TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Indeed, one of the cases I referred to in my earlier submissions, the decision decided in 2012, which we can provide to the court, case number 30, 1997, concerned events occurring years earlier.
GR2 (Government): So the consequences, if the chamber judgment is upheld, are unknown and uncertain, but give rise to very real prospect of further challenges and endless challenges.
GR2 (Government): And as I said in my submissions earlier, they would allow any applicant, anywhere in the Council of Europe, to identify any defect in an appointment process and bring a challenge, even in the most extreme case, where the evidence was crystal clear, where they pleaded guilty, where years had gone by.
GR2 (Government): And that, with respect, does very justly merit the description of the dissenting opinion that to accede to the applicant's case would be to open a Pandora's box.
GR2 (Government): Mr President, those are my only submissions.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I now invite the judges who have put questions to us for further clarification if they so wish.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Yes, Judge Pere Pastor Vilanova, please.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): J'avais demandé au...
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Je me dirige au requérant.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): J'avais demandé au requérant expressément s'il souhaitait, en plus du dédommagement de l'article 41, s'il souhaitait la réouverture de son procès dans l'hypothèse, bien entendu, que la Cour conclue en violation de l'article 6.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): La réponse... On n'a pas besoin d'avoir une réponse écrite.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): C'est oui ou non.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Et je crois que je suis suffisamment fondé pour vous exiger une réponse claire tout de suite à ce sujet-là. Merci.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I invite the applicant, if he so wishes, to reply to this clear question, please.
AP1 (Applicant): no, the applicant is not asking for a reopening of his case.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Selahattin Demirtaş versus Turkey, number two.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 20 February, 2017, under Article 34 of the convention by a Turkish national, Mr. Selahattin Demirtaş.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the second section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): A chamber of the second section delivered its judgment on 20 November, 2018.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It unanimously declared admissible the applicant's complaints concerning Article 5, paragraph 1, as to the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, Article 5, paragraph 3, Article 5, paragraph 4, as to the alleged lack of a speedy review before the constitutional court, Article 18 of the convention, and Article 3 of Protocol Number 1.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It declared further complaints under Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4 inadmissible by a majority.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The chamber found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, and of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the convention, and that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the convention, and of Article 3 of Protocol 1.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 18 of the convention in conjunction with Article 5, paragraph 3.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): It also found unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the convention.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Finally, the chamber held unanimously that the respondent state had not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the convention, and that it was to take all necessary measures to put an end to the applicant's pretrial detention.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 19 February 2019, both the government and 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 March 2019.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The Council of Europe Commission of Human Rights exercised her right under Article 36, paragraph 3 of the convention, and Rule 44, paragraph 2 of the rules of court, to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written comments.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): On 20 August 2019, she informed the court that she would take part in the hearing.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Moreover, written comments were submitted to the court by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and jointly by the non-governmental organization Article 19 and Human Rights Watch.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The president of the second section had granted them leave to intervene under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the convention, and Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The government are represented by their co-agent, Mr. Hacı Ali Açikgül
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Achigul, head of the Department of Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice, assisted by Mr. Mehmet Ali
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Tuncel, Mrs. Betül Nas Gülol, reporter, judges
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): at the Ministry of Justice.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mr. İbrahim Hakkı  Beyazit, head of Department
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): of the Directorate of Administrative Affairs at the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mr. Abdulhaluk  Kurnaz, legislation expert
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): And Mr. Stefan Talmon, legal consultant.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Mahsuni Karaman, Mr.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Ramazan Demir, Mr. Kerem Altıparmak, and Mrs. Benan
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Molu, counsel, assisted by Mrs. Aygül Demirtaş Gökalp
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Mrs. Başak Çalı, advisors.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Dunja Mijatović,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): will also participate in this hearing.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): She is assisted by Mr. Giancarlo Cardinale,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): deputy of the Director of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mr. Hasan Bermek,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): advisor to the commission.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives of the parties and the third party in the name of the court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I also welcome the following groups of judges who are on a study visit to the court.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): A group of judges and prosecutors from the European Judicial Training Network, and a group of judges from the Judges Academy Taiwan.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Having consulted the co-agent of the government, the representatives of the applicant, and the third party, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mrs. Başak Çalı, Mr. Kerem Altıparmak, Mr. Ramazan Demir,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Mrs. Benal Molu for the applicant, we spill first.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): And then Mr. Hacı Ali Açikgül, and Mr. Stefan Talmon
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): for the government.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): And finally, Mrs. Dunja Mijatović, third party.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Çalı.
AP2 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, dear members of the court,
AP2 (Applicant): today we provided you with a number of visual aids.
AP2 (Applicant): My colleagues will indicate their relevance throughout the submission.
AP2 (Applicant): the legal question before you today is a simple one.
AP2 (Applicant): Has the Republic of Turkey, when it deprived Mr. Demirtas of his liberty
AP2 (Applicant): on the 4th of November 2016, and every single day after that, violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Demirtas is a human rights lawyer by profession.
AP2 (Applicant): He dedicated much of his legal career to fighting impunity for gross human rights violations in Turkey.
AP2 (Applicant): But today it is he who needs defending from a violation of his rights.
AP2 (Applicant): The case of Mr. Demirtas is before you today
AP2 (Applicant): because he is a Kurdish left-wing politician who stands in strong opposition to the government of Turkey.
AP2 (Applicant): This case, therefore, is not merely about the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Demirtas.
AP2 (Applicant): It's not merely about the violations of his rights to political speech and political representation.
AP2 (Applicant): This case is also about how the European Court of Human Rights detects and responds to the use of judiciary to silence and punish political opposition in Turkey.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, at the heart of this case
AP2 (Applicant): is the fact that Mr. Demirtas has been deprived
AP2 (Applicant): of his liberty for political purposes and that the judiciary has been used to serve these purposes.
AP2 (Applicant): It is, therefore, necessary that we lay out the context with respect to the case file before you and how the 31 separate investigations have been included in this case file.
AP2 (Applicant): For that, I must start in 2015.
AP2 (Applicant): Before 2015, no pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey had ever exceeded the 10 percent election threshold.
AP2 (Applicant): This is the highest election threshold in Europe.
AP2 (Applicant): Things started to change when Mr. Demirtas became
AP2 (Applicant): the co-president of the HDP in 2014.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Demirtas and his politics were inclusive,
AP2 (Applicant): democratic and rights-based, and strongly committed to the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish question.
AP2 (Applicant): From 2013, he was also a central mediator in the peace talks that the government initiated.
AP2 (Applicant): When the Turkish electorate welcomed Mr. Demirtas
AP2 (Applicant): in the June 2015 general elections, HDP well exceeded the 10 percent election threshold by receiving 13.1 percent of the votes,
AP2 (Applicant): winning 80 seats in the Turkish parliament, and becoming the second largest opposition party in Turkey.
AP2 (Applicant): This was the first time in the 92-year history of the Turkish Republic that a political party with predominantly Kurdish left-wing politicians achieved representation at the capital.
AP2 (Applicant): Significantly, and due to this, dear members of the court, the AKP, the ruling party, lost its majority to establish a government in the parliament for the first time since 2002.
AP2 (Applicant): In the aftermath of the June 2015 elections, two significant events took place.
AP2 (Applicant): First, the peace talks that celebrated the climate of democratic debate in Turkey collapsed.
AP2 (Applicant): Second, President Erdogan started to target the HDP in general, and Mr. Demirtas in particular,
AP2 (Applicant): directly and openly as terrorists.
AP2 (Applicant): On 28 July 2015, President Erdogan stated, and I quote, we don't approve closing down political parties.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the deputies of the HDP should pay the price one by one.
AP2 (Applicant): Immediately after the speech, Turkish public prosecutors opened six investigations against Mr. Demirtas.
AP2 (Applicant): What is significant about these six investigations is the huge discrepancy between the alleged crimes, these are speeches of Mr. Demirtas,
AP2 (Applicant): and the dates of action of the prosecutors.
AP2 (Applicant): In some cases, these speeches go back to 1,000 days and more before the action of the prosecutors.
AP2 (Applicant): Despite this, the HDP passed the 10% threshold once again in the general elections of November 2015, sending 59 representatives to parliament.
AP2 (Applicant): The response to this was clear.
AP2 (Applicant): In a speech on 2 January 2016, President Erdogan demanded, and I quote, HDP MPs should go to prison.
AP2 (Applicant): Following this speech, 14 new criminal files were prepared against Mr. Demirtas in 10 different cities
AP2 (Applicant): in less than three months.
AP2 (Applicant): All in all, prosecutors succeeded to make 20 separate charges against the applicant, the leader of the second largest opposition party, based on what he said in and outside of parliament after the June 2015 election, after the speeches of Mr. President of the Republic,
AP2 (Applicant): and after the collapse of the peace process.
AP2 (Applicant): These 20 charges constitute 65% of the case file right in front of you today.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, you could ask, 31 minus 20, that leaves us with 11 other files in front of you.
AP2 (Applicant): Out of these 11 files, nine of these that were prepared before the elections were prepared by one prosecutor in Diyarbakir.
AP2 (Applicant): He's currently in pretrial detention himself for being a member of the Fetullahist terrorist organization.
AP2 (Applicant): Dear President, dear members of the court, let me now turn to the immediate facts surrounding our critical date, the 4th of November, 2016.
AP2 (Applicant): Only four days before Mr. Demirtas was arrested,
AP2 (Applicant): different prosecutors across Turkey, seemingly upon their own initiative, started to pass their criminal files about the applicant to Diyarbakir.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no plausible way to explain how nine different prosecutors transferred their files to Diyarbakir within the space of 96 hours without central instructions.
AP2 (Applicant): The Diyarbakir prosecutor then proceeded in a manifestly irregular way.
AP2 (Applicant): He joined 31 investigations.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't know why those 31 in any precise terms, into a single mega file.
AP2 (Applicant): That is the file that is right in front of you today.
AP2 (Applicant): These investigations also included files that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Diyarbakir prosecutor.
AP2 (Applicant): In the early hours of the 4th of November, 2016, police raided the homes of HDP members of parliament, including the applicant, in four different cities.
AP2 (Applicant): Given that there was never an organized crime investigation, the only rational explanation for simultaneous multiple raids into homes of members of parliament is that these two were done under central instructions.
AP2 (Applicant): To sum up, Mr. President, the political success of the HDP
AP2 (Applicant): under the leadership of Mr. Demirtas
AP2 (Applicant): across the Republic of Turkey led to him being targeted openly as a terrorist by President Erdogan in his speeches after 2015 and after the collapse of the peace process.
AP2 (Applicant): Following this, 20 separate investigations were opened using political speeches of Mr. Demirtas
AP2 (Applicant): going back to four and three years in the past.
AP2 (Applicant): On 4th November, 2016, Diyarbakir judge detained Mr. Demirtas on grounds that he was a member
AP2 (Applicant): of a terrorist organization and that he incited to commit crimes.
AP2 (Applicant): But on 11th of January, 2017, Diyarbakir prosecutor accused, and I must emphasize, Diyarbakir prosecutor accused the leader of the second largest opposition party in the country, the leader of a political party that had received over 10% of the votes in the last general elections with establishing or running a terrorist organization, a charge for which he was never investigated and a charge for which he was never detained.
AP2 (Applicant): Dear Mr. President, Mr. Altaparmak
AP2 (Applicant): will now respond to the preliminary objections of the government.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I call Mr. Altıparmak.
AP4 (Applicant): Mr. President, members of the court,
AP4 (Applicant): the first objection is that the IPU Human Rights Committee is an international dispute settlement mechanism under the convention.
AP4 (Applicant): This is the first time in the history of this court that an organization that was granted permission to intervene before the court as a third party intervener is put forward as an international dispute settlement body.
AP4 (Applicant): Esteemed members of the court, firstly, the procedure before the IPU is not based on an international treaty that engages the legal responsibility of the Republic of Turkey.
AP4 (Applicant): Turkey can never be a state party to the inter-parliamentary union, because quite simply, it is parliaments and not states that are its members.
AP4 (Applicant): Secondly, the activities of the IPU Human Rights Committee are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature.
AP4 (Applicant): The committee, as laid out by its own rules, is there to defend parliamentarians and raise awareness to their plights.
AP4 (Applicant): Thirdly, the Human Rights Committee is a simple subcommittee of the inter-parliamentary union, not a quasi-judicial body.
AP4 (Applicant): Members of this committee are not appointed from outside the IPU and do not require any particular expertise in international human rights law.
AP4 (Applicant): Fourthly, this committee does not deliver final decisions on complaints.
AP4 (Applicant): Its work is simply that of ongoing examination.
AP4 (Applicant): This committee's decisions are not capable of legal effect, but merely and only political pressure.
AP4 (Applicant): Finally, the applicants made by the HDP to the IPU does not relate essentially to the same person, the same facts, and the same complaints of this current case.
AP4 (Applicant): When a simple email sent in June 2016 to initiate this complaint, none of the 55 deputies was detained, including the applicant.
AP4 (Applicant): Dear members of the court, the second set of objections concern exhaustion of domestic remedies.
AP4 (Applicant): The Turkish Constitutional Court delivered its judgment declaring detention of Mr. Demirtas lawful
AP4 (Applicant): on 21 December 2017.
AP4 (Applicant): In its judgment, the Constitutional Court addressed four primary issues essential to the merits of the case before you.
AP4 (Applicant): First, the Constitutional Court held that detention of Mr. Demirtas on 4 November 2016 was lawful.
AP4 (Applicant): It held that there was reasonable suspicion to detain him on grounds that he may have committed crimes and that there was a flight risk.
AP4 (Applicant): Second, the court did not address the claim of the applicant that the detention has a political purpose.
AP4 (Applicant): Third, the Constitutional Court did not find it necessary to examine the applicant's claim that his detention violated his freedom of speech as a politician.
AP4 (Applicant): Four, the Constitutional Court chose not to examine the applicant's claim that his right to take in parliamentary activities due to his detention had been violated.
AP4 (Applicant): These four issues are precisely the issues of merit that the applicant would like the Grand Chamber to decide.
AP4 (Applicant): this third set of objections are relating to developments after the delivery of the chamber judgment.
AP4 (Applicant): On 4 December 2018, Mr. Demirtas was
AP4 (Applicant): convicted from a separate charge of terrorist propaganda to four years and eight months of imprisonment.
AP4 (Applicant): On 2 September 2019, the trial court, which rejected all requests for the release of applicants for more than 2 and 1 1⁄2 years, decided that applicants could be released if not convicted of another crime.
AP4 (Applicant): The government now argues that these new developments are preliminary objections before you on two grounds.
AP4 (Applicant): The first is that the applicant no longer is a victim under Article 5.1c.
AP4 (Applicant): Second, as a released person, more domestic remedies are now available for him to exhaust.
AP4 (Applicant): We take this in turn.
AP4 (Applicant): First, the conviction of the applicant in a separate trial is not relevant to the fact that our applicant has been subject to an Article 5.10 Protocol 1, Article 3
AP4 (Applicant): violations for which all remedies have been exhausted.
AP4 (Applicant): This conviction is there because only one out of 19 prosecutors did not send its file to Diyarbakir prior to his arrest.
AP4 (Applicant): In one and only one charge, Mr. Demirtas
AP4 (Applicant): received the heaviest sentence ever passed for the spread of terrorist propaganda.
AP4 (Applicant): On the other hand, no single court until today has found that the detention of the applicant on 4 November 2016 was unlawful.
AP4 (Applicant): Second, the government argues that the applicant must bring a compensation claim under the Criminal Procedural Court to challenge his detention.
AP4 (Applicant): An assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is carried out with reference to the date on which the applicant was lodged with the court.
AP4 (Applicant): The compensation claim became available not on the date of the application, but almost a year after the chamber judgment.
AP4 (Applicant): In addition, when will the applicant be able to lodge his complaint to the court if the government's argument is accepted, dear members of the court?
AP4 (Applicant): Roughly 10 years after his detention in 2016?
AP4 (Applicant): the government also submits that remedies with respect to Article 5, Paragraph 3 have not been exhausted as there is a separate case pending before the Constitutional Court concerning the length of unlawful detention.
AP4 (Applicant): This is completely misleading.
AP4 (Applicant): In Buzacci versus Moldova, the Grand Chamber held that the condition of persistence of reasonable suspicion under Article 5.1c
AP4 (Applicant): should be synchronized with the requirement on the judicial officer to give relevant and sufficient reasons for detention.
AP4 (Applicant): If there are not relevant and sufficient reasons to detain a person at the initial detention, every day following it will be lengthy detention.
AP4 (Applicant): Mr. Demirtas, in his application to the Constitutional Court,
AP4 (Applicant): claimed that.
AP4 (Applicant): First, his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion.
AP4 (Applicant): Second, relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his initial and continued pretrial detention did not exist on 4 November 2016 and every day after that.
AP4 (Applicant): And the Constitutional Court clearly responded one year after the initial detention.
AP4 (Applicant): It considered that there was a flight risk.
AP4 (Applicant): More petitions to the Constitutional Court in the court of his detention do not change this fact.
AP4 (Applicant): Dear members of the court, the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of a person is a continuing violation of the convention.
AP4 (Applicant): When detention is ongoing, this court has no option but to examine all legal issues concerning Article 5, including Paragraph 3, with a view to establish a breach, as it did in Nedim Şener and Ahmet Şık cases.
AP4 (Applicant): If the government's preliminary objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies is accepted by you, any future judicial oversight of an unlawful detention in Turkey by this court becomes effectively impossible.
AP4 (Applicant): Future governments will be able to freely detain any opposition member for as long as they wish, convict them for another crime, release them, and demand applicants to either apply for compensation or to lodge new constitutional complaints to the Constitutional Court.