The group calls upon citizens who believe that they have been unjustly detained open a case of indemnity against the government. The law which provides that the government should compensate for unjust detentions could then function in the direction of protecting the right to reunion and demonstration, they argue.
1650 detentions in one year
According to a recent report by MAZLUMDER since the adoption of the Seventh reform Package on July 30, 2003, 1650 people were detained in a year during meetings and demonstrations.
In the first seven months of 2004, including those 450 during the July NATO summit in Istanbul, 1200 people were detained, the report says.
According to the report, only a few detainees had legal investigation for their cases: Although there are legal changes, the enforcement of the law has worsened, and this shows that amendments are not enough to protect personal rights and liberties.
Ways to guarantee the rights
The right to reunion and demonstration could be protected by legal and administrative sanctions, MAZLUMDER belives. For this reason indemnity law that provides compensation to illegally arrested persons, gains importance, they say.
The MAZLUMDER report mentions that Seyma Doguncu, who was tried and acquitted by the 2. Uskudar Criminal Court for violating law 2911, won her case for indemnity: This law is important for preventing violations of civil rights related to reunion and demonstration.The law is fine but there are problems with the implementation.
MAZLUMDERs report said, Albeit permission is not necessary for enjoying the right to organize reunion and demonstration, this principle is abrogated in application.
MAZLUMDER, also criticizes a provision of the law that requires the mayor to determine the place and the route of reunion and demonstration.
The main purpose of reunion and demonstration is to give a message to the public and the determination of its place by the authorities contradicts with the aim of the right, leading to its isolation from the public.
Citizens are not potential criminals
The report points to the fact that officials are inclined to interpret the requirement for an advance notice to inform the date and place of the reunion and demonstration as an application for taking-giving permission whereas the purpose is to provide public security for the participants in the event.
The necessary security measures, contrary to the purpose of the law, are interpreted as seeing the organizers as potential criminals and thus leading to cancellation or postponement of some events.
MAZLUMDER report, relying on sample cases, displays that difficulties and violations become more frequent in some regions during certain periods in the implementation of the right to reunion and demonstration. (BB/MN/EK)
