Results to pre-defined questions

From B-Ob8ungen
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Looking at judgements of the ECHR on Turkey certain patterns emerge. For instance, the ban on headscarves was never seen as a violation to the right of religion (Article 9), just like the ban of certain political parties was not considered to violate Article 9. Therefore, individuals from Turkey stopped to complain about a violation of Article 9 and it would be useless to look for judgement against a violation of Article 9.

In January 2012 I deactivated the extension Dynamic Page List, since it posed a security risk. In October 2012 further developments told me that the security risk no longer exists. Therefore I included it again. You can also use Special:MultiCategorySearch instead, if you want to include or exclude specific categories.

Length of detention

There are, however a great number of judgements that found that either the time in custody (police or gendarmerie) was excessively long or the time spent in pre-trial detention was not in conformity with Article 5(3) of the European Convention (on HR). If you want to get an idea on what periods of detention the ECHR found as excessively long, you may want to look at the press releases on the following judgements (from 2008). See below or go to pages listed alphabetically on Art. 5(3) <DPL> category=Art. 5(3) mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>

Length of trial

Some of these judgement also found a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention since the proceedings lasted too long. The cases in which both Articles (5-3 and 6-1) were concerned can be found below or on the page Special:MultiCategorySearch by including Art. 5(3) and Art. 6(1) <DPL> category=Art. 5(3)&Art. 6(1) mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>

No medical report equal to "no torture"

Just like the government and the courts in Turkey the ECHR rules that if someone was not able to obtain a medical report certifying visible traces of torture, s/he was not tortured. For a detailed argument against this attitude see the authors study of Turkey related judgments of the ECHR (July 2007). For a list of all press releases on judgements related to Turkey in which the ECHR rule against a violation of Article 3 see the the cases in category "not Art. 3". <DPL> category=not Art. 3 mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>

Statements extracted under torture

Even though in the past (and present) many people have alleged that they were tortured into a confession and that their confession was used as evidence against them the ECHR found an easy way out by declaring such trials unfair (in violation of Article 6(1)) because a military judge had been sitting on the bench.

The military judges (and prosecutor) were removed from the State Security Courts in 1999. The successors (special heavy penal courts), too, have no military judges. Therefore, the ECHR had to deal with other aspects of unfair trial and since 2004 there have been a few cases in which the Court ruled on a violation of Article 3 and Article 6(1). The cases in which both Articles 3 and 6-1 were concerned are listed below or can be found on Special:MultiCategorySearch by including the categories "Art. 3" and "Art. 6(1)". Here is a list created with DPL. <DPL> category=Art. 3&Art. 6(1) mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>

Exiled trade unionists

There is a long tradition in Turkey to appoint civil servants that have not acted according to the rules to remote places. Some of them (e.g. teachers as members of the union Egitim-Sen) have complained about a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association). In order to see whether these complaints were successful we might want to look at successful cases or unsuccessful cases

Successful cases

<DPL> category=Art. 11 mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>

Unsuccessful cases

<DPL> category=not Art. 11 mode=unordered resultsheader=number of items = %PAGES% </DPL>