TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): In terms of this classification, I mean, problem, yes, you are right that in academia, I mean, you deal with classifications, after all, right?
GR2 (Government): You have somehow data, especially in social sciences.
GR2 (Government): You cannot talk about absolute and unquestionable facts.
GR2 (Government): You collect some data.
GR2 (Government): And on the basis of that data and literature, you come up with certain classifications.
GR2 (Government): This is, I mean, true in almost every religious, I mean, traditions.
GR2 (Government): Think about Christianity, the general structure of Christianity, you classify, I mean, groups like Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, and some others.
GR2 (Government): But sometimes you may describe a group or a person as Catholic, but he may not, I mean, accept this description.
GR2 (Government): And for instance, under Catholicism, you have some, I mean, we call them orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits.
GR2 (Government): So we do classify, I mean, things, but those classifications are not unchallengeable.
GR2 (Government): I think I have exceeded my time.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So this concludes the government's observations.
GR1 (Government): So I will say a few words on law number 677.
GR1 (Government): Okay, please.
GR1 (Government): As regards to law number 677, the law number 677 entered into force in 1925.
GR1 (Government): According to all dervish lodges, zaviye and tombs in our country were closed down.
GR1 (Government): Dervish lodges and zaviye had certain social, cultural, and religious functions in the Ottoman society.
GR1 (Government): But with the establishment of the new republic, the political authorities decided to abolish these institutions.
GR1 (Government): That's why new republic adopted this law.
GR1 (Government): As I have mentioned in the course of my reading, the law number 677 is actually not applied in our country.
GR1 (Government): This law is among the revolution laws listed in Article 174 of the Turkish Constitution.
GR1 (Government): The revolution laws cannot be legally challenged according to the Constitution.
GR1 (Government): There is a current discussion on the process of drafting a new constitution in Turkey.
GR1 (Government): If a new constitution is drafted, it is possible to amend relevant provisions of the constitution.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So I understand that you will give some additional elements as to the answers to the questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would like to insist that this will not be an additional round of written observations.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): You will have two weeks to, as you requested, to give additional information concerning the questions that have been asked this morning.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So it will not be an additional round of written observations.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Of course, it will be communicated to the other party, and the other party will also have the possibility to respond to these additional elements concerning the questions that have been posed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): We agree on that.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So I give now the floor to Maître Sofuoğlu.
AP1 (Applicant): Oh, sorry I should be speaking Turkish. Sorry.
AP1 (Applicant): Sayın Başkan, değerli üyeler, biz de aynı 14 günlük bir süreye sahip olacağız sanıyorum yazılı cevap vermek için.
AP1 (Applicant): Ben şunu söylemek istiyorum, burada iki çok önemli akademisyen var. Zaten bir tanesi sizlere hitap etti. Birazdan yeniden hitap edecek bu sorulara cevap vermek için.
AP1 (Applicant): Tabii ki yazılı olarak da biz de iki hafta içinde cevaplarımızı belirteceğiz. Ama Iştar Hanım'ı tanıdınız. Çok güzel açıklamalar yapacak, cevaplar verecek.
AP1 (Applicant): Yalnız solumda oturan beyefendiyi size tanıtmak istiyorum. Kendisi Profesör Doktor İzzettin Doğan'dır.
AP1 (Applicant): Öncelikle bir Alevi dedesidir. Yani Alevilerin inanç önderidir. Bu çok önemlidir bizim için. Ama aynı zamanda uluslararası hukuk profesörüdür. Yıllarca da bu görevde bulunmuştur.
AP1 (Applicant): Kendisi de size hükümetin uygulamaları konusunda sorulan sorulara cevaplar verecek. Benim konuşmam bu kadar efendim. Buyurun Iştar Hanım.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honourable Judges, there has been a question about the compatibility of
AP2 (Applicant): the principle of laicite with the situation in Turkey. Indeed, since 1937, there has always
AP2 (Applicant): been a specific article in the constitution indicating that Turkey is a secular, actually a laic state. However, there are no definite definitions for concepts like laicite or secularity.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no 2x2x4 clarity for these concepts. These are products of political and social
AP2 (Applicant): culture. Thus, there happens to be a nuance for all the applications all over the world.
AP2 (Applicant): France is different than the US, or Germany is different than the UK.
AP2 (Applicant): In the Turkish case, as it has been mentioned over and over, since there is no cleric in Islam, religious services are considered to be public services to be provided by the state.
AP2 (Applicant): In this context, there is no problem in terms of laicite. However, the problem is there
AP2 (Applicant): is no space for the Alevi faith in the application of this kind of laicite and public service in Turkey.
AP3 (Applicant): Sayın Başkan, çok değerli yargıçlar hepinizi saygıyla selamlıyorum.
AP3 (Applicant): Ben sorulmuş olan sorulara çok özet bir biçimde tahsis ettiğiniz süre zarfında cevap vermeye çalışacağım.
AP3 (Applicant): İki önemli konunun burada sorgulandığını görüyorum.
AP3 (Applicant): Özellikle hükümete sorulan sorularda ve bizlere yöneltilen sorularda.
AP3 (Applicant): Birincisi Aleviliğin tanımı, farklı tanımları ve bunun uygulamada ne anlam taşıdığı ve Türkiye'nin hukuk düzeninde ne tür bir reperküssiyonu olduğu.
AP3 (Applicant): İkincisi ise çok değerli yargıç Işıl Karakaşam Efendi'nin eşitlik ile nötraliteyi nasıl bağdaştırıyorsunuz eğer din hizmetleri, bir servis biblik ise, bir kamu hizmetleri ise.
AP3 (Applicant): Aleviliğin tanımından eğer başlayacak olursak ilginç bir biçimde İslam'ı çeşitli bölgelerde yaşayan kayyumlar farklı yorumlara tabi tutmuşlardır.
AP3 (Applicant): Kur'an-ı Kerim'in yeryüzüne Hz. Muhammed'e tebliğ edilmesinin kabul edildiği tarihten bu yana özellikle Arap kayyumları, Kur'an'ın dili de Türkçe olduğu için,
AP3 (Applicant): Arap'ın Arapça yollandığı için daha çok Arap halklarının, Arap kayyumlarının o günkü sosyal anlayışlarına uygun olarak bir yoruma kavuşturulmuştur ve bu yorumun ismi Sünniliktir.
AP3 (Applicant): Acem kayyumları ise yani daha farklı bir coğrafyada burada yayıldıktan sonra, Şiilik adı altında gelişmiş olan ve bugün de halen devam etmekte olan, özeti itibariyle de Hz. Muhammed ve onun soyundan gelen insanların Kur'an yorumlarını kabul eden bir anlayışı ortaya çıkartmıştır.
AP3 (Applicant): Şiilik ise Orta Asya'daki göçebe Türk kayyumlarının daha çok yaptıkları, onların da yine Şianın izlediği yolda olduğu gibi Hz. Muhammed ve onun soyundan gelen 12 imamların,
AP3 (Applicant): Şiilik geleneklerine, Türk törelerine, örflerine uygun olarak onunla meclis ederek ortaya çıkardıkları ve göçler yoluyla Anadolu'ya gelip, ta Tuna boylarına kadar sonradan Osmanlı Devleti'nin kuruluşuyla birlikte serpilen bir inanç sistemini ifade ediyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu dönemde, Osmanlı dönemi dahil Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin kuruluşundan itibaren de Alevilik bu isim altında yaşamaya devam etmiştir ve önemli sayabileceğim, en azından benlerinizin bir üniversite, bir akademisyen olarak sayabileceğim çok önemli farklar oluşturmaktadır Şiilik ile Sünnilik arasında.
AP3 (Applicant): Bildiğin Kur'an anlayışında Tanrı ve insan arasındaki ikilik yoktur.
AP3 (Applicant): Çünkü Kur'an-ı Kerim'in bir ayetinde Tanrı seni kendi özümden yarattım diyor insana.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu ayette her insanda Tanrısal bir öz bulunur ve bu özü sebebiyle de insana kötülük yapılamaz, insana işkence yapılamaz, insana her müstebit hükümdarın uygulayabileceği cebir ve şiddet eylemleri kişiler söz konusu olduğunda kişiler tarafından uygulanamaz.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu ibadetle Hümanist İslam'ın hem Anadolu'da hem Orta Asya'da geldiği bölgelerde uygulandığı İslam anlayışına Alevilik deniyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama bu anlayışın özellikle 1950'lerden sonra Plüralist sisteme geçtikten sonra çoğuncu demokrasiye geçtikten sonra oylarla iktidar tayin edildiği için Sünnilik çoğunlukta olduğu için Türkiye'de Sünni İslam'ın iktidara gelmesini sağlamak isteyen siyasi partiler sürekli olarak Sünniliği işlemişlerdir.
AP3 (Applicant): Camilerin sayısını arttırmışlardır, din hizmetlerinde bulunanların sayısını artmışlardır, onlara tahsis edilen bütçeleri büyütmüşlerdir.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama Alevilik hep yok kabul edilmiştir ve Alevilere hiçbir tahsisat verilmemiştir.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu anlayışın ifadeyle herkes her şey vardır Türkiye'de bir tek Aleviler dediğimiz kitle hukuk planında yoktur hiçbir hukuk metninde Alevi kelimesini bulamazsınız.
AP3 (Applicant): 677 sayılı kanun diye biraz önce sayın hükümet temsilcinin bahsettiği kanun aslında doğru ifade edilmedi üzülerek söyleyeyim Cem evlerini o kanun kapsamında almıyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Yasaklanan dervişhaneler dediği sayın temsilcinin ve diğer dini kurumlarının hiçbirisinin Cem evi olmakla ilgisi yoktur.
AP3 (Applicant): Yani Kazakistan'da Şahmet Yesevi'nin ki Aleviliğin önemli teologlarından birisidir.
AP3 (Applicant): Onun kendisinin hala türbesi mevcuttur ve aynı zamanda Cem ev olarak kullanılmıştır bin küsur sene önce.
AP3 (Applicant): Ve o gelenek Anadolu'ya göçler yoluyla gelmiştir ve hala Anadolu'da 800 yıl önce 900 yıl önce yapılan ve şu anda ayakta bulunan Cem evleri mevcuttur.
AP3 (Applicant): Ve devam etmiştir. Bu itibarla bu hüküm kapsamında mecburen anayasada mevcut olan bir hüküm sebebiyle devrim kanunlarının yargılanamadığı ve karşı çıkılamadığı düşüncesi doğru bir düşünce değildir.
AP3 (Applicant): Hükümetlerin kendi yanlışlarını, hukuka aykırı tutumlarını özellikle Avrupa uygarlığının bugün 2. Dünya Savaşı'ndan sonra tüm insanlığa hediye ettiği Avrupa değerleri dediğimiz o değerlerin kapsamı dışında kendisini saydırabilmek için sığındığı bir gerekçedir.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama gerçekle ilgisi yoktur. Bu itibarla Alevi yurttaşların 1924'ten bu yana çektiklerini ifade etmek için ve hükümetin yanlış uygulamalarının geldiği noktaları bu diskrimasyonu arkadaşlarım çok güzel belirttiler.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama müsaade ederseniz ben de iki kelime ile iki cümle ile bunu sizlere dikkat ederek sunmak istiyorum.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je crois qu'on doit tout doucement conclure.
AP3 (Applicant): Dans deux minutes, M. le Président,
AP3 (Applicant): si vous permettez.
AP3 (Applicant): 180 bir personelden söz edildi.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu 180 bir personel içerisinde yani sünni İslam'ı ayakta tutmak ve geliştirmek için.
AP3 (Applicant): 600'e yakın İmam Hatip okulunun mevcudiyeti ve bu okullarda yetiştirilen din hizmetleri sünni İslam'ı ayakta tutmak ve topluma egemen kılmak için yapılmaktadır.
AP3 (Applicant): 120 bine yakın cami inşa edilmiştir.
AP3 (Applicant): 10 milyar doların üzerindedir.
AP3 (Applicant): Sayın Başkanımız burada 2 milyar dolar olarak bugün söyledi sizlere ifade etti.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama doğrudan ve dolaylı olarak sünni İslam'a ayrılan paraların miktarı 10 milyar doların üzerindedir.
AP3 (Applicant): Her yıl bunun içerisinde bir tek kuruşu dahi alivilere gitmez.
AP3 (Applicant): Bunun emplikasyonları ne olmuştur?
AP3 (Applicant): Bakın bugün sizleri dinleyen Avrupa'nın birçok ülkesinden gelen insanlarımız var ve bunların hepsinin bendenize ifade ettiği ortak düşünce şudur.
AP3 (Applicant): Alevilik Avrupa'da kendi çocuklarımıza öğretemiyoruz.
AP3 (Applicant): Neden?
AP3 (Applicant): Çünkü bu alevi İslam anlayışını Avrupa'da öğretebilecek olan kişi insan bulunamıyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Onun için de zaman zaman Türkiye'den yollanan ve Cem Vakfı'nın gayretleriyle yollanan insanlar aracılığıyla bu ihtiyaç giderilmeye çalışılıyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Ama Avrupa'da milyonlarca alevinin bulunduğunu düşünürseniz demek ki kendi inançlarını çocuklarına aktarabilme şanslarına sahip değildir ve bu konuda 600'e yakın imam akip okuluna karşılık bir tek bir tek alevi dedelerinin ya da bekçileşik babalarını yetiştirecek bir okul yoktur ve bunlar hakikaten Türkiye'ye yakışmayan bir diskriminasyon örneğini ve maalesef uygulamasını ifade ediyor.
AP3 (Applicant): Bu konuda da saygılarımı sunarım dinlediğin için teşekkür ederim.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur la recevabilité et le fond.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les parties seront informées de la date du prononcé et l'audience est levée.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Murtazaliyeva versus Russia.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the Court on 16 September 2005 under Article 34 of the Convention by Russian national Mrs. Zara Kazanovna Murtazaliyeva.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court, pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 9 May 2017, a chamber of the Third Section delivered a judgment in which it declared the application admissible regarding the applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and inadmissible as to remainder.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It found that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3d as regards the absence of a witness, A., and as regards the absence of two attesting witnesses.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It also found that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3b concerning the alleged ineffective examination of a videotape at the applicant's trial.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 9 August 2017, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 18 September 2017.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The governments are represented by their agent, Mr. Galperin, the representative of the Russian
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Mrs. Borisova and Mrs. Ocheretyanaya, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Koroteev, counsel.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome the national magistrates participating in a program of the European Judicial Training Network.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Koroteev for the applicant will speak first, and then Mr. Galperin for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mr. Koroteev.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, judges of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): this case concerns a conviction of the applicant on two counts of terrorist offenses in what we say was an unfair trial.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was not able to question a key witness, police officer Said Akhmaev, who, as the facts of this case suggest, played a central role in the undercover police operation against the applicant, which eventually resulted in the applicant's arrest and alleged installation of explosive devices in her bag following the arrest.
AP1 (Applicant): The court has not put any specific questions for this hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, I will deal with the question as to whether there has been a violation of Article VI, Paragraph 3D, because of the applicant's inability to confront Mr. Akhmaev at the trial.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Akhmaev was referred to as Witness A
AP1 (Applicant): in the Chambu judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): I will firstly argue that the court's case law regards Mr. Akhmaev both as a defense
AP1 (Applicant): and as a prosecution witness.
AP1 (Applicant): Then I will elaborate on the applicable convention test and demonstrate that the applicant provided convincing reasons for calling Akhmaev to testify at the trial.
AP1 (Applicant): I will further argue that there were no good reasons to justify his absence, and the national courts failed to take any steps to ensure his attendance.
AP1 (Applicant): In turn, the applicant was not offered such counterbalancing measures that could compensate Mr. Akhmaev's non-attendance.
AP1 (Applicant): In particular, she was unable to question the attesting witnesses of the search in her bag and to effectively review videotapes of her conversations with her flatmates.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, I start with the issue
AP1 (Applicant): regarding the nature of Witness Akhmaev.
AP1 (Applicant): At the pretrial stage of criminal proceedings against the applicant, Mr. Akhmaev admitted
AP1 (Applicant): that as a police officer acting under instructions of his superiors, he had taken initiative in conducting the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): He assisted the applicant when she was detained by the police in late 2003 on unknown grounds.
AP1 (Applicant): He provided the applicant with accommodation filled with surveillance devices.
AP1 (Applicant): The conversations the applicant had with her flatmates were recorded, and it is largely on the basis of the interpretation of the records of the surveillance that the applicant was convicted.
AP1 (Applicant): The prosecution relied on Mr. Akhmaev's statement
AP1 (Applicant): and listed him both as a prosecution and as a defense witness in the indictment of 7 December 2004.
AP1 (Applicant): It was only during the concluding days of the trial that the prosecution decided not to call Mr. Akhmaev to testify.
AP1 (Applicant): Instead, the prosecutor asked the court to read his pretrial statement.
AP1 (Applicant): It was the applicant's defense who insisted on securing Mr. Akhmaev's attendance,
AP1 (Applicant): and this is how he became a defense witness.
AP1 (Applicant): The qualification of Mr. Akhmaev as solely a defense witness
AP1 (Applicant): is thus merely a result of the decision of the trial prosecutor not to call him as a prosecution witness.
AP1 (Applicant): The criteria under Article VI for calling prosecution and defense witnesses vary significantly, so the application of the Convention in the case like the present one heavily dependent on the decision of a prosecutor at a trial.
AP1 (Applicant): We say Article VI rights should not be abandoned to the discretion of a trial prosecutor, but understood and applied in accordance with the autonomous interpretation of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we ask the court to take into account that Mr. Akhmaev is to be regarded
AP1 (Applicant): as a prosecution and as a defense witness so that the Convention test for calling such witnesses should be akin to those of the prosecution witnesses.
AP1 (Applicant): However, as I will demonstrate further, regardless of the test the court decides to apply to the circumstances of the present case, the national authorities fail to take sufficient steps to secure the applicant's rights under Article VI of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, I now turn to the applicable Convention test.
AP1 (Applicant): The court's case law is considerably dependent on which party calls a witness.
AP1 (Applicant): The defense should, as a rule, be able to question a witness for the prosecution during the trial.
AP1 (Applicant): Should the prosecution want to present a pretrial statement of an absent witness as evidence, they must demonstrate good reasons for his non-attendance.
AP1 (Applicant): The standard of overall fairness requires that, in such cases, the defense is provided with counterbalancing measures to compensate for its handicaps, regardless of whether the statement of the absent witness is sole or decisive evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): This was initially set out as a step-by-step test in Al-Khawaja and Tahrir against the United Kingdom and redefined in Shachashvili against Germany as factors to be taken into account when assessing the overall fairness of proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): Importantly, in an attempt to abandon the sole or decisive test in Al-Khawaja and Tahrir, the Grand Chamber reasoned that its inflexible application would run counter to the Court's ability to examine the fairness of proceedings as a whole.
AP1 (Applicant): The situation is fundamentally different where the defense calls a witness.
AP1 (Applicant): Under the criteria set out in Perna against Italy and summarized in paragraph 84 of the Chamber Judgment, in this case, the Court shall consider, first, whether the defense request to call a witness was sufficiently reasoned and relevant to the subject matter of the accusation.
AP1 (Applicant): The threshold is that the witness statement can arguably strengthen the defense position or even lead to the applicant's acquittal.
AP1 (Applicant): The second question would then be whether the trial court, by not securing attendance of a certain witness to testify on behalf of the defendant, breached his or her rights under Article VI.
AP1 (Applicant): However, as the cases that followed Perna show, it is for the applicant to prove that the defense witness was of such importance as to warrant an acquittal in the case against him or her.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, in Popov against Russia and Poliakov against Russia, the Court found violations of Article VI on account of the domestic court's failure to secure the attendance of alibi witnesses.
AP1 (Applicant): In Guillory against France, the same failure concerned a witness who was able to testify about the defendant's recourse to violence, a constituent element of the offense in that case.
AP1 (Applicant): Likewise, overturning acquittal on appeal and entering a conviction without rehearing witnesses was held to violate Article VI in Deterrem against France and Vidal against Belgium.
AP1 (Applicant): However, where the witnesses were not testifying to alibi or to a constituent element of the offense, no violation of Article VI was established.
AP1 (Applicant): This happened in Perna and in Dorokhov against Russia.
AP1 (Applicant): This approach amounts to maintaining the robust application of the sole or decisive evidence test for defense witnesses, abundant for the prosecution witnesses.
AP1 (Applicant): Under Perna, the defendants have the right to call witnesses if they are to a sufficient extent aware of the nature and role that the witness statement is able to play in their cases.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the obvious deficiency of the Perna approach is that it is silent on cases like the applicants, where the involvement of witnesses, such as undercover police agents, is unspecified or unknown to the defense prior to confrontation.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a perfect catch-22.
AP1 (Applicant): In order to be able to justify the right to call a witness for questioning, the defense has to be able to question that witness first.
AP1 (Applicant): The defense doesn't have access to the prosecution evidence until the end of the investigation, and the evidence produced at the trial may differ from that collected by the investigation, as happened in the case of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): So we submit that the appropriate and sufficient measure to ensure the fairness of proceedings is confrontation at trial.
AP1 (Applicant): The respondent government suggested to keep the Perna test as it was formulated by the chamber in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): We respectfully submit that it is unduly restrictive in its application, and it doesn't account for witnesses like police officer Akhmeyev in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): Rather, the criteria akin to those elaborated in Al-Khawaja and Shachashvili should apply to witnesses which are state agents called to testify on the initiative of the defense.
AP1 (Applicant): But even if the Perna criteria are maintained by the grand chamber, we submit that the applicant presented convincing reasons for calling Mr. Akhmeyev to testify,
AP1 (Applicant): and that there was no good reason for his failure to attend.
AP1 (Applicant): We further submit that the trial court had the powers to ensure Mr. Akhmeyev's attendance,
AP1 (Applicant): but failed to exercise them, and the applicant had no access to any procedural safeguards that would have sufficiently compensated Mr. Akhmeyev's
AP1 (Applicant): non-attendance.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, I move to the question
AP1 (Applicant): of relevance of the examination of Mr. Akhmeyev
AP1 (Applicant): to the defense case.