Posted on

Turkey’s terror list: An attack on lawyers and human rights

The undersigned organisations deplore the recent arbitrary designation of Günay Dağ as a “terrorist”. Günay Dağ is a lawyer at the International Bureau of the People’s Law Office and a member of the Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD). On 30 December 2022, he was added to the list called “list of wanted terrorists” published on the official website of the Ministry of Interior. For the past three years, Günay Dağ has been a political refugee.
Although Günay Dağ has never been convicted of a criminal act of terrorism by a court, he is now being labelled as a “wanted terrorist” and member of a terrorist organisation.
We fear that Günay Dağ is being identified with his clients or his clients’ causes as a result of discharging his professional functions, in contravention of international and universal law and standards relating to the role of lawyers.
Alleged “terrorists” placed on the official list are subdivided into five categories: red, blue, green, orange and grey, according to the ascribed level of threat and/or importance. Günay Dağ has been included in the “green category,” with a reward of two million Turkish Liras offered for information leading directly to his arrest. This list published by the Ministry of Interior is solely based on the provisions of the “Regulation on Rewards to be Offered to Those Who Help in Exposing Terrorist Crimes or Seizing Evidence or Arresting Criminal Perpetrators”, which is known as the “rewards regulation”. However, this regulation does not provide any authorisation to the executive power to establish such a list, nor does it explain how the categories are to be determined or administered. Since the five colours have different amounts of monetary award, it is only known that the green category represents the medium level. This list has become an important tool for persecuting and prosecuting those who are considered as political opponents to the government. Critically, the list contains not only those accused of being directly involved with “terrorism”, but also lawyers that are representing them.
With such financial incentives for tips leading to an arrest, which can go up to almost five hundred thousand EURO, it appears that the authorities are trying to reach even persons who have fled and are no longer on Turkish territory.
The list includes a total of 971 people accused of being members of 19 different alleged “terrorist organisations”. The well-known journalist Can Dündar, who lives in exile, was also put on the list on 30 December 2022, thesame day as lawyer Günay Dağ,
Over the course of several years, a number of legal actions have been initiated by State authorities in Turkey against lawyers in violation of the prohibition of identifying lawyers with their clients. (See Article 18 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers: Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions).
One of the well-known cases of this type concerns the prosecution of 22 lawyers from the Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD), which has been ongoing for more than 10 years. Many of the accused ÇHD lawyers have been imprisoned for years, although they have yet to be irrevocably convicted of a criminal offense. Among them are Selçuk Kozağaçlı, the Chair of ÇHD and other colleagues working in the People’s Law Office. Most of them have been acting as lawyers in politically sensitive cases. However, despite the heavy pressure against them, our colleagues who are not yet detained are still trying to pursue their legitimate professional activities as lawyers.
Arbitrary listing:
The listing entails serious consequences for the person concerned who faces serious risks of imprisonment, stigmatization and other human rights violations. Yet the list lacks a proper legal basis for its implementation. So far, only a decree of the Ministry of the Interior regulates the remuneration for informants. There is no legal provision that regulates who can be put on the list, how persons may be removed from the list nor how the executive authorities may decide establishing such a list, nor how it is managed. The initiation and administration of the list is therefore arbitrary, contravening the principles of legality.
Violation of the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and right to private and family life:
The listing authority does not provide expressly for judicial review, nor does it spell out any procedures for review a judicial authority, despite the fact that listing necessarily results in a serious impairment of the exercise of the rights of those who have been listed. The designation of a person as a terrorist without having been sentenced by a court or tribunal and without due process violates the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. These human rights established under customary international and guaranteed by treaties to which Turkey is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, articles 9 and 14) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, articles 5 and 6). In this regard, the European Parliament recently strongly condemned the Turkish government’s disregard for the right to a fair trial in the context of the ECtHR’s 2019 case Kavala v. Turkey.
Likewise, sharing personal information openly and illegally on the internet is a violation of the right to private and family life (ICCPR, article 17; ECHR, article 8).
INTERPOL blocking Turkey’s list:
A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. It is based on an arrest warrant or a court order issued by the judicial authorities in the requesting country. Member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest a person. Red Notices are published by INTERPOL at the request of a member country, and must comply with INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules.
In this context, we understand that INTERPOL has rejected most of the requests made by Turkey on the basis of this list, on the grounds that they lacked persuasive evidence and were politically motivated and therefore did not comply with binding INTERPOL regulations. In this regard, the Red Notice request for Can Dündar was rejected by INTERPOL.
Conclusion and recommendations:
In view of the above, the undersigned organisations call on the Turkish authorities to stop identifying lawyers with their clients or the causes they defend, including by putting an end to their listing as terrorists without due process and a fair trial. Additionally, we urge the Turkish authorities to remove lawyer Günay Dağ and all other lawyers from the “list of wanted terrorists” since their inclusion to this list is based on their legitimate activities as lawyers. Finally, the undersigned organisations call on the Turkish authorities to take all necessary measures to guarantee that all lawyers in Turkey are able to carry out their professional duties without fear of reprisal, hindrance, intimidation or harassment, in order to preserve the independence, integrity of the administration of justice and the rule of law.


This statement was endorsed by
Alternative Intervention of Athens’ Lawyers.
Asociación Americana de Juristas (AAJ)
Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD)
Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF)
Center for Research amd Elaboration on Democracy/Group of International Legal Intervention
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)
Défense Sans Frontières – Avocats Solidaires (DSF-AS)
European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights (ELDH)
European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA)
European Democratic Lawyers (AED)
Giuristi Democratici Italia
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Indian Association of Lawyers
Institut des droits de l’homme du barreau de Bruxelles
International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
International Commission of Jurists
Judicial Reform Foundation
Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L, the Netherlands)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NULP, the Philippines)
Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD, Turkey)
Republikanischer Anwältinnen und Anwälteverein (RAV, Germany)
The National Association of Democratic Lawyers [South Africa]
Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen eV (VDJ)

Posted on

THE AFGHANISTAN REPORT

This year, the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer focusses on Afghanistan. As set forth below, the situation confronting Afghan lawyers today is extremely dire. This report first outlines the applicable legal framework, highlighting the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Next, the report describes the situation of the justice system and the Bar in Afghanistan. It then illustrates the situation of lawyers and legal professionals through profiles of a number of individuals at risk. It also underscores the responsibility of other States regarding the calls for help coming from the Afghan lawyers. Finally, the report makes demands and recommendations in order to improve the situation of Afghan lawyers in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

Read the REPORT:

https://www.aeud.org/report-day-of-the-endangered-lawyer-2023-afghanistan/

Posted on

Afghanistan 2023 – Activities

As last year, January 24 is the International Day of Endangered Law. This year the Day aims at raising awareness of the situation of lawyers in Aghanistan, after the withdrawal of the US forces and its allies.
Exceptionally this year, our work is extended to the situation of
judges and prosecutors due to the dire situation the legal institution is facing.

This year the report is directed at international actors and States who took part in the US invasion. It obviously makes no sense to address it to the Taliban government.

These acts and communications have already been confirmed:

1.   London, 24 January – Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers,
demonstration
2.     Online seminar by the Law Society of England and Wales and Lawyers for Lawyers, 19 January 2023, register here.
3.     Dublin Ireland, Jan. 24th 10:30am (Irish time) Afghan Judges Speak, organized by the Bar of Ireland, here.
4.      Lille France, Jan. 24, 11am CET, roundtable on Afghanistan and Ukraine organized by the Barreau de Lille, only in person and in French, here.
5.       Lyon France:, Jan. 20th 9am CET, OIAD organizes physical and online conference
6.       Montpellier, France: Jan. 27th 9am to 5pm CET: Montpellier Bar Association, Syndicat des avocats de France, Institut de droits de l’Homme de Montpellier, Ligue des droits de l’homme are organising a physical and online conference, here.
7.      Nantes, France: Jan. 24th 6pm CET, opening of art exhibition, Palais de Justice
8.       *US National Association of Women Judges and International Association of Women Judges*: Jan. 24th 6:15pm CET online session, here.
9.       *The Hague, 24 January 2023, demonstration in front of the Afghan Embassy*
10.   *Brussels, 24 January 2023, 10h00 – 11h30, CCBE, Press conference*
11.   *Brussels*: Jan. 24th 1pm CET event organized by SED (via Facebook), here.
12.   *Berlin* (RAV, RAK Berlin, VDJ, Strafverteidigervereinigungen, ,24 January, demonstration and seminar, here.
13.   *Turkey, 24 January 2023, demonstrations in 6 cities.*
14.- Press Release CCBE – 24th January : International Day of Endangered Lawyers 2023. *To register, please contact our Head of Communication, Karine Métayer, only at the following address*: event@ccbe.eu
15.- Genoa and Venice BAR Associations hold a conference on the 25th January in Genoa.
16.- The BAR of Barcelona will publish the report on its website.

17. *Madrid*, Jan 24 13h30 Demonstration in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.



Posted on

8èmes RENCONTRES AUTOUR DE LA JOURNÉE DE L’AVOCAT MENACÉ

Since 2010, the Day of the Lawyer in Danger is held on the 24th of January in different cities and countries around the world. This date was chosen because on January 24, 1977, five people, including three lawyers, were murdered in an office on Atocha Street in Madrid, where their law firm was located. Each year, the International Day is organized by the Coalition for the Endangered Lawyer, a network of national and international organizations and bar associations. The objective of this day is to draw the attention of governments, international institutions, civil society, the media and the general public to the plight of lawyers in a given country, in order to raise awareness of the threats they face in the exercise of their profession.

In previous years, the Day has focused on countries such as Colombia (2022 and 2014), Azerbaijan (2021), Pakistan (2020), Turkey (2019 and 2012), Egypt (2018), China (2017), Honduras (2016), the Philippines (2015), the Netherlands/Spain (2013) and Iran (2010). This year, the Day of the Endangered Lawyer focuses on Afghanistan.

On the 27th of January, AED is participating in an educational initiative. The focus will be on the situation of Afghan lawyers, the bar and the judicial system in Afghanistan, and the responsibility of other states to respond to Afghan lawyers’ calls for help. We will discuss the situation of lawyers and legal professionals in the world through the independence of justice and lawyers.

We will discuss the legal framework for the protection of the profession, in particular the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the European Convention on the Legal Profession which is currently being drafted.

Please find here the programme of the conference

Participation is also possible online. For more information, please see here.

Posted on

Turkey: Closure case against political party looms

Trial is an assault on political opposition and democratic norms before elections

[Istanbul: January 9, 2023] Current efforts to dissolve the second-largest opposition party in Turkey’s parliament ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections are the latest in a deeply problematic practice in Turkey of forcing the closure of political parties, a group of 10 international and local non-governmental organizations, including European Democratic Lawyers said today. Previous efforts have violated the rights to freedom of association, assembly, and expression, and to free and fair elections including the rights of voters to elect their chosen representatives.

The Constitutional Court is currently being asked to order the closure of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a political party with 56 deputies in Turkey’s parliament. An indictment against the party seeks to ban 451 politicians and party members from organized political activity or membership of political parties for a period of five years and forfeiture of the party’s assets. On January 5, the Constitutional Court agreed to a request by the chief prosecutor of the Court of Cassation for the interim measure of freezing the party’s bank accounts containing treasury support which political party groups in parliament are entitled to receive. On January 10, the chief prosecutor is due to give an oral presentation of the case against the party to the Constitutional Court, which the HDP will respond to at a later date before the court convenes to deliberate and then issue a final ruling.  

The 10 organizations on October 11, 2022 submitted a third-party intervention to the Constitutional Court arguing that arbitrary closure of political parties violates multiple rights.

“International law guarantees the rights of political parties within the frame of freedom of association,expression, peaceful assembly, and views the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to stand for election as core principles of democracy,” said Philip Leach of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The case before Turkey’s Constitutional Court concerning the possible closure of the Peoples’ Democratic Party is a fundamental test of whether the court will abide by international law and respect democratic norms. Closing down a political party without compelling grounds violates multiple rights and is an attack on democracy.”

The case before the Constitutional Court is based on a June 7, 2021 834-page indictment that mainly asserts the HDP’s activities are carried out in line with the aims of the armed outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party/Kurdistan Communities Union (PKK/KCK). According to the indictment, there is an “organic” link between the PKK/KCK and the HDP’s activities which the prosecutor claims support separatism by being “in conflict with… the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation,” a violation of article 68/4 of Turkey’s Constitution and provisions in the Law on Political Parties. The indictment accuses the party’s members and sub-bodies and organs of having taken part in the commission of crimes of this nature or encouraged them to be committed or praised these crimes and those who committed them.

The NGOs argued in their third-party intervention that the case against the HDP should be seen in the context of Turkey’s long history of party closures which contrasts starkly with the practice in other Council of Europe member states and has repeatedly been found to violate the European Convention on Human Rights.  

Since 1982, Turkey’s  Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of 19 political parties out of the 40 cases it has reviewed. The majority of these have been parties representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey or leftist parties. The vague and widely drawn prohibition of acting “in conflict with …  the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation” has been the principal charge. Three parties have been closed down on the equally vague grounds of acting “in conflict with… the principles of the democratic and secular republic.” In 2008, President Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party itself narrowly escaped party closure on the latter grounds.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that party closure decisions violated the European Convention on Human Rights in six out of seven of the cases from Turkey it has examined.

In its case law essentially developed out of its rulings on those cases, the ECtHR deems restrictions or closure of political parties to be exceptional and extreme measures. The court’s criteria for examining the compliance of a party closure decision with the European Convention on Human Rights is based on three tenets. The court assesses whether the closure is prescribed by law, whether it pursues a legitimate aim, and whether it is necessary in a democratic society and proportionate.

The NGOs emphasized in their submission that in all the cases of parties representing the interests of Kurds submitted to the ECtHR, the court found that peacefully advocating the right to self-determination and recognition of Kurdish language rights or Kurdish identity were not themselves contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy, and that party closure violated the right to association.  The ECtHR determined that in most cases the dissolution of those parties could not reasonably be said to have met “a pressing social need”.

“The Constitutional Court should view the present case against the HDP in light of the repeated rulings of the European Court of Human Rights finding that closure of political parties in Turkey – in particular those representing the interests of Kurdish voters – violates fundamental rights. The extreme measure of closing down a political party serves to stifle pluralism and limit freedom of political debate, which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society.”

The NGOs also examine the ECtHR’s recent findings in cases concerning HDP members, a pattern of abuse of criminal proceedings to silence perceived opponents and critics of the government and the evidence that the Turkish government systematically interferes with the judiciary.

The NGOs submitting the third-party intervention to the Constitutional Court are: ARTICLE 19, the Association of Lawyers for Liberty (ÖHD), the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH), European Democratic Lawyers (AED), the Human Rights Association (İHD), Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Rights Initiative Association, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP).  

Posted on

AFGHANISTAN Day of the Endangered Lawyer 2023

The Day of the Endangered Lawyer is an initiative started by AED‐EDL in 2010, on behalf of the lawyers of Iran. The date of 24 January was chosen in remembrance of the assassination of 4 trade union lawyers and one employee in Atocha Street of Madrid in 1977 (Massacre of Atocha), during the Spanish transiciòn after the death of the dictator Franco (in 1975).

The countries denounced have been: Iran, Turkey, the Basque country, the Philipines, Colombia, Honduras…

On the 24th of January 2023 our initiative will be dedicated to the plight of Afghan lawyers, especially after the US left the country to the Taliban.

Posted on

Joint Statement: Bar Associations and International Lawyers’ Organisations Call for Protection of Lawyers in Iran

The undersigned bar associations and international lawyers’ organisations call for the Islamic Republic of Iran and its agencies to protect, promote, and support the following basic rights:

1) the independence of the legal profession;

2) the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality;

3) the right to have access to a legal representative;

4) the right to prepare a defence.

This joint statement has been issued to help secure immediate, coordinated, multi-sectoral action on legal independence in Iran to guarantee lawyers practice their profession without fear of repression or persecution.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and increasingly over the years, the legal profession in Iran has lost its independence and lawyers have been subjected to detentions, harassments, and persecutions.

  • Policies and practices have been established by the regime that restrict and violate the independence of lawyers and judges, which leave the hands of the state open to convict those that “deviate” on charges such as “conspiracy against national security”, “propaganda activities against the Islamic Republic of Iran” and “cooperation with hostile states”.
  • Note to Article 48 of Iran’s Code of Criminal Procedure among others[1] is particularly problematic.
  • Note to Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: “In cases of crimes against internal or external security, and in cases involving organized crime, where Article 302 of this code is applicable, during the investigation phase, the parties to the dispute are to select their attorneys from a list approved by the head of the judiciary.” In this note, lawyers are divided into two categories: lawyers who are trusted by the head of the judiciary and those who are not. The criteria on the basis of which trusted lawyers are appointed are set by the head of the judiciary. It is noteworthy that Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that: “When a suspect is arrested, he or she can request the presence of an attorney. The attorney, observing the secret nature of the investigation and the negotiations between the parties, should meet with the suspect. At the end of the meeting, which should not last more than one hour, the attorney may submit his or her written notes to be included in the case file.” However, the Revolutionary Courts, where “security-related” cases such as those involving human rights, political, and civil activists, are much less transparent than Public Courts. The judges at the Revolutionary Courts are known to abuse their legal powers. They deny access to legal representation during the investigation phase and prevent lawyers from accessing client files on the basis of confidentiality or that lawyers have insufficient “qualifications” to review certain files.
  • Systematic pressure: Lawyers in Iran are systematically pressured and harassed in various ways. Lawyers who undertake cases despite such restrictions are often threatened, intimidated, and ultimately imprisoned. Bureaucratic requirements, and even reprisals against lawyers (usually depending on the nature of their case) often make it extremely difficult for legal professionals to supply their clients access to adequate defence, and thereby restricts the ability of defendants to receive and access a fair trial.
  • Threats and arrests Over the years, restrictions and threats against lawyers in Iran have caused many in the profession to avoid defending the people that need it most, including minorities and other marginalized defendants as these are often the most politicized cases. Since the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish girl who died in a hospital in Tehran due to injuries sustained by authorities after she was arrested by the “morality police” for wearing an “improper hijab”, and start of the nation-wide unrest, more than 430 human rights defenders[2] have been arrested, including at least 22 lawyers.

Calls of interest

In line with the basic principles on the role of lawyers, and in consideration of the above, we signatories of this statement call on the Islamic Republic of Iran and all its related agencies to take immediate steps aimed at protecting and supporting the independence of the legal profession and lawyers in Iran.

  • Considering some members of the Judiciary including its head are appointed by the Supreme Leader, both the state and the Judiciary must dissociate themselves from independent lawyers. The state must ensure all persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings. This includes the lawyers, who are now themselves, incarcerated.
  • Laws and regulations must be amended, and state practice must be changed to ensure the following:
    • Lawyers are able to perform all their professional functions without intimidation, hinderance, harassment, or improper interference. The state must also ensure that lawyers do not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
    • Lawyers are adequately safeguard by authorities where their security is threatened as a result of discharging their functions.
    • Lawyers are not identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.
    • The right of an attorney to appear before a court or a public authority shall not be restricted.
    • Lawyers must have access to appropriate information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest appropriate time.

In the 43 years of the ruling of the Islamic Republic of Iran, lawyers have been systematically pressured and harassed in various ways. One of the things that restricts lawyers in the field of defence is the establishment of rules and regulations that ignore the matter of defence and deprive lawyers of the freedom to defend their clients. When they do represent their clients despite such restrictions, they are often threatened, intimidated, and ultimately imprisoned. Threats against lawyers in Iran continue to grow and lawyers find themselves under increased surveillance. We, the undersigned, demand that the Islamic Republic and its agencies respect and support the following:

  1. Immediate release of all lawyers arrested for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
  2. Immediate cease of prosecution of all lawyers prosecuted for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.
  3. Complete preservation of the independence of the legal profession.
  4. Right of individuals, lawyers included, under the rule of law.
  5. Right of the accused to be accorded a fair trial.
  6. Right of the lawyers to undertake the representation of clients (including other lawyers) or causes without fear of repression or persecution.

Signed by:

  1. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
  2. German Federal Bar
  3. European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights
  4. Association of Lawyers for Freedom (Özgürlük için Hukukçular Derneği)
  5. Defence Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association
  6. European Democratic Lawyers
  7. Association of Berlin Defence Lawyers (Vereinigung Berliner Strafverteidiger)
  8. Republican Lawyers Association (Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein)
  9. Montpellier Bar association
  10. Human Rights Institution of Montpellier 
  11. Progressive Lawyers’ Association (Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği)
  12. Hanseatic Bar Hamburg, Germany (Hanseatische Rechtsanwaltskammer Hamburg)

[1] Article 191, Article 346, Note to Article 346, Article 385, Note to Article 297

[2] Between 16 September – 6 October, at least 300 human rights defenders were arrested (https://www.iranintl.com/202210065096); between 30 October – 3 November, at least 150 human rights defenders were arrested (https://www.radiofarda.com/a/32120083.html).

Posted on

Une délégation d’avocates et avocats d’Europe et des États-Unis observe le procès CHD à Silivri Le procès qui dure déjà depuis 10 ans

En 2013, il y a dix ans, un procès de masse a débuté contre 22 avocates et avocats, tous membres de l’organisation d’avocats Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD, Turquie) et du People’s Law Office (HHB). Depuis, jusqu’à trois audiences ont eu lieu chaque année – d’abord devant la “Cour d’assises spéciale” (la Haute Cour pénale), puis, en 2014, après un changement dans la loi de procédure pénale de la Turquie, devant la Haute Cour penale ordinaire.

Tous les avocats en question ont été condamnés ou font l’objet de poursuites pour leurs activités professionnelles. En violation des Principes de base des Nations unies relatifs au rôle du barreau, ils sont, d’une part, identifiés aux causes de leurs clients et, d’autre part, limités dans leur liberté d’expression, qui inclut le droit de prendre part à des débats publics sur les droits de l’homme.

Plusieurs des accusés, dont le président du ÇHD, Selçuk KOZAGAÇLI, ont déjà été soumis à des années de détention provisoire. L’une des accusées de ce procès, Ebru Timtik, est mort pendant sa grève de la faim pour obtenir des procès équitables devant les tribunaux turcs.

Des avocats d’Europe et d’autres continents ont observé toutes les audiences. Cette semaine, les observateurs internationaux comprennent plus de 60 avocats de huit pays européens et des États-Unis : Autriche, Belgique, France, Allemagne, Grèce, Italie, Pays-Bas, Espagne/Catalogne et États-Unis. Les avocats représentent divers barreaux locaux, des confédérations européennes et internationales de barreaux et d’autres organisations d’avocats.

L’article 10 de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme et l’article 14 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques imposent à la Turquie de garantir à tous les prévenus un procès équitable et public devant un tribunal compétent, indépendant et impartial.

Auparavant, en 2021, à l’occasion de la Journée internationale du procès équitable, dédiée la Turquie cette année-là, le jury est arrivé à la conclusion que ces normes internationales pour un procès équitable sont fréquemment violées en Turquie.

Cette semaine, les observateurs internationaux suivent de très près le procès de ÇHD afin de déterminer si le tribunal respectera les normes internationales en matière de procès équitable et si les violations antérieures de ces principes au cours de ce procès seront corrigées par le tribunal.

Les procès contre les avocats de ÇHD s’inscrivent dans un schéma plus large d’attaque contre les avocats en Turquie et d’identification de ceux-ci avec leurs clients. Les avocats sont injustement criminalisés et poursuivis pour avoir rempli leurs obligations professionnelles. Cette situation est intolérable et constitue une violation manifeste du droit international. De plus, les observateurs internationaux ont conclu que les normes internationales du procès équitable n’ont pas été respectées lors des audiences qu’ils ont observées précédemment.

Nous demandons donc la libération immédiate de tous les avocats incarcérés en raison de leur travail sur des affaires politiques. Ce n’est pas un crime d’être un avocat. Nous continuerons d’insister pour mettre fin à la criminalisation du simple exercice de la profession d’avocat et pour faire respecter les principes fondamentaux de l’État de droit, y compris le droit à un procès équitable pour tous, en Turquie et ailleurs dans le monde.

Signataires:

  • European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, ELDH
  • La Conférence des bâtonniers
  • L’association Défense Sans frontière – Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders – Solidarity Lawyers, France (DSF-AS)
  • Giuristi Democratici – Association nationale des juristes démocrates, Italie
  • UIA-IROL (the Institute for the Rule of Law of the International Association of Lawyers)
  • Lawyers for Lawyers, Pays Bas
  • Le Barreau fédéral allemand
  • Union of Italian Penal Chambers (UCPI)
  • Republikanischer Anwältinnen – und Anwälteverein e.V. (RAV)
  • L’Observatoire International des Avocats en Danger (OIAD)
  • The Center of Research and Elaboration on Democracy/ Legal International Intervention Group
  • L’association catalane pour la Défense de droits de l’homme
  • La commission de défense de l’association du Barreau de Barcelona
  • Le Barreau de New York City
  • The Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer
  • The Dutch League for Human Rights
  • Avocats Européens Démocrates / European Democratic Lawyers
  • The Association for the Support of Fundamental Rights Athens, Greece
  • L’association du Barreau de Marseille
  • Fair Trial Watch
  • L’association du Barreau de Berlin
  • L’association du Barreau de Bordeaux
  • Conférence Régionale des Bâtonniers de l Ouest
  • L’association du Barreau de Epinal
  • The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
  • National Union of People’s Lawyers, the Philippines (NULP)
  • Asociación Americana de Juristas
  • Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific (COLAP)
  • L’association du Barreau de Bruxelles
  • AVOCATS.BE – l’Ordre des associations des barreaus germanophones et francophones de Belgique
  • Syndicat des Avocats Pour la Démocratie
  • OBFG Association de l’Ordre des avocats germanophones et francophones de Belgique
  • L’association du Barreau de Liège-Huy
  • L’association du Barreau de Montpellier
  • L’association du Barreau de Lyon
  • L’association du Barreau de Amsterdam
  • L’association du Barreau de Hauts-de-Seine
  • L’association du Barreau de Grenoble
  • Institut des Droits de l’homme de Grenoble
Posted on

Lawyers delegation from Europe and the USA observe the CHD trial in Silivri – The trial which already has lasted for 10 years

In 2013, ten years ago, a mass trial started against 22 lawyers, all of them members of the lawyers organisation Progressive Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD, Turkey) and of the Peoples Law Office (HHB). Since then up to three hearings have taken place each year – first before the “Special Assize Court” (the Heavy Penal Court), then, in 2014, after a change in penal procedural law of Turkey, before the ordinary Heavy Penal Court.

All lawyers in question were convicted or face charges for their professional activities. In violation of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, they are, firstly, identified with their clients’ causes, and, secondly, limited in their freedom of expression, which includes the right to take part in public discussions about human rights.

Several of the defendants, among them the ÇHD president Selçuk KOZAGAÇLI, have already been subject to years of pretrial detention. One of the defendants in this trial, Ebru Timtik, died during her hunger strike seeking fair trials in the courts of Turkey.

Lawyers from Europe and other continents have observed all hearings. This week the International Observers include more than 60 lawyers from 8 European countries and the USA: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain/Catalonia, and the US. The lawyers represent various local Bar Associations, European and International Bar confederations, and other lawyers’ organisations.

Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights require Turkey to provide all defendants with a fair and public trial by a competent, independent, and impartial court.

Previously, in 2021, on the occasion of the International Fair Trial Day, which focused on Turkey that year, the jury came to the conclusion that these international standards for a fair trial are frequently violated in Turkey.

This week, the International Observers are monitoring the ÇHD trial very closely to determine whether the court will adhere to international fair trial standards and whether prior violations of these principles in the course of this trial will be remedied by the court.

The trials against the lawyers of ÇHD are part of a larger pattern of attacking lawyers in Turkey and identifying them with their clients. Lawyers are unjustly criminalized and prosecuted for fulfilling their professional duties. This is intolerable and in clear violation of international law. Further, the International Observers have concluded that international fair trial standards have not been respected in the hearings they have previously observed.

Therefore we demand the immediate release of all lawyers incarcerated based on their work on political cases. It is not a crime to be a lawyer. We will continue to insist on ending the criminalization of merely exercising the profession of lawyers and on upholding the fundamental principles of the rule of law, including the right to a fair trial for all people in Turkey and elsewhere throughout the world.

Signatories:

  • European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, ELDH
  • La Conférence des bâtonniers
  • L’association Défense Sans frontière – Avocats Solidaires (Defense Without Borders – Solidarity Lawyers, France (DSF-AS)
  • Giuristi Democratici – National Association of Democratic Jurists, Italy
  • UIA-IROL (the Institute for the Rule of Law of the International Association of Lawyers)
  • Lawyers for Lawyers, the Netherlands
  • The German Federal Bar
  • Union of Italian Penal Chambers (UCPI)
  • Republikanischer Anwältinnen – und Anwälteverein e.V. (RAV)
  • The International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD)
  • The Center of Research and Elaboration on Democracy/ Legal International Intervention Group
  • The Catalan Association for the Defense of Human Rights
  • The Barcelona Bar Association’s Defence Commission
  • The New York City Bar Association
  • The Foundation of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer
  • The Dutch League for Human Rights
  • Avocats Européens Démocrates / European Democratic Lawyer
  • The Association for the Support of Fundamental Rights Athens, Greece
  • Marseille Bar Association
  • Fair Trial Watch
  • Berlin Bar Association
  • Bordeaux Bar Association
  • Conférence Régionale des Bâtonniers de l Ouest
  • Epinal Bar Association
  • The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
  • National Union of People’s Lawyers, the Philippines (NULP)
  • Asociación Americana de Juristas
  • Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific (COLAP)
  • Brussels Bar Associaton
  • AVOCATS.BE – Order of French- and German-speaking bar associations of Belgium
  • Syndicat des Avocats Pour la Démocratie
  • OBFG German and French speaking Bar Association of Belgium
  • Liège-Huy Bar Associaton
  • Bar Association
  • Montpellier Bar Association
  • Lyon Bar Association
  • Amsterdam Bar Association
  • Hauts-de-Seine Bar Association
  • Grenoble Bar Association
  • Institut des Droits de l’homme de Grenoble
Posted on

Massive Espionage on seven Spanish Lawyers using the Pegasus programme

TO THE OBSERVATOIRE INTERNATIONAL DES AVOCATS EN DANGER (OIAD)

INFORMATION ON MASSIVE ESPIONAGE PERPETRATED ON SEVEN SPANISH LAWYERS USING THE PEGASUS PROGRAM

The indiscriminate ‘hacking’ using the PEGASUS spy program that was carried out on pro-independence politicians, has also affected seven lawyers: Gonzalo Boye Tusset, Josep Costa, Jaume Alonso Cuevillas, Andreu Van den Eyden, Joaquim Jubert, Josep Rius and Jordi Domingo, the first one from the Madrid Bar Assotiation (ICAM) and the remaining six from the Bacelona Bar Assotiation (ICAB). This is confirmed ny the information received through the media, and the judicial investigations that are being carried out in a Barcelona court.

The right to defence, the duty of confidentiality between lawyer and client and, ultimately, professional secrecy, are fundamental pillars not only of our profession, but also of the right to effective judicial protection as a guarantee of the rule of law.

The right to defence of our clients and the right to a trial with all the guarantees depend on the duty of secrecy, confidentiality and, ultimately, professional secrecy. Not in vain has it been defined as a right (of the client) and a duty (of the lawyer), and for this reason it is part of our commitment as lawyers to preserve it and guarantee its integrity against any external interference.

The Spanish Supreme Court has already indicated in its ruling 78/2012, of February 9, 2012 (Garzón case), the following:

“ Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, provides together with other rights that, although different and independent from each other, constituting a battery of

guarantees aimed at ensuring the real effectiveness of one of them: the right to a trial with guarantees, to a fair trial , in terms of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]; ultimately, to a fair trial . So that the legitimate claim of the State regarding the prosecution and punishment of criminal behavior should only be satisfied within the limits imposed on the exercise of power by the rights that correspond to citizens in a rule of law. Nobody seriously disputes in this framework that the search for the truth, even supposing that it is reached, does not justify the use of any means. Justice obtained at any price ends up not being Justice.

The confidentiality of the relationship between the accused and his defence lawyer, which naturally must be governed by trust, is an essential element (ECHR Castravet v. Moldova, March 13, 2007, p. 49; and ECHR Foxley v. United Kingdom , of June 20, 2000, page 43) In the ECHR of October 5, 2006, case Viola against Italy (61), it was stated that “…the right, for the accused, to communicate with his lawyer without being heard by third parties is among the elementary requirements of the fair trial in a democratic society and derives from article 6.3 c) of the Convention. If a lawyer could not meet with his client without such surveillance and receive confidential instructions from him, his assistance would lose much of its usefulness (Judgment S. against Switzerland of November 2, 1991, series A no. 220, pg. 16, app. 48)”.

The events that we are hearing about through the media are especially serious, and require clear explanations about the perpetrators of these acts of espionage, by whom or by whom they were authorized, and whether there has been any type of judicial authorization , or whether this espionage has occurred without any type of control and in a massive and indiscriminate manner.

In this context, the Barcelona Bar Association (ICAB) and the Council of Catalan Bars (CICAC) have issued a joint statement at the end of which they denounced the use of Pegasus against lawyers and requested explanations from the Spanish Government on what could be a serious violation of fundamental rights, the rights of defence and professional secrecy, compromising the rule of law and the peaceful coexistence of society in Spain.

On the other hand, the Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) has not yet reacted and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers (CGAE) only reacted on April 29, 2022, following the request addressed to it to this effect by the Free Lawyers Association (Asociación Libre de Abogadas y Abogados – ALA), in consideration of the seriousness of these acts of espionage against the aforementioned lawyers.

For this reason, and because these are serious facts that directly attack our profession, the right of defence as a fundamental aspect in the functioning of justice and the effective development of the right to a trial with all the

guarantees, we request the Observatoire International des Avocats en Danger (OIAD) to demand all the explanations from the Spanish Government and uncover all the responsibilities regarding these events, acting in defence of this group of lawyers, and to issue a press release to denounce this attack on the rights of the defence, on professional secrecy, as well as on private life; and also afford your protection to these lawyers against future interference in the exercise of their professional activity. You must give your unequivocal support for the Catalan and Madrid lawyers who were victims of the espionage perpetrated by means of the Pegasus software by the Spanish authorities.

Naples, 30th of June 2022