06.11.2007 - Source: European Commission

Judicial system ("Turkey 2007 Progress Report [SEC(2007) 1436]") [ID 22258]

"Some progress has been made in terms of the efficiency of the judiciary, including through amendments to the Turkish Criminal Code (CC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) adopted in December 2006. These amendments extend the discretion of the prosecutor as regards decisions not to prosecute, while the provisions regarding mediation are simplified. Judicial supervision - introduced in the CPC as an alternative to arrest for offences requiring imprisonment of three years or less - has started functioning satisfactorily. Probation is an EN 10 EN area where progress has been achieved in implementation: 133 probation centres employing 1,298 staff have become fully operational since November 2006.

[...] However, concerns remain as regards the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of the election of the new president in April, the Constitutional Court ruled by a majority of seven to four that a quorum of two thirds (367 deputies) is necessary for the first and second rounds of presidential elections in Parliament, and annulled the first round of voting. This decision led to strong political reactions and allegations that the Constitutional Court had not been impartial when reaching this decision. In the event, and as regards the election of the President of the Republic by Parliament, the Court introduced a one-third blocking minority.

[...] Overall, there has been some progress as regards the efficiency of the judiciary through implementation of adopted legislation and continued use of IT. However, tensions in the relations between the government and the judiciary have not been conducive to the smooth and effective functioning of the system. More needs to be done in terms of strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Finally, there is no overall National Reform Strategy for the Judiciary or a plan to implement it (See also chapter 23 - Judiciary & fundamental rights)."

Document(s): Open document

06.11.2007 - Source: European Commission

Judiciary - impartiality, professionalism, efficiency ("Turkey 2007 Progress Report [SEC(2007) 1436]") [ID 22487]

"Concerns remain as regards impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of the election of the new president in April, the Constitutional Court ruled by a majority of seven to four that a quorum of two thirds (367 deputies) is necessary for the first and second rounds of presidential elections in Parliament, and annulled the first round of voting. This decision led to strong political reactions and allegations that the Constitutional Court had not been impartial when reaching this decision. In the event, and as regards the election of the President of the Republic by Parliament, the Court introduced a one-third blocking minority.

In relation to the professionalism and competence of the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and the Justice Academy have organised training on a wide range of issues for judges, prosecutors and court staff. The training covered, among other things, the new Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, freedom of expression, courts of appeal, court management, internet crimes and juvenile justice. However, the Justice Academy has still not developed into a strong and independent training provider for the entire magistracy, including at regional level.

In terms of the efficiency of the judiciary, judges have reported positive results of the National Judicial Network Project (UYAP) on court proceedings. With the integration of a lawyers' portal into the network in March, lawyers are now in a position to follow their on-going court cases electronically, file new lawsuits, send documents related with their cases to the courts and deposit trial fees and charges. In May the Ministry of Justice signed two protocols with the Telecommunications Institution and the Union of Notaries for sharing of information."

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2006 - Source: European Commission

Independence of the judiciary ("Turkey 2006 Progress Report") [ID 19022]

"With regard to the independence of the judiciary, various provisions of the Turkish Constitution and of domestic law guarantee this principle. However, a number of factors are perceived as undermining it. Judges and public prosecutors are attached to the Ministry of Justice as far as their administrative functions are concerned. The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the supreme governing body of the judiciary, does not have its own secretariat, separate premises and budget. The judicial inspectors, who are responsible for evaluating the performance of judges and prosecutors, are attached to the Ministry rather than to the High Council. The Minister and the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice are two of the seven members of the Council with voting rights. The remaining five are appointed among judges of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State. This composition does not seem to be representative of the judiciary as a whole and, together with the other issues listed above, may create the potential for the executive to influence decisions relating to the careers of judges in Turkey, provided that the executive is present.

Questions were raised on the independence of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors in the aftermath of the publication in March 2006 of the indictment on the ªemdlinli bombing [...], which included accusations against the Land Forces Commander and other high-ranking military commanders. The General Staff criticised the indictment in a press statement and urged those bearing constitutional responsibility to take action. In April the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors reviewed charges against the prosecutor and applied the highest disciplinary sanction, i.e. dismissal from office. The final review by the High Council on this matter is scheduled for November."

Document(s): Open document

24.02.2006 - Source: Frankfurter Rundschau

According to report, judges accept confessions despite torture; politically persecuted persons cannot expect fair trial ("Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Türkei weiter gefährdet") [#44945],  [ID 13286]

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

Court System in Turkey ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13287]

for more detailed information seek out original document page 210

"The Court System
According to the Turkish law today, the power of the judiciary is exercised by Judicial (Criminal), and Administrative Military Courts. These Courts render their verdicts in the first instance, and the superior courts examine the verdict for the last and final ruling. The superior courts are: the Constitutional Court, The Court of Appeals, the Council of State, the Military Tribunal of Appeals, the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the Court of Jurisdictional Dispute, the Court of Accounts and the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors. [19]

Courts
The courts in Turkey are in fact divided into courts of justice, administrative courts, military courts and Constitutional court. Except the Constitutional Court, they are further divided into lower and higher courts. [19]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

Juridical System ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13288]

"5.33
As recorded in ‘Political Structure of Turkey’:

“Judicial power in Turkey is exercised by independent courts and supreme judiciary organs. The judicial section of the Constitution, with the principle of a legal state as its basis, is founded on the independence of the courts and the judges, and the guarantee of judges’ rights. Judges rule on the basis of Constitutional provisions, law and jurisprudence. The legislative and executive organs must comply with the rulings of the courts and may not change or delay the application of these rulings. Judges also assume the duties of monitoring elections. Functionally, a tripartite judicial system has been adopted by the Constitution and accordingly, it has been divided into an administrative judiciary, a legal judiciary and a special judiciary. The Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Council of State, the Supreme Military Court of Appeals, the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts are the supreme courts mentioned in the judicial section of the Constitution. The Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors and the Supreme Council of Public Accounts are also two organizations having special functions in the judicial section of the Constitution.” [36i] (Section on Judiciary)

5.34
The EC 2005 report stated that:

“The judicial system has been further strengthened via the adoption of structural reforms. Important progress was made with the entry into force on 1 June 2005 of the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Law on Enforcement of Sentences and the Law on the Establishment of the regional Courts of Appeal. The entry into force of the Penal Code (as well as the other laws mentioned above), adopted in December 2004, was postponed until 1 June 2005 due to concerns about the provisions concerning both organised crime and freedom of expression… The adoption of a new Code of Criminal Procedure represents a major step forward. It introduces the concept of cross examination of witnesses during trials, which did not previously exist in the Turkish legal system. The Code establishes the concept of plea bargaining. In order to reduce the number of unmeritorious prosecutions, the Code increases the discretion of prosecutors, who are now able to assess the strength of the evidence before preparing an indictment. Moreover, judges are given the power to return incomplete indictments. Under the new Code, criminal investigations must be carried out by a judicial police force under the authority of the public prosecutor. The Chief Public Prosecutor will be responsible for preparing annual evaluation reports on the judicial police under his command. The Code introduces the requirement that certain trials are to be recorded on audio and video tape. Judges and prosecutors throughout Turkey have received training on the Code. However, implementation of the powers to discontinue unmeritorious cases and the operation of the judicial police will need to be assessed.” [71e] (p15)

5.35
The EC 2005 report further noted that:

“Judges and prosecutors have a considerable role to play in the implementation of reforms. Courts have in general continued to apply the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The courts are reported to have referred to the Convention in 224 judgments since 2004. In general, however, it is difficult to discern a clear positive pattern, as provisions of Turkish law and even articles of the ECHR are not interpreted consistently… It is of crucial importance that sustained efforts continue with respect to training judges, prosecutors and lawyers and where necessary, that they are reminded by the responsible authorities about their duties and obligations to respect the relevant provisions stemming from International and European conventions in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as required under Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution.” [71e] (p17)

5.36
The USSD 2004 outlined that:

“The Government carried out extensive legal reforms during the year aimed at meeting the requirements for European Union (EU) membership. In September [2004], Parliament adopted a new Penal Code and, in May [2004] approved a package of constitutional amendments. Elements of the new Penal Code included: Sentences for torture convictions were increased; ‘honour killings’ – the killing by immediate family members of women suspected of being unchaste – were defined as aggravated homicides; the statutes of limitations for all crimes were lengthened; and actions aimed at preventing free religious expression were defined as a crime punishable by 1 to 3 years’ in prison.” [5c] (Introduction)

5.37
The Freedom House report ‘Countries at the Crossroads 2005 – Turkey’, published in December 2004 noted that:

“Turkey’s judicial system is characterized by the opposing pulls of, on the one hand, the enlightened reforms passed since 2001 and, on the other, the more traditional attitudes of the court system and especially the judges. While the reforms have increased judicial independence, seriously curbed the role of the military in the justice system, and fundamentally revised the penal code, the judges, prosecutors, and Ministry of Justice continue to be dominated by pre-reform ideas about defending national integrity, governmental institutions, and Turkish identity. Thus, as in other areas, implementation is the major stumbling block, although not the only one.” [62c] (p9)

5.38
As noted in the European Commission report 2004:

“Since 1999, some important improvements have been made to the Turkish judicial system. The State Security Courts have been abolished and replaced by Regional Serious Felony Courts (also referred to as Heavy Penal Courts). New specialised courts have been set up in order to improve the efficiency of the judicial system. Legal amendments have improved the rights of defence. A Justice Academy has been established and training on international law and human rights for judges and prosecutors has been intensified.” [71c] (p23-p24)

5.39
The EC report 2004 continued:

“The package of constitutional amendments adopted in May 2004 also revised Article 90 of the Constitution, enshrining the principle of the supremacy of international and European treaties ratified by Turkey over domestic legislation. Where there is conflict between international agreements concerning human rights and national legislation, the Turkish courts will have to apply the international agreements.” [71c] (p24)

5.40
The EC 2005 report noted that:

“The principle of the independence of the judiciary is enshrined in the Turkish constitution but is undermined by several other constitutional provisions. The Constitution provides that judges and prosecutors are attached to the Ministry of Justice in so far as their administrative functions are concerned. The Minister of Justice and the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice are members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, which is responsible for the appointment, promotion, transfer, discipline and, broadly speaking, the careers of all judges and prosecutors. Furthermore, the High Council does not have its own secretariat and budget and its premises are inside the Ministry of Justice building. The judicial inspectors, who are responsible for regularly assessing the performance of all judges and prosecutors, are attached to the Ministry of Justice rather than to the High Council. Turkey should ensure the independence of the judiciary, in particular as regards the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and the appointment of new judges and prosecutors. In the light of the impending recruitment of some 4,000 additional judges and prosecutors, the senior judiciary in Turkey have expressed concern that the influence of the Ministry of Justice in the appointment procedure may undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a close relationship between judges and prosecutors; the public prosecutor’s office is not clearly separated from the judge’s, which could create the impression that the prosecutor is able to exert undue influence. A clear institutional and functional separation of the professional rights and duties of judges and prosecutors needs to be established.” [71e] (p16)

5.41
The USSD 2004 reported that “The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary was sometimes subject to outside influences. There were allegations of judicial corruption.” [5c] (Section 1e)

5.42
The USSD 2004 continued:

“The Constitution prohibits the Government from issuing orders or recommendations concerning the exercise of judicial power; however, the Government and the National Security Council (NSC), an advisory body to the Government composed of civilian government leaders and senior military officers, periodically issued announcements or directives about threats to the State, which could be interpreted as general directions to the judiciary.” [5c] (Section 1e)

(See also section 5 on National Security Council (MGK) or (NSC)

5.43
The Freedom House report ‘Countries at the Crossroads 2005 – Turkey’, noted that:

“The Turkish constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but the court system is not in fact entirely separate from the executive. The executive plays a strong role in judicial training, appointment, promotion, and financing. Training of judges is inadequate, and because there is no proper review of cases, many of those that end up in the courts result in acquittal due to lack of merit. Public prosecutors in Turkey have a status very close to that of judges, both functionally and symbolically, thus placing the defense in an inferior position. Prosecutors are sometimes pressured by the Ministry of Justice to pursue cases without merit, and the government issues circulars instructing public prosecutors on how to interpret certain laws.” [62c] (p12)

5.44
The EC 2005 report noted that:

“The new Code of Criminal Procedure provides that defendants and witnesses who cannot speak the Turkish language are to be provided with an interpreter free of charge. However, concerns have been expressed that as there are currently no interpreters trained in legal interpretation between Turkish and other languages used in Turkey, there may be difficulties in ensuring adequate standards of accuracy. Measures should be adopted to address this problem.” [71e] (p17)

5.45
The USSD 2004 also stated that “The legal system did not discriminate in law or in practice against ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities. However, legal proceedings were conducted solely in Turkish, with interpreting available sometimes, which seriously disadvantaged some defendants whose native language was not Turkish.” [5c] (Section 1e)

5.46
The EC 2005 report recorded:

“So far as duration of trials before the Criminal courts is concerned, the average criminal trial period in 2004 was 210 days, while the average duration of civil proceedings was 177 days. The backlog of cases before the Criminal courts was slightly reduced in 2004; 1 070 133 criminal cases were carried over from 2003 to 2004, while 1 056 754 criminal cases were carried over from 2004 to 2005. The backlog of cases before the Civil courts also decreased slightly; 671 915 cases were carried over from 2004 to 2005, compared to 679 501 cases carried over from 2003 to 2004. The new Code of Criminal Procedure grants prosecutors greater discretion to discontinue unmeritorious cases and enables judges to return indictments which are not based on sufficient evidence. These powers should increase the speed with which cases are tried by the courts, as they will enable clearly weak cases to be dropped at an early stage. Moreover, the system of plea bargaining has been introduced by the new Code of Criminal Procedure.” [71e] (p105)

5.47
As noted by the Turkish Daily News on 2 June 2005:

“According to an article included in the law that outlines the implementation process of the new TCK [the new Turkish penal code which came into force on 1 June 2005], all cases waiting at the Supreme Court of Appeals will be inspected as to whether the new TCK will benefit the individuals involved and if it does, the cases will be returned to the local courts. According to this article, 150,000 of the 175,000 cases at the Supreme Court of Appeals will be returned to local courts. These cases, in addition to the normal workload, are expected to swamp local courts.” [23ab]

5.48
The EC 2005 report recorded that:

“So far as computerisation is concerned, progress on the National Judicial Network Project which started in 1998 continued and it is now operational in a number of courts and prisons. This Project enables many tasks currently performed on paper, such as filing court proceedings, to be performed electronically. A database including decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Council of State has been created and added to the network. Judicial records can now be accessed through the network by judges and prosecutors. In addition, most courts and prosecutors’ offices in Turkey have been connected with each other online.” [71e] (p105)"

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Contineous human rights violations; response of administration and government on reports about torture und misstreatment still inconvenient; limitation of the right of expression by constituion and the new penal law ("Memorandum on AI's recommendations to the government to address human rights violations") [#38256],  [ID 13289]

"5. PROBLEMS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Unfortunately, even where trials are initiated against individual members of the security forces accused of perpetrating serious human rights violations, courts appear to be reluctant to proceed swiftly and to punish defendants with appropriate sanctions if they are found guilty or otherwise are dropped on technical grounds. Amnesty International therefore urges that the following recurring problems in connection with such judicial proceedings be urgently addressed.
· Statute of limitations The new TPC has, through its introduction of heavier penalties for the crimes of torture, further extended the statute of limitations in such crimes. However, Amnesty International takes little courage from this development given the excessive delays in trials opened as a result of such crimes and the dropping of a large proportion of cases because they have reached the statute of limitations. In some circumstances it appears that the lawyers of the defendants have attempted to delay legal proceedings as long as possible in a frequently successful gambit designed to ensure that charges against their clients are dropped through the case reaching the statute of limitations. Given this situation, Amnesty International draws attention to the fact that the status of torture as a peremptory norm of general international law suggests that there should be no statute of limitations for the crime of torture. Amnesty International urges the government to address this issue in law immediately.

· Delays in judicial proceedings Amnesty International further draws attention to the recommendation of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture after his visit to Turkey that “…prosecutors and judiciary should speed up the trials and appeals of public officials indicted for torture and ill-treatment”. While Law No 4963 (the so-called “seventh harmonization package”) which came into effect in 7 August 2003 introduced an additional article to the previous CPC that stipulated that trials opened as a result of torture or ill-treatment cannot be postponed more than 30 days and should be heard during judicial holidays, no such provision has been carried over into the new CPC. The organization notes the possibility of serious delays in trials related to torture and ill treatment11. The organization considers that there is a need to expedite trials by introducing regulatory time frames for the provision of evidence – such as medical reports from the Forensic Institute – by improving the mechanisms for ensuring more thorough pre-trial preparation of cases by the relevant authorities and by introducing the practice of conducting trial hearings on consecutive days until a verdict is reached, or at least at much closer intervals than is the current practice.

· Use of medical reports in trials and the role of the Forensic Medical Institute Some trials of torturers – such as that before Iskenderun Heavy Penal Court in which four police officers were accused of the torture of Nazime Ceren Salmano
lu and Fatma Denis Polatta in 1999 – have highlighted problems in the use of independent medical reports as corroboration and drawn attention to fundamental problems in the structure of the Forensic Medical Institute, which is responsible for providing reports that are used in the Turkish domestic courts.12 Amnesty International considers that these shortcomings need to be addressed immediately by the government. In line with the recommendation of the CPT in relation to the role of medical reports in proving whether or not torture has taken place, Amnesty International would urge that court decisions as to whether or not torture took place should also not be based on (possibly deficient) medical reports but should “look beyond the medical reports drawn up during police/gendarmerie custody and to take evidence from all persons concerned and arrange in good time for on-site inspections and/or specialist medical examinations”.
Amnesty International is concerned at the lack of independence of the Forensic Medical Institute and considers that this body must be made independent both functionally and nominally of the Justice Ministry. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has drawn attention to this fact, stating that: “…the forensic medical services should be under judicial or other independent authority, not under the same governmental authority as the police and the penitentiary system”.13 At the moment this is not the case. Amnesty International is additionally concerned by the staffing of the Forensic Medical Institute. For example, Dr Nur Birgen, the individual who was appointed to head the Third Specialization Committee of the Forensic Medical Institute, which is the committee responsible for medical assessments in cases where torture is alleged, is an individual who has received several disciplinary sanctions from the Turkish Medical Association - one of which was for issuing a medical report which covered up signs of torture. This key appointment does not promote confidence in the government’s professed commitment to demonstrate “zero tolerance to torture”.
Amnesty International is additionally concerned at the apparent reluctance of courts to accept as evidence medical and psychiatric reports from sources other than the Forensic Medical Institute. In some circumstances, this has led to long and unnecessary delays as courts wait for the confirmation from the Forensic Medical Institute for corroboration of independent, expert reports. Given the issues cited above, related to the Institute’s nonindependent status as well as its apparently low capacity, the government should certainly be taking urgent steps to promote the acceptance as evidence by courts of medical and psychiatric reports from high quality university research and teaching hospitals, and where necessary, other accredited organizations. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has stated that: “Public forensic medical services should not have a monopoly of expert forensic evidence for judicial purposes.” The CPT has – crucially – recommended that specific legal provisions should be adopted which would ensure that “a person taken into police custody has the right to be examined, if he so wishes, by a doctor of his own choice, in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities”.

· Sentencing Amnesty International is also concerned that even when police officers accused of illtreatment have been convicted by a court, punishments have not always been commensurate with the gravity of the crime. Relatively nominal penalties, which have often been further reduced, have been imposed on police officers whose victims suffered serious injury. Reasons for these reductions in sentences have included the "good conduct" of the defendant in court. Only very rarely do police officers, who are convicted of human rights abuses, receive custodial sentences. If unlawful acts of police violence against detainees are to be deterred, the seriousness of such acts must be reflected in both the criminal and disciplinary measures taken against the offending police officers. The government has previously taken steps to address this concern by introducing a regulation which stipulates that sentences handed down for crimes of torture and ill-treatment may not be converted to a fine or suspended. While this measure was not completely successful in addressing this problem, it is concerning to see that this does not appear to have been carried over into the new CPC. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has previously underscored the importance of appropriate sentencing, stating: “Sentences should be commensurate with the gravity of the crime."

· Reparations Finally, Amnesty International would like to draw attention to Article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture under which victims of torture and their dependants are entitled to fair and adequate redress from the state. This should include appropriate medical and psychological care, financial compensation and rehabilitation. Amnesty International would be glad to receive information as to what provisions the government has introduced to meet this responsibility."

Document(s): Open document

18.05.2005 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Lack of fully independency of judiciary ("Zur aktuellen Situation - Mai 2005 ") [#32420],  [ID 13290]

"Das türkische Justizsystem operiert nach wie vor nicht vollständig unabhängig von der Politik und gilt als nicht frei von Korruption. Im Berichtszeitraum sind im Justizsystem zahlreiche Änderungen zu verzeichnen gewesen. Insbesondere wurden die Staatssicherheitsgerichte abgeschafft. Einige ihrer Zuständigkeiten wurden den neu geschaffenen regionalen Gerichten, den so genannten «speziellen Landgerichten» übertragen. Diese wenden die gleichen Regeln an wie andere Gerichte für schwere Straftaten, abgesehen davon, dass bei ihnen der zulässige Zeitraum zwischen Verhaftung und Anklage bei 48 statt 24 Stunden liegt. Strafverdächtige geniessen sonst dieselben Rechte, insbesondere auch das Recht auf einen Anwalt unmittelbar nach der Verhaftung. Die neu geschaffenen Gerichte sind für Vergehen, welche unter das Anti-Terror-Gesetz und das Gesetz zur Bekämpfung illegaler Vereinigungen fallen, zuständig. Im Falle von Kriegsrecht würden sie die Aufgabe von Militärgerichten übernehmen. Deshalb wird kritisiert, dass die neuen regionalen Gerichte mit den gleichen Staatsanwälten und Richtern nichts anderes seien, als die alten Staatssicherheitsgerichte.

Die Einführung der neuen Strafprozessordnung wurde, wie jene des neuen Strafgesetzbuches, auf Juni 2005 verschoben. Die neue Strafprozessordnung sieht vor, dass die Polizeihaft 24 Stunden nicht überschreiten darf, dass das Maximum der Untersuchungshaft zwei Jahre beträgt und dass bei der Wiederaufnahme von Verfahren andere Richter mit dem Fall betraut werden.

Die Gerichte haben nur langsam und inkonsequent mit der Umsetzung der Reformen begonnen. Zwar gibt es zahlreiche Beispiele von Urteilen, wo Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) als Referenz herangezogen wurden. Dennoch werden besonders bei Fällen, welche die Meinungsfreiheit betreffen, die Artikel 312 (Aufstachelung zu rassistischem, ethnischem oder religiösem Hass), 159 (Verunglimpfung des Staates und staatlicher Institutionen) und 169 (Unterstützung und Begünstigung terroristischer Organisationen) des Türkischen Strafgesetzbuch (TStGB), sowie Artikel 7 des Anti-Terror-Gesetzes (Propaganda in Verbindung mit [terroristischen] Organisationen, die zum Rückgriff auf terroristische Methoden ermuntern) besonders breit ausgelegt. Hinzu kommt die allgemein sehr lange Dauer der Gerichtsverfahren. Richter sind teilweise auch überfordert mit der Flut von Gesetzesänderungen. Die Fristen zwischen Erlass und Inkrafttreten der Gesetze reichen für das notwendige Studium der neuen Regulierungen durch die Mitarbeitenden im Justizsystem nicht aus.

Im Hinblick auf die Vollstreckung von Urteilen des EGMR sind Fortschritte zu verzeichnen gewesen. Allerdings werden noch nicht sämtliche Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs umgesetzt."

Document(s): Open document

12.05.2005 - Source: BBC News

Trial of Kurdish leader 'unfair' ("Trial of Kurdish leader 'unfair'") [#31928],  [ID 13291]

"Ocalan was convicted of treason in 1999. He was blamed for 30,000 deaths in a 15-year war between his PKK group and Turkish security forces. ...

The applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal," the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said in a statement.
The judges ruled that the presence of a military judge on the panel meant that the Turkish court's judgement could not have been fair.
They did not directly call for a retrial but said retrying or reopening Ocalan's case would be "an appropriate way of redressing the violation"."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Changes in Judicial System: special courts designed to try crimes against the State to be closed ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13292]

"The judicial system is composed of general law courts; specialized heavy penal courts; military courts; the Constitutional Court, the nation's highest court; and three other high courts. The High Court of Appeals (Yargitay) hears appeals for criminal cases; the Council of State (Danistay) hears appeals of administrative cases or cases between government entities, and the Audit Court (Sayistay) audits state institutions. Most cases were prosecuted in the general law courts, which include civil, administrative, and criminal courts. During the year, Parliament adopted legislation providing for the establishment of regional appeals courts to relieve the Yargitay caseload and allow the judiciary to operate more efficiently.

In June, Parliament adopted legislation closing the SSCs, special courts designed to try crimes against the State. The courts had been widely criticized for proprosecution bias, and the ECHR had overturned many SSC convictions over the years on the grounds that the defendants had been denied a fair trial. However, the legislation established new, specialized heavy penal courts to take most of the former SSC caseload. Since the new courts have special powers similar to those of the SSCs, a number of attorneys and human rights activists asserted that the legislation amounted to little more than a name change.

The Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of laws, decrees, and parliamentary procedural rules and heard cases involving the prohibition of political parties. If impeached, ministers and prime ministers could be tried in the Constitutional Court. However, the Court could not consider "decrees with the force of law" issued under a state of emergency, martial law, in time of war, or in other situations as authorized by Parliament. Military courts, with their own appeals system, heard cases involving military law for members of the armed forces."

Document(s): Open document