Tag: AİHM

  • Turkey is Most Frequent Violator ofEuropean Convention on Human Rights

    Turkey is Most Frequent Violator ofEuropean Convention on Human Rights

    image001

    Veteran Turkish journalist Sedat Ergin wrote in Hurriyet newspaper that “Turkey is the champion of rights violations at the European Court of Human Rights” (ECHR). The European Court rules on cases when signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights violate its provisions.

    Even though Turkey joined the Court in 1986, 27 years after its founding, it had more violations than all other member countries between 1959 and 2016.

    The European Court had a total of 3,270 judgments on Turkey. Only in 73 cases, Turkey was found by the Court not to have made any violations. The remaining cases were settled in other ways. Since more than one article was violated in most cases, Turkey’s violations total 4,514.

    The 2016 Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights indicated that:

    — The highest number of Turkish violations (832) was in the area of “right to a fair trial.”
    — The 2nd highest category (707 violations) was “the right to freedom and security.” This latter category means that “Turkish citizens are frequently arrested using unlawful methods and that those arrests can easily turn into sentences,” according to Ergin.
    — The 3rd highest category of violations (653) is the “right to property protection,” which means that many Turkish citizens are deprived of ownership of their properties.
    — The 4th highest category (586) is the violation of “length of proceedings.”
    — “Lack of effective investigation” comes in 5th place with 412 violations.
    — “Inhuman or degrading treatment” is in 6th place with 314 violations.
    — In 7th place is the “right to an effective remedy” (268 violations).
    — “Freedom of Expression” comes in 8th place (265 violations).
    — In 9th place are 133 violations of the “right to life — deprivation of life.”
    — In 10th place are 100 violations of the “right to respect private and family life.”
     
    Regarding Azerbaijan, from 2002 to 2016, the European Court of Human Rights had 122 judgments, of which 118 were found to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, far fewer than Turkey, since Baku joined the ECHR much later, in 2002. The remaining 4 cases were settled in other ways. Since some cases had more than one violation, Azerbaijan had a total of 224 rights violations.
     
    — The highest number of violations (44) was the “right to a fair trial.”
    — The 2nd highest violation (34) was the “right to liberty and security.”
    — The 3rd highest violation (30) was the “protection of property.”
    — The 4th highest violation (21) was the “right to free elections.”
    — “Lack of effective investigation” was the 5th highest violation (17).
     
    Armenia, on the other hand, which joined the European Convention on Human Rights at the same time as Azerbaijan (2002), had fewer violations. There were 75 judgments by the ECHR against Armenia between 2002 and 2016, of which 68 were violations. The remaining 7 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of cases had more than one violation, Armenia had a total of 119 violations.
     
    — The highest number of violations (32) was the “right to a fair trial.”
    — The 2nd highest number of violations (27) was the “right to liberty and security.”
    — The 3rd highest number of violations (16) was the “protection of property.”
     
    Neighboring Georgia had a slightly fewer violations than Armenia. It joined the European Convention on Human Rights in 1999. Between 1999 and 2016 the ECHR had 68 judgments on Georgia, of which 52 were violations. The remaining 16 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of the cases had more than one violation, Georgia had a total of 99 violations.
     
    — The highest number of violations (20) was the “right to liberty and security.”
    — The 2nd highest number of violations (17) was “inhuman or degrading treatment.”
    — There was a tie for the 3rd highest violation (12 each) for “lack of effective investigation” and “right to a fair trial.”
     
    In addition to the above-mentioned violations, Turkey and Azerbaijan have much more serious problems with the ECHR. Turkey decided to suspend the European Convention on Human Rights following the attempted coup of July 2016. However, some parts of the Convention cannot be suspended, such as the right to life, and the ban on torture and the inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
     
    Azerbaijan faces another serious problem with the ECHR which had ruled that prominent Azeri opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov should be released from jail. Azerbaijan has refused to comply with ECHR’s decision since 2014. The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have adopted several resolutions urging Azerbaijan to release Mammadov. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has initiated an unprecedented judicial review of Azerbaijan’s lack of compliance with the ECHR ruling. Further non-compliance by Azerbaijan could result in its expulsion from the Council of Europe!





  • European Court of Human Rights Penalizes Both Armenia and Azerbaijan

    European Court of Human Rights Penalizes Both Armenia and Azerbaijan

    th

    On December 12, 2017, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued two rulings covering similar lawsuits: one against Armenia and the other against Azerbaijan. Not surprisingly, the Azeri press deceptively reported only the ruling against Armenia, hiding from its readers the fact that a similar judgement was issued against Azerbaijan.

    Minas Sargsyan, a refugee from the village of Gulistan in the Shahumyan region of formerly Soviet Azerbaijan, just North of Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), filed a lawsuit against Azerbaijan in the European Court of Human Rights on August 11, 2006. During the Artsakh conflict in 1992, Mr. Sargsyan and his family were forced to flee their home and orchard. Mr. Sargsyan passed away in 2009 in Yerevan. His widow, his son and two daughters continued the lawsuit. When their mother died in 2014, the son and one of the daughters pursued the proceedings. The Sargsyan family demanded compensation for their property losses.

    The ECHR referred the case to its Grand Chamber on March 11, 2010. Rejecting various objections from the government of Azerbaijan, the Grand Chamber ruled on June 16, 2015, that the Sargsyan family was entitled to compensation for their property losses. However, no amount was decided until Dec. 12, 2017, when the Grand Chamber ruled that the Sargsyans should be paid by Azerbaijan 5,000 euros to compensate for their property in Gulistan and 30,000 euros for legal costs and expenses.

    The Court emphasized that the two conflicting Republics, Armenia and Azerbaijan, were asked by the Court’s Grand Chamber in its 2015 ruling to submit their observations and notify the Court if they had reached any mutual agreement on the Artsakh conflict. Not having reached a political settlement, the two Republics were considered responsible for the property losses of refugees on both sides. The Court stated that Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to their accession to the Council of Europe in 2002, had committed themselves to the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. Because they had failed to come to a resolution of the conflict, the Court was obliged to assess a monetary compensation for the property losses of the refugees.

    The Grand Chamber of the ECHR was composed of 17 judges from various European countries, including judges from Armenia (Armen Harutyunyan), and Azerbaijan (Latif Huseynov). Interestingly, the Azeri judge added a note at the end of the ruling, stating that while he disagreed with the ruling made before he joined the Grand Chamber, he had no choice but to support its decision of allocating compensation. It is clear that the Azeri judge was trying to protect himself from accusations by Azerbaijan that he had ruled in favor of paying compensation to an Armenian family.

    In a parallel case, six Kurds who are Azeri citizens filed a joint complaint to the ECHR on April 6, 2005, under the heading: Chiragov and Others vs. Armenia. They complained that because the Armenian forces had taken over the Lachin corridor, they were forced to flee their homes which used to be a part of Soviet Azerbaijan during the Artsakh conflict in 1992.

    Similar to the Sargisov vs. Azerbaijan case, ECHR’s Grand Chamber ruled on June 16, 2015, that Armenia was responsible for the losses of the properties of the six Azeri citizens. They had asked for millions of Euros in compensation. On Dec. 12, 2017, the Grand Chamber ruled that the Armenian Government had to pay 5,000 euros to each of the six Azeri citizens and a total of 28,642 British Pounds for legal costs and expenses. Once again, both Armenian and Azeri judges were part of the 17 judges that formed the Grand Chamber of ECHR. They both voted in favor of the ruling.

    The real issue for the ECHR is what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Armenian and Azeri refugees who had also fled their homes during the Artsakh conflict. Will each refugee receive 5,000 euros as compensation and 30,000 euros for legal costs and expenses? The Grand Chamber stated in its ruling that “more than one thousand individual applications lodged by persons who were displaced during the conflict are pending before the Court, slightly more than half of them being directed against Armenia and the remainder against Azerbaijan. The applicants in these cases represent just a small portion of the persons, estimated to exceed one million, who had to flee during the conflict and have since been unable to return to their properties and homes or to receive any compensation for the loss of their enjoyment.”

    The only solution is that when someday the Artsakh conflict is resolved, the settlement will include a solution to the situation of the large number of Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees!

  • ERMENİ SOYKIRIMI SAVININ REDDİ

    ERMENİ SOYKIRIMI SAVININ REDDİ

    Pulat Tacar’ın “Ermeni Soykırımı savının reddi düşünceyi ifade çerçevesine girer”  başlıklı yazısına buradan ulaşabilirsiniz.

    aihm

    Download