Posted on

Wenn Anwaelten die Verteidigung ihrer Mandanten zum Vorwurf gemacht wird

23. Juni 2017, 12:57
Antiterrorverfahren betreffen in
der Türkei auch Verteidiger. Über die Bedeutung internationaler Prozessbeobachtung vor und nach dem Putschversuch 2016

Nach dem Putschversuch im Juli 2016 wurde in der Türkei der Ausnahmezustand ausgerufen. Zehntausende Beamte, darunter Richter und Staatsanwälte, wurden entlassen. Zwischen 80.000 und 90.000 Menschen wurden festgenommen. Die Haftbedingungen verletzen internationale Standards. In der Folge wurden auch die in der Türkei begangenen Menschenrechtsverletzungen gegen Rechtsanwälte international thematisiert. In der Türkei selbst ist das Thema jedoch nicht neu.

Die Unzulänglichkeiten der Justiz, die Antiterrorgesetze, die Situation türkischer Rechtsanwälte und die damit einhergehenden Einschränkungen der Verteidigungsrechte stellen seit jeher Probleme dar. Auch vor dem Putschversuch waren türkische Rechtsanwälte bereits das Ziel staatlicher Repression.

Staatliche Repression gegen Anwälte

Die erste großangelegte Polizeioperation der AKP-Regierung gegen Anwälte richtete sich im Jahr 2011 gegen die Verteidiger des PKK-Vorsitzenden Abdullah Öcalan. 45 kurdische Rechtsanwälte wurden festgenommen und der Mitgliedschaft in der PKK beschuldigt. Die seitens der Staatsanwaltschaft vorgelegten Beweise betreffen einzig die Haftbesuche der Verteidiger bei deren Mandanten Öcalan auf der Gefängnisinsel İmralı. Der Prozess wurde unter der Bezeichnung KCK-Verfahren bekannt.

Im Jänner 2013 kam es zu einer Operation gegen die Anwaltsvereinigung ÇHD (Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği, deutsch: Progressive Anwaltsvereinigung). Diese besteht – mit einer Unterbrechung während der Militärdiktatur der 1980er Jahre – seit 1974. Ihre mehr als 2.000 Mitglieder sind türkeiweit organisiert. Bekannt wurde die Vereinigung für ihren Einsatz gegen staatliche Repression und ihren Fokus auf die Verteidigung der Grundrechte. Die Durchsuchung der ÇHD-Büros in Ankara und Istanbul erfolgte ohne gerichtliche Genehmigungen. Akten und Korrespondenz mit Mandanten wurden beschlagnahmt, neun Vorstandsmitglieder in Untersuchungshaft genommen, darunter der Vorsitzende der ÇHD, Selçuk Kozağacli. Ihre Haft dauerte zwischen neun und 14 Monaten an.

Zwei Verfahren – viele Gemeinsamkeiten

Das KCK-Verfahren und das ÇHD-Verfahren weisen viele Gemeinsamkeiten auf. Beide sind immer noch in erster Instanz anhängig. In beiden Fällen lautet die Anklage auf “Mitgliedschaft in einer terroristischen Organisation” beziehungsweise auf “Terrorpropaganda”. Die Anklagen beschreiben ausschließlich Tätigkeiten, die international als rechtsanwaltliche Berufsausübung angesehen werden.

Auch ist beiden Fällen gemein, dass sich jene Staatsanwälte, welche die Operationen angeordnet hatten, und jene Polizeibeamten, welche die Razzien geleitet hatten, nun unter dem Vorwurf der Mitgliedschaft in der Terrororganisation FETÖ (Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü, deutsch: Fethullah-Gülen-Terror-Organisation) und der Beweismittelfälschung in Untersuchungshaft befinden.

Vorwurf: Engagierte Verteidigung

Eine Analyse der Anklage im ÇHD-Verfahren zeigt, dass den 22 angeklagten Anwälten im Grunde die engagierte Verteidigung ihrer Mandanten zum Vorwurf gemacht wird. So bezieht sich die Staatsanwaltschaft auf eine statistische Auswertung, wonach etwa die Hälfte aller Festgenommenen gegenüber der Polizei die Aussage verweigere, während die andere Hälfte der Festgenommenen eine Aussage mache. Demgegenüber verweigerten beinahe alle der Mitgliedschaft in der linksgerichteten DHKP/C verdächtigten Festgenommenen, welche durch ÇHD-Anwälte verteidigt würden, bei polizeilichen Vernehmungen die Aussage. Die Anklage zieht daraus den Schluss, dass die ÇHD-Anwälte Befehle der DHKP/C an die Festgenommenen weitergäben und daher Teil der Organisation seien.

Tatsächlich raten ÇHD-Anwälte ihren festgenommenen Mandanten regelmäßig zur Aussageverweigerung, wie dies Verteidiger weltweit tun. Dass dies als Beweis für die Mitgliedschaft in einer Terrororganisation gewertet wird, ist allerdings ein Spezifikum der Türkei. Andere “Beweise” betreffen die Teilnahme von ÇHD-Anwälten an den Beerdigungen ihrer des Terrorismus verdächtigten Mandanten. Zuletzt stützt sich die Anklage auf anonyme Zeugen, wobei diese bisher im Verfahren nicht in Erscheinung getreten sind und eine Überprüfung ihrer Existenz und ihrer angeblichen Aussagen nach dem angewandten Verfahrensrecht unmöglich ist.

Gängige Praxis

Laut Staatsanwaltschaft war der Razzia eine zwei Jahre andauernde verdeckte Ermittlung vorangegangen, in deren Rahmen die Kanzleien, E-Mails und Telefonate der Rechtsanwälte mit ihren Mandanten überwacht worden waren.

Die beschriebenen Vorgänge fanden noch vor der Ausrufung des Ausnahmezustandes statt und können als gängige Praxis der türkischen Behörden im Rahmen der Antiterrorgesetze angesehen werden, welche sowohl gegen türkisches, als auch gegen internationales Recht verstößt. Umso dramatischer ist die Situation nun, nach der drastischen Einschränkung des – zuvor theoretisch bestehenden – Rechtsschutzes der Betroffenen. Aktuell kann von einem fairen Verfahren keine Rede mehr sein.

Historische Anhörung

Der Prozessauftakt im ÇHD-Verfahren fand am 24. Dezember 2013 statt, neun Monate nach den Durchsuchungen der Kanzleien und der Festnahme der Angeklagten. Das damals zuständige Sondergericht war am Stadtrand von Istanbul in einem Hochsicherheitsgefängniskomplex angesiedelt, was den Zugang der Öffentlichkeit und der Angehörigen erschwerte.

Die erste Anhörung dauerte drei Tage und war insofern von historischer Bedeutung, als die 22 angeklagten Anwälte, von welchen sich neun noch immer in Haft befanden, von mehr als 700 türkischen und kurdischen Verteidigern vertreten wurden. Repräsentanten zahlreicher Anwaltskammern waren angereist, um Solidarität mit den Angeklagten zu demonstrieren und das Recht auf effektive Verteidigung geltend zu machen. 50 Rechtsanwälte aus Belgien, Deutschland, Frankreich, dem Vereinigten Königreich, der Schweiz, Italien, den Niederlanden und Österreich verfolgten als Prozessbeobachter mithilfe von Simultandolmetschern den Vortrag der Anklage und die Plädoyers der Angeklagten und ihrer Verteidiger. Ihre Namen wurden zu Protokoll gegeben, um zu verdeutlichen, dass das Verfahren international wahrgenommen wurde.

Delegationen regelmäßig in Istanbul

Seither reisen regelmäßig Delegationen zur weiteren Beobachtung des ÇHD-Verfahrens nach Istanbul. Das anfangs zuständige Sondergericht wurde inzwischen per Gesetz aufgelöst, der Prozess wird vor dem Schweren Strafgericht Istanbul Cağlayan fortgesetzt, wobei auch hier der Vorsitzende bereits einmal ausgetauscht wurde. Die Anträge der Verteidigung, das Verfahren von Beginn an neu durchzuführen, um dem Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip Rechnung zu tragen, wurden abgewiesen. Zwar befinden sich die angeklagten ÇHD-Anwälte nicht mehr in Haft. Eines der neuen Notstandsdekrete erlaubt es aber, sie aufgrund ihrer Eigenschaft als Angeklagte nach dem Terrorgesetz von der Verteidigung in anderen Verfahren nach diesem Gesetz auszuschließen.

Kritiker werden mundtot gemacht

Seit dem Putschversuch am 15. Juli 2016 kam es zu zahlreichen weiteren Festnahmen von Anwälten. Offiziell greift die Regierung hart gegen Putschisten und Terrorismus durch. Tatsächlich scheint sich die Repression eher gegen die Verteidiger kurdischer Politiker und Aktivisten zu richten, ebenso wie gegen die Vertreter von Journalisten, Gewerkschaften und Regierungskritikern. Die Notstandsgesetze sehen eine richterliche Entscheidung erst 30 Tage nach der Festnahme vor, ein Recht auf ein Gespräch mit einem Rechtsanwalt/einer Rechtsanwältin besteht erst nach fünf Tagen, wobei selbst dies nur unter Überwachung möglich ist. Die Festgenommenen sind dadurch Folter und Polizeiwillkür schutzlos ausgeliefert, ein faires Verfahren wird unmöglich.

Das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren ist eines der bedeutungsvollsten Grundrechte; ohne faires Verfahren bleibt die Geltendmachung anderer Grundrechte bloße Theorie. Autoritäre Regierungen streben danach, Kritiker im eigenen Land mundtot zu machen, und versuchen, die internationale öffentliche Meinung zu beeinflussen, um Kritik zu vermeiden und ihren Machtmissbrauch ungestört fortsetzen zu können.

Hohe Bedeutung der Prozessbeobachtung

Der Prozessbeobachtung kommt daher hohe Bedeutung zu. Sie dient der Verteidigung des Rechtsstaates und dem Schutz jener Menschenrechtsverteidiger, die wegen ihres Einsatzes in Gefahr geraten. Mediale Berichterstattung über Gerichtsverfahren ist unverzichtbar, doch Prozessbeobachter können sich selbst ein unmittelbareres Bild von den Fakten machen, ohne auf die Objektivität der Journalisten vertrauen zu müssen (die oft selbst unter Druck stehen).

In der Türkei hat Prozessbeobachtung Tradition. Während der 1990er reisten bereits regelmäßig Journalisten, Politiker und einzelne Rechtsanwälte in die Türkei, um insbesondere Strafverfahren gegen kurdische Politiker und Journalisten beizuwohnen. Anlässlich der Strafverfahren gegen Anwälte wurde diese Tradition fortgesetzt, erfuhr aber eine neue Dimension, da es sich nun um die koordinierte Zusammenarbeit zwischen Menschenrechtsanwälten aus verschiedenen Ländern handelt.

Druck ausüben ist nicht das Ziel

Es ist nicht die Aufgabe der Prozessbeobachter, Druck auf die Gerichte auszuüben oder subjektive Meinungen über ein Verfahren zu veröffentlichen. Ungeachtet der politischen Ansichten der einzelnen Mitglieder der Delegationen bleibt ihre Rolle darauf beschränkt, über die Wahrnehmungen im Gerichtssaal zu berichten, was die Argumente und vorgelegten Beweismittel sowohl der Anklage als auch der Verteidigung betrifft.

Viele Beobachter verfolgten das ÇHD-Verfahren während der letzten drei Jahre. Während dieser Zeit zogen internationale Institutionen und Medien Berichte der Delegationen über die Verhandlungen als Grundlage für die Analyse der Frage heran, ob es sich um ein faires Verfahren handelt.

Fakten ans Licht bringen

Auch auf jene, die sich in der Türkei weiterhin der Durchsetzung von Grundrechten widmen, hat internationale Prozessbeobachtung eine Auswirkung: Wer befürchten muss, festgenommen oder mundtot gemacht zu werden, kann darauf hoffen, dass Beobachter über die Fakten berichten werden.

Wer davon ausgeht, dass die Fakten für sich sprechen, der kann kein Problem mit neutraler Beobachtung und Berichterstattung haben. Dies gilt sowohl für Menschenrechtsverteidiger, als auch für die Regierung. Erdoğans Aussagen anlässlich des Prozesses gegen Cumhuriyet-Chefredakteur Can Dündar stehen dazu in krassem Gegensatz: Er stellte die Legitimität der Prozessbeobachtung in Frage und unterstellte den angereisten Beobachtern pauschal, gegen die Interessen der Türkei zu arbeiten. Dass ein Staatschef derart wenig Respekt für die Grundsätze eines fairen Verfahrens zeigt, mutet befremdlich an. Gleichzeitig belegen diese Aussagen die Bedeutung und Notwendigkeit der Prozessbeobachtung.

Die Erfahrung zeigt, dass Prozessbeobachtung ein wirksames Mittel zum Schutz kritischer Journalisten und Anwälte sein kann. Unter den Notstandsgesetzen mag dies schwieriger werden. Doch die Bedeutung der Arbeit türkischer Menschenrechtsverteidiger geht über die Türkei hinaus und sie bedürfen des Schutzes, den internationale Beobachtung bedeutet, heute mehr denn je. Um zu verhindern, dass sie unsichtbar gemacht werden, und um die Fakten ans Licht zu bringen. (Şerife Ceren Uysal, Clemens Lahner, 23.6.2017)

Şerife Ceren Uysal ist Rechtsanwältin in Istanbul und als Vorstandsmitglied der Progressiven Anwaltsvereinigung ÇHD zuständig für die Koordinierung internationaler Beobachter-Delegationen. Derzeit forscht sie am Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Menschenrechte in Wien.

Clemens Lahner ist Rechtsanwalt in Wien. Als Prozessbeobachter der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien und Mitglied des europäischen Anwaltsverbandes European Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) verfolgt er das ÇHD-Verfahren seit dessen Beginn, teilweise auch das KCK-Verfahren.

Der Artikel erschien ursprünglich in der Ausgabe 1/2017 des “Juridikum – Zeitschrift für Kritik, Recht, Gesellschaft”.

Posted on

Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça are not alone!

Today (16.06.2017), is the 100th day of the hunger strike undertaken by the university professor Nuriye Gülmen’s and primary school teacher Semih Özakça. However, they are still in Sincan prison.

The situation of these two young educators is simple but a describes perfectly the current situation in Turkey. Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça were dismissed by governmental decree without any kind of individualized justification or proof. They are not only dismissed from their jobs, but banned from any kind of public service, which means that they cannot continue their careers or even their daily life without financial support. Over 100.000 public officers are in the same situation, which is equivalent with a kind of “civil death”.

In november 2016, Gülmen and Özakça started a sit-in protesting against a governmental decree in front of the human rights’ monument in the center of Ankara. They were beaten by the police, detained more than 30 times. On the 9th of March 2016 they started a hunger strike.

On the 22nd May, Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça were detained from their homes and one day later, a court in Ankara sent them to the prison. They are accused of participating and disseminating propaganda for a terrorist organization. The trial will be held on 14th of September, 2017.

 

In spite of their hunger strike, the court has announced the continuation of their detention. However, different reports as well as their lawyers fear that every day spent in jail, just takes them one step closer to the death.

As European Democratic Lawyers (AED), we would like to underline that Turkey insists on violating fundamental human rights such as the right to life. We are concerned about Nuriye Gülmen’s and Semih Özakça’s lives, but not only about them. Over 100.000 people have been dismissed from their work, thousands of people are in jail and every single day a new suicide is published in the Turkish newspapers. A young academic, Mehmet Fatih Traş, signatory of the Academics for Peace Statement, committed suicide months after his dismission. Unfortunately, reports show that he is not the only example.

As Europan Democratic Lawyers, we would like to remind that, even under the extraordinary measures imposed by the current State of Emergency, the violation of fundamental human rights and especially human dignity cannot be accepted. We call, thus, for the respect of basic human dignity.

Finally, we would like to announce that the European Democratic Lawyers (AED) are also defending of Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça. in front of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. Because we believe that their future is our future, that they are the voice of all the oppressed people.

19th of June 2017

Posted on

Libérez immédiatement Taner Kiliç

Arrestation de l’Avocat Turc, Taner Kiliç, président d’Amnesty Turquie.

 

Les Avocats Européens Démocrates (AED), réunis en Bureau à Amsterdam dénoncent la campagne répressive contraire aux Droits Fondamentaux du gouvernement turc contre les défendeurs des Droits de l’Homme et demandent le remise en liberté immédiate de leur confrère arrêté le 6 juin dernier.

Taner Kiliç est accusé, sans la moindre preuve, d’être membre de l’organisation Fethullah Gülen, qualifiée de terroriste par les autorités turques. Il apparaît clairement que le terrorisme est un argument largement utilisé par le régime de l’AKP de Recep Tayyip Erdogan pour détruire la démocratie et convertir le régime truc en une dictature déguisée en Démocratie formelle.

Le régime turc veut étouffer toutes les voix des opposants et pour cela s’attaque aux personnes qui dénoncent la fragilité de la démocratie existant en Turquie. Taner Kiliç œuvrait pour la défense des droits et libertés bafoués par les autorités. Il n’est ni un terroriste ni un criminel. Nous demandons dès lors aux autorités turques de le libérer et d’abandonner les charges infondées et arbitraires retenues contre lui.
L’AED exprime de graves préoccupations concernant les violations des droits de l’homme commises à l’encontre de membres de la profession d’avocat en Turquie. Les avocats devraient être en mesure d’exercer leurs fonctions légitimes sans crainte pour leur vie, pour leur liberté ou pour leur sécurité. L’AED exhorte le gouvernement turc à se conformer aux lois internationales relatives aux droits de l’homme, y compris les Garanties liées à l’exercice de la profession d’avocat contenues dans Principes de base relatifs au rôle du barreau, adoptés par le huitième Congrès des Nations Unies à La Havane (Cuba) en septembre 1990.
Dans ce contexte et après quelques missions d’observation sur le terrain en Turquie, nous considérons qu’il n’existe pas de «système de justice pénale» actif et efficace en Turquie. Il est jugé impossible pour la police judiciaire, les tribunaux pénaux, les cours d’appel et les autorités de la Cour Constitutionnelle de travailler de manière impartiale et indépendante des exigences et des priorités du pouvoir politique. La déclaration de l’état d’urgence actuel est inutile et illégale, car ses causes n’ont pas été expliquées et les mécanismes de contrôle réguliers sont inexistants. Les conditions de la “violence généralisée et de la détérioration grave de l’ordre public” étaient suffisamment réglées par l’article 120e de la Constitution. En outre, même si les conditions d’état d’urgence étaient présentes, il est évident que les droits fondamentaux garantis par la Convention Européenne des droits de l’homme (articles 2 à 18) restent toujours applicables.
Aussi pour éviter toute forme d’abus et d’atteinte à l’État de Droit, l’AED considère nécessaire d’entreprendre les actions suivantes en Turquie:

– Il est nécessaire de mettre fin à l’état d’urgence (déclaré le 20 juillet 2016) et d’enlever rétroactivement toutes les dispositions légales et les pratiques administratives qui violent largement les droits et libertés fondamentaux.

– Il est essentiel que la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme reconnaisse immédiatement et agisse en fonction du fait qu’il n’existe pas de recours interne effectif contre les procédures d’état d’urgence en Turquie.

– Le climat de domination et d’oppression créé par l’exécutif sur le pouvoir judiciaire devrait immédiatement être arrêté.

– Les enquêtes lancées contre les avocats, les journalistes et les magistrats dans le but de les faire taire et d’intimider l’opposition politique devraient immédiatement être retirées et la tentative de pousser les représentants élus en dehors de l’arène politique devrait être abandonnée.

– Toutes sortes de normes et de pratiques de fait qui abolissent ou restreignent le droit à la défense devraient être résiliés.

– Tous les obstacles juridiques et physiques contre le pouvoir judiciaire indépendant et impartial et contre les garanties et les droits de la défense devraient être éliminés afin de contrôler effectivement la Police et le Parquet.

– Il est nécessaire d’éliminer toutes les restrictions qui entravent la communication verbale et écrite entre les avocats et leurs clients dans les centres de détention et les prisons.

– Les entraves aux activités conformes au Protocole d’Istanbul, au Protocole de Minnesota et à d’autres documents internationaux devraient être supprimées.

Juin 2017.

Posted on

Defending and Protecting Lawyers Under Attack:

A Background Paper for the Pan African Lawyers Union Conference, Nairobi, October 12-15, 2016

Introduction

The authors of this paper are Gill H. Boehringer and Stuart Russell of the International Association of People’s Lawyers.  The IAPL was created in 2000 to gather lawyers involved in the legal support of collective struggles for people’s rights and in situations of gross rights violations.  The IAPL Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers was created in 2014 and maintains a very extensive blog documenting such attacks.

This paper is endorsed by:

 

the International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD for its French acronym), was relaunched in 2015 by the Paris Bar, the French National Bar Association, as well as the Italian and Spanish National Bar Associations, and also aims to bring any kind of support a lawyer under threat may need.

 

Endangered Lawyers | Avvocati Minacciati was started in 2015, and later officially presented in 2016 to the Italian Criminal Lawyers Association (Unione Camere Penali Italiane or UCPI). It is coordinated by Italian lawyers Nicola Canestrini and Ezio Menzione.

 

Created in 2001, the European Bar Human Rights Institute (IDHAE) monitors human rights protection, the training of lawyers in international human rights law, interventions, regardless of the limitations of borders, in favour of freedom and the fundamental rights of lawyers, organizes the World Observatory for Defence Rights and attacks against lawyers, workshops, symposia and seminars related to publications on international human rights law.

 

Created in 2010, the purpose of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation is to “call attention on that day to threatened human rights lawyers with special attention to one designated country.”

 

Avocats Européens Démocrates/European Democratic Lawyers (AED/EDL), founded in 1987, is a professional confederation of lawyer unions and organizations.    On the international level it promotes the rights of defence and especially seeks to preserve the physical integrity, as well as the political and economic freedoms of lawyers.

Current situation

Today, in many countries of the world, it is dangerous to be a lawyer. This is especially true if the lawyer is attempting to protect the rights of the people against corporate or government interests or is uncovering corruption. Attacks on lawyers include both physical and non-physical interference with a lawyer’s capacity to perform his/her professional duty to the client or the court. Examples of the former could be assassination or extra judicial killing (EJKs), involuntary disappearance or wrongful detention, often accompanied by torture. Non-physical attacks are many and various e.g. threats, intimidation and harassment, unjustified professional disciplinary proceedings, illegal failure by the prosecution to make material evidence available to the lawyer, non-provision of legal aid, SLAPP suits such as libel actions. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg as we have been surprised at the extent to which lawyers are under attack and the innovative methods used to prevent lawyers from fulfilling their professional duties.

Many organisations around the globe are working to defend and protect lawyers by 1) monitoring the attacks, 2) publicizing the phenomenon, and 3) providing support for the lawyers under attack (for example, rapid response to attend and observe trials of lawyers). Our paper is a joint effort by members of some of the most prominent of such organisations. It is our hope that out of the PALU conference will come ideas and recommendations that will contribute to the worldwide movement for defending and protecting lawyers. In particular, of course, we would look to the development of a Pan African initiative tailored to your specific circumstances, which would deal with what appears to be an upward trend in attacks against lawyers in the African continent. Participants in the conference will be better equipped than we to specify what form such an initiative(s) should take. One of the purposes of this background paper is to provide information about what is (and is not) happening around the world in order to assist participants in designing a strategy for the protection and defence of African lawyers.

To provide an initial empirical basis for your discussion, we indicate the basic results of the data collection activity of the IAPL Monitoring Committee, we list below the number of countries by region where the Committee has received credible reports of attacks on lawyers:

AFRICA: 35 (36 if the self-declared Republic of Somaliland is included), ASIA: 20, CARIBBEAN: 4 (includes Puerto Rico), CENTRAL AMERICA: 7, EUROPE: 15, MIDDLE EAST :  12 (includes Israel and Turkey), NORTH AMERICA: 2 (USA, Canada), PACIFIC: 7 (includes Australia and New Zealand), SOUTH AMERICA: 8.

As for African countries, we have recorded attacks from: Algeria; Angola; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroun; Comoros; Congo; Republic of (Congo-Brazzaville); Democratic Republic of Congo; Egypt; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Guinea-Bissau; Kenya; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Mauritania; Morocco; Mozambique; Niger; Nigeria; Rwanda; Senegal; Somalia; Somaliland; Republic of South Africa; South Sudan; Sudan; Swaziland; Tanzania; The Gambia; Tunisia; Uganda; Zambia; and Zimbabwe.

There are several comments to be made on these figures. First, countries have differing degrees of “intensity” of attacks. Thus a country may be on the IAPL list because of a single credible report of an attack, as is the case in many of the African countries. Alternatively, a number of our listed countries have a high degree of intensity. Countries such as Egypt, Honduras, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey and China would be in the high intensity category as there have been many reported attacks in these countries, and they are continuing often with impunity for the perpetrators of human rights abuses.

Second, we believe it is certainly the case that there are many more countries where attacks on lawyers have occurred. We just have not received information on attacks in those countries. That is a gap in our monitoring that we are seeking to improve through broadening our network of informants. Another factor that makes the data incomplete is what criminologists call “the dark figure of crime”. According to this well-established concept, there are many crimes that are never reported at the country level and therefore cannot be reported even if there is a reliable source. Crimes go unreported for many reasons and, surely, the same is true of the attacks on lawyers e.g. with regard to physical attacks there may be threats of retribution. In the case of non-physical attacks it may be the lawyer-victim does not even realize the attack has occurred, e.g. prosecutor’s tricks to prevent the lawyer from fulfilling his/her duty unbeknownst to the lawyer.

 

Egypt : a test case of repression against lawyers and international solidarity

Since President Sisi came to power in 2014 Egyptian lawyers have suffered waves of repression amidst a human rights crisis resulting from his campaign against Islamists.  Lawyers have repeatedly been arrested and persecuted to force them to avoid political cases.  At its peak in November 2015 more than 200 lawyers were behind bars.

Fortunately that number has decreased to a handful of reported cases as of September 2016.  The best-known case is that of Malek Adly, a prominent human rights lawyer, founder of the Front for the Defence of Egyptian Protesters and Director of the Lawyers Network at the Egyptian Center for Social and Economic Rights (ECESR). Arrested on 5 May 2016 he endured solitary confinement until 28 August, when he was released despite a prosecution appeal.  Adly has represented countless peaceful protesters and civil society organizations, and is leading a group of lawyers who launched a legal action against Egypt’s decision to transfer two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia.  The State Administrative Court upheld the complainants’ case, thereby annulling the transfer of the islands. The government appealed.

He was accused of attempting to overthrow the ruling régime, affiliation to a banned organization, and broadcasting false news, inter alia, all of which he denied, although formal charges have not been laid.  However, these serious charges could still be brought against him, resulting in a re-arrest.  Adly was admitted to the prison hospital several times, and suffers severe health conditions.  Lengthy pretrial detention – in some cases lasting between one to three years – has been used by the Sisi régime against dissidents, exceeding international legal standards.

In July the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Center in the U.S. submitted an urgent action and petition to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and an urgent action to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture on behalf of Adly.  Similarly, a number of international human rights organizations have taken up Adly’s cause, including the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Observatory of Lawyers in Danger (OIAD) and the European Human Rights Institute (IDHAE).  They called for his immediate release and all charges to be dropped. A very high-profile Facebook-based support group has also been campaigning on his behalf :  Free Malek Adly مالك عدلي حر  More recently a number of international lawyers signed a petition calling for his release and for the charges to be dropped. It is now available online for additional signatures : https://www.change.org/p/egyptian-minister-of-the-interior-release-egyptian-lawyer-malek-adly

Adly’s wife and defence team filed a lawsuit against prison authorities and the Minister of Interior to end his solitary confinement.  However, in a surprise move a court ordered his release on 25 August.

There has been other good news for Egyptian lawyers recently. On 13 August human rights lawyer Mahienour El-Massry who was jailed for “storming” an Alexandria police station in 2013 but has recently been released.  She was initially sentenced to a two year sentence along with eight others on charges of “protesting without authorisation, damaging property” and “injuring policemen”. However a retrial in May 2015 saw the defendants’ sentence decreased to 15 months.  While imprisoned, El-Massry was awarded the prestigious lawyers’ 2014 Ludovic Trarieux International Human Rights Award for her contributions to the defence of human rights. She was the second lawyer to be awarded the international award while in prison since Nelson Mandela in 1985.

We believe that the strong display of international solidarity in these cases has had a significant impact on the Sisi government and exemplifies the possibilities for the lawyers of the world to defend their foreign colleagues under attack.

The situation facing Egyptian lawyers remains very dangerous and alarming.  It is important that in the case of Egypt (and other countries in Africa where similar government repression exists), that African lawyers, their organizations, Bar associations and human rights groups demonstrate their solidarity for their Egyptian colleagues, support the immediate release of those lawyers behind bars, and call for all charges to be dropped.

 

Has enough been done to defend lawyers?

The work done by the advocacy groups such as those which have authored this paper can cover a wide range of activities, in advocacy, support and solidarity. A great deal of time and energy is spent on recording and reporting attacks, passing resolutions at meetings of lawyers’ associations and writing to government ministers and international bodies about the situation of their foreign colleagues; attempting to pressure political parties, individual legislators and even governments to act positively in the matter; making visits to the country concerned, especially if lawyers are on trial, then publishing an account. These are not the only solidarity activities being carried out, as a visit to a number of groups’ websites would reveal various other programmes and activities, commissions, and research projects, but we believe that, in the main, short-term reactive initiatives are undertaken.

Is this enough? Have efforts to support lawyers been adequately coordinated? Have they been successful? With all due respect to those who have thrown themselves into the effort wholeheartedly, our answer to all three questions must be, we think probably not as successful as we would like. More needs to be done, more effectively. We say this with hesitancy as much has been done but, sadly, the killings continue and there appears to be a trend of increasing violence towards our colleagues. That certainly appears to be the case in Africa. We believe some new thinking, new methods and some new strategies should be developed.

 

Towards a strategic agenda

The basic question remains: what can be done to combat the onslaught on lawyers?  Our research has highlighted a major gap. While there are many groups taking actions to support lawyers under threat, there is insufficient coordination of these efforts. Thus we suggest, as a first and urgent step, an International Summit Conference be called to bring together groups from around the world who are involved in actions to defend the lawyers. It would be expected to develop a strategic plan, emphasising coordination, planning and funding of an agenda to protect lawyers but, importantly, to develop strategies — short and long term — to reduce the dangers they face. The Conference would feature structured practical workshops to share our knowledge and experience in order to develop a collective capacity to support those who are at risk.

Such a Conference, (or perhaps initially a regional African Conference) bringing together a wide cross section of people and support groups, including but not limited to, lawyers, victims, and activists, would also have significant spin-offs, and would surely catch the attention of the major media and social media. Such publicity as we expect would follow, would bring before the world, in a focused way, the seriousness of the problem. It would put international pressure from a newly informed public opinion on governments and lawyers’ professional associations in countries where lawyers are at serious risk and, thus far, have not been given adequate protection.

In order to develop an agenda for discussion at such an event, we offer some ideas of how we in the movement to protect and defend lawyers, can express in a practical way our solidarity with lawyers threatened with attacks. Our suggestions are in addition to the usual legal approaches in dealing with human rights violations, national and international, that will be familiar to the lawyers of PALU and their practicing colleagues inside government institutions and in private practice. Some of the elements of a comprehensive programme of support could include:

1. One of the most effective ways to defend and protect lawyers being tried for their legal work is to have a “first responder” legal team of observers from another country, or region, travel immediately to the site of the trial in order to provide on the ground support and, where useful, legal/political advice and/or pressure on the prosecution. Such teams could be organised through PALU. There are models for this operating, for example in Europe and in The Philippines.

2. Establishment of an international network specifically dedicated to the defence of lawyers would be an important step. As indicated above, we lack information from many countries, therefore we lack accurate and comprehensive macro data on the killings and disappearances of lawyers, let alone other attacks. In order to encourage the public and governments to take the problem seriously and consistently, they need to know the extent of the carnage out there.

3. The establishment of a network of regional Centres for the Support of Lawyers Under Attack (to get the Centres started, perhaps they could be organized on a country basis.) PALU would be the obvious organisation to take the lead in getting the Centres operational. The purpose of the Centres:  to monitor attacks on lawyers: collect, record, and analyse information specifically on attacks on lawyers. As the Centres develop they could provide commentary and publicity on the issue; such Centres could assist in organising, publicising and coordinating support activities in the region, such as country visits and reports back. These Centres might be organised by Bar Associations, NGOs, in an academic institution, or an alliance of such institutions.

4. Regional seminars and workshops on the problem, based on research and experience of combating the attacks. These could be organised by national or regional Centres mentioned above, but also through independent Human Rights Centres such as the Gulf Centre for Human Rights and the Asian Centre for Human Rights, or a university Human Rights Centre which may be connected with a Law Faculty. Many of the latter exist around the globe and there are various models that could be adopted.

5. An annual international lecture, widely publicised, by an outstanding human rights defender, not necessarily a lawyer, on the threats to lawyers, perhaps focusing on a different country each year, and perhaps to take place in a different country each year.

6. There has emerged in recent years an annual Day of the Endangered Lawyer (organized by the Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation), with activities in many countries on 24 January, especially protests of lawyers in robes in front of the designated country’s embassies and consulates. It would be an opportunity for African lawyers and their professional associations to commemorate the deaths and other attacks on lawyers in their countries and across the continent. With public events and media briefings, the problem could be brought to the attention of civil society and NGOs, religious institutions and other concerned groups and individuals, thus bringing pressure on governments to respond in a positive manner. In 2016 Honduras, with several hundred lawyers assassinated in recent years, was the country focused on. In 2017 it will be China, due to the severe and continuing crackdown on the entire community of human rights lawyers which involves lengthy detentions and serious human rights violations to the lawyers, their staff and families.

7. Support for speaking tours and visits of lawyers and other human rights defenders who have first-hand knowledge/experience of dealing with attacks on lawyers. Such visits could be to professional associations, academic campuses and other venues in the countries facing serious attacks/threats on lawyers (hereafter CFALs).

8. Visits by lawyers and human rights activists from CFALs to countries where they can have discussions with government officials, professional associations and other legal and activist groups, as well as access to the media. The purpose, to exchange information and experience, and also to build solidarity links with appropriate institutions, national and international.

9. Legal assistance whereby foreign lawyers work with local lawyers to try to get prosecutions and convictions, especially in countries where impunity exists for the perpetrators. This is not so much because locals need legal help, but because the involvement of a foreign lawyer might make government officials “try harder” under the gaze of the international legal community. There might be value in a programme of internships for law students and young lawyers as a part of such a legal assistance scheme. These suggestions, and others we are canvassing would, of course, have to be worked out with local lawyers.

10. Educational work with journalists is important. Killings of lawyers get far less publicity than those of journalists, although in some countries more lawyers are killed. Many journalists would be sympathetic given what is happening to their colleagues; we just need to give them accurate information in an easy-to-use format. We recognise that the major media is not free nor objective, and journalists operate within restrictions, nevertheless on this issue they may be able to assist in our project, even by using alternative forms of media.

11. Educational work with NGOs and civil society organisations is also important. These are organisations with the power to affect public opinion. They have an interest in the safety of lawyers in CFALs with whom they sometimes work and with whom they share the dangers of confronting human rights abuse.

12. Educational work with university law faculties, and others, could include the development of units in the curriculum (either undergraduate or postgraduate) on lawyers as heroes and victims of political systems and social structures, perhaps with the award of prizes for outstanding theses or publications arising from their study. In this way building awareness and solidarity with our future professional colleagues.

13. The creation, possibly under PALU leadership, of a monthly e-newsletter with information about the current attacks on lawyers across the continent, and other material relevant to the defence and protection of lawyers. There might also be interest in a series of working papers or reports on these phenomena.

14. Political work should be undertaken in all countries to convince political parties and governments to apply sanctions against countries where the attacks on lawyers are continuing without arrests, prosecutions and convictions. Statements of concern are not sufficient. The USA has laws restricting the supply of war materiel to countries where human rights violations are persistent and systemic. Such a policy, if enforced, could be effective in convincing governments that they need to take action to protect their lawyers and find and punish the guilty.

15. Through political work, making legislation which specifically protects lawyers. Brazil has legislation that provides a comprehensive range of rights specifically for lawyers. It would also be important, at least symbolically, to adopt in specific legislation the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and to ensure that it is studied in law curricula. We would also see value in strengthening the understanding of the UN adopted Algiers Universal Declaration of Peoples’ Rights which culturally has great resonance to the African people. Many lawyers are attacked because they are defending peoples’ rights laid down in the Algiers Declaration.

16. A campaign should be developed for universal national “human rights budgets” with specific allocations for the protection of defenders (lawyers, journalists and others), with, of course, annual reports on the impact of such budget allocations.

17. Political work to seek governmental and/or parliamentary resolutions condemning the lack of protection of lawyers, but also requesting the institution of parliamentary hearings to expose the “protection gap” in CFALs especially. This could be an important step vis-à-vis countries vulnerable to a change in public opinion and government policy, e.g. in regard to aid and/or trade.

18. Juridical work which would see violating countries, and individuals, arraigned in the appropriate international tribunals, or in countries such as Spain which allows prosecution for extra-territorial offences.

19. An international People’s Tribunal would be an excellent vehicle for an investigation to deal comprehensively with attacks on lawyers as a major threat to a humane existence for those millions who often must rely on courageous lawyers to defend them from state power and the greed of those who employ, or are responsible for, assassins who attack lawyers. The Permanent People’s Tribunal has indicated a willingness to hold such a session. It has already been in discussions with several organisations on the possibility of such a project. African lawyers’ participation at this stage would be welcomed.

 

We are aware that the above programme, or even any part of it, would require considerable resources, financial and otherwise. One of the issues that needs to be considered urgently, and certainly at the suggested Conference, is the funding of the programmes and institutions we hope will be launched. Should a sound programme be developed, we expect that the lawyers of the wealthy countries will be able to find the money necessary. After all, with the global spread of lawyers from the USA and Europe, they have good reason to spend some of their profits seeking to ensure that they and their colleagues will be safe when working abroad.

 

Conclusion

We have abstained from a critical analysis of the fundamental causes of killings and other attacks on lawyers in Africa. That is a task for those who are working in the countries of that continent. Each country’s specific history, economic profile, cultural traditions, governmental institutions and policies, along with other factors, will have to be addressed in order to explain why the lawyers are being attacked and why at this juncture.

We regret we cannot be with you at the PALU Conference, but we stand in solidarity with you in your endeavours.

We wish you good luck in developing successful strategies for the defence of your professional colleagues in the future.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION :

International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)

Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers blog :  https://defendlawyers.wordpress.com/

Blog email : jsrussell301254@gmail.com

Facebook : IAPL – International Association of People’s Lawyers

Website : http://iapl.net/

 

Avvocati minacciati / Endangered Lawyers

Website : http://www.endangeredlawyers.org/

Facebook : Avvocati minacciati / endangered Lawyers

Twitter : https://twitter.com/EndangeredL

 

International Observatory of Lawyers in Danger (OIAD)

Website: http://cnb.avocat.fr

Email : sedillot.avocat@gmail.com

 

European Bar Human Rights Institute (IDHAE)

Website : http://www.idhae.org/

Facebook : IDHAE

 

Day of the Endangered Lawyer Foundation

Website: http://dayoftheendangeredlawyer.eu/

 

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

Website: www.aeud.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aed.edl1987/

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

Report on the International lawyer conference in Ankara

Report by Hans Gaasbeek about the international lawyer conference held in Ankara (Turkey) between the 13th and 15thof January, 2017

The ‘International Conference On Law, State of Emergency And Judicial System in Turkey’ was co-organized by different European lawyer organizations like: the AED (European Democratic Lawyers), the ELDH (European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights) and the Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer.

The conference was also co-organized by the European organization of judges MEDEL (Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés). A great number of bar associations of cities in all corners of Turkey was co-organizer and had a big impact on the programme and organization of the conference.

The conference was held in Hotel Plaza in Ankara, where a lot of international colleagues were staying for the weekend.

This was a pleasant hotel with a very well-equipped conference room. There was no special security, except for one unarmed person at the entrance of the hotel. There was a huge interest from Turkish lawyers in the conference. They were coming from over 30 Turkish cities. There were 300/400 lawyers and judges taking part. 6 panels were organized with different speakers, who highlighted their specific subject. The subject of the speeches was the actual situation of the disappearing state of law in Turkey.

It was very different from other lawyer conferences. In this conference there was a lot of attention for the other professionals who are also endangered. There was a journalist panel, a judges panel, a panel of members of parliament. The panels of the journalists, judges and members of parliament and also the international panel and the Turkish lawyer panels have painted a very accurate picture of the actual situation and how the different professions are threatened and have to work in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

In the international panel I informed the public about the way the Dutch social lawyers association VSAN works and about the way of working of the Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer. I also invited the lawyers of the 30 Turkish cities to manifest themselves on the Day of the Endangered Lawyer for the general position of the lawyers and the attacks on the Rule of Law. I explained how the actual difficult situation in Turkey is seen by the politicians and press in Holland. During the congress I was in contact with a journalist of the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad a couple of times; he published a small interview with me on the internet (a copy of this interview is attached to this report). I was the only person from the Netherlands present on this international conference.

Because of the fear for tensions and possible problems for the organizors of the conference, I had informed and invited the Dutch embassy to take part in the conference. After a few contacts via e-mail we were able to establish a good working relationship with the second secretary of the embassy, who was present during the afternoon programme on the second day of the conference. I introduced him to a lot of judges and lawyers who represented the different Turkish bar associations and the international organizations. He was the only diplomatic visitor, which gave the conference an extra dimension, also from the point of view of safety.

The former German judge Ingrid Heinlein was also present at the conference. We had already been in touch with her in 2016, when the Day of the Endangered Lawyer focused on the difficult situation of the lawyers and judges in Honduras. This judge had taken part in a fact-finding human rights mission in Honduras two years ago. She has already been a member of the international European judges organization MEDEL for more than 20 years, and is also a member of the German ‘judges for judges’-association. I also contacted the Dutch foundation Rechters voor Rechters (Judges for Judges) about the Ankara conference. The president of this foundation had also thought about taking part in this conference.

During the conference, there were no real problems with the Turkish police or justice authorities, apart from one incident: the Italian lawyer Barbara Spinelli – who was going to speak at the conference – was stopped at the airport in Istanbul. They arrested her and made her spend one night imprisoned, before sending her back to Italy the next day. She was hindered in taking part in the conference, while she was one of the speakers of the international panel.

During the conference a lot of information was given to the lawyers and judges present. After the failed coup attempt 70.000/80.000 people were put in prison. Among them were 3007 judges and prosecutors and about 300 lawyers.

Detaining so many judges and lawyers is a very, very intimidating action for these professions and, in my view, it means the abrupt end of the Rule of Law in Turkey. We cannot possibly speak of an independent judicial system anymore, in which no political or other state power influences decisions. At the moment the government exercises extreme power over the judiciary. This is an unacceptable situation for a democracy.

Those present in the conference were told that many radio stations and television stations and newspapers were closed by the government. The speakers in the panels were under the impression that after the coup, many people were arrested arbitrarily and for not very logical reasons. Judges, lawyers and prosecutors were arrested randomly. Furthermore, at the conference it was said that the Turkish government didn’t do any serious investigation on the real perpetrators after the coup. It was even said that the investigation had already been closed or would close very soon.

At one lawyers office 7 lawyers were arrested. One of the people still representing this office gave me a small file with a request for help. The last remaining lawyer at this office – who had not yet been arrested – had to offer legal assistance to his own colleagues.

After being arrested, judges and lawyers are being kept in detention, according to their Turkish colleagues, in opposition to the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights and against the standards of the Turkish detention laws. Arrested lawyers and judges are not allowed to see a lawyer, and if they are, it is – in the best case – only half an hour per week. All contacts with their lawyer and with third parties are being recorded and monitored by police officers in prison. Official papers are being copied by the prison authorities. Besides that, lawyers are directly identified with their clients who are often accused of being part of the Gülen movement.

I was impressed by the very strong solidarity between all the lawyers coming from more than 30 Turkish cities from all over the country. The Turkish lawyers were very happy to have the support of the co-organizing European lawyer organizations and the organizations of judges. All the international guests were treated with big hospitality and personal support.

Among the many arrested lawyers and judges there are also many presidents from local bar associations and even from courts. The Turkish media who are pro-Erdogan and who are pro-the Turkish government are often accusing the arrested jurists of being terrorists, which makes it easier for the government to treat the arrested more severely and facilitates even more restrictions during their detention.

Since July 2016, the Turkish government has lifted c.q. suspended the working of the ECHR, by declaring a state of emergency and prolonging this afterwards. In Turkey groups and individual persons are often being accused of being a member of a criminal organization. Furthermore there have been many house and office searches in the homes and working places of arrested lawyers and judges. There have been many complaints about the treatment of people in detention. Many detained lawyers and judges complain about the fact that they were harmed psychologically and physically because the lights in their cells were on the entire night, so they couldn’t sleep. The detained lawyers and judges are often humiliated; they complained of being exposed in handcuffs in court houses.

There seems to be a situation of growing lawlessness, which is not only increasing for the arrested judges and lawyers, but also for those who have not yet been arrested.

We have been informed that the prosecution of judges and lawyers in Turkey is done with many faults and in a very careless manner. Many people are accused, without any real evidence or proof. Also, most of the times the actual exact accusation is very unclear. Often, it appears that the accusations are quite bizarre like undermining the state, doing terrorist acts or being a member of a criminal organization. Especially since the Turkish government has forbidden many, many organizations, also two well-known lawyer organizations, OHD and CHD, people can now be arrested quickly and be seen as an offender when they are a member of such forbidden lawyer organizations or active in such organizations.

The Turkish colleagues took very good care of their foreign colleagues. We were picked up and brought back to the airport and treated with a lot of hospitality.

From my contacts with many Turkish colleagues at the conference, it appears to me that many people are exhausted because of the continuous pressing political situation. It was clear that the colleagues are suffering because of this actual political situation. In Ankara, there was a lot of police on the street and it was no longer a town with atmosphere.

At the diner in the building from the bar of Ankara, the situation was quite different. After a very nice dinner, we heard people singing Turkish songs and dancing. After saying goodbye to our colleagues we took the bus to the airport and left with mixed feelings. We were leaving while they had to continue living in this difficult situation.

Hans Gaasbeek

International coordinator of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer, president of the Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer and vice president of the Dutch League of Human Rights

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

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

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.