MAZLUMDER objects despite its government-changed administration

Sinan Tartanoğlu
 
The Istanbul Branch of the Association for Human Rights and Solidarity for the Oppressed (MAZLUMDER), to which a curator was appointed by court order, whose headquarters were moved to Istanbul and whose administration was changed through an extraordinary general meeting convened in March 2017, has published its State of Emergency Period Rights Violations Report. The report notes, “Through the investigations that were launched after the coup and have in places been turned into a witch-hunt, legal proceedings have been initiated against many people for organisation membership without concrete evidence. The leaking to the media of files of which the suspect is not even aware both subjects the judiciary to pressure and leads to the suspect being convicted in advance in public opinion. This state of affairs is a bad habit that the “Gulenist judiciary” created prior to the state of emergency and is being repeated/not being abandoned in the state of emergency period.” Some notable key points in the report are as follow:
 
- To the extent they have suffered coups, our people have also suffered state of emergency implementations. Following 15 July, the country has virtually been brought to the state of being governed through decrees with the force of law. Under the investigations that were launched after the coup and have in places been turned into a witch-hunt, legal proceedings have been initiated against many people for organisation membership without concrete evidence.
 
Mass punishment
 
- When consideration is given together with their families to people who have been dismissed under decrees with the force of law and administrative acts based on decrees with the force of law, it is clear that a large section of society has been affected by this situation. Dismissals along with additional measures have been turned into a means of mass punishment that also affects families.
 
- It is of great importance that decrees with the force of law which are issued both comply with international human rights principles and are repealed at the end of the state of emergency period. By way of guarantee in this regard, the Constitutional Court must at least have oversight over decrees with the force of law within the remit of fundamental rights and freedoms and annul regulations that cause human rights violations.
 
- Excuses such as workload and the breadth of investigations are unacceptable in cases of detention where fundamental rights and freedoms are restricted. Regarding these and similar problems that emerge in a system in which the state is protected against the people and not the people against the state, solutions premised on the individual must be created.
 
Unlawful
 
- The non-consideration of evidence in a person’s favour to counter ByLock evidence and the deeming of ByLock evidence to be blanket grounds for detention and the ensuing restriction of freedom is contrary to the law and human rights. It is beyond doubt that considering a piece of evidence deemed adverse to be adequate on its own despite the existence of beneficial evidence constitutes a breach of the general principles of the law. Such examples appear to crop up frequently in practice.
 
- The reappearance of claims over torture and ill-treatment in the state of emergency process is worrying.
 
- In certain cases, there is a leaking to the media of files of which the suspect is not even aware, and this both subjects the judiciary to pressure and leads to the suspect being convicted in advance in public opinion. There is a serious question mark over the degree to which a person who has been convicted in the public conscience will receive fair treatment in judicial processes. This state of affairs is a bad habit that the “Gulenist judiciary” created prior to the state of emergency and is being repeated/not being abandoned in the state of emergency period.
 
- Certain trials that were unjustly settled by the 28 February “briefed judiciary” and the “parallel judiciary” have also been upheld by the state of emergency judiciary with recourse to the excuse of the judicial caseload.
 
THREE STRIKING EXAMPLES FROM THE REPORT
 
- A nineteen-year-old university student was detained on the grounds of having used ByLock when he was a sixteen-year-old religious vocational high school student. He was legally a child on the date on which the charge was filed. He was detained without consideration being given to the evidence in his favour. He was released following three months in detention. However, deprived of the opportunity to take exams at university, he suffered the loss of a term.
 
- F.S. gave testified that university faculty member T.K. was a member of the FETO/PDY organisation. This led to T.K. being held in detention for nearly one year and his removal from his post following the non-renewal of his contract. T.K.’s mother lost her life in a traffic accident returning from a prison visit, and T.K. was subsequently released. Meanwhile, F.S., who worked at the same university and had testified that T.K. was a FETO/PDY organisation member, was determined through a document sent to the institution to be a crypto-FETOist, and a probe was launched into him.
 
- Z.K., who was detained on charges of having used ByLock and against whom there was no other evidence, was released on it being determined that ByLock had been loaded onto his phone against his will. However, a decision to discontinue Z.K.’s prosecution has not yet been taken and so, in a sense, the investigation into the case that is devoid of evidence remains ongoing.