Posted on

The State of Emergency in France

Istanbul September 10, 2018

International conference law : Dark side of the moon, the normalization of the state of emergency and the situation of judiciary in Turkey

2nd Section: ECHR and Constitutional Court Under State of emergency in Turkey

 

Intervention Florian BORG

Lawyer, member of the Lille Bar association

General secretary of European democratic lawyers AED/EDL

Yalnız Değilsin

At the time of the first conference in Ankara in January 2017, France was also under the state of emergency. This, in fact, allowed the Turkish leaders to claim that among the Council of Europe countries and under the European Court of Human Rights, they were not alone in using this provision.

For a year now, the state of emergency is no longer applied in France. This  allows us to analyse the success or failings of constitutional guarantees and of those contained  in the European convention .

First of all, I would like to point out that my intention is not to compare the French situation with the Turkish: I was president of the French CHD so to say during the state of emergency, I may have been wiretapped by the state, but I have never been an endangered lawyer and have never been incarcerated.

On the other hand, I believe that the French situation showed us that if tomorrow a totalitarian leader took power in France, in the image of Turkey, Hungary, Poland and perhaps Italy, everything is set for us to follow the same path as Turkey.

In reality, Turkey is indeed the first of us in its category and shows the wrong way for some of politicians in European society.

Let me begin by recalling what was the state of emergency in France:

Following the terrorist attacks of November 2015, the Government put in place a state of emergency, subsequently validated by Parliament. The state of emergency mainly allows the government to take “administrative police measures” more easily than in a normal situation. Some of these measures of restriction of liberty are, except in a state of emergency, possible only with judicial decision. Other measures are very restrictive of freedom but without prior control of judge such as residence assignments, which limit the movement of a person to a single city, which force the person to stay at home from 7pm to 7am  and sign three times a day at the police office for the duration of the emergency.

As these are administrative police measures, there is no prior judicial authorisation. The person concerned has to request the administrative judge to contest the measure. The difference is  that the judicial judge is independent, guaranteed by the Constitution and alone competent for deprivation of liberty. The administrative judge is competent to control the acts of administration except those of deprivation of liberty. Administrative police measures under state of emergency are not deprivative, only restrictive.

France, like Turkey, has decided to apply article 15 of the Convention, which allows derogation from certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.

What has and has not worked in the French situation?

1/Constitutional guarantees

They are two orders: one from the power of Parliament and the other from the Constitutional Council.

  • The role of Parliament

The Constitution of France expressly provides for separation of powers between legislative and executive.

The State of Emergency Act provides that the state of emergency shall be decided by the executive but may be extended beyond 12 days only if the Parliament authorizes. In addition, Parliament must be informed of all Measures taken by the Government in the context of the state of emergency. Finally, the Parliament has an autonomous power of inquiry into the government’s actions in the case of a state of emergency.

Although Parliament has been informed and has produced several reports on the control of the government’s actions on the state of emergency, it has not allowed the measures of the state of emergency to be eased. Indeed, and this is not a surprise, the parliamentarians adopted all the texts proposed by the Government and when they proposed amendments, it was to increase the security measures and reduce the guarantees. At the time of the adoption of the first state of emergency law, less than 20 members on 577 had not voted for this emercency law. We called this in France “the state of schock” which made the reason of politics disappear behind fear.

Moreover, the executive still finds majorities when they use the real or supposed terrorist threat to enact restrictive laws of freedom.

The state of emergency in France revealed what we already knew: the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive is very small and even fictitious, and it is the executive that has the power to write the laws and to have them adopted.

  • The contribution of the Constitutional Council

With regard to constitutional guarantees, two elements are to be taken into account in order to fully understand the situation:

  • The control of constitutionality does not stop “at the sole text “of the organization of powers since it incorporates a “block of constitutionality” including the declaration of Human and citizen rights resulting from the French Revolution of 1789. The Constitutional Council has thus recently defined the “Fraternity” (one of the components of France’s motto: Liberty, equality, fraternity) as a principle to dismiss criminal proceedings against those who help migrants by Solidarity
  • For ten years, any litigant could request the Constitutional Council for a preliminary ruling asking to check the constitutionality of a law – which was not allowed before. This has been done for state of emergency laws.

The Constitutional Council has made 9 decisions on the state of emergency and partially or totally declared unconstitutional parts of the law seven times. The Court has forced the Government and Parliament to amend the law. Even on the merits of the files, the Constitutional Council could be viewed as partial, it can be considered that control has been effective.

But the Constitution of the French Republic is not the best text for effective procedural guarantees and it is towards the European Convention that we must look to find the guarantees in this matter.

  1. The conventional guarantees

The European court was not approached on the state of emergency in France.

There are at least two reasons for this:

  • The French cultural arrogance, the legal community considers that it is France that has inspired fundamental rights and that its own guarantees are sufficient to itself without using European law. As we say as a gimmick “le pays des droits de l’Homme »
  • And, if it is necessary to refer to the Convention, they are of direct application in national system of rules and the national courts are guarantors of the conventional texts.

Another reason is that to exhaust domestic remedies takes too much time and that the state of emergency was over before it is possible to file a complaint in this European court.

However, there were elements which had to be interpreted in the light of European law:

  • The State of Emergency act provides that measures may be taken against persons in respect of which there are serious reasons for believing that her or his behaviour constitutes a risk to public security and order.

It is not a case of proven facts as in criminal cases but of a certain behaviour, leaving the administration with a great deal of discretionality. We are close to predictive administrative decisions that have been used against environmental activists and massively against Muslims who had radical practices, confusing radicality with terrorism.

Persons find themselves with important restrictions of freedom and invasions of privacy and family life without the prior intervention of a judge.

These measures have not been cancelled by the Council of State.

  • In most cases, the behaviours found threatening are based on unsubstantiated notes of the secret services (no dates, no details of what is being criticized, for example, one  person accuses another of having relations with someone suspected of terrorist acts, without specifying the nature of these relations).

The administrative judge considers that the administration is presumed in good faith in its charges, and if the administration is wrong, it is up to the person in question to prove otherwise.

This reversal of the burden of proof and the impossible evidence are elements that could be challenged in the light of the rules of fair trial of the European Convention.

National courts haven’t applied European Convention rules in French procedures so that the question of their effectiveness is still open

I would like to underline finally that the rules of the state of emergency have been incorporated into the common law by a law of November 2017.

Finally, I learned one important thing from this experience:

The manner in which the executive power has taken full control of a petrified legislative power, the definitions of the law that restricted the margin of appreciation of the administrative judge, the way the same judge sometimes restricted his own capacity to check and control the power of the government,  make me think that if tomorrow in France, an authoritarian politician took over, we would not have many more guarantees than people in Turkey today.

Guarantees on paper are not sufficient if there is no mobilization to enforce and effectively apply them. This fight is a perpetual struggle and sometimes we are the only ones to support it.

And we come to Turkey today to show you are not alone in this fight!

 

 

Intervention de Florian BORG

Avocat au Barreau de Lille

Secrétaire general de l’association des avocats européens démocrates AED/EDL

Yalnız Değilsin

Lors du premier colloque à Ankara en janvier 2017, la France était également sous le régime de l’état d’urgence ce qui permettait d’ailleurs aux dirigeants turcs de montrer que, parmi les pays du Conseil de l’Europe et relevant de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, ils n’étaient pas seuls à utiliser cette disposition.

La France n’applique plus l’état d’urgence depuis un an, ce qui permet de voir ce qui a fonctionné ou non dans les garanties constitutionnelles et conventionnelles.

Avant tout, je voudrais préciser qu’il n’est pas question de comparer la situation française à la situation turque : J’ai été président du CHD français (le Syndicat des avocats de France) durant l’état d’urgence, j’ai peut-être été sur écoute, mais je n’ai jamais été menacé dans ma liberté de parole et de critique ni jamais été incarcéré.

En revanche, je crois que la situation française nous a montré que si demain un dirigeant totalitaire prenait le pouvoir en France, à l’image de la Turquie, de la Hongrie, de la Pologne et peut-être de l’Italie, tout est prêt pour que nous suivions le même chemin que la Turquie.

En réalité, la Turquie est bien le premier d’entre de nous dans sa catégorie et montre une voie à certains de nos femmes et hommes politiques dans nos sociétés occidentales.

Je commencerai d’abord par rappeler ce qu’a été l’état d’urgence en France :

A la suite des attentats terroristes de novembre 2015, le gouvernement a instauré l’état d’urgence, validé ensuite par le parlement. L’état d’urgence permet principalement au Gouvernement de prendre des mesures de police administrative plus facilement que dans une situation normale. Certaines de ces mesures de restriction de liberté ne sont, hors d’état d’urgence possibles que par décision judiciaire, comme les perquisitions. D’autres sont très restrictives de liberté mais sans contrôle du juge judiciaire telles les assignations à résidence qui permettent de limiter les déplacements d’une personne à une seule ville, de l’obliger à rester chez lui de 7h le soir à 7h le matin et de signer 3 fois par jours au commissariat de police, pour la durée de l’état d’urgence.

Comme il s’agit de mesures de police administrative, elles ne sont pas vérifiées par un juge judiciaire. La personne mise en cause peut saisir à postériori un juge administratif du contrôle de la mesure de police. La différence est que le juge judiciaire est reconnu indépendant par les dispositions constitutionnelle et seul compétent en matière de privation de libertés. Le juge administratif est pour sa part compétent pour contrôler les actes de l’administration excepté lorsqu’il s’agit de privation de libertés. Les mesures de police administrative de l’état d’urgence ne sont pas privatives mais restrictives de libertés.

La France a, comme la Turquie, décidé de faire application de l’article 15 de la Convention qui permet de déroger à certains droits et libertés garantis par la Convention.

Qu’est-ce qui a et n’a pas fonctionné dans la situation française ?

1/ Les garanties constitutionnelles

Elles sont de deux ordres : l’une relevant du pouvoir du parlement et l’autre de celui du Conseil constitutionnel.

  • Le rôle du parlement

La Constitution de la France prévoit expressément cette séparation des pouvoirs entre le législatif et l’exécutif.

La loi sur l’état d’urgence prévoit pour sa part que l’état d’urgence est décidé par l’exécutif mais ne peut être prorogé au-delà de 12 jours que si le parlement l’autorise. En outre, le parlement doit être informé de toutes les mesures prises par le gouvernement dans le cadre de l’état d’urgence. Enfin, le Parlement dispose d’un pouvoir d’enquête autonome sur les actes du Gouvernement pris dans le cas de l’état d’urgence.

Si le parlement a bien été informé et a produit plusieurs rapports de contrôle des actes pris par le gouvernement sur l’état d’urgence, cela n’a en revanche pas permis d’assouplissement des mesures de l’état d’urgence. En effet et ce n’est pas une surprise, les parlementaires ont adopté tous les textes proposés par le gouvernement et lorsqu’ils proposaient des modifications, il s’agissait de durcir les mesures sécuritaires et réduire les garanties des droits. Lors de l’adoption de la première loi sur l’état d’urgence, moins de 20 députés sur 577 ne l’ont pas voté. Nous avons appelé cela en France « l’état de sidération » qui fait que la raison des politiques s’efface derrière la peur.

D’ailleurs, les exécutifs trouvent toujours des majorités lorsqu’ils utilisent la menace terroriste, vraie ou supposée, pour adopter des lois restrictives de liberté.

L’état d’urgence a ainsi révélé en France ce que nous savions déjà : la séparation des pouvoirs entre le législatif et l’exécutif est très faible voire fictive et c’est bien l’exécutif qui détient le pouvoir d’écrire les lois et de les faire adopter.

  • L’apport du Conseil constitutionnel

Concernant les garanties constitutionnelles, deux éléments sont à prendre en compte pour bien comprendre la situation :

  • Le contrôle de constitutionalité ne s’arrête pas au seul texte de l’organisation des pouvoirs puisqu’il intègre un « bloc de constitutionalité » comprenant la déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen issue de la révolution française de 1789. Le Conseil constitutionnel a ainsi tout récemment défini la « fraternité » (une des composantes de la devise de la France : Liberté, égalité, fraternité) comme principe permettant d’écarter les poursuites pénales contre les personnes qui aident les migrants par solidarité
  • Tout justiciable peut depuis 10 ans poser une question préjudicielle au Conseil constitutionnel pour demander de vérifier la constitutionalité d’une loi – ce qui n’était pas autorisé avant. Cela a été fait pour les lois sur l’état d’urgence

Le Conseil constitutionnel a 9 décisions sur l’état d’urgence et censuré partiellement ou totalement à 7 reprises. Il a contraint le gouvernement et le parlement à modifier la loi. Au delà du fond des dossiers contrôlés par le Conseil, et si le Conseil peut être considéré come partial, on peut toutefois admettre que son contrôle a été effectif.

Mais la Constitution de la République française n’est pas le meilleur texte en matière de garantie de procédure et c’est vers la Convention européenne qu’il faut regarder pour trouver les garanties en la matière.

  1. Les garanties conventionnelles

La Cour européenne n’a pas été saisi sur l’état d’urgence en France.

Il y a au moins deux raisons qui permettent de l’expliquer :

  • Arrogance culturelle française, la communauté juridique considère que c’est la France qui a inspiré les droits fondamentaux et que ses propres garanties se suffisent à elle-même sans utiliser le droit européen. Nous le répétons comme un gimmick « le pays des droits de l’Homme »
  • Et, s’il est besoin de se référer à ces textes, ils sont d’application directe dans le droit interne et les juridictions nationales sont garantes des textes conventionnels.

Une autre raison est aussi que les délais de procédures internes en France étant longs (au fond) et l’état d’urgence était terminé avant de déposer une requête devant la Cour européenne.

Il y avait pourtant des éléments qui devaient être interprétés au regard du droit européen :

  • La loi sur l’état d’urgence prévoit que les mesures peuvent être prise à l’encontre de personnes à l’égard de laquelle il existe des raisons sérieuses de penser que son comportement constitue une menace pour la sécurité et l’ordre publics.

Il ne s’agit pas comme en matière pénale de faits avérés mais bien de comportement, ce qui laisse à l’administration une grande marge d’appréciation. Nous sommes assez proche de décisions administratives prédictives qui ont été utilisées contre des militants écologistes et massivement contre des musulmans qui avaient des pratiques radicales, sans pour autant qu’il faille confondre radicalité et terrorisme.

Les personnes se voient ainsi appliquées des restrictions de liberté et des atteintes à la vie privée et familiale sans intervention d’un juge préalable.

Ces mesures n’ont pas été censurées par le Conseil d’Etat.

  • Le plus souvent, les comportements reprochés aux personnes reposent sur des notes des services secrets peu circonstanciées (pas de dates, pas de détails sur ce qui est reproché, par exemple on reproche à une personne d’avoir des relations avec une autre personne suspectée d’actes terroristes, sans préciser la nature de ces relations).

Or, le juge administratif considère que l’administration est présumée de bonne foi dans ce quelle écrit, et si ce que rapporte l’administration est faux, c’est à la personne mise en cause de le démontrer.

Ce renversement de la charge de la preuve et la preuve impossible sont des éléments qui pouvaient être contestés au regard des règles du procès équitable de la Convention.

Les règles de la Convention n’ont ainsi pas été utilisées dans les procédures françaises de sorte que l’on peut se poser la question de leur effectivité.

Je voudrais préciser enfin que les principales règles de l’état d’urgence ont été intégrées dans le droit commun par une loi de novembre 2017.

Pour conclure, je retiens une chose importante de cette expérience :

La manière dont l’exécutif a pris totalement la main sur un législatif tétanisé, les définitions de la loi qui restreignait le pouvoir d’interprétation du juge administratif et ce même juge qui a parfois été frileux pour sortir de ce cadre retreint me font penser que si demain en France, un homme ou une femme politique autoritaire devaient prendre le pouvoir, nous n’aurions pas beaucoup plus de garanties que ce qui se passe aujourd’hui en Turquie.

Les garanties de papier ne sont pas suffisantes s’il n’y a pas la mobilisation des femmes et des hommes pour les appliquer et les faire respecter. Ce combat est un combat perpétuel et nous sommes parfois bien seuls à le porter. Mais si nous sommes venus aujourd’hui en Turquie c’est aussi pour vous montrer que vous n’êtes pas seuls dans ce combat !

 

Posted on

Turkey’s State of Emergency

Our colleague Ceren Uysal participated recently in a press conference in Vienna dealing with the current situation in Turkey. We publish here her contribution.

 

First of all I would like to thank you for the opportunity to describe my point of view on what has been going on in Turkey recently. It means a lot to me to talk about the recent situation as a lawyer and I also accept this as a responsibility.

I would like to start with a general statement: Currently there is no judiciary in Turkey. The institutions in justice system are not working independently and impartially of the demands and priorities of the political power because today more than 2000 judges and prosecutors and around 300 lawyers are still in jail and it directly means that the so called free actors of the legal area are mentally arrested. Even the numbers are still not certain but it’s claimed that in total, more than 200.000 people are in jail.

I would like to briefly describe the current situation of the rule of law 3000 judges and public prosecutors were suspended even before 24 hours had passed after the military coup attempt. It shows that the judges and public prosecutors were blacklisted according to their political opinions and that these lists were already prepared before the coup attempt.

Before the state of emergency, there were no restrictions to the access of lawyers. But in the first 6 months of the state of emergency, the right to access to a lawyer was restricted during the first 5 days of the detention. Now this restriction was removed through a new governmenal decree; however it did not solve the problem because again with a governmental decree, the government had already changed the Criminal Procedure Law and right now, there is an article which restricts the right to access to a lawyer for the first 24 hours.

Also, the interviews between the lawyers and the suspects under detention in jail are recorded. The Decree also gives the prison guards the power to participate at the interview and seize the documents if they think it is necessary.

The right to information about the charges is an important issue these days which, of course, is one of the most important elements of the right of defence. For instance, many judges and prosecutors who are still in jail, defended themselves against the accusation of being a member of Gülen organization but they were arrested with the accusation of threatening to overthrow the constitutional order.

The other subject to be underlined is the presumption of innocence. We are witnessing how the judicial and administrative practices are combined through governmental decrees. As a result it is easy to claim that right now this princible is not valid for at least half of the society. Hundreds of thousands of puclic officers were dismissed with a justification of having a relation with terorist organizations. It is obvious that in a state of law, such a dismission practice definitely needs a judicial sentence. However today, hundreds of thousands of people are facing the results of a judgement without a judicial

process. So, since the state of emergency,the presemption of innocence has been violated more than ever.

In my point of view, in this whole picture the attorney immunity has to be underlined because it is impossible to imagine the existence of the right of defence, when there is no attorney immunity. The repression against lawyers – unfortunately – has a history in Turkey. But it was never like today. Right now, hundreds of lawyers are in prison. When the repression of the past and today’s circumstances are combined, the result turns out to be a disaster for the right of defence. Many victims of the state of emergency, especially who are accused to be a member of Gülen organization, could not find a lawyer because lawyers are afraid to represent them.

Finally, the independance of the judiciary must be accepted as the main subject. As a lawyer, personally I do not remember any period in Turkey when the judiciary was completely independent. On the contrary, for some types of crimes or defendents, the judiciary was only a mechanism that worked for the benefits of the State. However, it is possible to claim that nowadays, there has been a fundemantal change. The arrest of 3000 judges and prosecutors also means that all the judicial mechanisms are working with the threat of arrestment today. In the sense of this reality, it is obvious that the defence of a suspect or the evidences in a file are less important than the benefits and desires of the State‘s power.

Briefly, Turkey never was a rose garden. But the lack of trust in the judicary had never reached this dimension. There was no right of defence for the opponents before the state of emergency. But after the state of emergency, not only for the part of the society who reacts against the reorganization of the state, but also for people who just have concerns, there is not a bit of chance to use the right of defence. Today, in Turkey’s courthouses or prisons there is no bit of justice, not even the hope of justice. We just have stories, explaining us how peoples lifes were ruined under this completly under- control situation. We hope that one day these stories will be told everywhere and will help all of us to remember the importance of the rule of law, like bread, water and air.

I would like to finish my words with one of my beloved colleagues; Selçuk Kozağaçlı. He is still the president of Progressive Lawyers Association and he has been practicing law for nearly 20 years. He is in jail since November 2017 with 20 more members of Progressive Lawyers Association.

He sent this letter to us:

“I spent 60 days in a one-person cell, under a full isolation. On the 60th day of my imprisonment, the guards came and told me that “my demand of participating in “collective events” was accepted”. Wow! Now I have the right to go out of my cell every week once for 2 hours. I asked them the names of the prisoners that I could finally meet. And the answer was extra-ordinary: “For now, you will go out

from your cell but you will be alone!” So, I rejected.
One day after this occasion, my lawyers visited me. And next to our room, there was another

prisoner, Deniz. He called me and told that I should accept to go out from my cell, even I would be alone. He said that he is doing this – alone –for more than 2 months and he shouted at me and said that I need to see the sky at least 2 hours in a week. Deniz is in a cell – alone – for one year already.

We do not have a judiciary in Turkey right now. What we have is just a group of public officers who are following the orders of the government. They are full of fear, because they know that whenever they make a decision which tries to focus on the fundemental human rights, – not a perfect one but for instance one verdict which is better than the avarage of the rest – they know that they will be a prisoner too. Or at least another judge, prosecutor or even the government will announce that they do not accept the verdict and not respect it. Like the last occasion about the Constitutional Court’s verdict…

I should underline that I am not calling myself as a prisoner. When there is no judiciary, the people who are in jail can not be accepted as prisoners. We are just the hostages of this AKP regime. We were imprisoned under force by the power. This is all. As one of our beloved judges said, all these court decisions will only be valid through this government’s life-period.

They are now forcing us to wear one single uniform and also try to defeat us with this pure isolation. But we are resisting with all our power and will.

I send my best wishes to all of you with hope and with the strong belief in our solidarity. Please don’t worry and just remember, we are resisting this arbitrariness.”

Posted on

Communiqué sur les mineurs isolés et activistes La Roya

L’assemblée générale de l’AED qui s’est tenue à Nice a été l’occasion d’échanger sur la politique migratoire européenne, avec des activistes de l’association ROYA CITOYENNE, qui sont venus témoigner de la situation des migrants à la frontière franco-italienne.

La vallée de la ROYA a été en effet, durant plusieurs mois, le théâtre d’une tragédie humaine où ont été pris en étau des migrants en détresse, dont de nombreux mineurs non accompagnés que l’Etat a refusé de prendre en charge, leur déniant la qualité d’enfant et la possibilité de demander l’asile.

L’instauration de l’état d’urgence en France avait entrainé le rétablissement de la frontière entre l’Italie et la France, poussant des centaines d’exilés à se réfugier dans la Vallée pour pouvoir passer la frontière et demander l’asile en France. Les réfugié passent désormais en France au niveau du Col de l’échelle, tentant, là encore, de survivre au péril de leur vie.

Parmi ces réfugiés, de nombreux mineurs non accompagnés venant d’Eyrthrée, d’Afghanistan, de Syrie..,ont trouvé refuge auprès des habitants de la Vallée de la Roya.

Ces habitants ont tout fait pour que les droits des ces réfugiés soient protégés, qu’ils soient accueillis dignement et puissent, pour certains déposer une demande d’asile et demander la protection de l’Etat.

Même munis de justificatifs d’ouverture d’une procédure de protection, ils faisaient l’objet de « refus d’entrée », formalisés ou pas, puis de refoulements en Italie, parfaitement illégaux et contraires au droit international.

Devant ce déni de droit et d’humanité, des citoyens n’ont eu d’autre choix que de se substituer à la carence d’un Etat aveugle et sourd. Ils sauvent la vie et rétablissent la dignité de ces hommes et femmes fuyant leurs pays. Ils accomplissent les gestes de première urgence : aide, hébergement, soins et conseils.

Ce sont ceux-là, ces citoyens solidaires, à l’instar de Cédric HERROU ou de Pierre-Alain MANNONI, que l’Etat français a décidé d’harceler, de poursuivre, de placer en garde à vue, de perquisitionner de manière gratuite et brutale et de condamner pénalement pour leurs actions en faveur du respect de la dignité humaine, les avocats qui les défendent menacés de mort.

Dans toute l’Europe, des situations de traitement indigne des réfugiés ont été constatées, des refoulements à la frontière sans possibilité de voir un avocat et d’exercer effectivement leurs droits, des violations quotidiennes des Conventions internationales.

L’AED dénonce cette politique d’exclusion et de refoulement à l’extérieur des frontières menée par les autorités des Etats Membres et les autorités européennes.

L’AED apporte son soutien aux citoyens qui n’hésitent pas à aider des hommes, des femmes, des enfants relégués aux marges de la société, afin de préserver leur dignité et dénonce le non-respect des droits fondamentaux des mineurs et – la traque des citoyens solidaires. Ce sont les politiques gouvernementales qui sont indignes.

L’AED demande l’abandon des poursuites pénales déclenchées à l’encontre de ces citoyens, et l’abrogation du délit de solidarité dans le Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers du droit d’asile qui est en cours de modification en France.

Elle exige l’application de la convention  européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’Homme et des libertés fondamentales et de la Convention Internationale des droits de l’Enfant et le respect par la France notamment de ses engagements internationaux.

 

Posted on

On the isolated minors and activists of the Roya Valley

The General Assembly of the AED-EDL has been held in Nice on the 9th and 10th of February 2018 and has provided us with the opportunity to discuss European migration policy with activists from the association ROYA CITIZEN who have testified of the situation of migrants on the Franco-Italian border.

For several months the ROYA Valley has been the scene of a human tragedy: a valley in which migrants are stranded in distress, including many unaccompanied minors whom the state has refused to take charge of. In fact, the state denies the quality of minor of age to these children and thus denies the possibility of granting them asylum.

The introduction of the emergency laws to regulate the state of emergency in France has led to the restoration of the border between Italy and France. This is pushing hundreds of exiles to seek refuge in the Valley, while they try to cross the border and on their way to seek asylum in France. Currently, refugees have to stopped passing by the Roya Valley and now seek to pass the Col de l’Echelle from Bardonecchia to Briancon, risking their lives in the mountains.

Among these refugees, there are many unaccompanied minors from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria … They have found refuge with the inhabitants of the Valley of Roya. These citizens have done everything to ensure that the rights of these refugees are protected, that they are received with dignity and are able to seek asylum and ask for state protection.

Even with proof of having begun a protection procedure, these migrants received immediate “refusals of entry”, in many case informally. They were pushed back into Italy, which is illegal and contrary to international law.

Faced with this denial of rights and humanity, citizens have had no choice but to substitute a blind and deaf state. They have helped save lives and restore the dignity of those men and women fleeing their countries. They have taken care of the first aid: accommodation, care and advice.

It is citizens who, like Cédric HERROU or Pierre-Alain MANNONI, have joined forces that are now facing the harassment of the French State, as well as prosecution, detention and arbitrary searches. Their actions aimed at the respect of human dignity have ben condemned criminally. The lawyers who defend them have been recently threatened with death.

Throughout Europe, situations of ill treatment of refugees have been noted: push-backs at the border without the possibility of accessing a lawyers’ advice and effectively exercising their own rights, as well as daily violations of international conventions.

The AED-EDL denounces this policy of exclusion and pushbacks outside the borders, at the centre of the policy of European Authorities and Member States.

The AED supports citizens who do not hesitate to help men, women and children relegated to the margins of society, to preserve their dignity. The association denounces the non-respect of the fundamental rights of minors and – the criminalization of citizens who show their solidarity. It is the government policies that are unworthy.

The AED-EDL calls for the abandonment of criminal proceedings against citizens, and the repeal of the offense of solidarity in the Code of entry and residence of foreigners of the right to asylum, which is being amended in France.

It requires the application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the respect by France of its international commitments.

Nice, 9th and 10th February

Posted on

Seventeen Turkish lawyers are in detention in different parts of the country; sixteen of them for several weeks.

On the 8th of November 2017, Selcuk Kozagacli, President of the ÇHD, a progressive association of lawyers and a member of the AED, was arrested with great violence and detained in Istanbul. The accusations against our colleague justifying his detention by the Turkish authorities consist of complicity in terrorism.

Our colleague and friend Selcuk Kozagacli is one of the best-known human rights defenders in Turkey.

He recently denounced, during the general assembly of the Istanbul bar association held in ANKARA on the 16th of October, systematic acts of torture committed on people recently arrested, such as the tearing of nails, rape, the introduction of objects in the anus of the prisoners …

 

Today our colleague Selcuk Kozagacli is himself exposed to these same barbaric acts. To be convinced of this, it suffices to visualize the consequences of the conditions of his arrest. Our colleague is now on a hunger strike to try to force get his appearance before a judge.

 

The EDA demands the immediate release of Selcuk Kozagacli and the following sixteen lawyers from the Turkish authorities: Barkın Timtik, Ebru Timtik, Süleyman Gökten, Ezgi Çakır, Ahmet Mandacı, Yağmur Ereren, Aytaç Ünsal, Didem Baydar Ünsal , Ayşegül Çağatay, Engin Gökoğlu, Behiç Aşçı, Aycan Çiçek, Şükriye Erden, Özgür Yılmaz, Zehra Özdemir and Naciye Demi, who did not commit any other crimes than fulfilling their function of defender and denouncing the blatant violation of the rights of their clients.

 

Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Den Haag, Berlin, Rome, Brussels…

9th November 2017.

 

Dix sept avocats turcs sont en détention, dans différentes régions du pays ; seize d’entre eux depuis plusieurs semaines.

 

Le 8 novembre 2017, Selcuk Kozagacli président du ÇHD, association d’avocats progressistes, membre de l’AED a été à son tour interpellé dans une grande violence, et placé en détention à Istanbul. Les accusations portées contre nos confrères et justifiant aux yeux des autorités turques leur détention, consistent en des faits de complicité de terrorisme

Notre confrère et ami Selcuk Kozagacli est l’un des plus connus défenseur des droit de l’homme en Turquie.

Il a récemment dénoncé, au cours de l’assemblée général des Barreaux qui s’est tenue à ANKARA le 16 octobre derniers, des actes de tortures systématiques commis sur les personnes arrêtées ces derniers temps, tel que l’arrachement des ongles, des viols, l’introduction d’objets dans l’anus des détenus…

Aujourd’hui notre confrère Selcuk Kozagacli est lui même exposé à ces mêmes actes barbares. Il suffit pour s’en convaincre de visualiser les conséquences des conditions de son interpellation

Notre confrère est aujourd’hui en grève de la faim pour tenter d’obtenir sa comparution devant un juge.

L’ AED exige des autorités turques la remise en liberté immédiate de Selcuk Kozagacli et des seize autres avocats, dont les noms suivent, Barkın Timtik, Ebru Timtik, Süleyman Gökten, Ezgi Çakır, Ahmet Mandacı, Yağmur Ereren, Aytaç Ünsal, Didem Baydar Ünsal, Ayşegül Çağatay, Engin Gökoğlu, Behiç Aşçı, Aycan Çiçek, Şükriye Erden, Özgür Yılmaz, Zehra Özdemir et Naciye Demi, qui n’ont pas commis d’autres crimes que de remplir leur fonction de défenseur et de dénoncer l’absence la violations flagrantes des droits les plus fondamentaux de leurs clients.

 

 

Posted on

On the Catalonian Referendum

The Bureau of the Association “AVOCATS EUROPEANS DEMOCRATES” (AED) -created 30 years ago and which has brought together associations and unions of European lawyers committed to the defense of the rights of people- has met in Berlin and notes with concern some of the reactions of the Spanish administrative and judicial authorities against the decision of the political authorities and the citizens of Catalonia to celebrate on the 1st of October a referendum on self-determination approved by a law of the Catalonian Parliament and organized by its government. The reaction of the Spanish government has been to challenge its validity, while the Spanish Constitutional Court suspended the law.

Regardless of the debate on the legal validity and the political value that may result from such a referendum, provisionally suspended by a court of constitutional guarantees, and regardless of the debate if the suspension of the referendum automatically means to prevent violently its effective celebration, in these days we are witnessing restrictions on the fundamental rights of the citizenship, often without judicial intervention, such as the freedom of expression, the freedom of information, the right of assembly, the secret and integrity of communications and the right to the natural judge predetermined by the law, going far beyond measures characteristic of a state of emergency.

Thus, the public mail service, without judicial authorization, has withheld correspondence for its content; public initiatives to discuss the referendum have been suspended; citizens have been identified and detained for the only reason of publicly defending their political ideas; print material has been seized, together with the red carnations, which were distributed to emphasize the peaceful character of the Catalonian proposal for political change. More than 700 Catalan mayors have been summoned by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who has opened criminal proceedings against Catalonian Parliamentarians, as well as all the Catalan Government in full. Printing presses haven been registered without previous judicial order and the media has issued coercive police warnings.

These are signs of the democratic weakness of the Spanish State and are part of a repressive strategy that denies politics as an instrument of change. The AED considers this corresponds to an undemocratic violation of fundamental rights and demands the Spanish State to reinstate these political and civil rights immediately.

 

Posted on

Contro gli arresti degli avvocati in Turchia

Communicato di LegalTeam Italia.

Desta grandissimo allarme la notizia dell’arresto di 23 colleghi in Turchia, accusati di far parte dell’organizzazione di Fetullah Gulem: accusa ormai adoperata dal governo turco per colpire e sbarazzarsi di ogni tipo di oppositori, o anche solo liberi pensatori non allineati con la politica del presidente Erdogan. Nei casi di questi arresti di massa l’accusa non si preoccupa neppure di indicare quali sarebbero gli elementi che sorreggerebbero l’ipotesi di chi indaga e così si rende impossibile ogni forma di difesa. Questa procedura trova le sue radici nello stato di emergenza che ormai si sta prorogando di tre mesi in tre mesi, da quel 15 luglio 2016 in cui vi fu il cosiddetto “tentato Golpe”. Sono ormai quasi 300 gli avvocati incarcerati. Accanto a loro stanno giudici, professori, giornalisti, lavoratori dei media, militari, impiegati e comuni cittadini: sono ormai più di 47.000 gli arrestati in questi mesi e più di 100.000 quelli che hanno perso il posto di lavoro e hanno visto i propri beni sequestrati.

Di fronte a questi arresti in massa, i relativi processi non iniziano neppure e la detenzione si proroga. Del resto, per restare agli avvocati, debbono ancora concludersi i processi, iniziati spesso molti anni fa e mai conclusi, che vedono imputati decine di colleghi per il solo fatto di avere esercitato bene il loro mandato difensivo.

Fra i colleghi arrestati in questi giorni vi è anche l’Avv. Taner Kilic          che era responsabile per la Turchia di Amnesty International e che è ben noto anche in Italia per avere contribuito alla liberazione del giornalista italiano Del Grande sequestrato ai confini della Siria. Il governo turco non si ferma certo, nel suo programma di “piazza pulita degli oppositori”, di fronte al ruolo internazionale connesso alla posizione in Amnesty. Anzi, secondo i suoi parametri, ciò costituisce probabilmente una aggravante. Infatti, tutte le organizzazioni che lottavano per i diritti umani sono state chiuse e disciolte ed i loro attivisti incarcerati.

Il panorama delle violazioni di ogni diritto umano fondamentale in Turchia è ormai ai nostri occhi insostenibile. Anche altri paesi nel cuore dell’Europa (vedi la Francia) conoscono lo stato di emergenza, eppure non sembrano ricorrere in maniera così massiccia alla negazione dei diritti. E più il governo turco perde consensi (vedi l’esito del recente referendum costituzionale) più ricorre a questa repressione di massa.

E’ l’ora che i governi occidentali smettano di farsi complici, col loro silenzio, di questa dissennata politica. LTI, pur piccola organizzazione ma tenacemente attaccata alla difesa dei diritti fondamentali, esprime la propria solidarietà ai colleghi turchi arrestati in questi mesi e si dichiara disposta a prendere parte ad ogni forma di protesta civile contro questi arresti e questa negazione della libertà.

 

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

State of Emergency and Judicial System in Turkey

We greet you as organizers of the conference entitled “State of Emergency and Judicial System in Turkey”.

This conference has historical significance, for the following reasons:.

● The conference is organized in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, in an environment dominated by the oppressive and coercive practices of the State of Emergency in Turkey.
● The conference brings together lawyers, judges and prosecutors. Together they are the foundations of judicial system. There is also a place for academics, who have crucial importance for the production of legal interpretation and knowledge; for journalists whose importance is undeniable in the distribution of information; and also for parliamentarians. All significant actors who can discuss the impacts of the State of Emergency on the judicial system in Turkey are present at this conference.
● The significance of this conference is not limited to Turkey .​ ​Today no one can claim that the political and economic problems of any location are unique to that location. Whether these problems concern the State of Emergency, martial law, anti-terror practices, deterioration of the judicial system, democracy, or access to justice. Regardless of their severity and location, they are all our shared problems.​ With ​this perspective, this conference is a conference where international experiences can be shared, discussed and put together in proposals for a solution.
● This conference is not just a transfer of information. This conference is a tool for analysis, diagnosis and plans for the future.

It is precisely for these reasons that this conference has a historical significance. The conference is held at a time when thousands of Turkish judges and prosecutors are in custody, and thousands who are still at liberty, are fettered by the fear of imprisonment , and in fact live in an environment where they have lost their independence. The slightest criticism is persecuted through the apparatuses of oppression and coercion.

The location and the date of the conference are not a coincidence, but a product of conscious choice. We hope that this conference is going to become a means of struggle for the peoples of Turkey and the world.

Turkey has already ceased to be a state governed by the rule of law. In a country where judges are deprived of the power of independent decision-making and where lawyers are not allowed practise their profession, it is not possible to talk about the principle of the rule of law nor about a real judicial system. This is because the judicial system is not the sum of procedural rules. The only valid diagnosis for a state of affairs in which the right to access to justice is restricted, or the right to a fair trial is blocked, is that lawlessness and arbitrary rule have replaced the rule of law.

An examination of the current Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the State of Emergency Law shows us the following;

● The scope of the State of Emergency and the way it was declared are unlawful in themselves.

  •  The Decree Laws issued behind the curtain of the State of Emergency are unlawful.
  •   The dismissals and the privatizations of and the bans of the associations, newspapers and the TVs through the Decree Laws are unlawful.

● Any kind of parliamentary activity and all kinds of interventions carried out in the context of the Constitutional amendment during the State of Emergency period are unlawful.

In essence, there has not been a single step that can be described as lawful since the declaration of the State of Emergency in Turkey. On the contrary, under the cover of anti-terrorism, judges, lawyers, journalists, academics, and anyone who raises a voice in the face of the presidential regime under construction in Turkey today, are arrested, and subjected to inhumane treatment during detention . Today, an issue such as a constitutional amendment, which should require a the agreement of the whole of society , has been forced onto the agenda under the conditions of the State of Emergency, and the country is being dragged into a state of irreversible regime change. .

We, as lawyers from many countries of the world, declare that we are concerned about this dangerous course. Our commitment to the rule of law tells us that this trend is not unique to Turkey, and we want to share our experiences as well. War, martial law, dictatorship, State of Emergency are all legal guises of oppression and coercion. In short, all these can be described as the dark side of the moon, which was always there even before they were declared.

Today and here, we are bringing together the experiences of those who look at the dark side of the moon. But more importantly, we are building the knowledge of hope. Law is an area of ​​struggle for rights and freedoms, not just for its subjects, but for all societies. With this consciousness, we inform the public of the whole world that we will not remain silent in the face of what is going on in Turkey today and that we will make our stand against this darkness!

In Turkish newspapers:

http://www.sozcu.com.tr/2017/gundem/son-dakika-haberi/dunya-capinda-348-gazeteci-cezaevinde-bunlarin-143u-turkiyede-1625031/

http://www.dihaber.org/TUM-HABERLER/content/view/6404