Tag: ECHR

  • Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

    Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

    AVİM, Center for Eurasian Studies

    October 26, 2015

    When Pope Francis, during a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on April 12, 2015, pronounced the word “genocide” in reference to the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia a century ago, it was patently clear that he was delving into territory he should not have. It was a meeting where the pontiff and top Armenian clerics and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan had gathered in what was apparently a show of Christian solidarity.

    By recognizing “Armenian genocide,” and calling the Armenian victims “confessors and martyrs for the name of Christ,” the Pope was asserting an unproven event, revealing his prejudice, or at the vey best, his misjudgment. The recent decision from the Grand Chamber of the prestigious European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a testimony to the Pope’s wrongful and deplorable stance on Armenian allegations.

    In its milestone decision announced on October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber, by a majority vote, agreed with the Second (lower) Chamber’s 17 December 2013 decision that Switzerland had violated Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek’s right to freedom of expression when it imposed penalty on Perinçek in connection with his “denial of Armenian genocide.” Hoping to have the lower chamber’s decision reversed, Switzerland, under intense Armenian lobbying, had appealed that decision to Grand Chamber – obviously to no avail.

    The Grand Chamber’s decision had two equally important ramifications. By letting stand the lower chamber’s decision, the Grand Chamber in effect affirmed that: (a) “Armenian genocide” is controversial and unproven, (b) there can be no comparison between the 1915 events and Holocaust.

    The court’s position is consistent with the provisions of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (ratified in 1951), which first codified this term. According to this Convention, genocide is a legally construed special crime, and it can only be established through a judicial process in a duly authorized court – an international court or a court where the alleged crime was committed. Without a verdict from such a court, labeling an event as genocide lacks legal validity. In other words, it is merely an opinion.

    To date there exists not a single court verdict characterizing the 1915 events as genocide. The UN has also refused to call the 1915 events genocide. When he decided to recognize “Armenian genocide,” the Pope should have been aware of these legal boundaries. ECHR is an organ of the 47-member Council of Europe.

    So, one must ask, absent a judicial verdict, what gave the Pope the authority to call the 1915 events “genocide”?

    In its February 3, 2015 ruling (Croatia v. Serbia), the International Court of Justice in The Hague also concluded that forced relocation, which is what happened in Anatolia in 1915, even if it results in killings, cannot be called genocide unless specific intent (dolus specialis) to harm or kill is proven. The court also held that the provisions of the 1948 Convention cannot be applied retroactively, i.e., judgments as to past events not permissible.

    In the U.S. the Bill of Rights protects a party from being labeled guilty of a crime without due process; i.e., the alleged crime must be adjudicated in a court of law. The old, venerable adage, “Innocent until proven guilty,” must be respected.

    It is obvious that by labelling the 1915 events as genocide the Pope exceeded his authority and violated both the European and American due-process standards. The same standards, in fact, also bind parliaments that have so far recognized “Armenian genocide.”

    To date, the Armenian side, out of fear it would lose, has refrained from litigating its case in a court of law, preferring to influence the public opinion through propaganda instead.

    A case in point is the 17 December 2003 order of the European Court of First Instance on a lawsuit lodged by a group of Armenian-French citizens against three European institutions including the Council of the European Union. The applicants had sought compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of, inter alia, recognition of Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession to the EU without Turkey’s prior acknowledgment of Armenian genocide. The court found that the applicants’ action was without legal merit and dismissed the claim, adding that the European Parliament’s 1987 resolution calling on Turkey to recognize “Armenian genocide” was purely political, without any binding consequences. Appeal of the ruling to the higher court was dismissed.

    The case was a legal defeat for the Armenian side, also reaffirming the fact that Armenian “g” resolutions passed by parliaments are no more than political opinions.

    Such realization should prompt parliaments that have recognized Armenian “g” to date to re-think their stance and rescind their decisions. The 1948 Convention does not make a distinction between “political” and “legal” recognition of genocide.

    The Pope, of course, has the right to express his opinion on the 1915 events; but this is not the same thing as denouncing these events as proven genocide.

    Speaking of opinion, in 1985 69 U.S. historians and researches signed a declaration, published in New York Times and Washington Post, stating that in their opinion the 1915 events do not constitute genocide. Among the signatories were eminent scholars such as Bernard Lewis. Surely, the Pope should have been aware of this declaration. Hence, even as regards opinion, there is no consensus among the scholars on “Armenian genocide.”

    The Pope apparently is also not aware that in 1920 his predecessor Pope Benedict XV had pleaded with the British to release some of the high-ranking Ottoman officials who were being held on the Island of Malta on suspicion of complicity in massacring Armenians. Benedict XV, who had direct contact with the Ottoman authorities, obviously did not think the Ottoman government had murderous or genocidal intentions toward the Armenians. All 244 Malta detainees, in fact, were released by the British for lack of evidence and returned to Turkish soil.

    So, one must ask the Pope: What did he know about the 1915 events in 2015 that his predecessor Benedict XV did not know almost a century earlier?

    Human rights issue

    The Pope, while recognizing “Armenian genocide,” astonishingly did not express any compassion for more than half a million civilian Muslims that lost their lives at the hands of renegade Armenian bands during the 1915 Armenian revolt.

    In a gesture of humanity, the Pope could have also offered condolences to the relatives of 42 Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign diplomats that were assassinated by Armenian terrorists in the 1970s through 1990s – including Turkish ambassador to Vatican Taha Carım in 1977. Three years later, in 1980, Carım’s successor Vecdi Türel and his driver were wounded by the terrorists.

    Likewise, the Pope could have expressed his compassion for the memory of the more than 600 Azeri civilians massacred by Armenian forces in the town of Khojaly in 1992.

    The Pope’s “humanity” should not be limited by race, religion or ethnicity.

    The 1.5 million Armenian victims alluded to by the Pope is also a grotesque exaggeration. The Armenian losses in Anatolia during World War I from all causes including fighting on the sides of the Allies were roughly 300,000, some 57,000 of which were during the relocation itself, most of them due to disease, famine and chaos.

    Double standard

    When he visited Sarajevo in June 2015, His Holiness, while denouncing the massacres inflicted upon the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, refused to use the term “genocide.” This, despite the fact that two UN courts have unequivocally called the Srebrenica massacres genocide. The Pope ignored the appeals of Bosnian academics and representatives of war victims to recognize the massacres as genocide. Srebrenica in a sense is a stone-throwing distance from the Holy See.

    Reflecting a shameful double standard, the Pope could not bring himself to use the word “genocide” when the perpetrators are Christian and the victims Muslim.

    In conclusion, His Holiness should deal with matters of faith and stay away from highly-charged historical issues that sow discord and hatred in society. He should not readily accept Armenian “g” allegations presented to him on a gold platter by the Armenian side. Otherwise, his call for inter-faith and inter-communal dialog becomes shamefully hollow.

  • Turkey in breach of human rights during military operation

    Turkey in breach of human rights during military operation

    The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered Turkey on 26 February to pay €100,000 court award after it found the county in breach of human rights during a military operation.

    Turkey military operation

    The case Bozkir and Others v. Turkey, which is not final, dealt with the complaint of 18 Turkish nationals whose relatives disappeared during a military operation in August 1996 after an armed clash between the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and the military. The applicants alleged, in particular, that their relatives should have been by now presumed dead and that it was the security forces who had detained them and had been responsible for their ensuing disappearance and death.

    Moreover, they also complained, relying on article 2 (right to life) and article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the authorities’ failure to carry out any meaningful investigation into the disappearances.

    The Strasbourg-based court ruled that there was no violation of article 2 in respect of the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives. However, the ECtHR said that Turkey has violated article 2 on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives.

    The court was unable to find involvement of the agents of the State in the disappearance. Nevertheless, it found that the persons have disappeared in life-threatening circumstances and ruled that the national authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearances.

    According to the court, though, the investigation carried out by Turkey was seriously deficient and inadequate.

    In addition, the ECtHR said that Turkey has violated article 13 of the convention because the applicants were denied an effective remedy in respect of the disappearance of their relatives, including a claim for compensation.

    via Turkey in breach of human rights during military operation | New Europe.

  • Children fostered by European gay couples will be retrieved

    Children fostered by European gay couples will be retrieved

    Bakıcı aileye bile devlet para yardımı yapıyorken, gerçek ailesinden maddi sebeplerle alınmaları Avrupa’da çok gerçekçi değil.

    by Corinne Pinfold

    18 February 2013, 12:04pm

    CRED-freedom-to-marry-flickrTurkish authorities have begun procedures to remove Turkish children from foreign gay foster parents (Image: Freedom to Marry Site: Flickr)

    A campaign has been launched by the Turkish Government to retrieve Turkish children fostered by Christian families in Europe – starting with children fostered by gay and lesbian couples.

    According to the Hurriyet Daily, the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag has instructed Turkish international representatives to start the process in the cases of three children fostered by gay couples in Belgium.

    The children had been taken from their families by child welfare officers because of abuse claims, or because the families could not financially support their children.

    An investigation was launched last month after the Turkish Government estimated that 5,000 such children had been given to Christian foster parents in Europe, rather than being matched to foster parents who share their faith and heritage.

    The Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Commission (TPHRC), which lead the investigation, reported that three of the children had been given to gay and lesbian couples in Belgium.

    One child, Yunus, was taken from his family at 6-months-old after allegedly being dropped on the floor by his parents. He is now 9-years-old and lives with a lesbian couple in Belgium. His family had previously applied for his return, but had been rejected by courts.

    Turkish authorities have begun legal proceeding to have Yunus and other Turkish children given to gay foster parents returned, citing a violation of human rights and psychological damage done to the child.

    Speaking about Yunus’ case Ayhan Sefer Ustun, head of the TPHRC, said: “We don’t condemn that culture, but the child has been given to a foreign culture, to a lesbian family. Even if a child is taken from the [biological] family for the right reasons, he or she should be placed with a family closer to his or her culture.”

    He said he was concerned that the children would have their Turkish cultural background and Islamic religion “assimilated” by living with Christian European families.

    “The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a past ruling said that taking a Christian child from his family and giving him to a family of Jehovah’s witnesses was not an appropriate act,” he said. “This is a situation against human rights. It is an assimilation to take a child who has grown up with an Islamic culture to be given to a Christian family without a judicial decision.”

    “We have highly successful Turks in Europe. Turkish children could be given to such Turks,” he added.

    via Turkey: Children fostered by European gay couples will be retrieved – PinkNews.co.uk.

  • Court: ‘Erdogan insult’ complaint pits disabled man against Turkey

    Court: ‘Erdogan insult’ complaint pits disabled man against Turkey

    A disabled man who alleges he was beaten by bodyguards after his arrest for insulting Turkey’s Prime Minister will find out tomorrow if his human rights were breached.

    court_building2Necati Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 15380/09)

    The applicant, Necati Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Araklı-Trabzon (Turkey). He has an 80% eyesight impairment caused by retinitis pigmentosa.

    On 7 April 2007 Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan went to Araklı to inaugurate a new road. At the end of Erdoğan’s speech, the applicant was arrested for having publicly insulted the Prime Minister.

    When questioned by the public prosecutor on 8 April, he denied the accusations and complained that he had been beaten by the Erdoğan’s bodyguards. He was released the same day.

    Relying on Article 3, the applicant complains that he was ill-treated by the Prime Minister’s bodyguards. Under Articles 6 and 13, he complains that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law.

    The European Court of Human Rights will make known its decision in writing on 12 February.

    via Court: ‘Erdogan insult’ complaint pits disabled man against Turkey | HUMANERIGHTSEUROPE.

  • Turkey’s New Spin On Human Rights: They Can Be Used To Recover Art

    Turkey’s New Spin On Human Rights: They Can Be Used To Recover Art

    BY Ceylan Yeginsu | January 14 2013 2:01 PM

    Turkey is one of the world’s richest countries when it comes to archeology. Located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia and with a history of human habitation that dates back to the dawn of civilization, it’s especially rich in ancient Greek ruins that were created when the land that is now Turkey was known as Asia Minor, or Anatolia.

    mausoleum-halicarnassus

    (Photo: Wikipedia)
    A lion from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in the British Museum

    But many of those priceless relics aren’t in Turkey; they’re in Western museums. Now Turkey is trying a bold new tactic to recover them: It plans to use human rights law to get them back.

    The country, which is usually divided on the sensitive issue of human rights enforcement, has found common ground as lawyers, civil society and the government gear up to file a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in an attempt to repatriate artifacts that are being housed at the British Museum.

    The court, located in Strasbourg, France, normally tackles, as its name suggests, freedom of expression violations and torture cases. But Turkey will most likely put a unique spin on Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, filing suit against the British Museum on the grounds that “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”

    This is yet another installment in Turkey’s campaign to restore its cultural heritage. Museums worldwide are being pressured by the country to return antiquities that once belonged to ancient Anatolia. The subjects of the most recent case are sculptures that once adorned the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world, in the city that is now modern-day Bodrum.

    “We are very grateful to the British Museum for housing these artifacts for all these years, but is it not natural for us to want them back? Is it not our right?” said lawyer Remzi Kazmaz, who joined forces with the Mugla Bar Association and the Turkish Ministry of Culture to bring the case to the attention of the ECHR.

    “We may not have the best track record when it comes to preservation, but we now have the power to protect and facilitate these items,” Kazmaz added.

    Kazmaz declined to comment on the measures that have been taken to carry the case to the ECHR, but he said that “all the appropriate steps have been taken and some 30 lawyers will act on behalf of the town of Bodrum in this case.” A petition with 118,000 signatures will also be presented to the court.

    As Turkey prepares to file the case on Jan. 30, the British Museum says it has not been contacted directly regarding the lawsuit. “We have not heard anything directly about the legal case, other than via a media enquiry, so we can’t comment on it as we are not aware of the details,” said Olivia Rickman, press and PR manager of the museum.

    According to Rickman, the sculptures from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in the Museum’s collection were acquired in 1846, 1857 and 1859. “These pieces were acquired during the course of two British initiatives, both with firmans [legal permits issued by the Ottoman authorities] that granted permission for the excavation of the site and removal of the material from the site (1857 and 1859) and Bodrum Castle (1846) to the British Museum,” Rickman said.

    “The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus is one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world and these pieces have been displayed at the British Museum in the context of presenting world cultures to a global audience,” she added.

    Turkey, however, contests that the objects are in Britain legally. “The British Museum says [it has] permission, but [it does] not. There is no valid documentation,” Kazmaz said.

    Charlotte Woodhead, an expert in cultural heritage law at the University of Warwick in England, is not aware of human rights legislation ever being used before to reclaim such objects. “If a claim is brought before the European Court of Human Rights, it will be interesting to see on what basis it is argued and also to see what the outcome is,” she said.

    Besides using human rights legislation, Turkey has also turned to an Ottoman-era law banning the export of artifacts to threaten museums such as the Louvre in Paris, the Getty in Los Angeles and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which have been displaying ancient Anatolian artifacts for years.

    “We are showing respect to history. We are not just asking for Ottoman or Seljuk artifacts; I am also laying claim to pieces from the Roman period or the pagan period. Why? Because we are aware that safeguarding your history, archeology and your museums is an element of development,” Culture Minister Ertugrul Gunay told the Hurriyet Daily News last year.

    He explained that Western museums have been criticizing Turkey for not knowing the value of these artifacts in the past, but that Turkey is now aware of their importance.

    “There was a lack of awareness in the past. But today, the world has reached a certain level of development and we have caught up with that level of development, and we are now establishing museums above world standards,” he said.

    Turkey’s Ministry of Culture has opened 10 new museums in the past five years, with an additional 19 projects underway. Excavation projects are also fully underway, and the results will be safeguarded in new exhibits within Turkish museums, according to the Ministry.

    The ministry has not yet commented on the ECHR case, but according to Kazmaz, it has played a significant role in preparing the lawsuit. “We aren’t expecting the British Museum to just hand everything back, but we want to open a dialogue so we can at least be active in preserving these artifacts, whether it means we can jointly house them for 10 years at a time or longer. We are open to negotiation,” he said.

  • European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist

    European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist

    80353ISTANBUL. – The Turkish government sent a letter with regard to the lawsuit, which was filed against Switzerland with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), by Dogu Perincek, a sworn anti-Armenian activist who is currently in prison in connection with Turkey’s Ergenekon affair.

    ECHR had demanded writing from Turkey, concerning the court proceedings launched against Switzerland by chairman Dogu Perincek of Turkey’s Workers’ Party. And it became apparent that Turkey has sent a letter to ECHR, and in Perincek’s favor, Hurriyet daily of Turkey informed.

    To note, the Swiss court had sentenced Perincek for denying the Armenian Genocide.

    Dogu Perincek is known for his extreme anti-Armenian activities. The Talat Pasha organization, which Perincek founded, fights against the Armenian Genocide’s recognition in Europe.

    Also, Turkish journalists had found out that Perincek has Armenian roots, as inhabitants of the village, where his mother and father had lived, were entirely Armenians.

    via European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist | Armenia News – NEWS.am.