Council of Europe (CoE) https://wri-irg.org/en en The Council of Europe urges Turkey to recognise conscientious objection https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2020/council-europe-urges-turkey-recognise-conscientious-objection <div data-history-node-id="42132" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <picture> <source srcset="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_desktop/public/2020-06/capture_3.png?itok=S30taEQS 1x" media="screen and (min-width: 992px)" type="image/png"/> <source srcset="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_mobiles_and_tablets/public/2020-06/capture_3.png?itok=dPVCHKS2 1x" type="image/png"/> <img src="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_mobiles_and_tablets/public/2020-06/capture_3.png?itok=dPVCHKS2" alt="council of europe logo" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </picture> <div class="caption"></div> <time > 12 Jun 2020</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has urged Turkey to stop prosecuting conscientious objectors (COs) and take the necessary measures to address the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).</strong> Since 2006, the ECHR has ruled against Turkey multiple times regarding the treatment and status of COs. </p> <p>In its decision on 4th June on the cases of nine COs (Ülke group v. Turkey), the Committee of Ministers addressed the COs’ repeated prosecutions and convictions, saying that they amounted to ‘civil death’, and criticised the lack of a procedure recognising them as conscientious objectors.  </p> <p>War Resisters’ International was among the six organisations who made <a href="https://wri-irg.org/sites/default/files/public_files/2020-06/cm_submission_on_the_implementation_of_ulke_group_of_cases-2_0.pdf">a joint submission to the Committee</a> regarding the issue in April 2020. You can read our report by Conscientious Objection Association Turkey, Connection e.V., European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, Freedom of Belief Initiative in Turkey, and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, as well as WRI,<strong> <a href="https://wri-irg.org/sites/default/files/public_files/2020-06/cm_submission_on_the_implementation_of_ulke_group_of_cases-2_0.pdf">here</a>.  </strong></p> <p><strong>The Committee of Ministers’s decision stated that they regret the lack of progress with legislative amendments in Turkey, despite the government’s commitment to do so. </strong>Turkey has been monitored by the Committee since 2007 following the Ülke v Turkey judgement of the ECHR in 2006, which described conscientious objector Osman Murat Ulke as living under a state of “civil death” and found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. With further judgments since 2011, which were included in the Committee of Ministers’ recent decision, the ECHR also found a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention and obliged Turkey to amend its law to recognise the right to conscientious objection to military service.  </p> <p><strong>Reminding Turkey of the lack of any progress in law, in its recent decision, the Committee of Ministers asked Turkey to submit an action plan with concrete steps addressing the ECHR findings before 21st June  2021. </strong></p> <p>Also, the Committee asked Turkey “to provide statistical information on the number of conscientious objectors in Turkey and on administrative fines, prosecutions and convictions delivered in this connection since the Ülke judgment became final in 2006.” </p> <p><strong>Read the full text of the Committee of Ministers’ decision <a href="https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809e8f6e">here</a>. </strong></p> <h2>Lifetime persecution for COs in Turkey</h2> <p>In Turkey, military service is compulsory and the right to conscientious objection is not recognised. Every healthy citizen assigned as male at birth is called up to the military when they reach the age of 20. Anyone who refuses to perform military service continues to be called up repeatedly and faces multiple prosecutions. COs also find it extremely difficult to find jobs due to directives from the Ministry of Defense directives, which hold employers responsible for their employees’ military status. COs are usually employed informally without social security and pensions payments, and with lower salaries. Their persecution can last a lifetime leading to clandestine lives described as ‘civil death’ by the ECHR.  =</p> <p>The Committee of Ministers’ decision is another reminder of the steps the Turkish government needs to take, to stop the violation of conscientious objectors’ human rights. WRI will continue to monitor the situation of COs in Turkey. </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Attached file</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://wri-irg.org/sites/default/files/public_files/2020-06/cm_submission_on_the_implementation_of_ulke_group_of_cases-2_0.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=312630" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">Report submitted to the Committee of Ministers by NGOs</a></span><span class="file-size">305.3 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/1" hreflang="en">Right to Refuse to Kill</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/465" hreflang="en">Front Page</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/256" hreflang="en">Turkey</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=42132&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="2A0o7ZlMVqPWZ_jjPd39En6JOQkcX1_NjwhE07wEQ3s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:09:52 +0000 cmoy 42132 at https://wri-irg.org New report: Conscientious Objection to military service in Europe 2015 https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2016/new-report-conscientious-objection-military-service-europe-2015 <div data-history-node-id="26073" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 11 Feb 2016</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection's annual report gives an overview of conscientious objection in Europe this year. Read it <strong><a href="/sites/default/files/public_files/ebco%20report%202015.pdf">here.</a></strong></p> <p><em>Foreword by Friedhelm Schneider, EBCO President</em></p> <p>In September 2014 Heiner Bielefeldt, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, speaking at a side event to the Human Rights Council, observed: “Conscientious objection to military service is a specific issue, but not a side issue!”. One year on, in October 2015, the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, for the first time launches its Annual Report “Conscientious objection to military service in Europe 2015” in Geneva, immediately before the Session of the UN Human Rights Committee which will deal with the reports of Greece and the Republic of Korea - two states in which the right of conscientious objection to military service continues flagrantly to be violated.</p> <p>Monitoring the situation of conscientious objectors in Europe during the last year wediscover a sad continuity of problems on three levels:</p> <ol> <li>Conscientious objection to military service has been acknowledged as a human right in the framework of the Council of Europe and the United Nations system of international law. Nevertheless there remain a number of states that notwithstanding having signed the European Convention of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights persistently refuse any non-discriminatory implementation of the right of conscientious objection. In Greece the change of government did not halt the obsessive prosecution of non-religious conscientious objectors far beyond the age of 45 when they are no longer liable for conscription. In Turkey conscientious objectors continue to be exposed to arbitrary repression by military and police authorities. EBCO is deeply disturbed that in the context of a militarized inner state conflict escalation Alper Sapan and Polen Ünlü, members of our Turkish affiliate VR-DER were among those murdered in the Suruç massacre on 20 July 2015 while on their way to carry out relief work in Kobane. This Report is dedicated to their memory</li> <li>Looking at developments in Ukraine and the surrounding region, we note again the tendency to deny the right of conscientious objection to military service, just when it is most relevant – in time of war. Ukraine (and Lithuania) has reintroduced military conscription shortly after suspending it. In Ukraine, only members of certain religious minorities may be recognised as conscientious objectors. Other Ukrainians who do not want to fight against their neighbours or long-time fellow citizens are forced to become draft evaders and/or asylum seekers - draft evasion has become a mass phenomenon.</li> <li>With regard to the areas of armed conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East the topic of conscientious objectors seeking refugee status has become a matter of increased urgency. Satisfying the criteria established by UNHCR regarding claims to refugee status related to military service is a complicated and sophisticated process (see EBCO Annual Report 2014). Meanwhile the tendency of some states to exclude refugee claims by listing safe countries of origin is a matter of grave concern to EBCO. A country declared as safe in most instances for repatriation is not necessarily a country which respects the right of conscientious objection to military service.</li> </ol> <p>The respect of the right of conscientious objection to military service is an important indicator of the credibility of the human rights orientation of a society or a state. It is EBCOs commitment to stimulate this perspective of freedom of conscience and to work for its implementation.</p> <p><strong>Download the report <a href="/sites/default/files/public_files/ebco%20report%202015.pdf">here</a></strong></p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/1" hreflang="en">Right to Refuse to Kill</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/84" hreflang="en">Europe</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/48" hreflang="en">European Union (EU)</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=26073&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="RVxYx3NjpZNuaQ0w_HCTnusBEN4ZIMD9o-woB3I-CM4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:43:45 +0000 HBrock 26073 at https://wri-irg.org A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System https://wri-irg.org/en/COGuide <div data-history-node-id="21821" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <picture> <source srcset="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_desktop/public/2017-06/coverfront-cropped.png?itok=ODOQiH_l 1x" media="screen and (min-width: 992px)" type="image/png"/> <source srcset="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_mobiles_and_tablets/public/2017-06/coverfront-cropped.png?itok=O7CsdHxb 1x" type="image/png"/> <img src="/sites/default/files/public_files/styles/single_page_mobiles_and_tablets/public/2017-06/coverfront-cropped.png?itok=O7CsdHxb" alt="Cover of A Conscientious Objector&#039;s Guide to the International Human Rights System&#039;" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </picture> <div class="caption"></div> <time > 31 May 2013</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><h3>Empowering conscientious objectors to take advantage of human rights mechanisms</h3> <p>WRI hosts '<a href="http://co-guide.org" target="”_blank”">A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System</a>'. This is an update of 'A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the UN Human Rights System', published in 2000, and covers the multitude of developments that have taken place in terms of human rights and conscientious objection since then. The various human rights systems are complicated and can be off-putting. Different mechanisms have their own processes, requirements, and potential outcomes. In addition, it can be difficult to choose which system might be the most effective, or most promising, to use. The main purpose of this Guide is to help individuals and organisations who wish to raise issues and cases about conscientious objection to work out what the possibilities are, how to use them, and the likely advantages and disadvantages of the different procedures. We hope that, in breaking down the steps involved, these mechanisms become more approachable.</p> <p>As well as reading it as a <a href="http://co-guide.org/table-contents" target="”_blank”">book</a>, you can also use the <a href="http://co-guide.org/mechanism-search" target="”_blank”">interactive guide online</a>. We suggest you take a look at the '<a href="http://co-guide.org/how-use-guide" target="”_blank”">How to use this guide</a>' page before commencing your search. We encourage you to take a look at the Guide, and start using it! You'll find it here: <a href="http://co-guide.org">http://co-guide.org</a></p> <p>This guide was produced jointly with the <a href="//www.quno.org/" target="”_blank”">Quaker United Nations Office</a>, <a href="//www.ccprcentre.org/" target="”_blank”">the Centre for Civil and Political Rights</a>, and <a href="//cpti.ws/" target="”_blank”">Conscience and Peace Tax International</a>. It was funded through the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.</p> <p>The compilation of this guide (in 2013) was due primarily to former WRI staff member Andreas Speck, and we are very grateful to him. Our thanks also go to <a href="//www.netuxo.co.uk/" target="”_blank”">Netuxo</a>, whose web development skills have made this guide so accessible, and Carlos Barranco, who has translated the guide into Spanish.</p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/1" hreflang="en">Right to Refuse to Kill</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/programmes/office" hreflang="en">From the office</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/64" hreflang="en">International Law</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/272" hreflang="en">United Nations</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/52" hreflang="en">UN Human Rights Council</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/49" hreflang="en">UN Human Rights Committee</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/55" hreflang="en">African Union (AU)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=21821&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="gR0_Jcai5Z10nX1uSbOGJ5wirL-bNjpjhRlGQLKpuxI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Fri, 31 May 2013 21:39:49 +0000 HBrock 21821 at https://wri-irg.org Armenia: Venice Commission says draft amendments to alternative service law insufficient https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2012/armenia-venice-commission-says-draft-amendments-alternative-service-law-insufficient <div data-history-node-id="14669" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 02 Mar 2012</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's "European Commission for Democracy through Law" was asked by the Armenian government to comment on its draft law to amend the Alternative Service Law of the country.</p> <p>The European Commission for Democracy through Law, better known as the Venice Commission, is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters.</p> <p>Regarding Armenia's law on conscientious objection, the Venice Commission noted that the "<em>amendments and additions to the Law, if adopted, will be a step in the right direction and can, to some extent, enhance the Law’s conformity with international standards relating to conscientious objection to military service. However, the Venice Commission deemed it necessary to draw the attention of the authorities to the fact that further clarifications and modifications of the other provisions of the Law in force will still be needed before the Law on Alternative Service can be said to be fully in line with international standards.</em>"<br /> And: "<em>It became apparent during the meetings held on 15-16 November 2011 in Yerevan, that the amendments had been drafted long before the Grand Chamber Judgment in the case of <a href="/node/13271">Bayatyan v. Armenia</a> of 7 July 2011 (Application n° 3459/03), and that further amendments must be made to address specifically the implications of the judgment.</em>"</p> <p>The Venice Commission expressed its concern that the draft law does not recognise the right to conscientious objection sufficiently, and recommends to amend it to comply with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission also states that "<em>alternative labour service</em>" lasts 42 months, compared to 24 months of military service, which "<em>appears to be too long</em>".</p> <p>The Venice Commission is also concerned about the composition of the so-called "Republican Commission", whose task it is to determine applications for conscientious objection. This "Republican Commission" is not defined in the law, and the Venice Commission also stressed that it needs to be "<em>under the control of civilian authorities</em>".</p> <p>In addition, there were concerns about the conditions of substitute service, which is not clearly under civilian control. The Venice Commission also demanded that conscripts have a right to conscientious objection and any time - before, during, and after military service - and complained about the lack of a provision for serving conscripts to claim conscientious objector status (while conscientious objectors serving their substitute service can apply to be reassigned to military service).</p> <p>An important critical remark has to be made on the opinion of the Venice Commission. The Commission consistently confuses the right to conscientious objection with the duty to perform substitute service. This is also a fundamental flaw in the Armenian Alternative Service Law, which is not addressed by the Venice Commission. According to the Armenian law, an application is for "alternative labour service", but not for recognition as conscientious objector.</p> <p>The Venice Commission also fails to understand that issuing conscientious objectors with a military certificate/military booklet might not be consistent with their conscientious objection. Or how else can its recommendation be understood that "<em>the military booklet state that its holder had been exempted from performing military service, but that no explicit mention be made of the reason for which this exemption had been granted</em>".</p> <p><em>Sources</em>: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission): <a href="http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-REF%282011%29050-e.pdf">DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE LAW ON ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA</a>, 14 September 2011; European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission): <a href="http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29051-e.pdf">OPINION ON THE DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE LAW ON ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF ARMENIA</a>, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 89th Plenary Session (Venice, 16-17 December 2011)</p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/1" hreflang="en">Right to Refuse to Kill</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/148" hreflang="en">Armenia</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/64" hreflang="en">International Law</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=14669&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="riXgMc1b7KRPcDDFIr2-PVRz7EOsmZ8uowzss7DaEXw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:36:27 +0000 warresisters 14669 at https://wri-irg.org Turkey: Increased pressure on conscientious objection https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2010/turkey-increased-pressure-conscientious-objection <div data-history-node-id="9888" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 09 Apr 2010</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Turkey has recently increased the pressure on conscientious objectors. As reported in a <a href="/node/9860">co-alert on 1 April</a>, conscientious objector <a href="/node/9478">Enver Aydemir</a> has been sentenced to ten months imprisonment on 30 March, on charges of desertion. Although he was released from prison after the trial, as he had spent sufficient time in pre-trial detention, he is now back at Eskisehir military prison, according to a report in <a href="http://ww.bianet.org/english/human-rights/121096-conscientious-objector-in-jail-his-supporters-on-trial">Bianet</a>. This is the beginning of a vicious cycle of sentence for disobedience, imprisonment, return to 'his' military unit, a new order which will be disobeyed, and reimprisonment.</p> <p>The harsh sentence of conscientious objector <a href="/node/9478">Enver Aydemir</a> is in line with other recent developments in Turkey, which make the situation of declared and undeclared conscientious objectors worse.</p> <p>While in July 2008, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of conscientious objector <a href="/node/638">Osman Murat Ülke</a>, the Turkish Ministry of Judge passed a new regulation which said that draft evaders should no longer be recorded in the information system of the police, and so would not fear arrest at frequent police checkpoints, this now seems to have been reversed. This means conscientious objectors, who are legally either considered as draft evaders or deserters, are under threat of being arrested during any police check of identity - as happened to <a href="/node/9478">Enver Aydemir</a> when he got arrested on 24 December 2009.</p> <p>In its judgement in the case of Turkish conscientious objector <a href="/node/638">Osman Murat Ülke</a> from January 2006, the European Court of Human Rights said that "<em>the numerous criminal prosecutions against the applicant, the cumulative effects of the criminal convictions which resulted from them and the constant alternation between prosecutions and terms of imprisonment, together with the possibility that he would be liable to prosecution for the rest of his life, had been disproportionate to the aim of ensuring that he did his military service. They were more calculated to repressing the applicant’s intellectual personality, inspiring in him feelings of fear, anguish and vulnerability capable of humiliating and debasing him and breaking his resistance and will. The clandestine life amounting almost to “civil death” which the applicant had been compelled to adopt was incompatible with the punishment regime of a democratic society.</em>" It consequently ruled that "<em>the acts concerned constituted degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3</em>" (see <a href="/node/806">CO-Update No 17</a>, February 2006).</p> <p>Not only does Turkey seem to go down the same route again in the case of <a href="/node/9478">Enver Aydemir</a>, it also seems that after some relaxation period, conscientious objectors might again face "civil death" in their every day lives, even without being arrested.</p> <p><em>Sources</em>: Hurriyet Daily News: <a href="http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=conscientious-objector-sent-to-military-2010-03-31">Turkish conscientious objector sent back to military</a>, 31 March 2010; Bianet.org: <a href="http://ww.bianet.org/english/human-rights/121096-conscientious-objector-in-jail-his-supporters-on-trial">Conscientious Objector in Jail, his Supporters on Trial</a>, 5 April 2010; European Bureau for Conscientious Objection: <a href="http://www.ebco-beoc.eu/pdf/index/200811/RRK_Autumn_2008.pdf">The Right to Refuse to Kill, autumn 2008</a></p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/programmes/support-turkish-conscientious-objectors" hreflang="en">Support Turkish conscientious objectors</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/256" hreflang="en">Turkey</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/387" hreflang="en">European Court of Human Rights</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=9888&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="0qawFNAa-JSXJ5DVAaMnp9v1LcOEXuNe_WjQ5hQjWuQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:09:51 +0000 warresisters 9888 at https://wri-irg.org European Committee of Social Rights condemns long substitute services https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2008/european-committee-social-rights-condemns-long-substitute-services <div data-history-node-id="1349" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 01 Mar 2008</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p></p><p>The European Committee of Social Rights has repeatedly dealt with the issue of the length of substitute service - especially in the cases of Greece and Finland. In recent years, it has taken up the issue on its own in several conclusions on country reports. We publish the relevant parts below (thanks go to the European Buereau for Conscientious Objection):</p> <p></p><h3>Estonia</h3> <p></p><p>"<i>The Committee previously noted that legislation provided for alternative service to compulsory military service, but sought further clarification on the length of such alternative service. In December 2004 the length of alternative service was reduced to between 12 months (minimum) and 18 months (maximum) and is (according to other sources1) currently set at 16 months duration. Military service lasts between eight months (minimum) and 11 months (maximum).</i></p> <p></p><p><i>The Committee recalls that under Article 1§ 2 the duration of alternative service may not exceed one and half times the length of military service. The Committee notes that according to the information available to it alternative service may amount to double the length of military service. The situation is therefore not in conformity with the Revised Charter on this point.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>(<a href="http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Estonia2006_en.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Estonia2006_en.pdf</a>)</p> <p></p><h3>Finland</h3> <p></p><p>"<i>Under the Military Service Act the length of military service is either 180, 270 or 362 days. According to the report the majority of conscripts perform at least 270 days (52.3 %) and 47.7 % perform 180 days. The duration of unarmed military service is 330 days and alternative civilian service 395 days.</i></p> <p></p><p><i>The Committee has previously found that the situation is not in conformity with the Revised Charter on the grounds that the length of alternative service was more than double the length of compulsory service performed by the majority of conscripts (at that time 64,2 % of conscripts performed 180 days of military service. Although the situation has altered slightly during the reference period ,(see above), the Committee notes that it has only altered slightly and that the length of civilian service remains more that double the minimum period of military service which is under taken by almost half of all conscripts.</i></p> <p></p><p><i>Therefore the Committee maintains that the length of alternative civilian service remains a disproportionate restriction on a worker’s right to earn a living in an occupation freely entered upon.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>(<a href="http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Finland2006_en.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Finland2006_en.pdf</a>)</p> <p></p><p>It has to be noted that since this conclusion has been published, Finland reduced the length of substitute service, but not sufficiently. The service has been shorted to 11 month from 1 January 2008 on.</p> <p></p><h3>Greece</h3> <p></p><p>"<i>Since the case of Quaker Council of European Affairs v. Greece Complaint No. 8/2000 decision on the merits 25 April 2001 Greece has been found to be in breach of Article 1§ 2 on the grounds that the length of service alternative to military service is excessive. The legal regulations governing alternative military service have been amended over the years, although in its previous conclusion the Committee noted that the length of alternative service was still excessive in that it usually represented more than double the length of compulsory military service.</i></p> <p></p><p><i>New legislation on this issue has again been introduced during the reference period; those who serve alternative civilian service instead of the average military service (or unarmed military service) are now liable to serve 23 months, instead of 30 months as was set previously (those who serve reduced armed service of nine months are now liable for 17 months instead of 25; those who serve reduced armed service of six months are now liable for 11 months instead of 20 and those who serve reduced armed service of five months are now liable for 3 months instead of 15). The length of full-armed military service is set at twelve months.</i></p> <p></p><p><i>The Committee notes that the new legislation provide for a significant reduction in the length of alternative service; however it recalls that under Article 1§ 2 the duration of alternative service may not exceed one and half times the length of military service and consequently the situation in Greece can not be considered as being in conformity with Article 1§ 2 of the Charter.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>(<a href="http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/GreeceXVIII1_en.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/GreeceXVIII1_en.pdf</a>)</p> <p></p><h3>Moldova</h3> <p></p><p>"<i>According to the report the length of alternative service is 24 months, while the length of military service is 12 months.</i></p> <p></p><p><i>The Committee recalls that under Article 1§ 2 the duration of alternative service may not exceed one and a half times the length of military service. The Committee therefore finds that the situation is not in conformity with Article 1§ 2 of the Revised Charter.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>(<a href="http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Moldova2006_en.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/esc/3_reporting_procedure/2_recent_conclusions/1_by_state/Moldova2006_en.pdf</a>)</p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/96" hreflang="en">Moldova</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/122" hreflang="en">Greece</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/155" hreflang="en">Finland</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/244" hreflang="en">Estonia</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=1349&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="DAm8F0VTA7RL5k_UIEjAM6GwOypBBpFevWVA-Y0eRWc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000 warresisters 1349 at https://wri-irg.org Council of Europe increases pressure on Turkey https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2007/council-europe-increases-pressure-turkey <div data-history-node-id="1273" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 01 Nov 2007</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p></p><h3>A solution for Osman Murat Ülke and other conscientious objectors?</h3> <p></p><p>The Council of Europe has increased its pressure on Turkey in the case of conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke. Osman Murat Ülke declared his conscientious objection and burned his call-up papers on 1 September 1995 in Izmir. He was arrested more than a year later - on 7 October 1996 - on charges of Article 155, "<i>alienating the people from the military</i>". Once in the hands of the military, he also was transferred to his military unit, where he refused to obey any orders, and was repeatedly charged with "disobedience", leading to what the European Court of Human Rights later called a "<i>constant alternation between prosecution and terms of imprisonment</i>", which lasted until his release 2 1/2 years later, still officially obliged to perform military service, and thus destined to live a clandestine life.</p> <p></p><p>On 24 January 2006, the ECHR ruled that his treatment amounted to "civil death" and a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sentencing Turkey to pay compensation. However, while Osman received the compensation, the situation did not change. In June 2007, he received a new arrest warrant for the remainder of a sentence dating back to 1999. Turkey is thus defying the European Court of Human Rights.</p> <p></p><p>On 17 October 2007, the <a href="http://www.coe.int/T/CM/home_en.asp">Committee of Ministers</a> of the Council of Europe passed a resolution "<i>emphasizing in this regard that the Convention and the judgments of the Court have direct applicability in Turkish legal order by virtue of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution</i>". The Committee noted "<i>with concern that, following the government's declaration, the applicant was summonsed on 09/07/2007 to present himself in order to serve his outstanding sentence resulting from a previous conviction and that his request for a stay of execution of his sentence was rejected by the Eskişehir Military Court on the ground that the said declaration before the Committee of Ministers could not lead to a stay of execution of the applicant's sentence because the content of the law under preparation – including whether or not it contained provisions that would apply for or against the applicant's case – was unknown</i>".</p> <p></p><p>The Committee regrets "<i>that, despite Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, the applicant is now facing a real risk of being imprisoned on the basis of a previous conviction;</i></p> <p></p><p><i>Stress[es] the necessity to take urgent individual measures in this case;</i></p> <p></p><p><i>URGES therefore the Turkish authorities to take without further delay all necessary measures to put an end to the violation of the applicant's rights under the Convention and to adopt rapidly the legislative reform necessary to prevent similar violations of the Convention;</i></p> <p></p><p><i>INVITES in particular the Turkish authorities rapidly to provide the Committee with information concerning the adoption of the measures required by the judgment;</i></p> <p></p><p><i>DECIDES to examine the implementation of the present judgment at each human rights meeting until the necessary urgent measures are adopted.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>The European Commission (of the European Union) writes in its 2007 progress report on Turkey: "<i>Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers awaits information on the measures envisaged by Turkey in order to bring the legal framework governing the situation of those who refuse to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds into conformity with the requirements of the ECHR.</i>"</p> <p></p><p>Meanwhile, War Resisters' International has been made aware by representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses that at least two Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors are presently in prison in Turkey. Çaglar Buldu is presently in the military prison of Afyon. From 28 April 2005 to 13 July 2006 he spent 15 month in prison. He was arrested again on 24 September 2007, and will probably be imprisoned in Afyon until 20 November. He is then likely to be transferred to a civilian prison to serve a remaining sentence of 43 days. Unfortunately WRI does not have an address for him.</p> <p></p><p>Baris Görmez was arrested on 22 October, when he reported to the recruitment office. He is presently under arrest at the Istanbul Maslak City Gendarme Commandership, and it is expected that he will soon be transferred to his unit in Antalya. It is presently not know how long he will be in prison.</p> <p></p><p><i>Sources:</i> <a href="https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/ResDH%282007%29109&amp;Language=lanEnglish&amp;Site=CM&amp;BackColorInternet=9999CC&amp;BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&amp;BackColorLogged=FFAC75">Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)1091</a>, Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights</p> <p></p><p>Ülke against Turkey, 17 October 2007; European Commission: SEC(2007) 1436, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/turkey_progress_reports_en.pdf">TURKEY 2007 PROGRESS REPORT</a>, 6 November 2007, Email, Jehovah's Witness representative to CPTI</p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Programmes &amp; Projects</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/programmes/support-turkish-conscientious-objectors" hreflang="en">Support Turkish conscientious objectors</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=1273&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="KpHHBarre696p-_Vddw8zufM9keJBoZkIyexvhIuVXE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0000 warresisters 1273 at https://wri-irg.org Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights - Ülke against Turkey https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2007/execution-judgment-european-court-human-rights-ulke-against-turkey <div data-history-node-id="14259" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 17 Oct 2007</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)109</p> <p>Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights<br /> Ülke against Turkey</p> <p>(Application No. 39437/98, judgment of 24 January 2006, final on 24 April 2006)</p> <p>The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);</p> <p>Having regard to the judgment in the case of Ülke transmitted by the Court to the Committee for supervision of its execution once it became final on 24 April 2006;</p> <p>Considering that, in its judgment, the Court found that the applicant’s repeated convictions and imprisonment for having refused to perform compulsory military service on account of his beliefs as a pacifist and conscientious objector amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention;</p> <p>Considering further that the Court found that the existing legislative framework was insufficient, as there was no specific provision in Turkish law governing the sanctions for those who refused to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds and that the only relevant applicable rules appeared to be the provisions of the Military Criminal Code, which made any refusal to obey the orders of a superior an offence;</p> <p>Stressing the obligation of every state, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the judgments of the Court, including through the adoption of individual measures putting an end to the violations found and removing as far as possible their effects for the applicant, as well as general measures not least to prevent similar violations;</p> <p>Noting that, at the 997th meeting of the Committee of Ministers (June 2007), the Turkish authorities declared that a draft law had been prepared aiming to prevent new violations of Article 3 similar to that found in the present case, and that this draft would be transmitted to the Prime Minister’s Office for submission to Parliament following the opinions received from the relevant ministers;</p> <p>Noting further the Turkish authorities’ declaration that this law, once adopted, would prevent repetitive prosecutions and convictions of those who refuse to perform military service for conscientious or religious reasons, on grounds of “persistent disobedience” of military orders and that it was also intended to cover the necessary individual measures to be taken in this case.</p> <p>Noting with concern that, following the government’s declaration, the applicant was summonsed on 09/07/2007 to present himself in order to serve his outstanding sentence resulting from a previous conviction and that his request for a stay of execution of his sentence was rejected by the Eskişehir Military Court on the ground that the said declaration before the Committee of Ministers could not lead to a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence because the content of the law under preparation – including whether or not it contained provisions that would apply for or against the applicant’s case – was unknown;</p> <p>Emphasising in this regard that the Convention and the judgments of the Court have direct applicability in Turkish legal order by virtue of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution;</p> <p>Regretting that, despite Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, the applicant is now facing a real risk of being imprisoned on the basis of a previous conviction;</p> <p>Stressing the necessity to take urgent individual measures in this case;</p> <p> URGES therefore the Turkish authorities to take without further delay all necessary measures to put an end to the violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention and to adopt rapidly the legislative reform necessary to prevent similar violations of the Convention;</p> <p> INVITES in particular the Turkish authorities rapidly to provide the Committee with information concerning the adoption of the measures required by the judgment;</p> <p> DECIDES to examine the implementation of the present judgment at each human rights meeting until the necessary urgent measures are adopted. </p> <p>1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. </p> <p><a href="https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/ResDH%282007%29109&amp;Language=lanEnglish&amp;Site=CM&amp;BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&amp;BackColorIntranet=FDC864&amp;BackColorLogged=FDC864">https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/ResDH%282007%29109&amp;Language=lanE…</a></p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/256" hreflang="en">Turkey</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/387" hreflang="en">European Court of Human Rights</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=14259&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="O88fSoLLSvsBGGXicbiV8ioXPQoojyMB34BotzuL5_E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0000 warresisters 14259 at https://wri-irg.org Greece: Service in place of military service https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2006/greece-service-place-military-service <div data-history-node-id="6470" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 31 Dec 2006</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>European Committee of Social Rights:<br /> Conclusions XVIII-1 (Greece)<br /> Articles 1, 12, 13, 16 and 19 of the Charter</p> <p>(...)</p> <h4>Service in place of military service</h4> <p>Since the case of Quaker Council of European Affairs v. Greece Complaint No. 8/2000 decision on the merits 25 April 2001 Greece has been found to be in breach of Article 1§2 on the grounds that the length of service alternative to military service is excessive. The legal regulations governing alternative military service have been amended over the years, although in its previous conclusion the Committee noted that the length of alternative service was still excessive in that it usually represented more than double the length of compulsory military service.</p> <p>New legislation on this issue has again been introduced during the reference period; those who serve alternative civilian service instead of the average military service (or unarmed military service) are now liable to serve 23 months, instead of 30 months as was set previously (those who serve reduced armed service of nine months are now liable for 17 months instead of 25; those who serve reduced armed service of six months are now liable for 11 months instead of 20 and those who serve reduced armed service of five months are now liable for 3 months instead of 15). The length of full-armed military service is set at twelve months.</p> <p>The Committee notes that the new legislation provide for a significant reduction in the length of alternative service; however it recalls that under Article 1§2 the duration of alternative service may not exceed one and half times the length of military service and consequently the situation in Greece can not be considered as being in conformity with Article 1§2 of the Charter.</p> <p>(...)</p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/GreeceXVIII1_en.pdf">http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Gr…</a></p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/122" hreflang="en">Greece</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=6470&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="esePbWn1KiRGjKKJTgumKVJgCT6T2EwujkaYxdi0n34"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0000 warresisters 6470 at https://wri-irg.org Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 19 June 2003 in the case of Hulki Güneş against Turkey https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2005/interim-resolution-resdh2005113-concerning-judgment-european-court-human-rights-19-june <div data-history-node-id="14261" class="node node--type-story node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <time > 30 Nov 2005</time> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 November 2005<br /> at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)</p> <p>The Committee of Ministers, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 19 June 2003 in the Hulki Güneş v. Turkey case (application no. 28490/95) transmitted on 19 September 2003 to the Committee for supervision of execution in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”);</p> <p>Recalling that, in that judgment, the Court found violations of the applicants’ right, under the Convention, to a fair trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, on account of:</p> <p>- the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6 § 1);</p> <p>- the impossibility for the applicant to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against him (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d));</p> <p>Noting that, as a result the unfair proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to death, a sentence which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment;</p> <p>Recalling that the Court also found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody (violation of Article 3);</p> <p>Stressing the obligation of every state, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the judgments of the Court, including through the adoption of individual measures putting an end to the violations found and removing as far as possible their effects for the applicant;</p> <p>Considering that, in addition to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, the adoption of individual measures is necessary in view of the specific circumstances of the present case, notably the extent of the violations found, the serious doubts they cast on the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue and the gravity of the sentence imposed on the applicant;</p> <p>Regretting that, more than two years after the finding of the violations in this case, no measures have been taken by the Turkish authorities, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, to grant the applicant adequate redress for the violations found;</p> <p>Considering that the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings remains the best means of ensuring restitutio in integrum in this case;</p> <p>Regretting that the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable the criminal proceedings to be reopened in the present case, inasmuch as the Code only provides for the reopening of proceedings in respect of European Court judgments which became final before 4 February 2003 or judgments rendered in applications lodged with the Court after 4 February 2003;</p> <p>Noting with disappointment that the Turkish authorities have so far not responded to the Committee’s repeated calls to correct this lacuna in Turkish law;</p> <p>Recalling, with regard to the other aspects of the execution of the judgment in this case, that the Turkish authorities have already taken comprehensive general measures in order to prevent new similar violations of the right to a fair trial and are presently implementing a comprehensive set of measures aimed at preventing ill-treatment by members of the security forces (Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43);</p> <p>Recalling in particular the recently amended Article 90 of the Constitution enabling direct effect to be given in Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention and case-law of the Court;</p> <p>CALLS ON the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to abide by their obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to redress the violations found in respect of the applicant through the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings or other appropriate ad hoc measures;</p> <p>DECIDES to continue to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgment in this case at each of its “Human Rights” meetings until full compliance is secured.</p> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Countries</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/256" hreflang="en">Turkey</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Theme</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">Conscientious objection</a></span> </div> <div class="field--label tags--label field-label-above">Institutions</div> <div class="wri-main--tags"> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/387" hreflang="en">European Court of Human Rights</a></span> <span class="rel-tag" > <a href="/en/taxonomy/term/53" hreflang="en">Council of Europe (CoE)</a></span> </div> <section class="comments"> <h2>Add new comment</h2> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderForm" arguments="0=node&amp;1=14261&amp;2=comment&amp;3=comment" token="j5p7Ez_FZIqgnUqE-tyPLcfAM1bgXPWWgvsbFa0Ln2M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </section> </div> Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0000 warresisters 14261 at https://wri-irg.org