Top court rejects appeal in Progressive Lawyers Association case in single-sentence verdict

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Constitutional Court has found the appeal in the case where Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD) and People's Law Bureau (HHB) lawyers stood trial and were sentenced to long imprisonments "unacceptable."

No justification was given in the three-page Constitutional Court decision.

In the case seen at the İstanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court, 18 lawyers were sentenced to a total imprisonment of over 159 years, and this verdict upheld by the Court of Cassation was appealed at the Constitutional Court in October 2020.

How was it concluded that "there is no violation?"

In the appeal, it was argued that the following rights had been violated:

The right to call to witness and the right to interrogate in the scope of the right to a fair trial,

The right to trial in an independent and impartial court in the scope of the right to a fair trial,

Legal judicial process, in the scope of the right to a fair trial,

The right to have the time and facilities necessary for assertion in the scope of the right to a fair trial,

Illegal evidence being the basis of judgment.

In the decision of the Constitutional Court First Division Second Commission signed by Recai Akyel and Selahaddin Menteş, all claims of violation were rejected in a single sentence without giving any justification:

"When the trial which is the subject of the appeal is examined as a whole, it is understood and is clear that there is no violation with respect to these rights."

However, in the decision dated November 21, no justification was given on how it is understood that rights are not violated.

"Legal provisions interpreted in this way"

The Constitutional Court has also rejected the appeal stating that "The right to a fair trial was violated in respect of the result of the trial", again without giving any justification.

The Court said in the decision, "Claims made in the appeal are related to the evaluation of the evidence and interpretation of the legal provisions by the courts, and taking into account that there is no obvious wrong discretion or apparent arbitrariness, it is understood that the violation claims constitute a remedy application."

"Does not have acceptability criteria"

The Constitutional Court decision also says that "the other complaints of the applicant related to the basic rights that are protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in common do not meet the acceptability criteria and are therefore deemed unacceptable."

Again no justification was included in the judgment for this.

What were the complaints about?

The appeal signed by lawyers Çiğdem Akbulut, Benan Molu and Ramazan Demir asserted that "the right to a fair trial" regulated in article 6 of the ECHR and also in articles 26 and 34 of the Constitution and "freedom of expression, gathering, demonstration and organizing" regulated in articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR had been violated.

Additionally, it stated that article 18 of the ECHR was violated, saying, "This trial aiming at preventing lawyers from doing their job, silencing the lawyers and their clients based on the lawsuits they work on, and punishing them and deterring others and first of all lawyers is a most concrete example of abuse of jurisdiction and constitutes a violation of article 18."

"Permanent witness" in appeal

The appeal stated that the "permanent witness" İ.Ö. brought up by bianet, the anonymous witness Derya Altın and another witness B.E. "were not fit for bearing testimony psychologically."

For example, the made-up testimonies of İ.O. like saying 'I have been working as an intelligence officer since I was 10' and the letter B.E. sent to the prosecution office have been taken all served as the basis of imprisonment sentences despite official medical reports.

"İ.Ö. was convicted before for perjury but related information was not shared with the defense although requested. No satisfactory explanation has been made on why the witnesses were anonymous.

"It was revealed that the testimonies of the witnesses were mostly given in order to save themselves from threats of punishment related to themselves, which was uncovered in another investigation carried out at the same period."

The same judge in all files: Akın Gürlek

The appeal also included the following about judge Akın Gürlek, the head of the new court board which replaced the former one following the re-arrest of the lawyers who were released:

"Head of the court board Akın Gürlek also served in other lawsuits connected with the file of the applicants.

"Gürlek served during the investigation when B.E., a confessor in their current file, gave testimony in order to benefit from effective remorse, again in the case when B.E. was arrested and also during the prosecution stage.

"Gürlek was again the judge in the lawsuit against Canan Coşkun, a correspondent of Cumhuriyet newspaper who published a report on B.E. and sentenced Coşkun to 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment for "causing people who served in fighting terror to become targets."

" Akın Gürlek was the judge again in another lawsuit where İ.Ö. who is a witness in the current lawyers' case was standing trial as a suspect." (AS/PE)