AKP defends Kavala to Council of Europe, which imposed sanctions on Turkey: 'He was arrested for espionage'

The AKP government, which has not implemented the rights violation ruling issued by the European Court of Human Rights regarding Osman Kavala, who received an aggravated life sentence in the Gezi Park trial, has defended itself. In the defense sent to the Committee of Ministers, it was claimed that Kavala was arrested due to espionage charges—a claim that has led to criticism that it was "fabricated" to avoid implementing the ECHR ruling. It was argued that the ECHR should have issued an "inadmissibility" decision due to lack of jurisdiction, yet instead issued a sanctions decision against Turkey.

Kavala, who was tried in the Gezi Park case, had been acquitted and ordered released; however, before he could even leave prison, an old file that had previously been dismissed by the prosecutor's office was reopened under the heading of "espionage," and a new arrest warrant was issued. Following this, the appellate court overturned the acquittal in the Gezi Park case, and the panel of judges that issued the initial ruling was disbanded. Tried in a new court, Kavala was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment in the Gezi Park case, and the sentence was upheld. Throughout this entire process, the ECHR ruling—which had found a rights violation and ordered his release and the closure of the file—was not implemented at the stage when Kavala was arrested. For this reason, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers imposed "sanctions" on Turkey.

DEMAND FOR CONCRETE STEPS BY OCTOBER 24

According to a report by Gökçer Tahincioğlu from T24, the Committee of Ministers, which met between September 17-19 regarding the sanctions to be applied to Turkey, requested that Turkey take concrete steps by the meeting to be held on October 24, as there have been no new developments. Meanwhile, Turkey has also responded to 12 previously posed questions.

The following views were defended in the responses prepared by the Ministry of Justice and sent through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“Kavala applied to the ECHR without exhausting domestic legal remedies. A new application has been made to the Constitutional Court (AYM) regarding the file for which the applicant is detained, and this application has not yet been concluded. The applicant's coming to the ECHR before the application before the AYM is concluded is a "reason for inadmissibility due to failure to exhaust legal remedies." The application before the AYM is a new application. The workload of the AYM should be taken into account. The fact that Kavala's file has not yet been concluded before the AYM does not exceed a reasonable time; it is foreseeable and acceptable.”

Turkey argued that the ECHR itself is responsible for the fact that the ECHR ruling has not been implemented to date. It stated that the ECHR's initial violation ruling concerned Kavala's arrest, and that this criminal file has been concluded. It emphasized that before the criminal case was concluded, Kavala was released from the aforementioned file and arrested from a different file, and that the trial regarding this arrest on espionage charges continued later. The response stated, "The reason for the applicant's detention is not the file in the ECHR ruling, but a new file, the espionage charge under Article 328 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Therefore, the ECHR should first have declared it inadmissible due to failure to exhaust legal remedies, and then should not confuse the current file with the findings in its previous 2019 ruling."

'DOES NOT CONTAIN AN ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S GUILT'

Turkey also responded to the issues of disciplinary investigations opened against some members of the court that previously issued the acquittal, and the presence of a judge who was formerly an AKP member on the panel that issued the conviction:

“The disciplinary investigation opened against the judges who issued the acquittal for various reasons did not have a negative impact on the criminal proceedings. Opening a disciplinary investigation does not prevent the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court. There is no concrete evidence that the judge in the 13th High Criminal Court, who is alleged to be politically engaged, lost their impartiality/independence.”

Regarding whether the statements of the government and the President about Kavala had an impact on the trial, Turkey also defended that “Considering the timing, content, and context of the statements made by government officials regarding the applicant, there is no issue that violates the presumption of innocence because it does not contain an assessment regarding the applicant's guilt.”

News Source: 12punto