Monthly Archives: January 2017


author know to blog editor

1.Afer the investigation launched on 17/25 December in 2013 into the ministers of the Erdoğan cabinet and his son concerning the corruption and bribery and also the MIT investigation (National Intelligence Agency) regarding the arm dispatch to the radical islamic groups such as ISIL, ELNUSRA etc., Erdoğan gave an order to the competent authorities in order to get rid of the independent judiciary

2 He strongly desired the canditates, he supported himself, be elected as members of the Supreme Board of the Judiciary (HCJP) in the HCJP elections, held in October 2014. In order to render this plan become a reality, a pro gov’t platform of judicial unity, YBP, whose name was changed as YBD after the election, was established.

3. Then, YBP, which was financed completely by the government, gave a start to election preparations. Bekir Bozdağ, the minister of justice, promised that in the event of the candidates of YBP would be elected as members of HCJP, the monthly salaries of the judges and prosecutors would be increased and also the disciplinary acts of crime (punishments) would be forgiven. (the judge Halil Soğuksu, a member of YBP, caught in the act of crime of the narcotic courier three days ago, also had fell within the purview of this pardon!).

4. The new HSYK, which is consisting of the candidates of YBP in majority and handed over the judicial power to the command of Erdoğan, was formed and in a few months, a promised pay increase was made. This pay increase was the first bribery of Erdoğan to the members of the judiciary to reshape his own judiciary!

5. Then, the criminal judges of peace and exceptionally competent prosecutors appointed by new HCJP arrested the police officials, the judges and the prosecutors, conducting the above-mentioned corruption and bribery and also MIT investigations.

6. Furthermore, these judges and prosecutors under the command of Erdoğan, arrested 41 thousand individuals, among whom are the deputies, journalists, academics, judges, prosecutors, police officials who are opposition to Erdoğan over the accusation of involving in the coup attempt or having a link to Gülen Movement or terrorist organization despite there were no specific facts and concrete evidences about them. 4000 of the whole judiciary were dismissed from the post of judge and 2500 of them were arrested.

7. As of today, the indictments have been being prepared about the arrested oppositions and their trials have began in High Criminal Courts. The High Criminal Courts have a difficulty in finding absolute evidences and specific facts in case files, however, they fear of falling victim to Erdoğan’s wrath. Despite not being reported in the media under the control of Erdoğan, the courts have started to release the arrestees in the first hearing on the grounds of the absence of any evidence.

8. Even they become a few, the releases both anger and make Erdoğan get anxious. The salary increase, which was of use in HCJP elections held in 2014, will be used for once again.

9. Further, the constitutional amendment referendum is going to be held in April which grants vast authorities to Erdoğan. To guess that Erdoğan is rewarding the judges of High Election Board and also the other judges, who will be on duty in referendum, with salary increase so as to make them behave in favor of Erdoğan in examining the objections to the referendum results, is not difficult.

10. Despite Turkey is on the edge of an economic crisis, Erdoğan uses the salary increase as a tool of bribery to the judges and the prosecutors in order to make them rule the decisions as Erdoğan wants in cases of oppositions and also in concluding the constitutional amendment referandum at desired course.

11. In the near future, we will see how much this salary increase will make Erdoğan feel relieved notably as regards the case of oppositions and constitutional amendment referandum.

Related link:


Author known to blog editor
Turkey has remained to continue to be governed under state of emergency. A new emergency decree law was recently issued. The recent one provides a commission to examine the proceedings, instituted under the former ones. Beforehand, Erdoğan had suppressed the criticism of “ the innocent ones are also suffering with the guilty”, coming from the community, saying he wouldn’t think of it. Even, they obtained fetwa (an opinion on a matter involving islamic religious law) from Hayrettin Karaman, expert on fıqh ( Muslim canonical jurisprudence).

The remedies are not effective and accessible for the ordinary citizens, but not for those who have an acquaintance from AKP. For example, the kaimakam of Gökçebey (governer of a district) had been arrested by the denouncement of a head of the ruling party, AKP, in the district. As a result of being references of IHH authorities (pro Erdoğan and radical islamic association, leading the event of Mavi Marmara) and working to reconcile the parties of the deputies of AKP, that kaimakam was released. There are lots of examples like this. Moreover, the saying of Metin Gündoğdu, AKP deputy of the province of Ordu “ I called the public prosecutor of the district, Ünye, and I gave him a period of two hours to release someone. Then, the judge in that district released that person whose name I gave him, saying there was a wrongdoing” captured the mind of the public.

As to be understood by means of the above-mentioned examples, the ruling party does not take the domestic public into consideration. The emergency law no.685 was already issued not for the domestic but for the international community. It aims to get rid of the widely and as of concern criticism of the European Court of Human Rights and several European institutions. In fact, they also ignore the international criticism but were afraid of the general and individual measures that might be ordered notably by ECHR. In fact, the general secretary of European Council, Jagland, had given this advice to them. Furthermore, the Venice Commission, criticising the unlawful practices seriously, had supported this advice of Jagland. However, the commission, they intended, was not like this. Beforehand, the commissions had been established to compensate the damage of the victims in the fight against terror. While the counterparts in Europe were expecting a commissin just like of that, they faced “a painted donkey (a saying means trying to deceive someone)”. I hope, the Eeuropeans will not be able to be tricked in this way. Have it been, it means they do not have something good in their minds.


A law no. 5233 was adopted in 2004 to compensate the damages of the victims injured in terror operations. This law aimed to resolve the issues as soon as possible by the way of reconciliation. Immediate after it entered into force in 2014, it concluded nearly 385 thousand applications. That attempt had really something good in mind and aimed to conclude the applications. In case of the applications concerning evacuating the villages in that period, the ECHR didn’t make the applicants be obliged to exhaust the domestic remedies before the establishment of the commissions, however, declared the applications inadmissible after the establishment of the commission by the way of directing them to apply for the commission.

The above-mentioned commissions were established by the governer of the provinces. They had being widely operated with just 88 commissions across the country. They were local and had the chance of confirming the validity of the complaints. Under the prisiding member of the deputy of governer of the province, the commissions had constituted of the public officials, one each of whom was from the ministry of finance, ministry of public works, ministry of health, ministry of industry and ministry of trade and one was a lawyer appointed by the Bar of that province. Despite the members were public officials, the fact that they were local and also expert on the concerned issues made the dispute resolved in duly and properly manner. In addition, the commissions should conclude the complaints in two years.


The only common peculiarity of recently established commission with the former ones is the number 7. The number of the members of the former commissions was also 7. However, there is a such different that it was 88 times 7 for the former ones, nowadays, only seven members should examine all the applications. Furthermore, at that time, in some provinces where the number of the applications was high like Hakkari, more than one commissions could be able to be established. By this way, 385 thousand applications could be able to be concluded in a timely manner. Up to now, the number of the dismissed under the emergency decree laws has reached 135 thousand. When the number of officials, employed in the closed private education&health institutions, associations, foundations, newspaper&radio organizations added to those dismissed, the probable number of the applicants exceeds 200 thousand. Having regard to the big files of thousands of the juristic personalities, shut down under emergency decree laws, it can be easily understood that the only goal of the ruling party, AKP, is to get rid of the domestic and international criticism and also trick the ECHR and european counterparts keeping them busy.

Professor İzzet Gönenç, writing the draft of the Turkish criminal code, stated that the claim on the issue that newly legal remedy has become effective and accessible by the way of the establishment of the commission, will be misleading. He pointed that it would delay the compensation of the damages. Moreover, Kerem Altıparmak, lawyer and academics, shared his calculation about the time period concerning the conclusion of the applications would take at least 10 years.

Shortly, they say that a new remedy has been effective and accessible any more, however, you have to bring a piece of snow from the Kaf Mountain (a turkish proverb which means making trouble about the proceedings in order not to resolve it). The jurisprudence isn’t required to be able to understand that the establishment of the comission is not a reasonable, easily accesisble and admissible remedy. On the other side, those having jurisprudence will share my opinion about the trickness of the commission against the law and also the European Human Rights Convention. If Jagland, being more moderate to Erdoğan rather than the other European leaders, finds this regulation satisfactory, we can even mention about law collusion. Accordingly, the ECHR’s duty in this point is not to approve these tricks and the attempt to modify the legal provisions as they want. Otherwise, the trust in ECHR and the mechanism to administer the justice will be demolished.


Author: Ahmet TAKANA

Police officer Bilal Konakci, year was 2009. He was one of the 18 specialists -bomb disposal experts- who worked in Izmir. Bilal Konakci, the only bomb disposal expert in the northern part of İzmir, was called to duty, when a citizen saw a suspicious package in front of Aliağa High School on the day the calendar pages showed February 5th. The hero police officer decided that the package should be destroyed in an enclosed area after a review. Police officer Konakci heard some voices while preparing to dismantle the bomb that brought the Aliaga Police Department. He saw that the bomb had become active, at that moment he thought his colleagues in the building and people who came to the Aliağa Police Department for any reason. Since he did not have much time, he immediately decided, took action  and he threw the bomb under the stairs, then the bomb exploded heavily. Konakci, with serious hemorrhage and loss some of his limbs was taken to the Aegean University Medical Faculty Hospital. He resisted and stayed alive while hopes were against it.

Afterwards? From the e-mail sent to me by Özlem Konakci, the wife of our veteran police officer; “I am living in İzmir Aliağa. I married my husband veteran police officer and retiree Bilal Konakci, in 2003. We have two daughters, one at the age of 3 (Elif) and the other at the age of thirteen (Emine). As You see in the Report of the Disabled Medical Board of the Aegean University Hospital, my husband is 98% disabled. Police arrived at our house on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 07:30 in the context of the FETO (Gulenist) investigation. They looked at the photo in their hands and tried to confirm it by asking a couple of times whether my husband was the person they are looking for. Because the photograph in their hands is a photograph of my husbands before the explosion. The police officers tried to reach the prosecutor while  they were searching our home and saying “There must be a mistake”. But they could not reach the Prosecutor.

Despite I told the police officers about my husbands situation the police officers said that they have to take away my husband. While taking away my husband they told me I should not be worry about him, that my husband could return at night or on Friday at the latest. But they kept him under custody for 21 days. On Wednesday, January 10, 2017, at 20:00 in the evening, the court began to take my husbands statement.

The lawyer assigned by the Bar, who was with him When he gave his statement before, did not come to the court and another lawyer arrived at the end. However, the lawyer could not defend my husband because he was unaware of the statements. After these, my husband, who is 98 per cent disabled, was arrested and kept in the most difficult conditions in Menemen Hatundere T Type Closed Prison for 12 days.

My older daughter had not spoken to anyone since they took her father. My little girl gets up at night and asks her father, looks out the window and waits for her father to come. Imagine that this kid is only 3 years old. Although our dad is disabled he is a very concerned father of our family. I can neither eat, sleep nor take care of my children anymore. Because my husband was my biggest support. Even if he was disabled, his presence was enough for us. We’ve already been through very difficult conditions since my husband became a veteran. I have struggled to fix my childrens psychology and my husbands psychology. We had this, when I thought I was getting used to this situation of my husbands.

Now, I am asking, to those who made our lives miserable, through you. How my husband eat, care his personal hygiene and toilet need, wash his stuff ? when He is a blind man who cannot use his hands and having diffuculties even walking. We are not related in FETO or alleged crimes. How my husband could be committed the alleged crimes hence he is 98 percent of disabled since 2009.

I want you to be our voice. According to the result section of the report given by Aegean University Hospital to police officer Bilal Konakci, “According to the state of disability, the rate of loss of whole body function is 98%” stated.

I talked with Özlem Konakci on the phone. She wrote a letter to MPs, No one heard their voice. Her husband is still an arrestee. Özlem Konakci said, “We do not know what it is, they do not say anything clear, they just blame, we do not know what to do.”

Özlem Konakci, who expressed that they are very troubled, said:

“My husband is not someone who can go to toilet without help, He can not go out of the house. His eating,  drinking habits… He can not eat unless someone puts the spoon in front of him and show his food and tell him to eat. I have to get my husband out there. Help me. I worked so hard to restore his mental state, they tore down instantly”

O!, the concerned authorities! .. Put your hand in your conscience. Take care of this suffering mother. Go to her for God’s sake and listen !

Original (in Turkish): (translation by Turkish source, name known to editor)

As to the Establishment of ‘State of Emergency Procedures Investigation Commission’

The former deputy of CHP (main opposition party) and also lawyer, Hüseyin Aygün shared the particulars and the main goal of the recent emergency decree law no.685 issued by the ruling party (AKP) in his twitter account.

Here is the share of Hüseyin Aygün:

The emergency decree law no.685 has recently entered into force after being published in the official gazette on 23 January, 2017. The main peculiarity of the recent emergency decree law that renders it different from the preceding ones is that it provides a ‘State of Emergency Procedures Investigation Commission’ to examine the proceedings as regards the closure of the associations, foundations, federations, confederations, health& education institutions, newspapers&magazines, radio&television organizations, news agencies, web sites and the dismissal of in excess of a hundred thousand public officials and taking back the ranks of the retired personnel etc.

The fact that such a commission has been establihed might appear to be a back step of the government or the effort to compensate the unlawfulnesses in Turkey where the number of the dismissed public officials has exceeded 131 thousand as of November. However, everyone who examines the emergency decree law in scrutiny can easily understand that it does not have a such goal.

Firstly, having regard the members of the commission, it can be possibly seen that the commission is deprived of an independent structure. The commission consists of seven members, 3 of whom are appointed by the Prime Minister, 1 is by the Minister of Justice, 1 is by the Minister of Interior and 2 are by HCJP. All of these members will be chosen among the candidates appointed by the government. As all the members of the commission will be appointed by the government, how will it be possible for this commission to settle the disputes of those public officials dismissed under 17 emergency decree laws issued by the government itself up to now? How will the commission, consisting of the members appointed by the government, restore the huge and also mess dismissals, being caused by the government itself? As to be seen, the answer of this question is obvious: “the government has establihed a commission, consisting of its own members and aiming to mislead (deceive) the public.”

Whereas, under the state of emergency circumstances, the commission which will examine the dismissals of 131 thousand public officials dismissed from their professions by the lists not subjected to judicial review by means of the emergency decree laws and the clousure of the private health&education institutions, television& radio organizations, newspapers, should have been particularly independent and impartial from the government. Because, the main responsible for this ruin is the government itself. However, the commission, adopted under the emergency decree law no.685, is nor independent neither impartial. On the contrary, it directly depends on the government.

According to the decree law, the mentioned commission will perform its duty during 2 years (Article 2). How can the files of just 131 thousand public officials dismissed from their professions possibly be concluded in only 2 years? Each member gets almost 20 thousand files as his share. It apperantly seems that this commission will not be able to handle this influx of files in a timely manner.

Further, the commission shall not be able to obtain the information and the documents having a characteristics of a ‘state secret’ (Article 5/1). The commission shall make a decision over the file (Article 9). In other words, the commission will not admit the evidences submitted by the applicants or hear the witnesses indicated by the applicants or take the defences of the dismissed public officials and the owner of a closed institution. In that case, can it be possible for the applicants to have a right to a fair trial? Of course, not. As a matter of fact, the aim is not a fair trial. Even the commission makes the dismissed public officials reinstated in their positions, the executives will not be appointed to their former positions (Article 10/1). Moreover, the working procedures shall be determined by the Prime Minister (Article 13/1).

In summary, the emergency decree law no.685 aims not to restore the ruin of the victims and the violation of the human rights but to conceal on that. The recent decree law mainly aims to extend the period of applications which will be lodged with the European Court of Human Rights as well as to mislead (deceive) the Court. As widely known, the ECHR settles the issues by the way of an “independent commission” in cases of seriously violated human rights where it applies the ‘pilot case’ procedure. For example, the ‘Damage Determination Commissions’, established in provinces under the law no.5233 entered into force in 2004, were just kind of this. However, that commission also included a representative of the bar, the head of agriculture in the province, vet and also the representative of the foundation of the human rights. It is obvious that the commission established under the recent emergency decree law no.685 doesn’t definetely resemble to that commission established under the law no.5233 in 2004 as well as not to carry the principles of the independency and the impartiality.

Accordingly, the commission established under the emergency decree law no.685 can not resolve the huge and serious human rights violations, but only keep the victims busy.

Türkei: Richterinnen und Richter unter Druck

Betrifft JUSTIZ Heft 128 – Dezember 2016 (1)

In vier Wellen wurden in der Türkei bislang 3658 Richterinnen und Staatsanwälte entlassen. Viele von ihnen waren oder sind inhaftiert, wie zuletzt der Präsident der Richtervereinigung YARSAV, Murat Arslan oder Aydin Sefa Akay, ein Immunität genießender UN-Richter.

Zeitungen in deutscher Sprache berichten wenig über die aktuellen Entwicklungen, da bilden blogs und soziale Netzwerke eine wichtige Informationsquelle. Am umfangreichsten berichtet der Luzerner Bundesrichter Thomas Stadelmann in seinem „ts_justice›s blog“, der auch auf twitter (@ts_justice) unterwegs ist. Das blog erschöpft sich nicht in eigenen Posts, sondern wird ergänzt durch Dokumentationen, journalistische Beiträge oppositioneller türkischer Journalisten und Aufsätzen der mit Betrifft JUSTIZ befreundeten Richterzeitung „Justice – Justiz – Giustizia“.

Große Aufmerksamkeit hat der Beschluss des EGMR in der Sache Mercan ./. Türkei vom 8. November 2016 (56511/16) auf sich gezogen. Der Gerichtshof wies die Individualbeschwerde von Zeynep Mercan, einer 32 Jahre alten Richterin aus Girsun, mangels Rechtswegerschöpfung zurück. Sie war am 17. Juli 2016 vorläufig festgenommen worden, am darauf folgenden Tag wurde Untersuchungshaft angeordnet. Die Beschwerde hiergegen wurde am 8. August 2016 zurückgewiesen. Weiteren Rechtsschutz, insbesondere zum Verfassungsgericht, nahm sie nicht in Anspruch, da – so ihr Vortrag – auch zwei Richter des Verfassungsgerichts verhaftet worden seien und das türkische Verfassungsgericht deren Entlassung bestätigt habe. Redakteurin Tanja Podolski hebt in ihrem Im LTO-Beitrag hervor, dass der EGMR das türkische Verfassungsgericht nicht aus seiner Rolle entlassen will: Die Richterin habe Schritte unterlassen, die es dem türkischen Verfassungsgericht ermöglicht hätten, seine „fundamentale Rolle“ bei der Sicherung des türkischen Rechts wahrzunehmen, so die Entscheidungsgründe. Thomas Stadelmann weist allerdings in seinem Blogeintrag vom 19.November 2016 darauf hin, dass sich zwischenzeitlich die Rolle des türkischen Verfassungsgerichts geändert habe und es sich zudem nicht befugt gesehen habe, Maßnahmen aufzuheben, die im Rahmen des Ausnahmezustands verhängt wurden. Nach Auffassung des EGMR habe es sich hier allerdings nicht um eine derartige Maßnahme gehandelt. Im verfassungsblog erläutert Ula˛s Karan, Assistenzprofessor für Verfassungsrecht an der Istanbul Bilgi Universität, dass nach einer Stellungnahme des Verfassungsgerichtspräsidenten seit dem Putschversuch 40.000 neue Individualbeschwerden beim türkischen Verfassungsgericht eingegangen seien – mehr als in den letzten zwei Jahren zusammen, wobei die Frage der verfassungsrechtlichen Überprüfung von Maßnahmen auf Grundlage des Aunahmezustandsgesetzes Nr. 667 unter türkischen Juristinnen und Juristen umstritten sei. Er plädiert dafür, in der Entscheidung des EGMR keine regierungsfreundliche, sondern eine formale Entscheidung für den Subsidiaritätsgedanken zu sehen.

Frank Schreiber

Die URLs in der Reihenfolge der Zitate:

(1) Quelle: (Zweitpublikation mit Zustimmung der Redaktion von Betrifft JUSTIZ)

Das große Aufräumen des Staates unter Notstandsregeln

Das große Aufräumen des Staates unter Notstandsregeln
Die Notverordnungen der türkischen Regierung enthalten massenhafte Verstöße gegen die Verfassung und Grundrechte

Autorin Öykü Didem Aydın[1],[2],[3]

I. Einführung

Am 15.07.2016 fand in der Türkei ein Putschversuch statt, der zügig niedergeschlagen wurde. Am 20.07.2016 wurde für einen Zeitraum von drei Monaten ein verfassungsrechtlicher Notstand erklärt. Es ist noch offen, wie lange er dauern soll. Er wurde bereits um drei Monate verlängert. So merkwürdig es auch aussehen mag, die Regierung will den Plan für die Verfassungsänderung[4] zur Einführung des Präsidialregierungssystems gerade während des Notstands vorantreiben, was unter normalen Umständen auf heftige Opposition durch die Hälfte der Bevölkerung stoßen würde.

Vorausgeschickt: Jeder gewalttätige Versuch einer Militärjunta, eine gewählte Regierung zu stürzen, muss mit allen Mitteln unter Beachtung von internationalen Standards des »humanitären« Rechts bekämpft, eindeutig verurteilt und verabscheut werden. Tatsächlich gingen Tausende von Zivilisten in der Nacht zum 16.07.2016 auf die Straße, wobei mehr als 240 Menschen bei Auseinandersetzungen ihr Leben verloren.

Die Autorin ist sich auch bewusst, dass es eine Organisation gibt, die von Fethullah Gülen geführt wird. Diese hat versucht, mit heimtückischen Mitteln in Bereiche der öffentlichen Verwaltung einschließlich des Militärs, der Polizei, der Justiz und des Bildungssystems einzudringen. Das erinnert teilweise an Scientology, bei der zeitweise selbst in Europa festgestellt wurde, dass sie zur Abwehr ihrer inneren und äußeren Gegner auch geheimdienstliche Methoden anwende, im Grenzbereich zur Illegalität operiere und gegebenenfalls auch nicht vor kriminellen Aktionen zurückschrecke. Die sogenannte FETÖ ging vermutlich unter dem Deckmantel der »gemäßigten Interpretation des Islams« weit darüber hinaus und vereinigte große Macht innerhalb des Staates auf sich. Ihre Wurzeln liegen in den günstigen politischen Umständen, die nach dem Militärputsch von 1980 anti-säkularen Strömungen großen Raum boten.

Das Justizsystem war vor dem Putschversuch Juli 2016 äußerst verletzlich geworden, und zwar mit der Inszenierung der hochkarätigen Strafverfahren »Ergenekon«, »Balyoz« und anderen, in denen die Opfer zu Unrecht zu außerordentlich langen Haftstrafen verurteilt wurden[5]. Dass die Anschuldigungen auf mangelhaften, grob rechtswidrigen und fabrizierten Beweisen basierten, stellte sich erst vor kurzem heraus. Andererseits war jedoch auch offensichtlich, dass die aktuelle Regierung in vieler Hinsicht bis 2014 in enger Beziehung mit dieser Organisation stand und man eng zusammen arbeitete.[6]

Nach der Niederschlagung eines solchen Putsches ist es Aufgabe der Regierung, die Situation so rasch wie möglich zu normalisieren und der Verfassung sowie den verfassungsrechtlichen Garantien für Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten treu zubleiben – weil auch unter einem Notstand jeder Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten hat.

Am 23.07.2016 erließ der Ministerrat unter dem Vorsitz des Präsidenten die erste Rechtsverordnung, Nr. 667, über Maßnahmen im Notstand. Zahlreiche Organisationen und Institutionen wurden durch die erste Rechtsverordnung geschlossen, welche in angehängten Listen deren Namen enthielt. Andere Verordnungen folgten der ersten: Nr. 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675 und 676. Neue Maßnahmen werden noch geplant. Diese Listen müssen wohl auf das Jahr 2014 zurückgeführt werden, als die Auseinandersetzung zwischen FETÖ-Verbündeten und der Regierung begann.


II. Verfassungsrechtliche Grundlage

Ergeben sich ernsthafte Anzeichen für sich ausbreitende Gewalthandlungen, die auf eine Aufhebung der durch die Verfassung begründeten freiheitlichen demokratischen Ordnung oder der Grundrechte und -freiheiten gerichtet sind, oder wird die öffentliche Ordnung ernsthaft gestört, so kann der Ministerrat nach Einholung der Stellungnahme des Nationalen Sicherheitsrates in Teilen des Landes oder im ganzen Land für nicht mehr als sechs Monate den Notstand ausrufen (Art. 119, 120 der Verfassung).

Art. 121 der Verfassung sieht vor: »Wird gemäß Artikel 119 und 120 der Verfassung die Ausrufung des Notstandes beschlossen, so wird dieser Beschluss im Amtsblatt verkündet und sofort der Großen Nationalversammlung der Türkei zur Zustimmung unterbreitet. … Die Nationalversammlung kann die Dauer des Notstandes ändern, sie auf Verlangen des Ministerrats für jeweils nicht mehr als vier Monate verlängern oder den Notstand aufheben.
Die für die gemäß Artikel 119 ausgerufenen Fälle des Notstandes auf die Staatsbürger zu übertragenden Verpflichtungen … die Art und Weise der Beschränkung oder Aussetzung der Grundrechte und -freiheiten im Sinne des Artikels 15 der Verfassung, die Art und Weise der Ergreifung der durch den Notstandsfall erforderten Maßnahmen, die Art der den Angehörigen des öffentlichen Dienstes zuzuweisenden Kompetenzen, die Art der Änderungen im Status der Bediensteten sowie die Verfahren der Notstandsverwaltung werden durch Notstandsgesetz geregelt.
Während der Dauer des Notstandes kann der unter dem Vorsitz des Präsidenten der Republik zusammentretende Ministerrat… Rechtsverordnungen mit Gesetzeskraft erlassen. Diese Rechtsverordnungen werden im Amtsblatt verkündet und am selben Tag der Großen Nationalversammlung der Türkei zur Zustimmung unterbreitet;…«

In Bezug auf die Schranken der Grundrechte sieht Art. 15 der Verfassung vor, dass (u. a.) im Fall des Notstandes unter der Voraussetzung, dass die sich aus dem Völkerrecht ergebenden Verpflichtungen nicht verletzt werden, im erforderlichen Maße der Gebrauch der Grundrechte und -freiheiten teilweise oder vollständig ausgesetzt werden kann oder Maßnahmen getroffen werden können, die den in der Verfassung vorgesehenen Garantien entgegenstehen. Auch in den in Absatz 1 genannten Situationen darf, abgesehen von Todesfällen nach Kriegsrecht, das Recht auf Leben und die Einheit der materiellen und ideellen Existenz nicht angetastet, niemand zur Offenbarung seiner Religion, seines Gewissens, seiner Meinung und seiner Ansichten gezwungen oder ihm aus diesen ein Schuldvorwurf gemacht werden, dürfen Straftatbestände und Strafen keine Rückwirkung entfalten, darf bis zur Feststellung seiner Schuld durch Gerichtsurteil niemand als schuldig gelten.

Notstandsverordnungen wirken zwar wie Charakteristika von Notständen in der Türkei, die früher, insbesondere in den 90’er Jahren, auf das Gebiet des Südosten beschränkt waren, weil sie erlauben, dass die Regierung ohne Kontrolle des Verfassungsgerichts weitgehende Maßnahmen erlassen darf: (»…Mit der Behauptung der formellen und materiellen Verfassungswidrigkeit von in Fällen des Notstandes, der Ausnahmezustandsverwaltung und des Krieges erlassenen Rechtsverordnungen mit Gesetzeskraft kann vor dem Verfassungsgericht keine Klage erhoben werden«, Art. 148 der Verfassung).

Wenn wir uns die Vorschriften der Verfassung genau anschauen, können wir jedoch diesbezüglich die folgenden Schlüsse ziehen:

  1. Der Notstand ist eine vorübergehende Periode und steht unter der parlamentarischen Kontrolle.
  2. Alle Maßnahmen müssen durch den Notstand »erfordert« sein.
  3. In einem Notstand dürfen keinesfalls die sich aus dem Völkerrecht ergebenden Verpflichtungen verletzt werden, also auch das System der EMRK bleibt unberührt.
  4. Ein organisches Notstandsgesetz regelt den Rahmen dieser Maßnahmen im Voraus.[7]
  5. Die Verfassung macht einen Unterschied zwischen Notstand und Ausnahmezustand. Es dürfen keine von den für einen Ausnahmezustand vorgesehenen Maßnahmen während eines Notstandes getroffen werden. Tatsächlich besteht in der Türkei auch ein Gesetz, das den Ausnahmezustand regelt.
  6. Auch in einem Notstand darf das Recht der Person auf Leben und die Einheit ihrer materiellen und ideellen Existenz nicht angetastet, darf niemand zur Offenbarung seiner Religion, seines Gewissens, seiner Meinung und seiner Ansichten gezwungen oder ihm aus diesen ein Schuldvorwurf gemacht werden, dürfen Straftatbestände und Strafen keine Rückwirkung entfalten und darf niemand bis zur Feststellung seiner Schuld durch Gerichtsurteil als schuldig gelten.
  7. Notstandsmaßnahmen dürfen weder gegen die Verfassung noch das Gesetz verstoßen, das zu treffende Maßnahmen in einem Notstand vorsieht.
  8. Ferner darf von Art. 12 und 13 der türkischen Verfassung auch im Notfallstaat nicht abgewichen werden – eine Tatsache, die von zahlreichen, zum Zwecke der Unterdrückung der Opposition agierenden politischen Kreisen in der Türkei übersehen wird:

»Artikel 12: Jeder besitzt inhärente Grundrechte und Freiheiten, die unverletzlich und unveräußerlich sind… Artikel 13 (in der Fassung vom 03.10. 2001, Gesetz Nr. 4709): Die Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten können nur durch das Gesetz und in Übereinstimmung mit den in den entsprechenden Artikeln der Verfassung erwähnten Gründen eingeschränkt werden, ohne ihr Wesen zu verletzen.

 Diese Beschränkungen dürfen nicht dem Wortlaut und Geist der Verfassung und den Anforderungen der demokratischen Ordnung der Gesellschaft und der säkularen Republik und dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit widersprechen.


III. Notstandsverordnungen mit Gesetzeskraft

Der Gesamtinhalt dieser Notstandsverordnungen kann in diesem kurzen Artikel zwar nicht dargestellt werden, es ist aber darauf hinzuweisen, dass diese zahlreiche Bestimmungen enthalten, welche

  1. die Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten über die Erfordernisse des Notstands hinausgehend beschränken,
  2. öffentliche Verwaltung einschließlich der gesamten Struktur der militärischen Macht in vielerlei Hinsicht neu ordnen,
  3. ein wirtschaftliches System der Dringlichkeit, der Einziehungsermächtigungen und der Beschlagnahme von persönlichem und institutionellem Eigentum bereitstellen, was wenn überhaupt wenig Raum für Abhilfe und Verfahrensgarantien für die Menschen lässt, die sich selbst für unschuldig am Geschehen halten.

Die erste Rechtverordnung[8] sieht vor, dass Organisationen, die in den Anhängen aufgeführt sind, geschlossen werden, weil sie mit der Fethullah-Terrororganisation (FETÖ/Parallele Staatsstruktur, PDY) zusammenhängen oder in Verbindung stehen sollen. Sie geht jedoch über FETÖ hinaus und fügt eine weitere Formulierung hinzu: »Mitgliedschaft in, Zugehörigkeit zu, Beteiligung an Terrorismusverbänden sowie Strukturen, Formationen und Gruppierungen, welche durch den Nationalen Sicherheitsrat so eingestuft wurden«. Die Einstufung durch den Rat, der nur ein Verwaltungsorgan ist, darf also zeitlich nach Erlass dieser Verordnung stattfinden, obwohl sie den Organisationen und Personen bestimmte Sanktionen auferlegt. Dies macht die Verordnung extrem vage, da jede Organisation oder Person leicht mit Aktivitäten gegen die nationale Sicherheit in Verbindung gebracht werden kann.

Bis jetzt wurden nahezu ein Drittel der RichterInnen und StaatsanwältInnen auf der Grundlage der oben erwähnten Bestimmungen endgültig entlassen. Von Zeit zu Zeit wird eine sehr begrenzte Anzahl der vorübergehend Entlassenen von dem Hohen Rat der Richter und Staatsanwälte zurück ins Amt gebracht.
Auf der anderen Seite wurden RichterInnen und StaatsanwältInnen (einschließlich des Präsidenten der Vereinigung für die Union der Richter und Staatsanwälte, Herrn Murat Arslan) durch spätere Verordnungen mit eigenen Personen-Listen entlassen. Es ist eine merkwürdige Situation, da die oben erwähnte erste Verordnung (Nr. 667) zwar rechtswidrig und summarisch, aber doch ein Disziplinarverfahren vorgesehen hatte. In dieser Hinsicht scheinen die späteren Verordnungen die durch die erste Verordnung vorgesehenen Verfahren aufgehoben zu haben. Bei den verfassungsrechtlich stärkere Garantien genießenden RichterInnen und StaatsanwältInnen von Oberen Gerichten wie Yargıtay, Danıs˛tay u. ä. wird ein Umweg missbraucht: Sie werden zunächst zu »einfachen« Berichterstattenden Richtern gemacht, was sie dem HSYK, dem Hohen Rat der Richter und Staatsanwälte im Rahmen summarischer Massenverfahren als Betroffene »zur Verfügung stellt«. Dies nicht erst seit dem 15.07.2016, sondern schon seit einer Weile davor. Es ist offensichtlich, dass die Suspendierungen oder Entlassungen von Richtern und Staatsanwälten nicht auf einem objektiven, abstrakten und allgemeinen Gesetz oder Dekret basieren.[9] Die meisten Bestimmungen der nach dem 15. Juli erlassenen Notstandsverordnungen verletzen die Verfassung der Türkei und die internationalen Konventionen.[10]


IV. Erkundigung über Lebensverhältnisse

Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie sind Richter/in und kein Mitglied einer Organisation, die die gewählte Regierung stürzen will. Einen Tag nach dem Putschversuch gehen Sie in Ihr Arbeitszimmer am Gericht und finden eine Benachrichtigung über die vorübergehende Entlassung auf Ihrem Schreibtisch. Später werden Ihnen die folgenden Fragen übergeben, die Ihre »Verbindung« im Rahmen der gegen Sie eingeleiteten Disziplinarmaßnahmen offenlegen sollen. Später müssen Sie dieselben Fragen auch im Rahmen eines Ermittlungsverfahrens beantworten.

  1. Haben Sie Kontakte mit, Mitgliedschaft in, Zugehörigkeit oder Verbindung zu einer Person oder Institution im Zusammenhang mit der FETÖ/der Parallelen Staatsstruktur/PDY? Bitte erklären Sie.
  2. Bitte geben Sie an, wo und wann Sie Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Ausbildung, Master- und Doktorat gemacht haben und welche Institutionen Sie dabei besucht hatten. Bitte geben Sie Information über den Standort der Wohnheime, in denen Sie während dieser Zeiträume gewohnt haben.
  3. Haben Sie selbst, Ihr Ehepartner, Ihre Kinder oder Personen, für die Sie verantwortlich sind, ein Konto in der Bank Asya? Wenn ja, erklären Sie die Gründe dafür, und erklären Sie die Bewegungen bei diesen Konten, und zwar ab 01.01.2014.[11]
  4. Haben Sie Kinder, welche eine der im Rahmen des Dekrets Nr. 667 im Zusammenhang mit der FETÖ/PDY genannten Bildungseinrichtungen besuchen oder besucht haben? Wenn ja, geben Sie bitte die Eintritts- und Austrittsdaten an. Bitte erklären Sie, warum Sie diese Bildungseinrichtungen bevorzugt haben.[12]
  5. Haben Sie eines der verschlüsselten Kommunikationsprogramme wie Bylock, Eagle und Tango auf Ihrem Handy, Tablet oder Computer, auf dem Handy, Tablet oder Computer Ihres Ehepartners oder auf dem Handy, Tablet oder dem Computer Ihrer Kinder heruntergeladen und/oder verwendet? Was war Ihr Ziel dabei, und warum haben Sie diese heruntergeladen oder verwendet? Erklären Sie, mit wem Sie mittels dieser Programme kommuniziert haben.
  6. Haben Sie über WhatsApp, Twitter oder Social-Networking-Konten wie Facebook bei Ihnen selbst oder bei Ihrem Ehepartner oder Ihren Kindern gegen oder für FETÖ/PDY etwas geteilt? Haben Sie Mitteilungen von Personen, die über Konten diese Art von Nachrichten verbreiteten, mit anderen Personen geteilt? Bitte erklären Sie sich dazu. Geben Sie eine Erklärung über Twitter- und Facebook-Konten, die Sie auf diese Weise verwenden.
  7. Haben Sie selbst, Ihre Ehepartner und Ihre Kinder Zeitschriften und ähnliche FETÖ/PDY-Publikationen, die in die Rechtsverordnung Nr. 668 aufgenommen wurden, abonniert? Wenn ja, erläutern Sie den Grund für die Abonnements- und Stornierungstermine. Diese Fragen gehen weit über die Fragen hinaus, die in einem Disziplinarverfahren oder einer strafrechtlichen Untersuchung gestellt werden können.


V. Untersuchungshaftbedingungen

Heute sind 3.392 (Tendenz steigend!) Richter und Staatsanwälte in der Türkei in Haft. Die Bemühungen um Beobachtung der Verfahren sollten sowohl von allen türkischen, europäischen und internationalen Organisationen im Bereich der Justiz als auch von Initiativen, die für Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten von Richtern und Staatsanwälten sensibel sind, strukturiert und intensiviert werden. Derzeit liegen keine detaillierten Informationen über die Vorwürfe in den Akten, die Haftbedingungen und das Verfahren vor – einschließlich der Identität der Verhafteten, welche Fälle sie bearbeitet haben und in welchen Gerichten sie tätig waren.


Ein Richter, der für fünf Tage in einer Basketballhalle in Diyarbakır mit etwa 150 Richtern, Staatsanwälten, Akademikern, Beamten und ähnlichen Personen festgehalten wurde, berichtete, dass er wegen Mitgliedschaft in der FETÖ/ PDY-Organisation verhaftet worden sei. Die Halle sei überfüllt und (im August) zu heiß gewesen, und sie hätten nur eine sehr dünne Schlafmatte bekommen. Er berichtete, dass manche seit mehr als 20 Tagen in Haft waren, ohne dem zuständigen Richter vorgeführt worden zu sein. Man habe ihnen nicht einmal eine Tasse Kaffee oder Tee gegeben, und sie hätten erst dann Obst konsumieren dürfen, als sie gegen die Mahlzeit aus Dosen ohne Vitamine heftig protestiert hätten. Viele hätten ihre notwendigen Medikamente nicht mehr bekommen (was teilweise auch im Moment der Fall ist). Von den Rängen schauten Polizisten auf den mit den Festgenommenen überfüllten Basketballplatz und spielten populäre Lieder. Die Szene sehe aus wie ein Fragment aus einem Quentin-Tarantino-Film. Die Frau eines Richters erklärt, dass ihre Anträge von den Gefängnisbehörden nicht bearbeitet worden seien, dass ihre Besuche von den Behörden behindert worden seien (Besuche sind erst nach Aufnahme in die Untersuchungshaft möglich) und dass ihr Ehemann derzeit seit drei Monaten in einer Einzelzelle isoliert gehalten werde. Schwierigkeiten bestehen auch bei Unterbringung der Häftlinge weit entfernt von den Städten, so dass sie wenig Kontakt zu der Umgebung haben können, was die Vorbereitungen der Verteidigung extrem erschwert. Unmittelbar nach dem Putschversuch waren die Haftbedingungen extrem ungünstig. Wir wissen, dass manche Familien ihre Angehörigen erst 55 Tage nach der Festnahme sehen konnten. Bei manchen Verhafteten bleibt das Licht im Gefängnis immer an. Die Chronik der Haftbedingungen braucht einen anderen, speziellen Bericht.


VI. Panikstaat

Ein Blick in den Text der Verordnungen gibt eine Idee von der alarmierenden Situation, denn alle Verordnungen sehen Maßnahmen vor, die weit über die Erfordernisse der Situation hinausgehen, sogar die Übernahme der gesetzgebenden Funktion des Staates durch den Ministerrat bedeuten. Sie bringen Konsequenzen mit sich, die über die Zeit des Notstands hinausgehen und de facto »Aufhebung« bedeuten, soweit sie auf Gruppen von Personen und juristischen Personen summarisch angewandt werden. Nicht nur Rechtmäßigkeitskriterien, sondern die Kriterien für Kompetenz sind nicht erfüllt. Nach und nach sieht man, dass die Regierung einige Vorschriften dieser falschen, grob nachlässig geplanten und formulierten Maßnahmen aufhebt, so dass der Eindruck entsteht, dass wir unter einem »Panik-Staat« statt »Rechtsstaat« leben. Siehe die folgende Bestimmung des ersten Dekrets, die sich in den meisten der folgenden Dekrete wiederholt:

»Verantwortung ARTIKEL 9 – (1) Es besteht keine Rechts-, Verwaltungs-, finanzielle und strafrechtliche Haftung für Personen, die Entscheidungen treffen und Aufgaben im Rahmen dieser Verordnung im Rahmen ihrer Aufgaben wahrnehmen.«

Das Ziel der Maßnahmen gegen ausgewählte Individuen und Organisationen scheint in zahlreichen Fällen nicht gerechtfertigt zu sein, und die Maßnahmen sind in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft nicht als notwendig anzusehen, nicht der wahrgenommenen aktuellen Gefahr angemessen, die diese Individuen und Organisationen darstellen sollen, und zum großen Teil willkürlich. Demokratische Gegner der Regierung von den Mitgliedern einer terroristischen Organisation zu unterscheiden, ist Aufgabe der Regierung, weil niemand dafür Beweise vorbringen kann, dass er kein Mitglied einer solchen Organisation ist. Im Gegenteil sind Umkehrung der Beweislast und vage Anschuldigungen in einem Klima vorherrschend, in dem keine Unterscheidungskriterien vorgesehen sind und eine große Fishing Expediton – Ermittlung ins Blaue hinein – geführt wird.

Wer soll in einem Staat, in dem nahezu 4000 Richter und Staatsanwälte verhaftet worden sind, diese Prozesse nach den Prinzipien des Rechtsstaats ohne Angst um eigene Stellung führen? Wer soll die Positionen, die »frei« wurden, füllen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Betroffenen fair, unparteiisch und unabhängig behandelt werden? Der Wortlaut einer Bestimmung des zweiten Dekrets, Nr. 669 gibt eine Idee dazu:

»… (2) [Rechtsreferendare[13]] können vom Höheren Rat der Richter und Staatsanwälte unabhängig von der Zeit, die sie als Referendar verbracht haben, ab dem Datum des Inkrafttretens dieses Dekrets auf Vorschlag des Justizministers als Richter und Staatsanwalt ernannt werden.«


VII. Massenhafte Verstöße gegen die Verfassung, Grundrechte, strafprozessuale Rechte, Disziplinarverfahren sowie Vollstreckungsrechte

Die Vereinigung für AnwältInnen und MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen ohne Grenzen in der Türkei[14] weist auf zahlreiche Unrechtmäßigkeiten hin, deren Zusammenhang ein »Systemunrecht«[15] ausmachen könnte. Eine Reihe davon sind tabellarisch wie folgt zusammenzufassen, weil sie eingehend nicht dargestellt werden können[16]:

  1. Verletzungen von verfassungsrechtlichen Garantien: Massenverfassungswidrigkeit
    1. Die Notstandsverordnungen mit Gesetzeskraft beinhalten Regelungen, die über die Notwendigkeiten des Notstands inhaltlich und zeitlich hinausgehen
    2. Keine zeitliche Grenze für die Verlängerung des Ausnahmezustandes
    3. Verletzungen von Grundrechten, grobe Verstöße insbesondere gegen das Prinzip der Unschuldsvermutung, die Unantastbarkeit der Menschenwürde, das Recht auf die persönliche Unversehrtheit, die Bestimmtheit des Gesetzes, das Recht auf Rechtliches Gehör, Prinzipien der richterlichen Anordnung oder Kontrolle bei durch Verfassung mit dieser besonderen Garantie gestatteten Rechten,
    4. den Verfassungsstatus von Richtern und Staatsanwälten in Verbindung mit dem Rechtsstaat und dem Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung, die akademischen Freiheiten, die Meinungsfreiheit, die Vereinigungsfreiheit, das Prinzip der persönlichen Verantwortung (Problem der kollektiven Verantwortung von »Familien«),
    5. zu lange Dauer der Festnahme
    6. konventionswidrige Maßnahmen trotz der Derogation nach Art. 15 EMRK.
  1. Verletzungen der strafprozessualen Rechte
    1. Beweisaufnahme durch Massen-Kronzeugen, problematische und weit über ihre Schranken hinausgehende Kronzeugenregelung, vage Aussagen durch Kronzeugen, Glaubwürdigkeitsfragen,
    2. Verletzung des allgemeinen Beschlagnahme- und Sicherstellungsrechts,
    3. die EMRK wird bei den Haftbefehlen schablonenhaft ignoriert,
    4. unangemessene und weit über die Notwendigkeiten hinausgehende Beschränkung von Verteidigungsrechten und Einwirkungsmöglichkeiten des Beschuldigten im Ermittlungsverfahren einschließlich der Folgen einer Missachtung dieser Rechte,
    5. massen- und schablonenhafte Einschränkungen des Akteneinsichtsrechts,
    6. Verletzungen von strafprozessualen Befugnissen von Anwälten,
    7. massen- und schablonenhafte Einschränkungen des Besichtigungsrechts sowie Auskunftsrechts von VerteidigerInnen und Beschuldigten[17],
    8. irrationale und schablonenhaft vorgefertigte Standard-Ausführungen ohne Bezug zur Sache oder zu den einzelnen Voraussetzungen entsprechender Vorschriften ohne Konkretisierung,
    9. Verletzung von Garantien zu Aussageund Selbstbelastungsfreiheit in StPO, GG und EMRK und ihre (Un-)Vereinbarkeit mit Druck auf Aussage,
    10. Beschränkung des Zeugenbefragungsbzw. Konfrontationsrecht des Beschuldigten in StPO, GG und EMRK,
    11. kein Schutz der Verfahrensbeteiligten vor der Öffentlichen Meinung im Strafverfahren,
    12. Verletzungen im Bereich des Rechtes über Durchsuchung und Beschlagnahme von Akten und Datenträgern – der schmale Grat zwischen »Zufallsfund« und »fishing expedition«,
    13. Einschränkung der Reichweite von Verwertungsverboten für rechtswidrig erlangte Beweise nach StPO, GG und EMRK,
    14. Unterstellung von schwerem Verdacht bei allen Angeschuldigten,
    15. keine Einzelfallprüfung bei Haftanordnung,
    16. generelle Unterstellung von Fluchtgefahr und Verdunkelungsgefahr bei allen,
    17. klischee- und schablonenhafte Haftbefehle,
    18. Missachtung des Durchsuchungsrechts, der Regelungen über Sicherstellung, der Beschlagnahme von Gegenständen zu Beweiszwecken,
    19. oberflächliche Haftprüfung,
    20. keine mündliche Verhandlung bei der Haftprüfung,
    21. generalisierte Formulierungen für alle Fälle bei Haftprüfung, Wiederholung von früheren Formulierungen für aufeinander folgende Prüfungen,
    22. Rechtswidrigkeiten bei der Vernehmung von Beschuldigten.
  1. Verletzungen der strafprozessualen Rechte der Inhaftierten
    1. Verletzungen der Strafvollstreckungsrechte für Personen in Untersuchungshaft,
    2. keine Zustellung von Entscheiden durch Vollstreckungsrichter,
    3. rechtswidrige Isolierungen,
    4. gesetzeswidrige Gleichsetzung von Haftbedingungen verschiedener Verfahrensstadien (z.B. werden die Bedingungen von Untersuchungshaft mit den Bedingungen der Strafhaft gleichgesetzt),
    5. rechtswidrige Einschränkungen von Informationsrechten von Inhaftierten,
    6. extrem eng ausgelegte Besuchsrechte,
    7. keine einheitliche Anwendung der Richtlinien durch Vollstreckungsbeamte (Willkür),
    8. Videoaufnahme des Gespräches zwischen Anwälten und Mandanten,
    9. extreme Behinderungen beim Dokumentenaustausch zwischen Anwälten und deren Mandanten.
  1. Massenhafte Verletzung der disziplinarrechtlichen Verfahrensgarantien für Beamte
  2. Eine Reihe von verfassungswidrigen zivilrechtlichen (insbesondere eigentumsrechtlichen) Bestimmungen und Maßnahmen

Die Auflistung ist zwar nicht komplett, gibt jedoch eine Vorstellung von der sehr alarmierenden Situation.[18] Kostet Gerechtigkeit die Legislative, Exekutive und Judikative zu viel? Dann ist es »Happy Hour« für Grundrechte, schnell und verkürzt serviert nur noch durch die Exekutive!



[1] Assoc. Prof. Dr. Öykü Didem Aydın ist Mitglied der Europäischen Kommission für Demokratie durch Recht (Venedig-Kommission) des Europarates, Rechtsanwältin und Präsidentin der Vereinigung der Anwälte und Menschenrechtsverteidiger ohne Grenzen in der Türkei.

[2] Quelle / Original: Betrifft JUSTIZ Nr. 128 / Dezember 2016 (Zweitpublikation mit Einverständnis der Redaktion von Betrifft JUSTIZ)

[3] p=cv_3563 See also at

[4] p=cv_3563 See also at


[6] Jedoch werden nicht die Zusammenarbeiter, sondern deren heftige Kritiker verfolgt. Siehe am Beispiel von YARSAV: »Case of YARSAV«, in:

[7] Das organische Notstandsgesetz aus dem Jahr 1983.

[8] Öykü Didem Aydın, »The Rule of Law and The Way We Are in the Aftermath of 15th of July: A Report on the Constitutional Situation in: https: // Unter: 04/rule-law-way-aftermath-15th-july/

[9] Eingehend: Öykü Didem Aydın, https://drive. 4b1dWeVU/view

[10] Eingehend:

[11] Die Operationslizenz dieser Bank wurde erst am 22.07.2016 aufgehoben.

[12] All diese Institutionen operierten bis zum Erlass der entsprechenden Notstandsverordnung unter der Aufsicht des Bildungsministeriums.

[13] Zusammenfassung durch Autorin.

[14] http://www.sınırtanı Eine aus 10 AnwältInnen bestehende Gruppe unserer Vereinigung beobachtet die Situation seit Anfang August 2016, teilweise seit Mitte Juli, und diese Auflistung basiert auf ihren noch nicht insgesamt publizierten Workshop-Berichten über eigene oder externe Akten, sowie auf den mit verschiedenen Betroffenen geführten Interviews. Im Rahmen eines Projekts werden ferner 150 AnwältInnen über ihre eigene Erfahrungen und Akten sowie Prozesse im Laufe des kommenden Jahres berichten können. Einzelheiten dieses Projekts können erfragt werden unter oykudidemaydin@

[15] Dazu theoretisch: Eser/Arnold/Kreicker, Strafrecht in Reaktion auf Systemunrecht, Ein Projektbericht, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, in: https://www.mpicc/de/shared/data/pdf/fa-systemunrecht-int.pdf

[16] Regnard, C. (November, 2016), »Turkey: The End of the Rule of Law«, Vol. V, Issue 11, pp.16 – 22, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, Research Turkey. ( = http:// uploads/2016/11/Answer-to-YPD-presidentnov-2016.pdf

[17] Der Verteidiger hat normalerweise auch im Ermittlungsverfahren Akteneinsicht. Die kann vor Abschluss der Ermittlungen nur versagt werden, wenn der Untersuchungszweck gefährdet wäre. In Haftsachen sind die für die Freiheitsentziehung wesentlichen Informationen zugänglich zu machen.

[18] Siehe Draft Opinion der Venedig-Kommission No. 865/2016 Strasbourg 25.11.2016 CDL (2016)039.



Author: N.N. (known to the blog-editor, kept confidential for security reasons)

Following the attempted coup of July 2016, a wave of prosecutions started as part of the overall purging mission initiated by the government seemingly as a response to the failed coup. It has quickly turned out that most of the prosecutions have nothing to do with the attempted coup but on the basis of some abstract allegations of membership, relationship or affiliation to a group (the government claims it to be a ‘terrorist’ group). The figures of dismissals, closures, seizures, prosecutions, arrests, bans etc. have greatly expanded since the early days of the failed coup and have now posed a devastating impact on both the victims and their families.

The measures taken on the judiciary is the most striking one, as it involves a large number of the judiciary including senior members of the judiciary. The dismissals and prosecutions also included two (2) members of the Constitutional Court, five (5) present and ten (10) previous members of the High Council as well as fourteen (14) election candidates to the High Council. Around 4.000 judges and prosecutors have been dismissed by the High Council without any individualised procedure and without a right of defence. Nearly 3,000 judges and prosecutors have also been subject to criminal procedure and most of them are currently under arrest. Their assets are frozen, their communication with the families drastically restricted. They receive further mistreatment especially in the form of systematic solitary confinement, exposing them to extra hardship in an effort to break their psychology and force them to sign some confession.

The extent and scope of measures imposed on the members of the judiciary and the very high numbers involved also pose another alarming development in the Turkish judiciary. The two tables below display the results of the last two elections to the Turkish Judicial Council as well as the current status and any criminal prosecution of those involved in the judicial elections. It is shocking that all of the sixteen (16) candidates from the so-called independent group as opposed to the government supported YBP group (Platform of Judicial Unity) in the October 2014 election have now been dismissed and are under arrest with conditions of solitary confinement (Table 1). It is also astonishing that eight (8) former members of the previous High Council of 2010-2014 who received the most of the votes have also been dismissed and are now under arrest with solitary confinement (Table 2).

It is further striking to note that the members who once received the support of more than % 60 of their peer from the general jurisdiction and % 70 from the administrative jurisdiction in the October 2010 election have now all been dismissed and are under arrest. It must also be underlined that the pro-government YBP received an overall number of 5500 votes on the aggregate whereas the independence candidates obtained an overall number of 5000 votes on the aggregate from the general jurisdiction in October 2014 election. The respective numbers are 700 on the aggregate for the pro-government YBP and around 670 for the independent candidates from the administrative jurisdiction. The figures clearly show that it was a knife-edge race in the last October 2014 election to the High Council and certainly an alarming concern for the government trying to keep further its grip on the judiciary.

The forged mind-set following the failed coup provided an opportunity for a comprehensive purging of all the opposition in the judiciary. The precious gift provided by the attempted coup has been unscrupulously used to cleanse the judiciary in a way that any meaningful independence of judiciary could not survive. The relentless measures taken so far will also be a threatening reminder for other members of the judiciary of the price they may well have to pay if not conforming to the expectations. It is thus extremely difficult for the Turkish judiciary to display the minimum standards of independence, impartiality and integrity, a point that must be paid very close attention by the European institutions.





(*YBP refers to the Pro-Government Platform of Judicial Unity)




Metin YANDIRMAZ 5836 YBP* Member & Head On duty
Mehmet YILMAZ 5758 YBP Member & Head On duty
Mehmet DURGUN 5695 YBP Member On duty
Ömür TOPAÇ 5665 YBP Member On duty
Ramazan KAYA 5657 YBP Member On duty
İsa ÇELİK 5429 YBP Member On duty
Turgay ATEŞ 5400 YBP Member On duty
İlker ÇETİN 5312 Independent Reserve Member Discharged & Arrested
Selahattin MENTEŞ 5302 YBP Reserve Member On duty
Zeynep ŞAHİN 5291 YBP Reserve Member On duty
Orhan GÖDEL 5202 Independent Reserve Member Discharged & Arrested
Bilgin BAŞARAN 5100 YBP Judge On duty
Levent ÜNSAL 5143 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Yeşim SAYILDI 5009 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
İdris BERBER 5003 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Yaşar AKYILDIZ 4943 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Ayşe Neşe GÜL 4816 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Mehmet KAYA 4864 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Teoman GÖKÇE 4797 Independent Arrested Discharged & Arrested
Ahmet ÇİÇEKLİ 4499 YBP Prosecutor On duty
Nesibe ÖZER 4545 Independent Judge Discharged & Arrested
Hasan ÜNAL 4495 Independent Judge Discharged & Arrested
Halil KOÇ 736 YBP Member & Head On duty
Ahmet BERBEROĞLU 735 Independent Member Discharged & Arrested
Mahmut ŞEN 713 Independent Member Discharged & Arrested
Cafer ERGEN 706 YBP Reserve Member On duty
Mehmet GÖKPINAR 695 YBP Reserve Member On Duty
Sadettin KOCABAŞ 692 Independent Judge Discharged & Arrested
Hasan ODABAŞI 673 YBP Judge On Duty
Gönül SAYIN 655 YBP Judge On Duty
Ali BİLEN 651 Independent Judge Discharged & Arrested
Egemen DEVRİM DURMUŞ 626 Independent Judge Discharged & Arrested








İbrahim OKUR 6401 Member & Head Discharged & Arrested
Teoman GÖKÇE 6084 Member Discharged & Arrested
Nesibe ÖZER 5842 Member & Head Discharged & Arrested
Ömer KÖROĞLU 5833 Member Discharged & Arrested
Hüseyin SERTER 5770 Member Discharged & Arrested
Ahmet KAYA 5692 Member Discharged & Arrested
İsmail Aydın 5191 Member On Duty
Harun KODALAK 4871 Reserve Member On Duty
Celal AVAR 4744 Reserve Member On Duty
Hayrettin TÜRE 4570 Reserve Member On Duty
Ali ÖZTÜRK 4542 Reserve Member On Duty
Ahmet BERBEROĞLU 870 Member Discharged & Arrested
Birol ERDEM 852 Member On Duty
Resul YILDIRIM 821 Member Discharged & Arrested
Halil KOÇ 652 Reserve Member Member & Head
İbrahim TOPUZ 561 Reserve Member On duty




Turkey: A Test for European Values

Author: José Igreja Matos, President of European Association of Judges (EAJ) Date: Jan 14, 2017


This is moral blindness – self-chosen, self-imposed, or fatalistically accepted – in an epoch that more than anything needs quickness and acuteness of apprehension and feeling. In order that we regain our perceptiveness in dark times, it is necessary to give back dignity as well as the idea of the essential unfathomability of human beings (…) – Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis, Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity.

An European Assessment – a manifest disrespect for the independence of judiciary in Turkey

Indisputably, the current situation in Turkey is characterized by an affront towards basic standards of independence of Judiciary. In the November issue of Research Turkey, Christophe Regnard, the then recently elected President of International Association of Judges, wrote an article, symptomatically named “Turkey: The End of the Rule of Law”, indicative of how aloof Turkish Government is from its international commitments and European democratic standards (Regnard, C., “Turkey: The End of the Rule of Law”, Vol. V, Issue 11, pp.16 –

The main concern was already about the troubling and shocking indifference revealed by the European authorities; therefore the challenge for all European associations of Judges remains until this very day unchanged: “to ensure that the approach to the situation in Turkey is not trivialised and that the European authorities do not turn a blind eye to the unprecedented attacks on the judiciary in a European country. “However the recent statements of several European institutions seem to finally initiate a diverse path of awareness and disapproval.

Some concrete examples can be considered:

I) December 8th: the European Network of Councils of Judiciary (ENCJ) decided, in General Assembly, to suspend, with no Council voting against, the observer status of the Turkish Judicial Council (Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu, in Turkish, HSYK). Thus the HSYK is now excluded from participation in ENCJ activities. The reasoning of the ENCJ was impressive: “it is a condition of membership, and for the status of observer, that institutions are independent of the executive and legislature and ensure the final responsibility for the support of the judiciary in the independent delivery of justice. (…) taking into account the failure of the HSYK to satisfy the ENCJ that its standards have been complied with, the statements of the HSYK, as well as information from other sources including the reports and statements of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and Human Rights Watch and the Venice Commission, the ENCJ decided that the actions and decisions of the HSYK, and therefore the HSYK as an institution cannot be seen to be in compliance with European Standards for Councils for the Judiciary. Therefore, the HSYK does not currently comply with the ENCJ Statutes and is no longer an institution which is independent of the executive and legislature ensuring the final responsibility for the support of the judiciary in the independent delivery of justice.”

II) November 28th: the Platform for an Independent Judiciary in Turkey, which is formed by the four European judges associations, the Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ), the European Association of Judges (EAJ), the Judges for Judges, and the Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés (MEDEL), issued a joint statement in the form of a letter to the President of ENCJ.

In the text, the Platform stated clearly that HSYK does not meets European standards, most of which are laid down in Opinion Nº 10 (2007) of the Consultative Council of European Judges “On the Councils for the Judiciary at the Service of Society” (hereinafter to be referred to as “Opinion”) and in the Recommendation (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Judges: Independence, efficiency and Responsibilities (hereinafter Rec.).

Summarizing the content of the letter, it is said in the letter that the mission of a council for the judiciary is to defend both the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the individual judge (Opinion para 8; Rec. para 26 and 29), but that HSYK did not defend the judiciary against measures of the executive and legislative powers, which infringed the independence of the judiciary e.g. by changes of the law regarding the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and by amendments of the law on the Cassation Court and the Council of State, which deprived judges of their positions in these courts. HSYK also ignored the independence of numerous individual judges e.g. by removing the immunity of judges and by allowing criminal investigations against judges without previous investigation into whether there were any suspicion that claims, which were put forward, had any basis, and also by starting disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the content of decisions made by judges (which were only concerned with establishing facts and interpretation of the law).

HSYK adopted a decision with only 62 pages of reasoning as sufficient to dismiss thousands of judges. Security of tenure of office is a core element of the independence of a judge and the dismissal of judges should be used only in case of misuse of the exercise of office (e.g. UN Basic principles on the Independence of Judiciary, Opinion para 95, 92, 63 , Rec para 49 and 50). However, the letter continues, the procedure of HSYK completely contradicts these requirements. The procedure is especially totally inadequate when the criminal investigations used as the occasion to sack those judges are still in a pre-trial stage; the principle of the presumption of innocence, which is enshrined in Article 5 of the ECHR was consequently completely ignored, if not violated.

III) December 9th: An Opinion adopted by the Council of Europe’s constitutional law experts – the Venice Commission – concludes that the Turkish Government implemented its emergency powers through ad hominem legislation. Thus, “tens of thousands of public servants” were dismissed on the basis of lists appended to emergency decree laws. Those collective dismissals did not refer to verifiable evidence which related to each individual case. According to the Opinion, the speed with which those lists appeared implies that the collective dismissals were not accompanied even by a minimum of procedural safeguards; those dismissals apparently are not subject to judicial review by the ordinary courts, or, at least, the accessibility of judicial review remains a matter of controversy. And the Venice Commission concludes that such method of purging the State apparatus creates a strong appearance of arbitrariness.

Concerning judges the Opinion could not be more clearer: “judges represent a special category of public servants, whose independence is guaranteed at the constitutional and international levels (see the ICCPR, Article 14 § 1, and the ECHR, Article 6 § 1). Therefore, any dismissals within the judiciary or the regulatory bodies of the judiciary such as the HCJP, for example, should be subjected to particularly exacting scrutiny, even in times of a serious public emergency. Such dismissals not only affect human rights of the individual judges concerned, they may also weaken the judiciary as a whole. Finally, such dismissals may create a “chilling effect” within the judiciary, making other judges reluctant to reverse measures declared under the emergency decree laws out of fear of becoming subjects of such measures themselves.”

IV) November 16th: The Steering Committee of European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), at its meeting in Brussels, has decided to temporarily and provisionally suspend from the status of Observer which had been granted to the Academy of Justice of Turkey and to submit to EJTN’s next General Assembly, on 22 – 23 June 2017, a recommendation towards a formal resolution on the suspension of the status as Observer of the Academy of Justice of Turkey. One of the notes of the Steering Committee mentioned a particular apprehension: “the persisting reports on the arresting, suspension or removal from office of judges, and their deprivation of property, without any adequate procedure and in disrespect of the independence of the judiciary”.

A different perspective

All the institutional effort provided by EAJ/IAJ addresses only one viewpoint of the problem. But another perspective is linked with the due solidarity to the several thousand judges and prosecutors jailed, dispossessed of their assets, living in a condition that puts in peril even daily survival along with their families. It becomes unavoidable to draw attention to all these persons immersed in such a cruel circumstance experiencing a radical turnaround of their existence after years of having an economic and social status of what had been thought guaranteed by their technical expertise and judicial work. Belonging to an intellectual elite, selected after an appointment procedure based in merit criteria, thousands of judges and prosecutors in Turkey are confronted with a painful daily routine in prison or, if released, confronted with unemployment and again with the arduous mission of providing for the daily survival of their families.

All European associations of Judges, along with the judges worldwide, are perfectly alert to the present torment of Turkish judges and prosecutors and reject endorsing a moral blindness that ignores human suffering in such dark times.

A Commitment against Injustice

“In the little world in which children have their existence”, says Pip in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations, “there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt, as injustice.” (…) But the strong perception of manifest injustice applies to adult human beings as well. What moves us, reasonably enough is not the realization that the world falls short of being completely just – which few of us expect – but that there are clearly remediable injustices around us which we want to eliminate.” – Amartya Sen, “The idea of Justice” (preface).

As Amartya Sen lucidly wrote in a scenario that utterly applies to the Turkish judiciary nowadays, the reaction from Europe towards the ruthless attacks against judicial independence should not be focused, at least on a short-term basis, on a discussion about how justice finally can be offered to judges and prosecutors in Turkey.  That will be a misleading manner to do nothing while speculating on improbable outcomes. The Turkish authorities are not concerned in restore justice to those judges and prosecutors and they will continue to act in the exact same routine irrespective of international clamour.

What should be “finely perceived and finely felt” by those who promote the Rule-of-Law is the current situation of injustice – vivid and irrefutable – imposing a robust and immediate response.

The numerous facts currently known indicate that the Turkish Government is using the opportunity to purge the judiciary, submitting to detention alleged members of Gülenist Terror Organisation (Fethullahçı Terör Örgütü, FETÖ) in clear violation of Articles 3.º, 5.º and 6.º of European Convention on Human Rights. The detention of judges and prosecutors is a disconcerting indication that Turkey is stepping away from democracy; because those who are still in office who have not been suspended or arrested will surely feel pressured to comply with the executive power. The actions taken by the Government are also very troubling considering that Turkey has been convicted several times in the European Court of Human Rights for violations of the above mentioned Articles, without visible improvements regarding fundamental rights that now seems to be even more in peril. Hence the commitment against injustice calls from European judges an attitude of support and assistance for our Turkish colleagues.

The level of injustice – thousands or detentions, cruel treatment if not continuous torture, the seizing of assets in a way that puts at risk the plain survival of their families – is so overwhelming that this commitment must be shared by the main European stakeholders involved in defending a culture of respect for human rights.

Each week we receive in our secretariat in Rome many letters written mostly by the wives, sons and daughters of arrested judges and prosecutors; they appeal, in a desperate tone, for help.  To the same effect, the “Preliminary observations and recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” from Mr. Nils Melzer, on the official visit to Turkey (27 November to 2 December 2016), published a personal appeal to the Turkish Government “to publicly reinforce its “zero tolerance” policy on torture and, in particular, to unequivocally make clear to State officials at all levels that they are expected and, indeed, obliged to report and investigate all allegations of torture and to bring perpetrators to justice.”

Although always resilient and abiding, even hope needs to be nourished with concrete and pragmatic behaviour. Therefore, although facing numerous difficulties to put an effective strategy on the ground, EAJ/IAJ is now involved in providing financial assistance to the families of Turkish judges and prosecutors. The new Fund is composed of donations from national associations of judges or from any other institutions or individual donors.

Our certainty relies on the prospect that the present situation is temporary and that inevitably normality will return permitting all those colleagues, helped by their peers, to be reinstated in their judicial duties.  But meanwhile it is our duty to do something about it; obeying an ancient lesson of practical conduct, that is enshrined on our European culture, which was advanced many centuries ago by Aristotle’s words: “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyre players by playing the lyre; so too we become just by doing just acts” – Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle written in 350 B.C.E.

The present attitude taken by the Association of Judges claims also to challenge others international organizations in Europe. The core values that constitute our civilized identity should entail the same collective response. Europe must surpass this difficult test; let us all believe that it will succeed.

  • reprinted with the permission of the Author: Original source: Matos, J. I. (January, 2017), “Turkey: A Test for European Values”, Vol. VI, Issue 1, pp.6 – 14, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, Research Turkey. (



Author: known by blog editor, kept secret for security reasons

Pro-Erdogan Prosecutor gave a dismissal of charges decision about a torture complaint without having investigation, 5 JANUARY 2017, TRABZON, TURKEY
Someone complained to the prosecutor about being tortured.

The following are the torture and ill-treatment that was done to complainant:

“They interrogated me three times and told me I used “bylock” [app]. The police officer punched me and said I’ll f.. you, I’ll harass you with a truncheon.”

“We’ll strip your wife, Do you want a bastard in your wifes womb, you are gonna write the names we gave you [in your statement] ” they told me.

The prosecutor decided that there is no need to prosecution.

The justification is a complete scandal and Turkey will look ridiculous in the international public opinion.

The prosecutor stated, “Although the investigation proceedings, regarding the allegations that the complainant was threatened and assaulted by the police officers in the Police Headquarters at the time of being taken into custody, is begun, Under Article 9 of Decree Law No. 667, it is stated that the persons who took the decision under the decree of this law and fulfill their duties are found to have no legal, administrative, financial and criminal responsibility due to these duties and actions, there is legal obstacle about accused officers and to prosecute the police officers for the alleged action is not possible and It has been decided that there is no need to prosecution.” in his justification.

In other words, He said Emergency State Decrees has also a torture approval in itself.

Related link:

Judges are under mental torture (meaning solitary confinement)

Author: N.N., Turkey (*)


1. Because of some criminal investigation against high profile government and intelligence agencies such as 17-25 December 2013 Corruption Cases, MIT Truck to ISIS cases,  President Erdogan see the judiciary as a serious threat to reach his personal, and political aim rooted Political Islamist Ideas backed 1990s. Therefore, he launched a linch campaign to judges, who had charged with these cases.

2. Following corruption allegations implicating government ministers and Erdoğan’s own family in December 2013, the government in 2014 embarked on dramatic moves to demote and discharge the  judiciary. Although, High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is a constitutional institution, the ruling party passed a law in order to reframe the Council. European Council esteemed the amendment that The impact of the executive power on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HCJP) in Turkey has not diminished but rather has increased by this law.

3.This law above was overruled by the Constitutional Court, but effect of the law was still exist even if it was justified unconstitutional because of misinterpreted non ret-roactivity of rulings of constitutional court decison. The decision had come very late, the council already redesigned (Secretary General, vice secretary, all judges, and some civil servants auxiliary staff including drivers, servants, replaced with new ones) ministry of justice has become a key actor to prodominately determine all administrative process.

4. In order to cover ongoing criminal cases, the only way for President Erdoğan was competely control the judiciary, and HCJP. The council is charged with administering the justice system, including the appointments, assignments, and oversight of judges and prosecutors. We witnessed highly political judicial election in October 2014. Erdoğan knows that it is impossible to control all the judiciary immediately. That’s why he chose to create special courts, which is charged with pre detention, arrest snd confiscation decision.

5. President, Prime minister, ministry of justices, and broucrats mobilized all together. Loyalist candidates for HCJP election were chosen, judicial union platform (YBP) created, funded by ministry of justice in terms of win the election.

6. Judges and prosecutors were threaten directly and indirectly to vote for YBP Candidates. Promotion, and salary increase promised to judges. Finally, judged who voted for YBP, promoted, and 15 percent salary increased for all judges and prosecutors.

7. They professionally used carrot and stick policy in order to win election. Public facilities were used for rallies to YBP for free charge. Turkish Airlines, Public vehicles, public employee were used like a YBP’s own sources.

8. Opponents including YARSAV member were profiled, and published in a twitter account called @kuscubasiesref, smear campaign launched against them. YARSAV is the oldest judges and prosecutors association, and wellknown secular and democratic opposition group of judges profiled by YBP during judicial election in 2014.  The association was closed right after July 15 in accordance with the state of emergency law. Head of the association, Murat Arslan was arrested allagedly being member of terrorist organisation so called Parallel State.

9. Finally, YBP won the election with majority. It is the cornerstone event that the judiciary was owerwelmingly controlled  by the government. In a 2014 report Human Rights Watch raised concerns about lack of independence of the judiciary in Turkey and about judicial decisions that appeared to be politicized and open to influence by powerful factions.

10. Pofiling judges has continued after election based on judges decision against YBP will.

11. More than 4000 judges (1 out of 3 of Judiciary) were profiled by YBP during the election, and after that.

12.  As a result, about 4000 judges and prosecutors were arbitrarily expelled from its duty, assigned different regions, some are  assigned more than twice  in a year by new council.

13. It shows that judges were not targeted after failed military coup. They were already in President Erdogan’s bucket list. Here is some examples show the blacklist has prepared in advance;

13.1.Ahmet Biçer, a Balıkesir prosecutor who died back in May was suspended from his job by Judicial Council and issued detain warrant after 15 th July.…………

13.2. Seyfettin Yiğit was blacklisted as an opponent (means not to support pro-ruling party association called YBP later YBD) at Judicial Election in 2014 and arrested after 15 th July 2016.…  Seyfettin Yiğit was found hanged on Sept.16. in Prison.….

13.3. A columnist from Sozcu Daily wrote in his article that the blacklist had been an organized old worksheed finished before failed military coup.…

13.4. HCJP  (HSYK) Head of  2. Chamber, Mehmet Yılmaz accepts that the council dismissed 2740 judges and prosecutors the day after coup attempt. The list did not combined within a day. The council was working on it more than three years.…

14. 15 July coup gave a golden opportunity to Erdogan, he publicly expressed it is gift to him from God. On July 16, the day after the attempted coup, the Higher Council of Judges and Prosecutors issued a list of 2,745 judges and prosecutors who were to be suspended on the grounds that they were suspected of being “members of the Fethullah Gülen Terrorist Group/Parallel state structure (FETÖ/PDY).”

15. Right now, about 4000 of them including members of Supreme Courts, members of Judicial Council were dismissed, their salaries/assets were confiscated, passports were revoked, 3000 of them were detained, 2500 are still in jail, 680 judges are in solitary confinement in order to force them confess.
Here is the detail report shows the situation of Turkish Judiciary after July 15.…

16. President Erdogan, HCJP Head of 2. Chamber President Mehmet Yılmaz and Ankara Chief Prosecutor Harun Kodalak made puclic statements respectively. Especially Mehmet Yılmaz and Harun Kodalak declared that if suspected criminals (judges and prosecutors allagedly linked to Parallel State)  confess, and give some names to the public prosecutor, they will be free to go, and dismissed judges and prosecutors can start working in their profession again.…… utm_content=buffer4fc61&utm_medium=social&

17. Judges and prosecutors are arbitrarily jailed in a cell. Although they neither do break prisons rule, nor there are any court decision to put them in cell becuause of their linked to terrorist organisation. Solitary confinement punishment does not meet any criteria of 5275 Criminal Punishment Execution Code article 44 and 63. Judges and prosecutors hold in cell because of arbitrary order made by ministry of justice. Solitary confinement is defined as a mental torture by ECHR and EU as well. Here is the link dissmissed judges express his own experiences.…

18.Solitary confinement is recently spreading all over the prisons, and getting much more common especially September and October. It is clearly understood from Mehmet Yilmaz, and Harun Kodalak’s statements that it is used for confession toll in terms of making pressure on judges and prosecutors.Those who remain judges are no longer independent, those who remain independent are no longer judges.

19. Although minisrty of justice denies there is no torture in Turkey, Human Rights Watch reports that there is mass human rights violation and torture in Turkey in post military coup era. It shows judges and prosecutors has become a target of torture in order to force them confess, and obtain evidences.…

20. HCJP vice president Mehmet Yılmaz unlawfully declared that some judges and prosecutors are Gulenist because he already has some files shows these judges and prosecutors had used an encrypted cell phone application called Bylock. It is a main evidence proves these judges have linked to FETO. Mehmet Yilmaz acted like a judges, although he has an obligation not to show his inclination in any judicial subject.  He should have been suppose to act neutral in accordance with the law covers HCJP. Judges and prosecutors have been forced to confess they use Bylock. According to lawyers, there is any reasonable evidence showing judges and prosecutors had used this application. it is only evidence coming from National Intelligience Service showing a list of judges who are allegedly used the app. There is any explanation how they obtain this information. It is clear that this list does not meet legally acceptable evidence criteria based on criminal procedure act. CHP (Main Opposition Party) information, technology and communication department studied on a report, they found out that “…ByLock was a cell phone application, could be found in google and app store for a long time, anyone could access it. It can still found in some internet server to set up.”…. In addition, Hatay 2. Felony Court, September 2016, made a decision, which ruled ByLock can not be an evidence of any crime by itself.…


21.1. International human rights law is leglected in Turkey. Law enforcement first finds a criminal and then reach the evidence. Part of this understanding, judges and prosecutors declared as a criminal, jailed in a cell in order to obtain some evidence proving they are criminals, and member of FETO, and part of failured military coup.

21.2. It is clearly unlawfull. It can not be a credible evidence obtaining under psychological torture. Criminal Procedure Act 148. prohibits  “asking confession and illegal promise”.

Article 148 – (1) The submissions of the suspect or accused shall be stemming from his own free will. Any bodily or mental intervention that would impair the free will, such as misconduct, torture, administering medicines or drugs, exhousting, falsification, physical coercion or threathening, using certain equipment, is forbidden.
(2) Any advantage that would be against the law shall not be promised.
(3) Submissions obtained through the forbidden procedures shall not be used as evidence, even if the individual had consented.
(4) Submissions obtained by the police, without the defense counsel being present, shall not be used as a basis for the judgment, unless this submission had been verified by the suspect or the accused in front of the judge or the court.
(5) In cases where there is a need for a subsequent interview of the suspect in relation with the same event, this interaction shall be conducted only by the public prosecutor.

21.3. Unlawfully submission,  which were obtained within 30 days interrogation with outmost harsh prison condition, can not be deemed valid evidence unless suspected criminals accept this statement made by his own free will in court house in front of judges.

21.4. On the other hand, there is still a contradiction about confession. Vice president of HCJP declared that if the judges and prosecutors confess they are a member of terrorist organisation, and give further evidence in terms of combating FETO, they will return their profession. How someone can be a judge, who accepts he or she used to be a member of terrorist organisation?

22. To sum up, Mehmet Yılmaz ‘s statements purely a political statement, which try to justify unlawful implementation against independent judges, and prosecutors, who did not support pro government judges association (YBP) during 2014 Council Election in the name of combating military coup.


* The name of the author is kept secret for security reasons. The article is in it’s original version, it has not been edited by the blog editor.

Turkish lawyer: The dismissals/arrest of 4000 judges and prosecutors are null on legal grounds

The dismissals/arrest of 4000 judges and prosecutors are null on legal grounds /30 December 2016

Mehmet Yılmaz, the deputy chairman of Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HCJP), has been confessing in last two days which will affect all the coup trials. His statements are directly relevant with 4000 judges and prosecutors dismissed and being tried. As all the victims have been subjected to the same unlawful process, all the public officials, academics, housewifes also avail of his confessions


The statement I am quoting will be a bit long but I want to share his statement that he made to Sevilay Yılman, columnist of Habertürk Daily which is as follows: “We will discuss to return the dismissed judges and prosecutors to their duty whose confessions are helpful and important!” Calling Mehmet Yılmaz to learn the real truth about his statement, Sevilay Yılman wrote in her column the followings:

It seems that Mehmet Yılmaz played a trick for the arrested members of the judiciary to gather evidences on FETO membership which will be necessary in the trial process. He told: “ No worries! HCJP will not return anybody who avails themselves of the effective repentance law to their duty. Our board is determined on this issue. I made that statement in order to encourage confessions and it was very succesful. Up to that time, there were no confessions but after I issued that statement, many were obtained. By means of excess of 200 confessors, we obtained evidences on FETO membership of 2400 judges and prosecutors. Actually, we can not possibly avail of the effective repentance law within the context of attempting the coup. They will be possibly tried only on the accusation of having a membership in an armed terrorist organization, because there has been nobody whose involvement in the coup attempt is definetely proved up to now! The investigations of the members of the judiciary have been being conducted only with charges on being a member of armed terrorist organization.”

The fact that the deputy chairman of the Spreme Board is lying and also disclosing his actual intention in a manner of indifferent to criticism is of serious concern, however, what’s more, his setting a trap for excess of 4000 judges and prosecutors is much more a matter of concern.


On the consideration of Yılmaz’s sayings, the following points can be concluded in summary:

1-The arressted judges and prosecutors are not coup attempters, there is no evidence on this issue.
2-They(HCJP) did not have an evidence on FETO membership at the time when the judges and prosecutors were arrested, however, they(HCJP) gathered some evidences by means of plotting something nefarious to them.

Speaking to Habertürk one day later to compensate for his gaffe, Mehmet Yılmaz made another tactless mistakes: “The detention warrants were issued about 2740 judges and prosecutors in the first hours immediate after 15 July coup attempt. Upon this, we suspended all of them in accordance with the pre-report of the judiciary inspector.”

The question that “How could you able to get so much names in a few hours immediate after the coup attempt?” represents the scope of magazine of the happenings. Because of the reason that Mehmet Yılmaz is a figure of magazine rather than a lawyer, he makes an effort to answer this question and he reveals the main confession hereby.

The judges and the prosecutors are subjected to investigation and prosecution in accordance with their specific law except the cases in which they are caught in the act of a crime. In the prosecution and investigation process of those who are first category judges on the other side, the Court of Cassation is competent to conduct. Let me write the summary of my sayings up to now with the capital letters: IF THERE IS NO EVİDENCE ON THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE COUP ATTEMPT, IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NOT A CASE OF BEING CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF A CRIME. So, it means that all the disposals in respect to detention, arresting and the dismissal decisions are null in legal grounds. At these days in which the rule of law is suspended by the executives, the statements made comfortably will be so important and helpful at the time when the principles of the law come into force again.

Seeing that there is no evidence on attempting to the coup, in that case, why did you carry out so unlawful proceedings in a few hours immediate after the coup attempt? It seems that these proceedings have been being carried out relying on the declaration of President Erdoğan that he made just after the coup attempt which is as follows: “ It is a gift from God, we could manage to do many things by means of the state of emergency which we could not be able to under normal conditions.”


According to the Judges and Prosecutors Code No.2802, the proceedings of the public officials in the extent of this code are matter of urgency. The indictment shall be prepared in 5 days and the conclusion of the case shall not take more than 3 months. However, despite 5 months have passed, the indictments have not been prepared yet. The deputy chairman confessed the reason that there were no evidences, so, to gather evidences, they played a trick and plot something nefarious. Those 200 confessors who believed in the lie of the deputy chairman with respect to that those, who did not disclose any name could not be released, firstly put themselves in a dangerous position. Because, while not being any evidence on their membership in terrorist organization, they became revealed an evidence of themselves even it was very weak. On the other hand, the other arrestees, blamed by the confessor, may easily refuse the accusations directed towards themselves on the grounds that the evidences were obtained against the law. The confessors also may not admit the testimonies taken under the threats. Because, everyone has a right to deny his/her testimony taken under strong pressure in wherever of the world.

Yılmaz said: “ Their confessions are in our knowledge, however, it is important that those statements were confessed by themselves”. As a matter of fact, if the confessors do not confess a concrete crime, those confessions do not matter. Because, Mehmet Yılmaz also confirms that those confessions are so weak due to being taken in a way of trick. Furthermore, if they form an armed terrorist organization with the confessions which is “We read a book, drank tea, supported some determined candidates in HCJP elections, etc”, I can be able to make an elephant out of my hat.

The confessions of Yılmaz also confirms the declaration of violation of International Human Rights organizations. “Mess punishment, the absence of individual case examination or interrogation” are reported in the reports of those organizations. Yılmaz told: “ If we had not experienced a coup in 15 July, we would have had to carry out the disciplinary proceedings of the judges and prosecutors by taking their defence until the autumn”. Hereby, the fact that proceedings of dismissals, which are so important, were conducted without granting the right to defence, has become certainly definite. There could not exist better argument than this confession for the defence of the victims in any platform.


Yılmaz revealed by his confessions important arguments that can possibly be claimed before the European Court of Human Rights. One of the domestic remedies that should be exhausted before the application with the ECHR is lodging an objection with HCJP. On the other hand, the Supreme Board which rejected all the objections of thousands of judges and prosecutors by issuing a single written-statement without individual examination, can not possibly make a decision independently and impartially. Mehmet Yılmaz clearly displayed the impossibility of the realization of the expectations on this issue.

How can a Council (of HCJP), which disregards completely the principle of presumption of innocence which can be summarized shortly as “everyone charged with a criminal offense shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law” and put the intelligence reports on the stead of the court judgement, possibly deliver a justice? Could the judiciary network, managed by the same council, be able to keep its stance in line with the law?

Somehow, all the victims of 15 July are thankful to Mehmet Yılmaz, deputy chairman of HCJP. Fortunately, he is a chairpresident, hadn’t he been, how would such an awful murders of the law have entered in the registers?

Related Links: