Briefing: Judgments of the ECtHR pending implementation concerning victims of political repression in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey

/

Last week, the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC) and the European Implementation Network (EIN) held an online briefing on the topic of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation concerning victims of political repression in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey. 

This briefing to officials from the Council of Europe Member States and the EU concerned insights and recommendations from various members of civil society involved in political repression cases, including victims, lawyers, and NGO leaders. While the theme of the briefing focused on political repression in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey, presentations specifically covered four different cases: Navalny, Kavala, Demirtaş, and the Mammadli group. 

The briefing began with Pepijn Gerrits, Executive Director, NHC; and Professor Philip Leach, Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre and Vice-Chair of the European Implementation Network welcoming participants and introducing the sessions. Next, a presentation was given by Ilgar Mammadov, Chairperson of the Republican Alternative Party (Azerbaijan), former political prisoner, and applicant in the only ECHR infringement proceedings to date, on the lessons learnt from his own case in the implementation of ECtHR cases concerning victims of politically motivated prosecution. 

Then a presentation on the case of Alexei Navalny (Navalnyy and Ofitserov v Russian Federation (46632/13); (Navalnyye v Russian Federation, (101/15), was given by the legal representative of Mr. Navalny. This was followed by a presentation by Professor Köksal Bayraktar, legal representative of Mr. Kavala, and Emma Sinclair-Webb, Europe and Central Asia Associate Director, Human Rights Watch, also regarding the case of Osman Kavala (Kavala v Turkey, 28749/18). The case of Selahattin Demirtaş (Selahattin Demirtaş No 2, 14305/17) was then presented by Mr. Demirtaş’ legal representative Benan Molu.

The final presentation focused on Azerbaijani politicians, human rights lawyers, journalists and activists’ cases subjected to political persecution, and was given by Anar Mammadli, Chairperson of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center, one of the applicant in the Mammadli group of cases v Azerbaijan (47145/14 and others). The briefing concluded with an open discussion, allowing participants to ask questions and deepen their understanding of the presentations given.

We would like to thank all those who were able to join the briefing, especially those who presented on these important cases. We hope that this briefing will help promote and encourage the full implementation of these cases.

For information about the NHC, visit their website at https://www.nhc.nl/, follow them on Twitter @NHC_nl, Facebook or LinkedIn, and/or subscribe to their newsletter.

Turkey Implementation Training with Netherlands Helsinki Committee

/
CFA EIN Training event2 (1).png

Last week, EIN and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC) hosted a 3-day training workshop on advocating for full and effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Turkey. Each day of training focused on three main topics on ECtHR implementation in Turkey. 

The first session was introduced and moderated by EIN Director George Stafford, starting with a discussion session regarding participants’ experiences and training expectations, as well as the basics of the implementation system (based on previously circulated video material on implementation). Following this discussion, three presentations were given, with each presentation concluding with a question-and-answer period for participants to deepen their understanding of the implementation process. The first discussion of the day provided participants with an overview of the ECtHR implementation process.

Ayse Bingol, Co-Director of the Turkey Litigation Support Project, presented how Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) can get involved in the ECtHR implementation process. Ayse specifically outlined what to include in submissions to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (CM) and the importance of engaging with the CM. Next, Işık Batmaz, Head of Section at the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights presented on best practices for NGO submissions and discussed what mistakes to avoid. The session concluded with George Stafford, Director of the European Implementation Network, who discussed infringement proceedings under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its potential to execute European Court of Human Rights judgments.

The second day of training focused on Turkish NGOs and human rights lawyers experience with engaging in the ECtHR implementation, who shared their own experiences. The session was introduced and moderated by Ayse Bingol, followed by three brief presentations. The first was by Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey Director of Human Rights Watch, focused on CM submissions as an advocacy tool. Next, Özlem Zingil, Hafiza Merkezi Turkey (Truth Justice Memory Centre) on forming alliances with other organisations. The final presentation was by Benan Molu, an independent human rights lawyer, on the need for more lawyers to be involved in the implementation process. These presentations gave participants valuable information on ECtHR implementation and lessons learned thus far. The session concluded with a roundtable session on opportunities and challenges in implementing ECtHR judgments in Turkey. 

EIN Director George Stafford introduced and moderated the final training session, which focused on practical discussions on approaching selected cases. This last day of training took the form of three breakout sessions, allowing participants to discuss how they would approach specific ECtHR judgments pending implementation in Turkey. The cases selected concerned the absence of any review mechanism in Turkish legislation for an aggravated life imprisonment sentence (Gurban v. Turkey group); freedom of expression on account of the seizure and confiscation of magazines considered to infringe on public morals (Kaos GL v. Turkey); and the inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of an employee of a public institute, under an emergency legislative decree, on account of his alleged links with a terrorist organisation (Pişkin v. Turkey). The session concluded with presentations from each breakout group explaining their approach to tackling the implementation process of their case, which allowed participants to apply all three days of training.

We thank all moderators and participants for attending the training session, especially NHC, for supporting and collaborating on this training event, as well as the exceptional translators. Thank you all.

 For information about the NHC, visit their website at https://www.nhc.nl/ and/or follow them on Twitter @NHC_nl, Facebook or LinkedIn, and subscribe to their newsletter.

 

Civil Society Briefing: Turkey, Kavala, and Demirtaş

/

This week EIN held its first civil society briefing of 2021. The briefing was held online due to Covid-19. These civil society briefings update the Committee of Ministers (CM) with information on the progress of specific cases. Read more on the implementation process here.

This briefing had two sessions, the first took place on Tuesday, February 23rd, and the second was on February 26th. The first session covered two Turkish cases, presented by Emma Sinclair, Turkey Director at Human Rights Watch, Ayse Bingol, Project Co-Director at the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, and Kerem Altiparmak, Human Rights Lawyer and Founder at the Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD).

The Kavala v. Turkey case concerns a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender who is unjustifiably being detained, for over 1200 days, as a means to silence his speech. More on Kavala here.

Overview of Recommendations by Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Kavala 

Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the immediate release of Kavala. If he does remain in pre-trial detention at the time of the 1398th 9-11 March 2021 meeting, the CM should trigger infringement proceedings against Turkey.

General Measures:

The NGOs urges Turkey to address/implement ECtHR violations concerning the right to liberty and security and on the limitations on restricting rights.

Specifically, to: 

  • Request Turkey to inform the Committee of Ministers about the number of people detained on remand since 15 July 2016.

  • Urge Turkey to revise its Action Plan and address in full the structural problems identified in the ECtHR Kavala v. Turkey judgment and recommendations by NGOs.

  • Call on Turkey to pursue a clear and detailed strategy to prevent violations of the rights protected in the Convention. 

Overview of Recommendations by Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD) on Kavala 

IFÖD urges the CM to invite Turkey to provide statistical information about detention orders issues in the last 5 years and continue to supervise Turkish judicial practice concerning pre-trial detention with the Convention standards.

The Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) case concerns the arrest/detention of one of Turkey's main opposition leaders to limit political debate.

Overview of Recommendations by ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project on Demirtaş

Procedural Matters:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to place Demirtaş v. Turkey (No.2) under enhanced procedures and treated as a leading case.

 Individual Measures:

The NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Demirtaş required by the judgment and indicate that his ongoing detention is a prolong violation of his rights.

  • Request the Government of Turkey to end the abuse of judicial proceedings to harass Demirtaş, including by dropping all charges under which he has been investigated and detained.

  • Publicly correct false claims promoted by senior officials of the Government of Turkey.

The second briefing took place on Friday, 26th February 2021. This session focused on two case groups:

Relevant Documents: