Joint press release of the international delegation of trial observers

Joint press release of the international delegation of trial observers:
Caglayan, Istanbul, May 14th, 2015.
Yesterday and today, the trial against 22 attorneys at law, members of CHD (association of progressive
lawyers) was continued in Istanbul.
CHD lawyers often defend terror suspects, workers on strike, Gezi Park protesters, journalists, Kurdish
activists, torture victims and currently the families of over 300 miners killed in the Soma desaster. Now,
22 CHD lawyers are accused of being members of a terrorist organization. Several of them were
imprisoned on remand during the first year of the proceedings.
The court hearing was focussed on an application of the defence to adjourn the case and refer it to the
constitutional court. This application is based on the fact that the trial was opened in December 2013 at
the Istanbul 23rd Heavy Penal Court (specially authorized court) in Silivri, which had also authorized the
indictment. Some of the defendants had made their opening arguments before that court. In February
2014, the specially authorized court was abolished by law, since it was considered to be inconstitutional
due to lack of independence.
According to Provisional Article No. 14 of the Anti-Terror-Law, the new court in charge of the case,
(Istanbul 18th Heavy Penal Court) is supposed to continue the trial instead of commencing a completely
new trial.
The defence has criticized this legal provision and argues that the new court should first decide whether
the indictment should be authorized or rejected, and only then hear all the defendants and consider the
evidence. Therefore, the defence has asked the case to be referred to the constitutional court, as has
been done in other similar cases, or to adjourn the case and to wait for a decision on the constitutionality
of Provisional Article No. 14 of the Anti-Terror-Law, which is expected in autumn of 2015.
However, the court has rejected this application of the defence without giving any specific reasons.
The trial was being observed by a delegation of attorneys at law from France, Catalonia, the
Netherlands, Italy, Austria and Germany. They voiced concerns about the rejection of the court to refer
the case to the constitutional court, since it is an internationally recognized principle of criminal law that
the judges in charge of a trial should participate in the proceedings from the very beginning to the end.
Only this way, the judges can have an immediate and global impression of the defendants and the
evidence. A violation of this principle, enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, would lead to an annulment of a sentence in any state of law.
The observers were also concerned that actions of the accused that should be considered as the regular
exercise of their duties as attorneys (such as the advice to their clients to remain silent during police
interrogations, or legal arguments against the qualification of an association as a terrorist organization)
are portrayed by the prosecution as proof of membership in a terrorist organization and terrorist
propaganda.
The accusation identifies perfectly legitimate activities of these lawyers with actions of terrorist nature.
This identification is prohibited under article 18 of the Basic principles adopted by the 8th Congress of
the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in La Havana: „Lawyers
will not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of their professional work“.
The observers also raise concerns about the evidence brought by the accusation, based on documents,
mostly electronic, given to the Turkish authorities by the Belgian judicial authorities, called in the
proceedings „the Dutch and Belgian documents“, sent to Turkey in 2007. Their exact origin or adress is
unknown.
It should be noted that the police officers in charge of the investigation that led to the indictment is
currently under arrest on charges of tampering of evidence.
Since this case has drawn the attention from different European Bar associations in regard to the
conformity of the proceedings with the European Convention on Human Rights, the observers
recommend to keep monitoring the trial hearings.
Barbara Spinelli
ELDH-Dünyada Demokrasi ve İnsan Hakları İçin Avrupalı Hukukçular Birliği
(European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights)
İtalya
Clemens Lahner
ELDH-Dünyada Demokrasi ve İnsan Hakları İçin Avrupalı Hukukçular Birliği
(European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights)
Avusturya
Dieter Hummel
VDJ-Alman Demokrat Avukatlar Birliği Başkanı ve
ELDH-Dünyada
Demokrasi ve İnsan Hakları İçin Avrupalı Hukukçular Birliği (European
Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights)
Almanya
Robert Sabata i Gripekoven
Barcelona Barosu ve AED-Avrupa Demokrat Avukatlar Birliği
Democratic Lawyers)
Katalonya
(European
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Alexandre Luc-Walton
Cosima Ouhioun
David Apelbaum
Louis-Romain Riché
Serge Money
Sophie Rey-Gascon
Matthieu Juglar
Joseph Hazan
Negar Haeri
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Paris Barosu – Conférence of the Paris Bar Association
Fransa
Sınır tanımayan Avukatlar Dayanışma
Avocats Solidaires)
Fransa -Grenoble Barosu
Clémence Witt
Edward Huylebrouck
Dominique Boyer Besson
(Défense Sans Frontière
Adil Yargılama İzleme Örgütü (Fair Trial Watch)
Hollanda
Avukatlar için Avukatlar (Lawyers for Lawyers)
Hollanda
Hans Langenberg
Angela Meyer