Fast-tracking of the Cumhuriyet staff’s case sought from the ECHR

KEMAL GÖKTAŞ
 
A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to fast-track Cumhuriyet’s application in accordance with the provisions of the revised Rules of Court has been sought in a fresh submission made to the ECHR on behalf of Cumhuriyet’s detained columnists and managers.
In the application made on behalf of our columnists and managers by lawyer Fikret İlkiz, stress was laid on the most recent ruling of Istanbul Serious Crime Court No 27 over the applicants’ detention status. It was stressed in the submission, with the reminder that the court has set the date of 24 July for the first hearing, that applications for release made to the court ‘have ceased to be an effective penal law procedure.’ It was stated that the passing of a release order had been sought in the submission made to Serious Crime Court No 27 prior to the scheduling order, but the court did not pass decision on this submission. It was explained that the court ruled in its scheduling order that detention status continue on the grounds of ‘the existence of concrete evidence against the defendants pointing to strong suspicion of guilt and the probability that the evidence to be gathered would strengthen this suspicion.’ It was emphasised in the submission that this decision, which is ‘founded on probabilities and assumptions but is against the law,’ was in violation of ECHR rulings and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the application, in which it was stated that the submission of 25 April 2017 consisting of 51 pages including the applicants’ health reports had also been rejected by the court, reference was made to the court’s ruling that it ‘did not accept the sickness report obtained in the prison concerning Turhan Günay’s heart complaint, and for him to be sent to the Forensic Medicine Institution with the request for a report as to whether remaining under prison conditions poses a threat to his life.’ It was said in the application, in which it is stated that the court did not accept Güray Öz, Hakan Kara and Önder Çelik’s reports, either, ‘with regard to the date,’ that, ‘The court, having demonstrated with this decision that the applicants cannot be released unless there is a “threat to life,” has once more violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Delays at the Constitutional Court
In the application, in which it was stated that the Constitutional Court had not yet examined the applications that had been made, it was said, ‘An excuse such as the workload or large number of files before the Constitutional Court is unacceptable. The kind of attitude that the Ministry of Justice’s delay in replying must be greeted with understanding in political terms cannot be countenanced from any legal standpoint. Even state of emergency law deems violations of a person’s fundamental rights and freedoms to be unlawful. There can be no excuse for acting in breach of the law.’
In the submission, in which it was stated that the Ministry of Justice requested documents from the police and Istanbul Press Prosecution before sending its letter of opinion to the Constitutional Court, emphasis was given to the pronouncement in the reply emanating from the prosecution that, ‘As there is a confidentiality order over the investigation file, the evidence constituting the basis for the charge against the defendant was not sent.’ It is noted in the submission that for this reason the prosecution did not send evidence ‘warranting detention,’ if any, to the Ministry of Justice, thereby prolonging the prosecution. A ruling to fast-track the application was sought in the submission on these grounds.