The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently ruled that Türkiye’s pre-trial detention of political activist Kamuran Yüksek was in violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the court found that Türkiye had breached Article 5, which governs the right to liberty and security, and Article 10, which upholds freedom of expression.
Yüksek, a co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party, was arrested in 2016 and held for four months before being convicted in 2017 for alleged membership in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization and has been engaged in militancy for Kurdish autonomy within Türkiye. Yüksek argued that his detention was a result of his political activities and speeches against the government, which included calls for civil disobedience.
During his trial, Yüksek was accused of using political activities as a cover to incite actions aligned with the goals of the PKK. The Magistrate’s Court in Türkiye had initially justified his detention on the grounds of a “strong suspicion” of terrorist affiliations. However, the ECHR determined that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish a clear link between his actions and any criminal offense.
The ECHR’s decision was reached with a majority of six votes to one. The court ordered Türkiye to pay €1,500 in costs and expenses. It emphasized that continued pre-trial detention requires “the persistence of a reasonable suspicion,” which was not adequately demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, the court noted that Yüksek’s expressions and political activities were part of a legitimate political debate, thus falling under the protective scope of freedom of expression.
Yüksek himself stated that his conviction was politically motivated and pointed to broader governmental pressure on Kurdish political movements in Türkiye. The ECHR’s decision underscores the delicate balance between state security measures and the safeguarding of individual human rights, a topic that remains a significant concern in international law.
For further reading on this ruling, visit the full article on JURIST.