EIT: Amnesty Internationalin Turkin osaston johtajan pidätys perusteeton – lukuisia ihmisoikeusloukkauksia

Unlawful and arbitrary pre-trial detention of the Chair of the Turkish branch of Amnesty International: several violations

The case concerned the initial and continued pre-trial detention of Mr Kılıç who, at the relevant time, was Chairperson of the Turkish branch of the NGO Amnesty International. Mr Kılıç was
arrested in June 2017 on suspicion of belonging to the organisation FETÖ/PDY1. The authorities accused him, in particular, of using the ByLock messaging service, and of other offences.
In today’s Chamber judgment2 in the case of Taner Kılıç (no. 2) v. Turkey (application no. 208/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

• a violation of Article 5 § 1 (lack of reasonable suspicion justifying initial and continued pre-trial detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court held that the Government had been unable to show that, on the date at which the applicant was initially placed in pre-trial detention or during the subsequent phases of his pre-trial
detention, the evidence cited by the national judges had met the standard of “reasonable suspicion” required by Article 5 of the Convention, such as to satisfy an objective observer that the applicant could have committed the offences for which he had been detained. The Court also considered that the interpretation and application of the legislative provisions relied on by the domestic authorities had been unreasonable, so as to render Mr Kılıç’s detention unlawful and arbitrary. It concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion that Mr Kılıç had committed an offence, either on the date that he was placed in pre-trial detention or when it was extended.

• a violation of Article 5 § 3 (failure to provide reasons for decisions concerning pre-trial detention).

The Court reiterated that the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee had committed an offence was a sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. In the present case, in the absence of such reasons, it considered that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.  a violation of Article 5 § 5 (no compensatory remedy for unjustified pre-trial detention). The Court considered that the action for damages provided for in Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be regarded as a compensatory remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in respect of complaints alleging a lack of reasonable grounds to suspect a person of having committed an offence and a lack of relevant and sufficient reasons justifying pre-trial detention.

• a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

The Court considered that Mr Kılıç’s initial placement in pre-trial detention in the context of the second set of criminal proceedings brought against him, on account of actions that were directly linked to his activity as a human-rights defender, amounted to a genuine and effective restriction and thus an “interference” in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. In the Court’s view, the interference with the exercise of Mr Kılıç’s rights and freedoms as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention could not be justified, since it had not been prescribed by law.

Press release