be ignored. The shutting down of media platforms, the fleeing of journalists to the West, arrest of journalists without any charges, etc also needs to be taken into consideration in the context of Turkey.

Impunity and Turkey – a tale of the unaccountable

Hearings over this week seemed to confirm the terrible situation concerning impunity in Turkey. Two victims and both of their tales show the terrible situation of the unaccountable who commit crimes with impunity in Turkey.

One of them was an LGBT rights activist who wanted to ensure that the Turkish state does everything it can to protect the rights of the LGBT community. According to the individual, the situation of the LGBT community in Turkey is terrible, and face atrocities at the hands of the Turkish state. Crimes by the state such as rape and torture against the LGBT community are fairly widespread in Turkey.

When the activist started covering this the activist faced the full might of the Turkish government. The individual testified in front of the judges that in one instance the police placed the gun in the mouth of the individual. The clear attempt was to intimidate the activist so that there is no challenge to the Turkish government.

The same activist also testified yet another instance where the police dragged the individual out of an airline in Istanbul Airport Turkey and beat the individual on the airport tarmac. A group of some 20 people was involved in this particular incident, exposing the sheer lack of fear that criminals have in Turkey. This can be termed as impunity because at the heart of such an attack is to display the brazenness of criminals in order to intimidate and warn everyday people against expressing dissent against the Turkish government. Impunity is also a gory display of power in order to inform the world and people in Turkey that nobody can do anything to hold people accountable.

The other incident of impunity is when a man testified in front of the Turkey tribunal that police officers informed the man that his brother was killed by a bomb explosion only to find out that police officers had murdered the individual’s brother. The testimony of the individual regarding this was that there was a witness to the incident. Press given photographs it was not a live bomb it was a murder.  Police officers were taken under custody and released three days later. Court refused the arrest of police officers. The court accepted that police had not murdered and let off the officers on account of lack of evidence.

These are two cases but they show one thing. Neither the courts, nor the police, nor the government is accountable for impunity that was in ugly display in these two cases. Therefore, the situation in Turkey is that impunity in Turkey is the tale of the unaccountable where a regime shields and protects criminals to only protect its image and ego.

I wish you to be safe. I wish you are not at risk of being jailed without concrete evidence or tortured by police for weeks or threatened with your loved ones. I didn’t even mention being fired in an unexplained letter, the confiscation of your money and all your assets in the bank, the cancellation of your passport and work permit, the branding as a traitor. If you, as an ordinary citizen, experienced it all overnight, at first glance you would think it must have been a nightmare.

About one million and five thousand people have had these nightmares for more than five years. These people are punished and labeled as members of an armed terrorist organization in Turkey. Really, who are they? Terrorists or victims? Turkey Tribunal seeks the truth with all its transparency.

The Turkish State is invited to Turkey Tribunal, but they neither responded nor participated in this invitation. It is not a surprise. The interlocutors are not the Turkish media, the blind executive, legislative and judicial powers in Turkey, or the police agencies dependent on the Erdogan regime. Instead of; previous member of the Scientific Committee at the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, previous judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, vice-president of International Advocacy and Litigation at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, vice-president of the Administrative Court of the Council of Europe, associate professor at the Faculty of Law and Institute of Political Sciences at the University of Strasbourg and more are independent addressees. Unlike many judges and policies Erdogan has bought in Turkey, none of them will be paid for their contributions to the tribunal or five days, lawyers, judges, human activists, educators, academics, journalists, and more will be the voice of thousands of victims in Turkey and stand up against human rights violations. They will share how they were severely and illegally tortured. Electric shocks, Palestinian hanging, robbery, excessive beatings, and enforced disappearances in police custody… Johan Heymans, who is active in the League for Human Rights, Johan Heymans reveals the events in Turkey with evidence-based reports. These reports coincide with witness statements.

 

 

What if your government regime labels you as a member of an armed terrorist organization overnight? As evidence, they use not any weapons but your licensed books at home, your account in a bank named Bank Asya, the name of the school your children attend, and the newspaper you read. But what if you liked your country, spent most of your effort contributing to your country, and were associated with treason simply because you disagree with the opinions of politicians?

What if you were a prestigious worldwide academic, educator, journalist, or the like, stood up for human rights for all, and were imprisoned without any legal documents? What if your government regime sends its units to illegally smuggle its citizens abroad?

All this is discussed with evidence and witnesses. As stated, the Turkish Government is still invited, the authorities are silent. They are silent because they have committed crimes. What about us? We can stand up for rights. “Because silence is the greatest enemy of fundamental human rights.”

Broken Chalk

On the 20th of September started the first session of the Turkey Tribunal in Geneva. As recalled by Tulkens during the introduction, the Turkey Tribunal is an opinion tribunal. In other words, it does not fall within the judicial order of a state or from a court set up by an International Organization. The tribunal is an extraordinary court born of the determination of civil society. Even if its decisions are not binding, it is an instrument and a platform to give recognition, visibility, and a voice to people alleging violations of their fundamental rights. The tribunal is independent, respects the principle of a fair trial, and uses a judicial method to release decisions. The fundamental objective of the Turkey tribunal is to alert public opinion and policymakers and to contribute to the advancement of international and national law.

The tribunal will hear six rapporteurs about torture, abductions, press freedom, impunity, access to justice and judicial independence, and crimes against humanity in Turkey. 15 witnesses will also be heard, and the Turkish government received an invitation to attend the judgment and copies of the report but is not present.

In the end, the tribunal will formulate an opinion on the conformity of Turkey’s actions with International Human Rights law and International Humanitarian Law. The tribunal does not have investigative powers and will not engage in criminal or civil liability. The decision, although not binding, has a high moral authority and gives legal tools for victims, lawyers, or NGOs who want to take action afterward.

 

First rapporteur on torture:

The main legal text which enshrined the right not to be tortured is the Convention against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. The rapporteur recalled that those conventions establish the minimum that national laws should include in the criminal code and that the criminalization of torture by imprisonment sanctions is an obligation. In other words, an act that fulfills the criteria of torture according to the CAT cannot be considered a minor crime, such as ill-treatment for instance. The prohibition of torture is absolute, which means that no exception or derogation can justify the use of torture (terrorism). The responsibility of the state can be engaged if it failed to protect citizens from acts of torture perpetrated by private actors, and for failure to investigate and to prosecute. The burden of proof is on the victims, but if there is a reasonable suspicion of torture while they were deprived of their liberty, the government will have to provide evidence to the contrary.

The rapporteur relied on statistics released by the Turkish government. However, he pointed out discrepancies between figures provided by NGOs and by the government. The rapporteur alleged therefore that all allegations have not been investigated by the government. For instance, 2063 cases of people denunciated to the NGO Human rights in Turkey between 2000 and 2015. The rapporteur noted that the number of cases opened declined of 50% between 2013 and 2015. However, the indicators demonstrate that the number of cases increased and did not drop. The explanation would be the decrease of the will of the government to punish torture. The acts of torture documented in Turkey are mainly the excessive use of force in detention, beatings, humiliations, sexual assault, electrics chocs.

Torture has been a spreading practice in Turkey for decades, especially after the coup d’Etat in 1980. In the 2000s, zero-tolerance towards torture has been applied, which lead to some improvements. However, over the last 10 years, a resurgence of torture can be noted, in almost total impunity. Currently, 441 cases before the ECtHR for violations of art3 are examined, which represent more cases than those investigated by Turkey.

The targeted groups are members of the Kurdish movement, of the Gulen movement, juvenile, and ordinary criminals. In addition, The way they are repressed depends on the necessity of the police to turn them into informants. Members of the PKK, extreme left wings organization, or Gulen movement are more likely to be abducted, and wives of the suspicious men detained.

The Rapporteur concluded that the use of torture is systematic and organized, without investigations, punishment, and due diligence. In response to that, the Turkish government argued that victims do not provide any medical proof, they are political opponents, and that the convictions rate for acts of torture is very low.

Witness 1: Mehmet Alp

The first witness is a chemistry teacher and an administrator in a school in a Turkish region in southeastern turkey. On the 18^th of April 2018, he was forcibly abducted after taking his child to school. A car arrived behind him, and the men got him into the car. They told that they were policemen, and that one of his students was set to have joined the PKK, and that other students were attending meetings of the Gulen movements and joined the PKK as well. They finally released him and on the 20^th of April, they came to his house and took his wife under custody for 4 days. This abduction can be explained by the end of the peace process between the PKK and the government and the beginning of armed conflict had begun again, They tried to warn the authorities, but nothing was done about it.

One month before the coup, he was arrested again and asked about the Gulen movement. In total, he was detained in 4 jails and 17 cells.  For 2 months, they were not able to eat fruits or vegetables, neither to see a doctor. He started having internal problems such as internal bleeding. However, the guardians were told not to take care of him because he was considered a terrorist belonging to the Gulen movement. After those 2 months, he was finally brought to the hospital and detected intestinal cancer. In November, he was transferred again. On the 28^th of May 2017, two people uncuffed him and brought him 200km away. They kept asking questions about the functions he fulfilled during the coup of the 15^th of July. He answered that he did not participate in the coup, he had nothing to do with the Gullen group. He refused to sign the documents. He had a bag over his head, and he was in a dark room, underneath the prison. They beat him over his head and body with metallic things. He fainted, was bleeding from his nose. He was placed in a van and finally got to the hospital. In this prison, he met an academician tortured with electricity.

He managed to write down everything he has gone through thanks to toilet papers. He was not allowed to see his lawyer or his wife.

On the 6^th of June, he was supposed to go before the courts, and the guardians threatened him and his family if he said anything about being a victim of torture. He was declared guilty.

He was accused in the first place of falsification, and then of being a member of an armed association, and finally of involvement in the coup. After being released, he went to the authorities, but nothing happened because police, prosecutors, and court work together. He was only able to fight for his rights in free countries, in Turkey it is impossible.

 

 

Witness 2: Erhan Dogan

The second witness was a teacher of history in Ankara. When the coup happened, he was working at a school belonging to the Gulen group in Ankara. One week after, a lot of arrests starting to happen, and the schools closed to the Gulen group were pillaged, burned, destroyed. Ten days later, a teacher at his school called him because policemen were asking for him. He went to the school, and he saw people waiting for him. They held him from his collar and pushed him to the wall. They insulted him as a terrorist, beat him and they said that if he refused to obey their commands, his whole life will turn into misery, including his family. They asked Kim who he has had meetings with or discussed. They asked for ten names of the senior officials of the Gulen group. In addition, they wanted him to accept that he was a member of a terrorist organization and to sign the documents. The witness answered that he was not a terrorist so he was tortured for a while. An official policeman from Ankara came afterward, stole their computer, phone, and bring them to Ankara town, the anti-terrorist police station.

One there, he was escorted by 12 policemen who insulted them, called them dogs, and beat them up. He was separated from the others, and they told him that he could die and that a lot of people die here and nobody knows. They took him to a gym, with people in orange and cuffs. There was blood around him on the walls, which was proof that they tortured people here. He learned later that soldiers arrested after the coup were tortured here. He was given a small piece of bread, jam, a bottle of water. The other detainees were scholars. One had diabetics and all their demands for care were dismissed. He recalled several acts of torture, such as being undressed with cold water on him and beat with bludgeons or four officers who hit his head on the wall and kept asking questions about the Gulen group. One time, they tied him with his hands behind, and they left him up hanging from the selling one or two hours. After that, he recalled that he thought that all his buns were broken and he was not able to walk. They brought him to a person dressed up like a doctor, who asked him how he was. He answered that he had been tortured so the officials took him back and tortured him again. The second time he answered that he was fine, so he came back to the gym.

One of the most impactful events he went through was hearing the screams of women detainees in adjacent cells, who were begging the officials not to rape them. The officials threaten his wife and daughter, who might end up like those women. This event made him want to commit suicide during the toilet break, but because of religious beliefs he did not do it

When he was taken to court, the policeman who tortured him came with him, and the judge did not ask a question, because had been already heard when he got arrested. So the judge decided on his arrest and he was taken to the aggravated crime to prison. There, he suffered from the Palestinians’ anger, because they were presented as terrorist members.

They took them to a cell for 16 people, and they were about 50 people. Living conditions were very poor: they had to wait for 4o minutes to go to toilets, and they had hot water once a week for 30 minutes. In addition, the guardians constantly insulted them.

One day, they told them that a delegation from the European Human Rights Committee will come to inspect. They told them that if they said anything apart from the script they were given, they would not be able to see their family (who they can only see once every two months) or they will be sent to solitary confinement. The delegation finally came, but nobody said anything.

The witness recalled that they constantly heard the statement: “even if you go out your life will be hell”.

He was in total detained. 10months without any indictment. After he was released, he found that the grounds for his detention was he worked in a school belonging to the Gulen group, was a member of a trade union, had a bank account at bank Asia, and used the application called Bylock.

He went before court four times and was condemned for 7 years and 6 months of prison, without a fair trial. He presented a recourse before the administrative tribunal, and the highest course released him under judiciary control. The court finally confirmed the sentence and his case is currently reviewed by the cassation court. He escaped Turkey in the meantime.  Given that his family saw him as a terrorist and the isolating pressure of the society because of the discourse of the government, he decided to flee Turkey. He crossed over from Turkey to Greece by the river, and he is located in Germany, where he is trying to rebuild his life with his family.

 

 

Witness 3: Eren Keskin, human rights lawyer

The lawyer recalled that not only police or soldiers are guilty, but prosecutors who do not lunch investing, judges who acquit the perpetrators, forensic doctors who do not document torture.

The witness pointed out that one of the main problems is the documentation of torture, because judges, only accept forensic reports as evidence for torture when the law does not establish an exhaustive list of acceptable proofs. However, forensic doctors are civil servants dependent on political authority and therefore linked to the government. They, therefore, do not release proof of acts of torture.

Turkey was already by the ECtHR in the Sukran Aydin case, because there was no report from an independent doctor or rehabilitation centers.

According to the witness, torture has always been a state policy, even if it is legally prohibited. Lawyers are kept outside of the system because they are defenders, and sometimes there are not allowed to visit their clients in prison. For instance, they release reports of people almost dead stating that they can remain in prison.

The witness has been sentenced as an armed terrorist, which is the first time after 30years of working as a lawyer. She expects to be detained every day, such as many politicians from HDP who are in jail only because of their thoughts.

Morgane Bizien

 

 

Violations of press freedom in Turkey are not new. During the military regime in the aftermath of the 1980 coup freedom of the press was severely limited. Gradually after the restoration of democracy, freedom of press gained momentum. However, violations of press freedom continued to exist.

Since Recep Tayyip Erdogan came into power there has been limited improvement in human rights protections in Turkey. Yet, problems regarding press freedom have never been addressed seriously.

 

International organizations have made a note of such repression over the years. The European Commission addressed a report on Turkey’s application for membership of the European Union to the Parliament and the Council on 10 October 2012. The following extract is particularly important:

 

“As regards freedom of expression, a number of journalists were released pending trial after excessively long periods spent in pre-trial detention. The third judicial reform package prohibits the seizure of written work before publication. It also eases restrictions on media reporting of criminal investigations. There continues to be room for debating some topics perceived as sensitive, such as the Armenian issue or the role of the military, and opposition views are regularly expressed. However, these reforms fall short of a significant improvement regarding freedom of expression. The increasing incidence of violations of freedom of expression raise serious concerns, and freedom of the media continued to be further restricted in practice. The increasing tendency to imprison journalists, media workers and distributers fuelled these concerns. The European Court of Human Rights received a large number of applications concerning violations of freedom of expression by Turkey.

 

The legal framework on organized crime and terrorism is still imprecise and contains definitions which are open to abuse, leading to numerous indictments and convictions. Moreover, its interpretation by prosecutors and courts is uneven and is not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey needs to amend its penal code and anti-terror legislation to make a clear distinction between the incitement to violence and the expression of nonviolent ideas. The application of Articles 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terror Law in combination with Articles 220 and 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code leads to abuses; in short, writing an article or making a speech can still lead to a court case and a long prison sentence for membership or leadership of a terrorist organization. High-level government and state officials and the military repeatedly turn publicly against the press and launch court cases. On a number of occasions journalists have been fired after signing articles openly critical of the government.

 

Website bans of disproportionate scope and duration continued. Since May 2009 the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (TİB) has published no statistics on banned sites. Court cases are ongoing against the You Tube video-sharing website and other web portals. The Law on the Internet, which limits freedom of expression and restricts citizens’ right to access to information, needs to be revised. An Information Technologies and Communication Board (ICTA) decision introducing optional internet filters entered into force”.

 

In terms of access to justice for journalists in Turkey the situation is no different for journalists compared to other groups in Turkey. Journalists have faced numerous hurdles by a government that is determined to do everything to thwart access to justice. Some journalists remained in detention for an exceptionally long time and were released without their trials having resulted in an acquittal or dismissal. These suspended trials thus remained like a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads; resuming their activity, they remained at risk of getting arrested again without the slightest notice. For instance, this was the case of Bariş Terkoğlu and Bariş Pehlivan, working for the OdaTV website. Both were released on 14 September 2012 after 578 days in detention. On one journalist, charges were brought after critical comments against the journalist concerned by the President of the Republic. On the journalist the President stated that “Someone financed terrorists in the context of the Gezi events. This man is now behind bars…”.

 

Since 2016 repression against journalists have only seen an increase, According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF) The number of journalists detained only in the first year of the state of emergency surpassed 100. Other organizations gave much larger figures, with Free Journalists Initiative claiming that 187 journalists were under arrest by the end of the OHAL on July 2018.24 The discrepancies among numbers given by different organizations underline a more dangerous trend of churn in Turkish jails and lack of information about the fate of journalists in the country. By the time this submission was prepared the Free Journalists Initiative’s number was 154,26 and of RSF was 34.27. A further 167 journalists were under search warrant and had to flee Turkey to escape arrest according to the Stockholm Centre for Freedom’s database.

 

These factors show that the press freedom in Turkey today has been threatened at its very foundations. There is a government that is willing to do anything to silence journalists who are willing to question the government. The journalists are working in a hostile and a threatening environment. This is especially the case if the journalist is critical of government policy. This is the state of affairs of journalists in Turkey.

 

Information from:

https://turkeytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/7-Turkey-Tribunal-Turkey-Tribunal-Reports-Compilation-PrintReady.pdf.

Impunity has been a historic problem in Turkey. There were two periods when impunity in Turkey levels the 1980s and for a few years after the 2015 parliamentary elections. Impunity caught hold during the 2016 coup attempt.

 

In the 80s once martial law was declared and extended throughout the country and until 1983 and Turkey was governed under repressive military rule, leading to devastating consequences for human rights. As an illustration, more than half a million people were arbitrarily detained on political grounds and thousands were subjected to widespread torture and mistreatment. Additionally, more than two hundred extrajudicial killings and fifty court-ordered executions occurred during that era. Despite these massive numbers, in a provisional article the 1982 Turkish Constitution adopted under the military rule provided full immunity to the leaders of the military coup, as well all as military-public officials, from any form of prosecution.

 

 

In the 1980s and 1990s the reason for the impunity was because of the Turkish state security forces and the PKK engaged in violent confrontations, at times verging on full-scale warfare. A state of emergency was thus declared where the fighting between Turkish state forces and the PKK was most intense. Regional governors in each emergency province and in the adjacent provinces, with all private and public security forces under their command, were responsible for taking any and all necessary measures under the state of emergency regime. These ‘quasi-martial law’ exceptional powers included the authority to impose curfews, to prohibit persons whose activities were deemed detrimental to public order from entering the concerned region, and to evacuate villages. Against this backdrop, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a large number of applications alleging grave human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances that arose out ofstate officials’ activities in the 1990s in Turkey’s Kurdish southeastern region. The Court has repeatedly found Turkey violating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in over 175 cases concerning the right to life (Art. 2), the freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 3), the right to liberty and security (Art. 5), the right to a fair trial (Art.6), the right to an effective remedy (Art. 13) and the protection of property (Art. 1 of Protocol No.1).

 

The other phase of violent impunity was after the 2015 parliamentary elections. Since then the levels to which violent impunity has reached is alarming. After the 2016 coup an emergency was declared and that resulted in arbitrary actions that resulted in mass arrests, detentions, extracting forced confessions inside jails, filing of false complaints against dissidents, sudden and arbitrary raids on properties of accused individuals without permission, violent ill-treatment of political opponents / dissenters inside jails among other problems. In fact, the situation has been so bad that in November 2019 UN High commissioner noted that “the escalation of torture and violence against detainees while, at the same time, security personnel who may have committed crimes on behalf of the government, enjoyed immunity from prosecution both during and after the attempted coup”. The then high commissioner also suggested that “to tackle the numerous root causes of impunity” in the country. These have remained unaddressed and will need to be done.

 

Information retrieved from:

https://turkeytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/7-Turkey-Tribunal-Turkey-Tribunal-Reports-Compilation-PrintReady.pdf.

 

Out of 128 countries, Turkey ranks a poor 107^th in the rule of law index of 2020. In the year 2014, it was ranked 59^th. These figures reveal a lot about the state of affairs as far as thejudiciary in Turkey is concerned.

 

To understand why Turkey ranks so poorly in the rule of law index there is a need to understand some of the core tenets of what rule of law is. The rule of law is a conception of the State in which all public powers always act within the constraints set out by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts. Under the rule of law, courts thus operate as the ultimate guardians of the respect of the law by public authorities and the State accepts courts’ authority.

 

These rankings do show that the Turkish state is not a rule of law state. In order to clearly understand this there is a need to take two parameters into consideration. They are

 

➢ Judicial Independence

➢ Access to justice and effective judicial protection

 

Judicial independence and rule of law:

Theoretically, the Turkish constitution ensures the independence of the judiciary. Article 9 of the Turkish constitution states that “Judges shall be independent in the discharge of their duties; they shall give judgment in accordance with the Constitution, laws, and their personal conviction conforming with the law. No organ, authority, office or individual may give orders or instructions to courts or judges relating to the exercise of judicial power, send them circulars, or make recommendations or suggestions. Article 139 establishes the security of tenure of judges and public prosecutors and stipulates that: Judges and public prosecutors shall not be dismissed, or unless they request, shall not be retired before the age prescribed by the Constitution; nor shall they be deprived of their salaries, allowances or other rights relating to their status, even as a result of the abolition of a court or a post”.

 

The deterioration of the Turkish judiciary started in 2014 when the Erdogan government signed an Omnibus Law (Law n° 6526 amending the Anti-terror Law, the criminal procedure code, and various laws) that abolished the special courts set up under the umbrella of art. 10 of the Anti-terror Law, the so-called “liberty judges”, and the special prosecutors, without further prorogations of their operations. These changes occurred while investigations and trials on high-profile cases were going on. Once the law entered into force in March of the same year, special judges and prosecutors were relocated by HSYK (then known as the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors) to other tasks in only 15 days. The number and location of the new courts, their territorial jurisdiction, and judges and prosecutors assigned to the new courts were decided by the HSYK in only 6 days since the entering into force of the law.

After signing this law into force The appointment of judges and prosecutors did not follow a public call for applications; judges and prosecutors were not consulted prior to their appointment; the reasons for their appointment were neither made public nor communicated to them. The HSYK decision about the appointment was not reasoned. However, this was only one consequence of the deterioration.

 

Between 2014 and 2016 due to the 2014 omnibus law, Under Government pressure, 2014 and 2016, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors continued to engage in large-scale transfers of judges and prosecutors without their consent. In many cases the reason for the transfer was notable. In one case a judge; judges İbrahim Lorasdağı, Barış Cömert and Necla Yeşilyurt Gülbiçim from the Istanbul Court, who released twenty-one detained journalists after eight months of pre-trial detention, were suspended by the HYSK. In another instance, judges of the Istanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court were removed by the Council after the Court released seventeen detained lawyers. There are many examples of such actions that can be given. A June 2016 ICJ report highlights that transfers of judges between judicial positions in different regions of Turkey were being applied as a hidden form of disciplinary sanction and as a means to marginalize judges and prosecutors seen as unsupportive of Government interests or objectives.

 

If between 2014 ad 2016 there were large-scale transfers of judges, from 2016 onwards after the coup there was large-scale purging of the judiciary. In the immediate aftermath of the coup d’etat, the judicial Council approved a proscription list of 2,745 judges and prosecutors. Between 2016 and 2020 there have been mass dismissals of more than 4000 Turkish judges and prosecutors as well as mass arrests of around 2450 Turkish judges and prosecutors.

 

The judiciary in Turkey is anything but independent. Laws have stifled the independence of the judiciary, judges have been transferred or suspended, they have been pressured, there has been a purge of the judiciary. None of this has any relationship with rule of law or the idea that law as stated by the constitution and the penal code is supreme. Rule of law is the idea that public powers always act within the constraints set out by law.

 

Access to justice and effective judicial protection:

 

The biggest constraint regarding these two points on access to justice and effective judicial protection is a judiciary that is not fully free from governmental pressure.

 

Since the Gezi protests and even before, in high profile cases the Human Rights Defenders (HRD) and especially lawyers have been a target of the Government.

 

Vague definition and broad interpretation of Article 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which constitutes the basis for the intimidation and detention of hundreds of thousands of people, has been repeatedly found by the ECtHR to be contrary to the Convention principles and arbitrarily applied. Most recently, in its judgment dated 22 December 2020 in Selahattin Demirtas v.Turkey 129 (No. 2) case, the Court’s Grand Chamber observed, in line with the Venice Commission’s findings in its Opinion130 on Articles 216, 299, 301, and 314 of the Criminal Code, that the Code does not define the concepts of an “armed organization” and an “armed group”.

 

In terms of effective judicial protection, the state is unable to do it because of the arrest of judges and lawyers. Due to the arrests and detention of lawyers and judges, the number of people who can represent victims of abuse of laws and arbitrary arrests is simply unavailable to do so. In the aftermath of July 2016, 615 lawyers were arrested and 1,600 faced prosecution based on terrorism-related accusations. 450 lawyers have been convicted so far to a total of 2786 years in jail, according to “The Arrested Lawyers Initiative”. Among persecuted lawyers, some were presidents (or former presidents) of provincial bar associations. The consequence is long periods of individuals being in jail without any trial. There is also a long period of waiting time for people to get access and judicial protection.

 

This also a representation of lack of Rule of law is the idea that public powers always act within the constraints set out by law. This is also an affirmation that the judiciary in Turkey is anything but independent.

 

Information from:

https://turkeytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/7-Turkey-Tribunal-Turkey-Tribunal-Reports-Compilation-PrintReady.pdf.

 

 

Abductions have always remained a serious issue in Turkey. With the brief exception of the 2000s Turkey has unfortunately had a poor track record as far as dealing with the issue of abduction of individuals is concerned. Between 2002 and 2015 only 1 case of enforced disappearance was transmitted to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, since 2016 the trend has reversed with 68 cases of abductions between then and 2020/2021. The 68 are reported cases and thus unreported cases can be thought off to be several times higher.

 

There are two kinds of abductions that Turkey is involved in. Abductions within borders i.e. domestic abductions and domestic beyond the International borders. As far as abductions in the international borders is concerned, Turkish officials have repeatedly claimed that Turkey was involved in more than 100 international abductions. In fact, in sharp contrast, Turkey is much more open about its responsibility in terms of extra-territorial abductions.

 

Abductions take place in broad daylight without any fear of consequences and repercussions from the law and order machienary.  For instance, an individual was abducted by a heavily armed group of almost 40 people with many witnesses being present. In these instances people did testify to the police about the abduction of individuals. For instance in the case where an individual was abducted by 40 people there were many witnesses who gave detailed information to the police about such abductions. Technology such as CCTV cameras also did not act as a deterrence against perpetrators who wanted to kidnap individuals in this particular case and did not in the case of other individuals.

 

Many of the abductees were considered by the Turkish State as political opponents. Therefore, many went into hiding knowing that they would be the next in line to get arrested. There were many ways to deduce the involvement of the state in internal abductions of individual people. One was that reference can be made to various statements made by people who were initially abducted but then resurfaced and were finally able to make statements. In one particular case an individual testified before the Ankara 34th High Criminal Court that he was abducted by some of his former Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (“MIT”) colleagues. During a March 2019 hearing in a separate case an individual confirmed that he worked for the Turkish state before he was he was abducted by MIT. Once he was released the abducted individual told human rights watch that he had been kept for 3 months in a secret detention facility by men who told him they worked for the state.

 

Even more incriminating evidence of state involvement in such abductions is that CCTV showing that the abductors frequently wore clothes or badges indicating that they worked for the Turkish police forces or the Turkish secret services. Moreover, these abductions were confirmed by confirmed by a video interview given by Mustafa Yeneroğlu, member of Turkish parliament and former chair of the parliament’s Committee on Human Rights Inquiry.

 

All abductees, consequently, disappeared for a period ranging from one month to as much as two years without any information on their whereabouts was given.

 

 

There are also other ways by which abductees are harassed by the Turkish state. They are as follows;

 

1. The abductees are not allowed to openly discuss their situation with their relatives.
2. The abductees are limited in their right to choose their own lawyer.
3. The abductees are not brought promptly for a judge
4. The abductees are put under pressure to not fully pursue their defence
5. The abductees are prevented from being examined by an independent physician.

 

As a consequence of such manifestly illegal actions by the Turkish state and government political opponents and in extension the ordinary public life in fear in the event that they criticize their government. The public at large fear terrible consequences for them and their family which has a chilling effect on freedom of speech, privacy of individual, fundamental human rights and most importantly the dignity of the larger public. The public and especially political opponents live in fear of repression and with no guarantee for their safety and security. The situation is such that anything can happen anyone opposing the government.

 

Most experts consider such actions to be violations of international laws and statutes and is considered to be enforced disappearances by such experts who understand the legality and illegality of state actions.

 

The UN on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance (the “UN Declaration”) enforced disappearances occur when “persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organised groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.”

 

Article 1 of the UN declaration states that:

 

“Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.”

 

The actions of the Turkish state and known facts corroborate with the definitions of what constitutes abductions or specific method of abduction like enforced disappearances.

 

Information from:

https://turkeytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/7-Turkey-Tribunal-Turkey-Tribunal-Reports-Compilation-PrintReady.pdf.

Just one organization named Human Rights Association – (IHA HRD in Turkish) has reported some 2063 complaints of torture in the years between 2013-2018. These statistics show that torture is a significant problem in Turkey today.

 

 

Torture has been a historic reality and continues to be a present-day reality. Over the last forty years since the 1980 coup torture has been used widely in Turkey. Statistics show that in the 1990s torture was very common in prisons across the country. Various CPT (Committee for the prevention of torture) and well as UN statistics have shown that between 1991 and 2020 Turkey had 620 cases of violation of article 3 of the ECHR. Article 3 of the ECHR treats torture as a human rights violation without exception. With the brief exception of the 2000s when the first Erdogan government declared its zero-tolerance policy towards torture, throughout this entire period torture has been a pervasive and serious issue. For the years 2010 to 2020 i.e. the entire decade independent sources estimate that 3,000 torture complaints were filed on average. The estimate of 2063 between 2013 to 2018 may also be considered alongside the 3000 complaints filed on an average.

 

Estimates are a reflection of what is only part of the problem. The Turkish government does not release exact numbers on the cases of torture. However, some other problems include lack of indictment in torture cases, police harassment and intimidation of individuals who pursue torture complaints against such officers who are involved in the torture of individuals, declining trend as far opening a torture case is concerned.

 

The consequences of torture on political prisoners in Turkey assume an altogether different dimension in Turkey. The least attention is paid to the persecution and torture of political opponents in Turkey. This has especially been so since 2016. Several laws passed after the 2016 coup ensures the possibility of long-term custody in police stations without judicial review, possibility to deny contact with a lawyer for 5 days, refusing lawyers, prohibiting the communication of the judicial file including medical reports, impunity of security officials, (…) which are accompanied by a sharp increase in (allegations of) cases of torture.

 

Torture in Turkey is a reality and the situation is dire. Various reports on the complaints on torture, the lack of respect for the basic rights of imprisoned people, and vague laws with the intent of persecuting political opponents have placed citizens across various sections of society in a vulnerable situation.  Some laws such as detaining people without a political review increase the possibility of grievous torture being inflicted on the individual. In addition, such provisions in various laws are in every way a violation of International law and various human rights statutes.

 

Information from:

https://turkeytribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/7-Turkey-Tribunal-Turkey-Tribunal-Reports-Compilation-PrintReady.pdf.

In the conventional sense, there is not exactly something called a tribunal court.

However, a tribunal can assume multiple forms. A tribunal can be an institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes. Such institutions may or may not be known or called courts.

 

However, several institutions are tribunals and have the mandate to function like courts. These can be called or are known as tribunal courts. For example, ICTR or International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had the mandate of prosecuting people who were involved in the Rwandan genocide. It involved the typical court proceedings such as presenting evidence in front of the judge. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is not the only tribunal court that had the mandate of prosecuting people who were involved in serious criminal activities. There is also a special tribunal for Lebanon that is investigating the circumstances under which former President Rafic Hariri was assassinated. To deal with crimes in the former Yugoslavia there is an international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

 

There is a significant difference between a court and a tribunal. A tribunal has a specific mandate of individuals or the type of individuals who can be prosecuted. That is not the case with courts. This can be said to be the case with both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International court of justice (ICJ). Indeed, the ICC deals with crimes committed by individuals, and the ICJ deals with disputes between nation-states. However, the Rome Statute that governs the conduct of the ICC lists four kinds of activities as crimes. They are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Crime of aggression was included as a serious criminal offense in 2017. The ICJ is an organ of the UN and thus the UN statute governs the ICJ’s conduct as well as other relevant international law. Therefore, the ICC and ICJ would not be classed as a tribunal because the courts deal with a wide range of cases rather than specific cases and individuals connected to the case.

The most common non-court activity of a tribunal is an award of claims and compensation to businesses. An international tribunal can order multinational companies to seize assets in case governments fail to pay the compensation in case of a business dispute.

 

 

Sources:

1. https://books.google.nl/books?id=4GgYAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y.

2.https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/tribunal?q=tribunal.

3. https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf.