The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Türkiye to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 6/2024 concerning Meryem Tekin, asking the Government of Türkiye to immediately and unconditionally release her and to accord her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Meryem Tekin ( Türkiye) : Opinion No. 6/2024.
A TEACHER ARRESTED FOR ALLEGED TIES TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
Ms. Meryem Tekin is a Turkish national and a teacher, born in 1985. She was arrested on 20 September 2018 at her home by police authorities, apparently for reasons that had to do with the Fethullahist terrorist organisation. Following this, she was handcuffed, brought to the police station and interrogated.
Later, and among others, she was accused of having a bank account at Bank Asya, of sharing or retweeting a social media account related to the Fethullahist terrorist organisation, of subscribing to publications by this organisation and of working for institutions affiliated with this organisation, among other things. As such, she was charged with membership in an armed organisation, in breach of article 314 of the Penal Code. At the time of the source's communication, she had been detained for 5 years in pre-trial detention in a prison in Bursa.
The Turkish Government was given the opportunity to answer these allegations, which it did on 31 October 2023.
NOT PRESENTED WITH AN ARREST WARRANT
The source claimed that Ms. Tekin's arrest lacked a proper legal basis, as she was not presented with an arrest warrant at the time of her apprehension. The Government's response did not adequately address this issue, merely asserting that her detention was justified based on her alleged connections to terrorism and to the particular exigencies of the state of emergency situation. However, the source noted that Ms. Tekin was arrested approximately two months after the state of emergency in Türkiye was lifted, making it complicated to justify the conditions of her arrest with this particular situation. Therefore, the Working Group found that Ms. Tekin was arrested without an arrest warrant, in violation of her rights to liberty and security of person, as enshrined in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In conclusion, the Working Group determined that Ms. Tekin's detention was arbitrary due to the lack of a legal basis for her arrest, rendering her detention arbitrary under Category I.
DETAINED FOR EXERCISING FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
The source claimed that Ms. Tekin’s arrest appeared to be linked to her alleged association with the Fethullahist terrorist organisation, in breach of several of her fundamental rights and freedoms. Specifically, she has been accused of having a bank account at Bank Asya, sharing material posted from Fethullahist-related social media accounts, subscribing to Fethullahist-affiliated media and working for Fethullahist-affiliated institutions. However, the Government did not provide any proof of these allegations.
In this light, the Working Group recalled previous jurisprudence and previous findings from other human-rights organs concerning the use alleged criminal activities to justify a restriction of fundamental freedoms, as well as the use of By Lock as an alleged proof of criminal activities - though its use in itself is protected under article 19 of tthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group also recalled the pattern that has emerged in Türkiye concerning the targeting of individuals allegedly related with the Gülen movement.
Thereby, the Working Group found that Ms. Tekin's detention was directly related to the legitimate exercise of her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, violating articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In summary, the Working Group found that Ms. Tekin's arrest was a direct infringement on her fundamental rights, rendering her detention arbitrary under Category II.
INDEFINITE DETENTION, NO ACCESS TO CASE-FILE AND LACK OF PROPER ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL
According to the source, since her arrest on 20 September 2018, Ms. Tekin has been held in indefinite detention, as no official charges against her nor a trial date were set. The Government did not justify this delay. Under these circumstances, and considering that Ms. Tekin was placed in pre-trial detention solely for exercising her protected rights, the Working Group found that this indefinite delay since her arrest and the lack of trial constituted a breach of her right to be tried without undue delays, prescribed in article 14 (3) of the Covenant.
Moreover, the source claimed that like many political prisoners, Ms. Tekin had been denied access to her case file. Though restrictions to access case files may be legitimate under specific circumstances, as the Government did not justify this restriction, the Working Group considered that no such restrictions applied in this case. As such, the Working Group found that this was a serious violation of the principle of full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and of the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence, protected under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the Covenant.
Lastly, Ms. Tekin could not access her lawyer during the 6 months of her detention, which according to the Working Group exposed her at a risk of coercion at critical stages of the proceedings. In addition, even when she had access to a lawyer, this access was restricted since their conversations were recorded and monitored by prison officers. In this light, the Working Group found that Ms. Tekin's right to have private discussions with their legal counsel without surveillance - which is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial - had been violated, in breach of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant was violated.
Consequently, the Working Group concluded that the breaches of the right to fair trial of Ms. Tekin were of such gravity that it rendered her deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
DETAINED ON A DISCRIMINATORY BASIS
The Working Group first recalled its jurisprudence regarding Türkiye, in which are notably found a series of similar cases related to individuals targeted in relation to their alleged linked to the Gülen movement. In these cases, the Working Group found the respective detention of these individuals to be based on discriminatory grounds, namely on the basis of their political or other opinion, thus in violation of article 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. Considering that this case followed the same pattern, the Working Group thus concluded that Ms. Tekin had been detained on a discriminatory basis as well, in violation of the above-mentioned articles.
Thereby, the Working Group concluded that Ms. Tekin’s detention was also arbitrary under Category V.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Ms. Meryem Tekin was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III, and V, as it contravened articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 10, 14, 19, 21 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group recommended that the Government of Türkiye take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Ms. Tekin without delay and ensure it is brought into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group also urged the Turkish Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of these violations and take appropriate measures against those responsible.
Takinng into account all the circumstances of the case, the Working Group considered that the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Tekin immediately and accord her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Comments