Through commentary, we provide timely, critical and legally grounded analysis of developments affecting human rights, the rule of law and judicial independence in Türkiye.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
