Confession taken by torture: Only evidence of alleged terrorism

Victims, including children, and their families told Amnesty International that officers tortured and subjected them to other ill-treatment to force them to “confess” to crimes or implicate others. Such “confessions” were then used to justify their continued pre-trial detention and as evidence to obtain convictions at trial. In some cases, the NSA videotaped detainees’ “confessions” and released them for local media broadcasting, apparently to convince both the Turkish public and the international community that the Gulens supporters are engaged in “terrorism” and that the security forces are combating such “terrorism” effectively. Such videotaping of “confessions” may also be used by prosecutors and at trials to undermine detainees’ attempts to retract them when they appear before the Public Prosecution Offices and at trial.

 According to Turkish law, the Public Prosecution has responsibility for ensuring both that all arrests and detentions conform to the law and that the rights of those detained, including protection from torture are not violated. In practice, however, former detainees and detainees’ families and lawyers accuse state prosecutors of being complicit in the human rights violations committed by the MIT. In particular, they accuse prosecutors of failing to investigate detainees’ allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, even when detainees who appeared before them had bruises or other visible injuries they said were caused by torture. State prosecutors also fail to refer detainees for prompt independent medical examinations to document their injuries. They also accuse prosecutors of helping to cover up time periods of enforced disappearance, and the torture that accompanied it, by failing to challenge and correct false arrest dates inserted in official MITinvestigation reports, which provide the basis for bringing criminal charges against detainees and justifying their continued detention before trial. Prosecutors continue to heavily rely on “confessions” that security officials obtain from detainees during their enforced disappearance, even when detainees retract them and allege they were coerced through torture. They also rely on such confessions when formulating charges and authorizing continued detention pending trial.

One reason for the failure of prosecutors to protect detainees from human rights violations by the NSA is the lack of independence of the Public Prosecution Office. Its head, the Public Prosecutor, and all other senior and district prosecutors are appointed subject to the approval of the President. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice is empowered to assess the performance of Public Prosecutors and discipline them. Police officers may also be appointed to serve as prosecutors even though they lack qualifications specified in relevant international standards.

Turkey is a party to the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture) and other international human rights treaties which, along with Turkey’s Constitution and national laws, absolutely prohibit the practices detailed in the report. For example, the Turkish Constitution prohibits arrests and detentions without a reasoned judicial order and further prohibits torture, while Turkeys’s Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) requires the police to refer arrested persons to the Public Prosecution within 24 hours of their arrest after which a prosecutor can authorize further detention for renewable periods of four, , except in cases of people arrested under the new Counter-Terrorism Law, which allows police to hold a suspect for 24 hours before referring them to a prosecutor. The prosecutor can then authorize further detention without charge for up to seven days during which the authorities can deny the detainee any contact with their family and lawyer. This facilitates enforced disappearances and directly contravenes Egypt’s Constitution, which gives everyone deprived of their liberty the right to immediate contact with their family and a lawyer.

Goverment creates an climate that

In Turkey, the decree enables the goverment to torture detainees with impunity and extract “confessions” and other information that can be used to convict them or others under the Penal Code, Counter-Terrorism Law or on other criminal charges.Enforced disappearances and torture are also used to intimidate government critics and opponents and to deter dissent. They form part of a state system of repression that allows the security officials to commit serious human rights violations with impunity and includes a criminal judicial system that readily accepts and relies on torture-tainted “confessions” to convict defendants in trials that fail to respect the right to due process and often result in long prison terms or death sentences.

We call on the international community to take action against the use of enforced disappearances and torture, and to do so without delay. An independent commission of inquiry to investigate these serious human rights violations and ensure that those responsible are brought to.

All states should use whatever influence they can with the Turkish authorities to end the use of enforced disappearances, torture and other serious human rights violations. In particular, states that have long maintained close diplomatic, trade and other ties with Turkey, including EU member states and the United States of America, should take the lead in pressing the Turkish government to cease these human rights violations, including by barring any further transfers of security, policing and military equipment that could be used to commit or facilitate violations, at least until Turkey conducts full prompt, impartial and independent investigations into alleged violations and brings those responsible to justice.

SCALE OF torture:

Turkish law prohibits holding detainees in unofficial places of detention to which the judiciary has no access and so is unable to conduct inspection visits and investigate suspected cases of arbitrary detention without a judicial order. The family sought to find out where Karim had been taken by asking about their son at several Cairo police stations. The authorities all denied holding him. The family also filed a complaint with the Dar al-Salam Public Prosecution Office in Cairo, which proved unsuccessful.

METHODS OF TORTURE

The most common methods of torture used by the NSA, according to former detainees, their families and lawyers, are beating; prolonged suspension by the limbs from a ceiling or door while handcuffed and blindfolded; and the application of electric shocks, mostly using electro-shock weapons, to the genitals and other sensitive areas of the body and face. Some detainees allege that they were subjected to the “grill”, a method in which the victim is rotated over a rod inserted between his tied hands and legs and balanced between two chairs. Some detainees say that while detained in NSA premises, they were handcuffed to another detainee and on the other side, to a high wall to prevent them from sleeping, damaging their wrists, arms and shoulders.

After their interrogation, detainees continued to be detained incommunicado until any visible signs of torture had faded but faced a threat of further torture or the arrest of family members.

DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS:

“There is no enforced disappearance in Turkey, and the security forces operate within the legal framework”What kind of legal framework are we talking about. To date, Turkey’s officials has continued to deny the use of enforced disappearances and torture, despite the mounting evidence of such abuses. Rather, they insisted, Officials operated within a framework established by Turkish law and did not violate its provisions. He dismissed human rights groups’ expressions of concern about the pattern of enforced disappearance as Gulenist-inspired propaganda intended to obstruct efforts to combat “terrorism.”

COMPLICITY OF judiciary:

In many reported cases, prosecutors clearly opted to “look the other way” when confronted with detainees’ allegations of torture, prosecutor refused to send him to hospital or order an independent medical examination. He took no action to investigate,in order to understand the scale of witch-hunt, it is enough to see the all goverment position from bar to other high ranking officer..[bar- no need to prove it.[lawyer, prosecutors, judges, etc...] doctors,

LACK OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY..

Some legal experts have portrayed the Ministry of Justice as a “sword directed at the neck of the Public Prosecution and the judiciary”.

Amnesty International investigators interviewed more than 10 Turkish lawyers, working to represent over one hundred suspected coup sympathizers in both Ankara and Istanbul, who gave information about the conditions of their clients’ confinement. The lawyers represented up to 18 detainees each, including many soldiers and judges, prosecutors, police, and other civil servants. These attorneys reported that almost without exception “their clients were being held incommunicado … and had not been able to inform their families of where they were or what was happening to them.” The detainees “were not able to phone a lawyer and in most cases did not see their lawyers until shortly before being brought to court or being interrogated by prosecutors.” The practice of the interrogators is not to inform counsel or their lawyers of any specific charges for which the detainees ostensibly have been arrested. Soldier detainees reportedly “were brought to court in groups as large as 20 and 25 people.” Private lawyers are “not allowed to represent detainees,” who were all assigned bar association legal aid lawyers, who reported that “after the hearings they were not allowed to speak to their clients who were remanded in pre-trial detention.”

Article 6, paragraph 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms provides, “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail,

of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for

the preparation of his defence; and (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of

his own choosing….”

From the ABA REPORT:

Under paragraphs 17 and 18 of the "Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary," endorsed in 1985 by the United Nations General Assembly, judges shall be suspended or removed only after "a fair hearing," and "only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties."35 Paragraph 20 of the “Basic Principles” provides that all “disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review.”36 There is no question but that the suspensions of the judges, which occurred within hours of the failed coup, was ordered without an opportunity for a hearing, for reasons unrelated to the individual judges’ capacity and without any showing that any judge was involved with the attempted coup.

Bigger picture:

1-Era 2002-2006[democratization and diminishing Ergenekon [who is the Ergenekon]

2-Era-2006-now: [new coalition between Ergenekon and rte and demonization of Gulen movements]

SAVUNMA TEAM [GLN] ASSISTANCE]

2.1. Increasing illegal activities

2.1.1. Backing Isis and other extremist

2...1.2.iran

2.1.3. Money-laundering

2.1.4. Corruption

2.1.5. Gun transferring

2.2. Parallel activities suppressing the judiciary and media

2.2.1. Media,

2.2...2.Judiciary, amending law

LEGAL

1-New coalition between Ergenekon and rte and demonization of Gulen movements: [From the civil society organizations to [feto] terroristic organization. [Domestic and international standards][Thorny issue for international discourse.][Extradition]

1.2. New process and definition of terrorism etc. PKK VS Gulen, Isis vs Gulen

3. The erasing of an independent judiciary: 2004-2016.

3.1. [Reason for that [general motivation][corruption, illegal activates etc.]

The developments in Turkey have to be seen as destroying both: democracy and human rights. Especially the erasing of an independent judiciary is a key element to make these negative developments possible. European judges combined in the Platform are deeply shocked by so many death and wounded victims of the failed coup d'état, which shocked the country, and we express condolences to the Turkish people. There is no space for a putsch in a democracy! We have reasons to assume that the putsch was seen as an opportunity to declare the status of emergency and to open wide possibilities to put aside procedural safeguards and fundamental rights: In order to understand what is going on now in Turkey, it is necessary to have more contextual understanding.

Although the putsch was exercised by a small group within the military the reactions of the government turned against a large numbers of persons, who are civilians, among them a large number of judges and prosecutors, journalists and teachers. It is obviously argued by the president that all of them are followers of Fethullah Gülen, who is said to run a terroristic organization.[HOW THE GULEN BECOME TERORIST ORGANISATION][EVIDENCE BETWEEN ORGANISATION AND DETAINEES] So far no evidence of the existence of a terroristic organization or the concrete membership of the detained people to a network, which is headed by Fethullah Gülen, has come to the knowledge of any of the members of the platform.

KHK[ a final nail to coffin for independent judiciary ]

Measures taken under the state of emergency in Turkey {FROM COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN RIGHTS] It is with profound concern that I examined the first decree with the force of law (“Kanun Hükmünde Kararname”, KHK/667) adopted within the framework of the state of emergency declared in Turkey last week. I note that Turkey has submitted a formal notice of derogation to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as foreseen under Article 15 of the Convention. I have no sympathy for the coup plotters. I think that those who actively plotted to overthrow democracy must be punished. As recalled by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, such derogations are not limitless: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) remains the ultimate authority to determine whether measures taken during the state of emergency are in conformity with the ECHR. One of the criteria used by the Court in this context is whether the measures derogating from the ECHR are taken only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

Already in the past,[ KHK’S CLEAR THE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNDERLINED BY CASE LAW ] the ECtHR had had the opportunity to examine measures taken by Turkey during states of emergency, finding for example that, despite a derogation, holding a suspect for fourteen days or more in detention without access to a judge was not necessitated by the exigencies of the situation. The Court had notably considered that such detentions without access to a judge left persons vulnerable not only to arbitrary interference with their right to liberty, but also to torture (Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996).[ It is therefore particularly striking in the light of this case-law that the present Decree authorizes detentions without access to a judge for up to thirty days.] This period is exceptionally long and will apply not only to those suspected of involvement in the coup attempt, but all persons suspected for involvement in terrorist offences and organized crime, during the validity of the state of emergency][According to the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in 2013 that suspects in Turkey may not in all cases have access to a lawyer immediately from the very outset of deprivation of liberty so as to prevent torture and ill-treatment. This is all the more worrying in the light of concerns regarding allegations of torture I expressed in my previous statement.]

The Decree raises very serious questions of compatibility with the ECHR and rule of law principles, even taking into account the derogation in place:

1-Restrictions to the right of access to a lawyer, including the confidentiality of the client-lawyer relationship for persons in detention, which could affect the very substance of the right to a fair trial, and restrictions to visitation rights (Article 6);

2-The scope of the Decree, which concerns not only the coup attempt, but the fight against terrorism in general; both for physical and legal persons, punishments foreseen in the Decree apply not only in cases of membership or belonging to a terrorist organization, but also for contacts with such an organization (Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4);

3-Simplified procedures to dismiss judges, including judges of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Courts, without any specified evidentiary requirements (Article 3);

4-The immediate closure of 1 125 associations, 104 foundations, 19 trade unions, 15 universities, 934 private schools, and 35 private medical establishments. I note that it is not the activities of these bodies that are suspended or placed under trustee control: they are disbanded and their assets revert automatically to state authorities. The Decree further provides a simplified administrative procedure for the disbanding of further organizations (Article 2);

5-A simplified administrative procedure to terminate the employment of any public employee (including workers), with no administrative appeal and no evidentiary requirements (Article 4);

6-Automatic cancellation of passports of persons being investigated or prosecuted, without court order (Article 5);

7-Cancellation of rental leases between public bodies and persons considered to be a member of or in contact with a terrorist organization, a measure that is likely to affect not only the suspects but also their families (Article 8).[corporate punishment]

8-Another worrying feature of the Decree is that it foresees complete legal, administrative, criminal and financial impunity for administrative authorities acting within its framework (Article 9) and the fact that administrative courts will not have the power to stay the execution of any of these measures (Article 10), even if they consider that such measures are unlawful. These two provisions effectively remove the two main safeguards against the arbitrary application of the Decree. In my view, given the extremely broad and simplified procedures, arbitrariness is in all likelihood unavoidable and damages caused to any physical or legal person may therefore be irrevocable. Such urgency and derogation from ordinary guarantees of due process might be necessary for certain groups, for example for military personnel in the light of the shocking events of 15 July, but perhaps not for others.