Posted on

Le glas de la démocratie ne cesse de sonner en Turquie

COMMUNIQUE CONJOINT MEDEL – AED-EDL

Le glas de la démocratie ne cesse de sonner en Turquie et le référendum constitutionnel tendant à donner les pleins pouvoirs à Recep Tayyip Edogan le fera résonner une nouvelle fois.

La fin de l’état de droit démocratique en TURQUIE

Tout se passe dans un contexte de répression arbitraire allant crescendo depuis le coup d’état raté du 15 juillet pour atteindre une ampleur considérable : près de 45 000 personnes ont été arrêtées (dont 3800 magistrats, 300 avocats, 140 journalistes, des élus, notamment 12 députés, des universitaires…), plus de 150 000 ont été limogées dont un quart des magistrats en poste à la mi-juillet. Ces chiffres -pouvant varier selon les sources mais restant toujours dans le même ordre de grandeur- traduisent une volonté de faire régner la peur bien au-delà de la sphère « complotiste ».

Dire le droit, rendre la justice, défendre un accusé, écrire un article, couvrir un évènement, enseigner … cela n’est plus possible sauf à se soumettre aux exigences du pouvoir.

La liberté d’expression, la liberté académique, l’indépendance et l’impartialité de la justice, le droit à une défense libre, la liberté d’association et de syndicalisation, autant de principes démocratiques qui n’ont plus de place dans le régime turc. La liste des violations des principes démocratiques est sans fin. Sans oublier le rétablissement de la peine de mort, annoncé « au nom de la volonté du peuple » et retentissant comme un énième acte de défi envers l’Europe et ses valeurs.

Il n’y a plus de justice en TURQUIE

Après l’échec du putsch, la démocratie n’a pas triomphé même si le régime politique civil a été sauvé. Et l’épicentre de ce séisme démocratique est la détérioration de la justice et la mise à mal, qui n’en finit plus, de l’Etat de droit.

Des juges menacés en permanence de destitution et d’arrestation ne peuvent juger de façon indépendante et impartiale. Sans compter la quasi annihilation de la défense par des dispositifs procéduraux d’exception (entretien limité et enregistré avec l’avocat, accès au dossier entravé par « l’ordonnance de confidentialité »…) ou par l’intimidation répressive.

En outre, l’instauration de l’impunité d’Etat crée un climat propice à des abus de pouvoir à large échelle. Les ONG Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, l’ONU …tous font état de tortures et de mauvais traitements. Or, dans les décrets-lois pris en application de l’état d’urgence, désormais en place depuis plus de 8 mois, a été insérée une disposition accordant l’immunité aux forces de police pour les crimes commis pendant cette période trouble.

En pleine tempête politique : un référendum constitutionnel pour donner les pleins pouvoirs au président

Dans un tel contexte d’état d’exception permanent, de répression arbitraire et d’écrasement des libertés fondamentales, on ne peut imaginer une consultation électorale sereine sur un texte constitutionnel censé organiser la vie publique des prochaines générations et sceller le sort de la Turquie pour les années à venir.

Tout Etat a le droit de choisir son propre système politique, que ce soit présidentiel ou parlementaire, ou mixte. Ce droit n’est cependant pas inconditionnel : les principes de séparation des pouvoirs et de primauté du droit doivent être respectés et pour cela des contre-pouvoirs doivent être intégrés dans le système politique. Alors que le manque d’indépendance de la justice en Turquie est depuis longtemps préoccupant, les modifications proposées ne feraient qu’affaiblir le rôle de la justice. La mainmise du pouvoir exécutif sur le fonctionnement de la justice serait accentuée, notamment, grâce à un contrôle des décisions de nomination, mutation, discipline et révocation des magistrats via le Conseil des juges et procureurs dont les treize membres seraient nommés directement ou indirectement par le président. Il en serait de même pour les 15 membres de la Cour constitutionnelle.

Et bien d’autres dispositions sont considérées comme dangereuses par la commission de Venise dans un avis récent [-29-CDL-AD (2017) 005] qui souligne la dégénérescence démocratique du système proposé s’orientant clairement vers un régime autoritaire et personnel.

L’Europe, empêtrée dans la gestion des flux migratoires, peine à agir efficacement pour soutenir les mouvements des démocrates en Turquie et la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme déçoit, pour le moment, la confiance mise par ceux-ci en cette justice des droits de l’homme.

Nous ne devons pas rester silencieux face à ce qui se passe en Turquie et Nous MEDEL et AED continuerons à nous mobiliser aux côtés des démocrates turcs en faveur d’un avenir serein de leur pays dans la plénitude d’une démocratie laissant toute sa place à une justice indépendante et une défense libre.

PARIS le 25 April 2017

 

 

Posted on

CALL ON CHINA TO ENSURE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

A Joint Statement by Legal Professional Groups & Human Rights NGOs on the forthcoming trials of the cases of the 709 Crackdown  

 

To:

   All Press and Media (for immediate release)

 

From:   China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG)

Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network (TCLN)

 

Subject:   A Joint Statement To the Chinese Government Calling on Fair Trial

 

Date: 23/03/2017

 

Enquiries/ Interview:  Kit Chan, Executive Director, CHRLCG (+852 2388 1377) Chou Ching-Chang, General Secretary, TCLN (+886 0912 561 284)

(23 March 2017 – Hong Kong/ Taiwan) Since 9 July 2015, the Chinese government has questioned, summoned and/or detained over 300 human rights lawyers, law firm staff and human rights defenders in a manoeuvre now commonly known as the “709 Crackdown”. Some of these individuals were subsequently indicted for their “crimes”. In early August 2016, four individuals – human rights lawyer Zhou Shifeng and defenders Hu Shigen, Gou Hongguo and Zhai Yanmin – were convicted and sentenced in a deeply flawed trial process that breached both domestic and international laws. [1]

Lawyers Li Heping, Xie Yang and Wang Quanzhang as well as legal activist Wu Gan have been indicted following the Crackdown. It has remained a concern that no trial arrangements have thus far been made for the cases. To caution against repeating the rights violations that took place in the August 2016 hearings, we, the undersigned, solemnly call on the Chinese government to abide by its laws and Constitution as well as international human rights standards by ensuring that respective judicial processes, when take place, will be conducted in full compliance with the basic principles of due process, including the right to a fair trial. Specifically, we are concerned about violations related to independent and impartial courts; the presumption of innocence; the right to counsel; and an open trial. We also express our grave and continued concern about the status of lawyer Jiang Tianyong, who has been held in secret detention since 21 November 2016. We also express our grave and continued concern about the status of lawyer Jiang Tianyong, who has been held in secret detention since 21 November 2016.[2]

Case Background

Lawyers Li Heping and Wang Quanzhang were taken by police on 10 July 2015 from different locations in Beijing; they were charged with “subverting state power” on 5 December 2016 and 14 February 2017, respectively. However, their families have thus far not been provided with any formal documents on their indictment. For the past 20 months, lawyers Li and Wang have been held incommunicado. However, their family members have been pressured by the police to make videos to persuade the lawyers to plead guilty.

The Chinese authorities’ decision not to respond to credible allegations regarding the torture suffered by the two lawyers, which came to light in January 2017, is both deeply regrettable and deeply irresponsible.

Lawyer Xie Yang was captured in Huaihua, Hunan, on 11 July 2015, and was indicted on 16 December 2016 for the alleged crimes of “inciting subversion of state power” and “disruption of court order”. Xie was not allowed to meet the defence counsels appointed by his family until the end of November 2016. As relayed by his defence counsels after meeting him, Xie suffered long-term sleep and food deprivation during his detention. He was also reported to have been physically assaulted and suffered inhuman treatment. [3] Xie’s lawyers have been barred from meeting him since testimonies of his alleged torture was publicized in January 2017. Wu Gan, activist and staff member of the Fengrui Law Firm, is also awaiting trial for allegedly “subverting state power”. Wu has also detailed, through conversations with his lawyers, the torture experienced during his detention.

Our Calls

Due process, including the right to a fair trial, is the bedrock of the rule of law. The right to fair trial is an essential component of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) signed by China in 1998. It is stipulated not only in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (the PRC Constitution), but also in the country’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). As a right stipulated by both domestic and international laws, the protection of the right to fair trial without undue delay is a legal obligation that the Chinese government must uphold.

We remind the government that any further trespass of the rule of law and the basic human rights of individuals will result in perpetuating the country’s reputation for, and image of, injustice.

In this light, we urge the Chinese government and the People’s Court in charge of the cases (the Court) in particular, to ensure that the following minimum requirements are met in the forthcoming trials aforesaid:

  1. Independent and Impartial Court [4]

While the UDHR stresses “an independent and impartial tribunal”, the PRC Constitution has gone further to stipulate that “(t)he people’s courts exercise judicial power independently, in accordance with the provisions of law, and not subject to interference by any administrative organ, public organization or individual.” The necessity for courts to maintain independence and impartiality is highlighted also in the ICCPR and in the domestic CPL.

We urge the Chinese government not to intervene or interfere with the Court in its handling of the cases. We also call on the Court and the presiding judges to adhere to all principles of due process, including fair trial and all other rights and principles set forth in the UDHR, the ICCPR, the PRC Constitution, the CPL, and including the rights identified herein.

  1. Presumption of Innocence [5]

Presumption of innocence is the starting point of equality before the law. Accordingly, defendants to be tried should not be treated in a manner that presumes guilt until proven otherwise.

We hence condemn the authorities’ efforts to enforce self-incrimination via state media and to attempt to coerce family members to persuade the accused lawyers to plead guilty. We strongly condemn the use of torture and inhuman treatments to extract confession.

We urge the Court to investigate the complaints of torture and the unlawful practices used to extract confessions and self-incrimination so as to ensure that any confessions are properly and legally admissible. We similarly urge authorities to undertake prompt, independent and effective investigations into such allegations so that all perpetrators are held legally accountable. We call on the Court to act in accordance with the law, and to exclude all illegal evidence, including that obtained via means of the above. [6]

  1. Right to Counsel [7]

The right to counsel is a constitutionally protected right in China. We, however, remain greatly disturbed by the four 709 Crackdown trials held in early August 2016, in which none of the accused was defended by counsel of their or their family’s free choosing.

We are also gravely concerned that lawyers Li Heping and Wang Quanzhang have thus far not been able to meet the lawyers appointed by their families. While the CPL permits derogation of rights to meet with counsel during investigation of state security-related crimes, we are of the view that the restriction should no longer apply at a stage when investigation is completed and both lawyers are now indicted and awaiting trials.

We hence urge the Chinese authorities to immediately arrange for lawyers Li and Wang to meet the counsels appointed by their families. In case where the detained lawyers intend to dismiss their counsels, as the police have once claimed, we maintain that article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security and Other Departments on Legally Protecting Lawyers’ Practicing Rights (2015) should be observed to allow the defence counsels to meet their clients and affirm their intention in person.

Along these lines, we call on the Chinese authorities to ensure that the accused individuals will be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to consult their counsels of choosing in full confidentiality. [8]

We also call on the Court to ensure that the prosecutors and defence counsels will be treated equally and fairly during the trials and that the defendants will have all the guarantees necessary for their respective defence.

  1. Open Trial [9]

The PRC Constitution stipulates that court hearings should be open. Accordingly, all trials, unless implicating state secrets, protection of minors or matters of privacy, should be open to the public.

We take note of the four trials held in August 2016. We deem it regrettable that dates and information about the trials was released either on the eve of the trials or on the day they were to take place. It also remains a deep concern of ours that the courtrooms for those trials were attended by authority-invited media and that none of the family members or defence counsels appointed by them was allowed to attend the hearings.

Referring to the CPL and the PRC Court Rules of the People’s Courts (the Court Rules), [10] we urge the Court to abide by its judicial obligations, and ensure that the date, time and venue of the trials be duly announced in accordance with the law; that next-of-kin to the defendants shall be given priority to attend the court hearings; and that all media and members of the public have equal access to the hearings.

We also strongly caution against any attempt to hold a secret trial. The abusive use of the broad and imprecise definition of state secrecy against rights defenders in China has long and often been criticized both in and out of the country.

We call on the Court to take note of the Johannesburg Principles, and ensure (1), that no restriction to the right to open trial should be allowed unless and until evidence is legally sufficient to prove actual harm to a legitimate national security interest; and (2), that restriction of access to the trials should only be made “to the extent strictly necessary for the purposes of considering evidence that has been classified as a secret”. [11]

We, the undersigned, will continue to monitor the status of the human rights lawyers and defenders implicated in the 709 Crackdown, including the protection of their basic human rights.

Initiators

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG)

Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network (TCLN)

 

Co-signatories

  • Legal Professionals

Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales

Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers (CSCL)

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)

European Democratic Lawyers (AED)

International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L)

L’Institut des droits de l’homme des avocats européens (IDHAE)

L’Observatoire international des avocats en danger (OIAD)

Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)

Boehringer, Gill, Honorary Associate of School of Law, Macquarie University, Australia

Italianer, Joost, Dutch lawyer, part-time judge, member of the Dutch Disciplinary Court of Appeals for lawyers

MNA Rehan & Partners, Member of Islamabad Bar Association and Islamabad High Court Bar Association

Pils, Eva, Reader in Transnational Law Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London

Russell, Stuart, Co-director of International Association of People’s Lawyers Monitoring Committee

  • Human Rights Organisations

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW)

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS)

Human Rights in China (HRIC)

Human Rights Now, Japan (HRN)

Human Rights Watch (HRW)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese

Taiwan Association for China Human Rights (TACHR)

Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)

Taiwan, Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF)

Tibet Justice Center

 

 

 

[1] See details in a report prepared by the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group on 7 August 2016   https://goo.gl/WTvO5l

[2] For more details http://www.chrlawyers.hk/sites/default/files/Day%20of%20the%20Endangered%20lawyer%20English.pdf

http://www.chrlawyers.hk/en/%E6%96%87%E7%AB%A0%E9%A1%9E%E5%9E%8B/%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E

[3] Transcription of interviews with lawyer Xie Yang by his counsel Chen Jiangang (1-4)   https://chinachange.org/2017/01/19/transcript-of-interviews-with-lawyer-xie-yang-1/

[4] UDHR (art. 10), ICCPR (art. 14.1), the PRC Constitution (art.126) and CPL (arts. 3 and 5)

[5] UDHR (art. 11), ICCPR (art. 14.2), CPL (art. 12)

[6] CPL (arts. 18, 50 and 54)

[7] The PRC Constitution (art. 125), CPL (art. 11), ICCPR (art. 14.3d), the Basic Principles (art. 1, 19, 27)

[8] UDHR (art. 11), ICCPR (art. 14.3b) and the Basic Principles (art. 8)

[9] The PRC Constitution (art. 125), UDHR (art. 10), ICCPR (art. 14.1)

[10] CPL (art. 182), the Court Rules (art. 9)

[11] Joshua D. Rosenzweig, “Public Access and the Right to a Fair Trial in China”, the Dui Hua Foundation, http://duihua.org/wp/?page_id=2542 , visited on 3 March 2017

Posted on

« Le système judiciaire sous l’état d’urgence, en Turquie »

Mes Chers confrères,

Comme vous le savez, je me suis rendue à ANKARA les 13, 14 et 15 janvier dernier, pour participer à une conférence internationale portant sur conférence organisée par 22 Barreaux turcs (entre autres Ankara, Adana, Antalaya et Diyarbakir), l’AED, la Fondation de la  Journée de l’Avocat Menacé, l’ELDH et le MEDEL avec le soutien de quelques organisations internationales européennes et Barreaux.

J’étais en compagnie de Robert SABATA, secrétaire général de l’AED, de Jean-Philippe DE WIND, membre du SAD et de Hans GAASBEEK du VSAN et de la Fondation de la Journée de l’Avocat Menacé.

A titre d’information, je joins à la présente le texte de présentation de la conférence, la liste de participants, le communiqué de presse et les différents thèmes qui ont été abordés.

C’est en qualité de Présidente de l’AED que j’ai été amenée à intervenir dans ce colloque, tant en ouverture de séance, que sur deux tables rondes, ainsi que lors de la conférence de presse qui a été organisée par nos confrères turcs.

Il s’agissait pour nous, participants étrangers, de marquer notre solidarité avec les confrères, magistrats, journalistes et députés qui, depuis que l’état d’urgence a été déclaré en juillet dernier, vivent des moments particulièrement difficiles, subissant des arrestations arbitraires, des séquestrations, des destitutions, des tortures, pour des faits de terrorisme qui n’ont absolument rien à voir avec la réalité de leurs activités.

Entre 200 et 300 personnes étaient présentes pendant ces trois jours de travaux et je ne peux que louer le courage des ces différents participants dont de nombreux bâtonniers, confrères, juges, parquetiers, journalistes, enseignants et parlementaires, qui du simple fait de leur présence lors de cette rencontre se sont exposés durablement.

Je dois signaler que l’une de nos consœurs italiennes, Barbara SPINELLI, qui devait participer à la conférence pour le compte de l’ ELDH, a été empêchée d’entrer sur le territoire turc, retenue à la frontière à Istanbul et expulsée vers l’Italie, en raison du fait qu’elle a, par le passé, assuré la défense d’accusés kurdes.

Les témoignages que nous avons pu entendre sont accablants quant à l’irrespect total de l’état de droit en Turquie. Des confrères sont arrêtés pour avoir défendu leur clients ; des magistrats sont arrêtés ou destitués pour avoir tenté de dire le droit ; des journalistes sont arrêtés ou licenciés pour avoir été présents sur le lieu d’évènements considérés comme contraires au régime ; des parlementaires sont insultés et brutalisés dans l’hémicycle…

Le Président Erdogan a maintenant pris la décision de changer la constitution turque pour installer un régime présidentiel à la place du régime parlementaire. Pour cela il fait voter les modifications par un parlement totalement réduit à néant puisque l’ensemble des députés susceptibles de s’opposer à son projet ont été, soit incarcérés, soit destitués. Il faut faire une mention spéciale pour les MP du HPD qui poursuivent la mise en place d’un processus de paix au Kurdistan. La légalité démocratique et l’État de Droit sont sur le point de disparaître en Turquie.

Cette conférence était d’une grande importance pour les juristes turcs attachés aux valeurs de la démocratie, et la présence d’organisations étrangères leur a permis de se sentir moins isolés, sans pour autant, soyons en conscients, leur accorder une véritable protection pour l’avenir.

Il nous faut donc être particulièrement vigilants pour eux.

Pour finir, je souhaite remercier les confrères turcs pour la qualité de l’organisation de cette conférence.

En tout cas, ils nous ont donné une belle leçon de courage.

Posted on

Basic Report about the oppression of lawyers in China

Approximately 300,000 lawyers are practising in China. Lawyers in China are closely monitored by the State for their work. Apart from direct intervention from the judicial bureaus and the lawyers association, lawyers are kept under control also by a controversial Annual Inspection system. In order to continue their practice, lawyers have to submit their lawyer’s licence to the judicial bureau, the executive branch of the judiciary, for inspection on an annual basis. They will be scrutinised for the cases they handled, especially the so-called “politically sensitive” ones, which are often with human rights and/or rule of law implications. A lawyer who fails the inspection will not be given a stamp on his or her licence. The stamp, which is an administrative measure and without legal basis, will determine if a lawyer can continue his or her practice in the following year. The authorities may also suspend the lawyer’s practice by holding the licence for a prolonged period of time, hence stopping the lawyer from practising.

 

In their daily practice, lawyers also encounter harassment and intimidation by the public security officers, a special branch of the police, and by the courts. They could be forbidden to meet their clients and/or to have access to files, often and again for the so-called politically sensitive cases. Situations of this kind may result in lawyers being criminally detained or subjected to violence if they insist that their procedural rights or due process be observed. Other measures against the rights of lawyers include forcing them and their family to constantly move home and/or forbidding them from travelling outside the country.

International treaties

China has ratified the following international human rights treaties (date of ratification):

  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1980); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1981);
  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1988);
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992);
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001);
  • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008)

 

China has signed but not ratified the following treaty:

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed in 1998)

 

China has also supported the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the 8th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Havana, Cuba, in 1990, which inter alia, obliges the State to protect lawyers.

In China, the defects in the Criminal Law (CL) and the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) have also put the rights of lawyers at risk. While the CL provides the authorities with arbitrary powers to bring criminal charges against lawyers, articles 306 and 309, for instance, the CPL can subject detained lawyers to prolonged pre-trial detention with deprivation of rights under various pretexts, articles 37 and 73, for instance. As past experiences reveal, lawyers held under this kind of situation could be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment.

Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was sentenced on December 22, 2015 after being detained for over 19 months. He was found guilty of “inciting ethnic hatred” as well as “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. Another lawyer recently imprisoned is Tang Jingling. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment in January 2016, 20 months after his first detention in May 2014, for “inciting subversion of state power”. Most recently, the director of the Fengrui Law Firm, which is at the centre of the 709 crackdown, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for allegedly “subverting state power”.

 

709 Crackdown of Human Rights Lawyers and Defenders

On July 9, 2015, human rights lawyer Wang Yu and her family disappeared in the middle of the night. Thereafter, a large numbers of human rights lawyers and defenders were persecuted in a concerted manner on an unprecedented scale. The crackdown resulted in an outcry and attention from the international community including legal professionals.

So far over 300 lawyers and defenders have been targeted. They were either summoned or temporarily detained, and subsequently 24 were formally arrested. Many of these 24 were arrested after being held for six months incommunicado.

From August 2 to 5, 2016, four of the lawyers were sentenced during controversial trials. The four cases involved human rights lawyer Zhou Shifeng (director of the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm) as well as human rights defenders Hu Shigen, Zhai Yanmin and Gou Hongguo. All were charged with the crime of “subverting state power”.

According to Amnesty International 245 lawyers and activists have been targeted since July 9, 2015, when the crackdown started.

Many different lawyers organisations and human rights organisations have expressed their outrage about the mass arrests. For example, the Lawyers for Lawyers foundation, the International Association of People’s Lawyers monitoring committee on attacks on lawyers, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada and the Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group. Amongst other issues, they have focused on the forced disappearances and the detention of lawyers as criminal suspects and intimidation. Many lawyers organisations, Bar associations and human rights organisations have signed joint letters to express their worries about the detention and harassment of lawyers.

The CCBE, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, has recently sent a protest letter to the Chinese government urging the Chinese government to take effective steps to drop all charges against the lawyers and to order the immediate release of the detained lawyers; it is believed that the charges against these lawyers are solely motivated by their legitimate and peaceful defence of human rights.

It is sad and shocking that the charges against the lawyers and also their legal assistants fall under security-related crimes. Most of the arrested lawyers are accused of subversion of state power or inciting subversion of state power. With the effect that their rights to due process are suspended and that they suffer extended detention periods during which they are often deprived of access to their lawyers.

Many of these arrested lawyers and there assistants have been detained incommunicado. It is outrageous that even after many months in jail they were still not able to meet their defence counsel. Incommunicado detention often makes torture and inhuman treatment possible.

Even the families of arrested lawyers were requested to persuade these lawyers to “confess their mistakes” on a film and to incriminate themselves, which is in our opinion an attack on the integrity of evidence collection during police investigations.

We refer to the report of Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada http://www.lrwc.org and to the very detailed information in this report, as well as the open letter to the President of the People’s Republic of China of July 9, 2016, about the due process for lawyers in detention. Finally, we refer to the report on the 709 crackdown.

 

English: http://www.chrlawyers.hk/en/content/report-709-crackdown

 

Report 1/8/2016 by:

Imane Aynan

Hans Gaasbeek

International coordinators of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer

http://www.dayoftheendangeredlawyer.eu

 

Posted on

7th Day Of the Endangered Lawyer with the focus on the persecuted and harassed Chinese lawyers on the 24th of January 2017 in around 30 cities

Every January 24th lawyers around the world support endangered lawyers in other countries by holding protests in front of the Embassies and Consulates of a designated country, holding meetings, press conferences and other activities.

This time the designated country will be China, which unleashed a massive crackdown against lawyers in July 2015. Before these mass arrests, many lawyers were already harassed or arrested because of taking up cases with Human Rights implications.

On this Day Of The Endangered Lawyer in as many cities is possible a centralized petition will be handed over at the same time to Ambassadors, Consuls and other official legal institutions. In this petition we ask the attention of the Chinese government for the problematic situation of the endangered Chinese lawyers. We will also put pressure on the Chinese Government to take care that the situation of the lawyers will be ameliorated as soon as possible. And that the persecution and harassment of these lawyers will be stopped.

The aim of the Day is to try to get a dialogue with the Ambassadors or other representatives of the Peoples Republic of China.

In other cities press conferences, colloquia and other manifestations on this issue will take place.

 

 

Posted on

Le déficit démocratique aujourd’hui en Turquie:

Des autocrates au pouvoir et de la répression.

Dès le 15 juin dernier plus de 40.000 personnes sont en prison, d’entre les 100.000 détenus à cause d’un Coup d’État qui reste une énigme politique de premier ordre. Actuellement on peut dire que :

Il existe une manipulation de tout mass media et la fermeture de maints journaux, radios, télévisons : donc, pas d’opposition médiatique aux consignes antidémocratiques et tyranniques des pouvoirs publics.

Les attaques aux parlementaires et aux maires de l’HDP et (parti Démocratique des Peuples) sont évidents.

Ainsi que les purges de fonctionnaires (3000 licenciés et 40.000 en attente de l’être).

Il existe des groupes paramilitaires et parapoliciers qui commencent à agir de partout.

Les Modifications urgentes du Procès pénal pour empêcher le libre exercice de la défense (s’il existait déjà avant le coup d’État) sont une réalité.

Les procès pénitentiaires ont été modifiés. La torture est très généralisée en prison et en garde-à-vue.

La mort civile des opposants moyennant la « freeze assets » complet qui leur fait impossible de même s’alimenter. Les passeports sont retirés aux suspects et à leurs familles qui deviennent ainsi des otages politiques.

Du point de vue du Droit de la défense la situation s’aggrave de jour en jour. Le Conseil Supérieur des Juges et Procureurs (HSYK) continue a être choisi/élu par le pouvoir exécutif, ce qui suppose un brisement du principe de la division des pouvoirs de l’État. Ce Conseil terrorise les Juges ou Magistrats qui ne suivent pas ses consignes politiques en prenant tout genre de représailles contre eux, en une attaque directe contre l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire. Viendra le tour des défendeurs des DH qui ont toujours subit une attention “spéciale” des pouvoirs politiques en Turquie.

Le Magistrats et les Avocats doivent faire face au péril de confrontation civile en Turquie. Le 29 octobre la ÇHD (Association de Avocats Progressistes en Turquie) tiendra une conférence à Izmir avec des associations de Magistrats pour analyser la situation et chercher des complicités qui apparaissaient difficiles auparavant.

Et finalement, les populations kurdes et les minorités nationales, culturelles ou religieuses souffrent de plus en plus et toujours la répression, le meurtre et l’oubli de l’Europe, enfermée dans son bastion aveugle face aux crimes contre l’humanité qui se produisent chaque jour au sud-est et ailleurs en Turquie.

Aussi face à cette situation l’AED condamne les actuations du Gouvernement turc limitant et contre les Droits Civils et politiques de ses citoyens et condamne de même les crimes contre l’Humanité qui se produisent en Turquie sous le paravent des pouvoirs étatiques.

Barcelona, Bruxelles, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Milano, Bilbao, Amsterdam

10 Octobre 2016

AED/EDL (Avocats Européens Démocrates / European Democratic Lawyers)

Membre adhéré en Turquie: ÇHD – Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği (Association de Avocats Progressistes) / www.chd.org.tr

Posted on

Update on Trials in Turkey

A colleague in Istanbul, the lawyer Elvan Olkun, has sent us an update of the trials taking place in Turkey at the moment:

1. Trial of the members of  ÖHD (ÖZGÜRLÜKÇÜ HUKUKÇULAR DERNEĞI – ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS FOR FREEDOM)

12 lawyers, members of ÖHD (Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği – Association of Lawyers for Freedom) are being tried in front of the 14th Penal Court of Istanbul 14th.

Two of the accused lawyers, Ramazan Demir and Ayşe Acinikli are detained since the 6th of April 2016. There also 38 other accused who are not lawyers. The accused lawyers are : Ramazan Demir, Ayşe Acinikli, Hüseyin Boğatekin, İrfan Araslan, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Tamer Doğan, Mustafa Rüzgar, Sinan Zincir, Raziye Turgut, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Şefik Çelik, Adem Çalişci.

They are accused of being members of the terrorist organization and/or making propaganda for a terrorist organization. The lawyers are accused because of the way they have been conducting their profession.

The next hearing will be heard before 14th Istanbul Penal Court on June 22nd, 2016 at 11.00, at Caglayan Courthouse situated in Sisli District of Istanbul.

It will be the first hearing since the prosecutor submitted his indictment. The purpose of the hearing will be to hear the initial defence of the defendants and submission of their representatives and to determine whether to release the detainees or not.

Ayse Acinikli and Ramazan Demir have been shown as nominees for number of international human rights awards. There have been several international campaigns inviting the authorities to release them but unfortunately they are still imprisoned.

demir&ayse

II) The so-called  KCK Lawyers’ trial

This is one of the biggest trials against lawyers: 46 lawyers are being tried. Some of the lawyers had been detained for long time. During the trials detained lawyers have been released.

Lawyers are accused of being members of terrorist organization. The common point amongst these accused lawyers is that they have all been lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan.

The hearing will take place on the 28th of June 2016 in front of the 19th Istanbul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor and the court seem to be willing to come to an end as soon as possible You can find the summary of the indictment and some previous notes on the trial enclosed to this message.

 

III) ÇHD LAWYERS TRIAL

The president of ÇHD, Selçuk Kozağaçlı, as well as other 8 members of the association are on trial. Nine of the accused lawyers had been detained for long time and then released.

The next hearing of this case will take place on the 5th October 2016 in front of the 23rd Istanbul Criminal Court.

The defence argues that the evidence presented is simply illegal and that the accusation is only based on political grounds. The defence asks the court to follow the origins of this illegal evidence and to remove it from the case file. The defence also asks the Court to interrogate all the witnesses itself, and not authorize different local courts to hear the witnesses.

 

These three trials against lawyers are based on political grounds. The accused lawyers are well known for representing the members of oppositional groups, representing the oppressed, women under threat, workers, students etc. Their work as lawyers disturbs the governing authorities.

 

 

Posted on

Letters to Turkey

The AED has sent some letters and is now waiting for an answer!

Here is the text of the letter, addressed to the minister of Justice, the President of the Bar association, the ambassador of France in Turkey and the French minister of foreign affairs:

Le 16 mars 2016, à l’aube, neuf avocats turcs ont été interpellés à Istanbul et placés en garde à vue par la police qui a perquisitionné leurs domiciles ou leurs bureaux.

Il s’agit de Ramazan DEMIR, Iffan ARASAN, Ayse ACINIKLI, Hüsein BOGATEKIN, Sefik CELIK, Adem CALISCI, Ayse BASAR, Tamer DOGAN et Mustafa RÜZGAR.

Ces neuf avocats sont tous membres de l’équipe de Défense de 46 autres avocats turcs poursuivis depuis 2012 dans le cadre d’un procès dit KCK2, pour avoir participé à la défense d’un opposant notoire.

Leur interpellation a eu lieu, sans que les motifs en soient connus, la veille de l’audience du procès KCK2 fixée au 17 mars 2016 et à laquelle ils devaient plaider pour leurs confrères.

Leur maintien en garde à vue les a empêchés de remplir leur mission de défense et le procès a dû être renvoyé au 28 juin 2016.

A l’issue du délai de garde à vue et après 13 heures d’interrogatoires et de plaidoiries, ils ont été relâchés le samedi 19 mars, par décision du tribunal mais contre l’avis du Procureur.

Sur appel du Procureur, le 23 mars un autre juge a estimé fondée leur détention provisoire et décerné un mandat d’arrêt contre 4 d’entre eux.

Deux d’entre eux, Hüssein BOGATEKIN et Ayse BASAR ont été immédiatement interpellés et mis en détention.

Ils ont été libérés par la Cour d’Appel le 1er Avril suivant.

Mais le 6 avril, deux autres avocats étaient interpellés et mis en détention : Ramazan DEMIR et Ayse ACINIKLI.

Nous apprenons que leur appel vient d’être rejeté.

Il semble que les principaux griefs invoqués à l’encontre de ces avocats pour justifier ces mesures, soient liés à leur participation à la défense d’opposants notamment de manifestants du parc de GEZI, au dépôt de requêtes auprès de la CEDH, et à la participation à des conférences internationales, ces agissements constituant le dénigrement de l’Etat et la Nation turcs.

Il apparaît donc que ces avocats sont poursuivis, en totale violation des règles et accords internationaux qui régissent la Profession, pour avoir exercé leur mission de défense et leur liberté de parole et qu’ils sont assimilés à leurs clients, ce qui est inacceptable.

Nous vous rappelons que les pouvoirs publics doivent veiller à ce que les avocats ne soient pas assimilés à leurs clients, ou à la cause de leurs clients, du fait de l’exercice de leurs fonctions.

C’est pourquoi nous vous demandons d’intervenir de toute urgence pour que Ramazan DEMIR et Ayse ACINIKLI soient remis immédiatement en liberté et que soit reconnu et protégé, en TURQUIE, le Droit à la Défense pour tous, fondement d’un procès équitable.

Nous vous remercions de votre réponse à notre demande et vous prions d’agréer, Monsieur le Ministre, l’expression de notre respectueuse considération.