CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sCDED223E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE6D1CF73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6C418745 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC4D36529 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:316.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF YÜKSEK v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 4/18)   JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Pre-trial detention of the co ‑ chair of a pro ‑ Kurdish political party charged with membership of an illegal organisation on account of his political speeches • Absence of any concrete evidence of a link between the applicant and such an organisation • Interpretation and application of terrorism-related offences so broad as to not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interferences Art 5 § 1 • Art 5 § 3 • Lack of reasonable suspicion of applicant having committed an offence and lack of reasonableness of pre-trial detention   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 22 October 2024   FINAL   17/03/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Yüksek v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Gediminas Sagatys , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   4/18) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr   Kamuran Yüksek (“the applicant”), on 27 November 2017; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article   10 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; Having deliberated in private on 24 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the applicant, co ‑ chair of the Democratic Regions Party, who was charged with membership of an illegal organisation on account of his speeches. The case raises issues under Article   5 §§ 1 and 3, and Article 10 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1980. He was detained in Diyarbakır at the time when his application was lodged. Before the Court the applicant was represented by Mr M. Özdemir, Mr M. Bektaş and Mr M. N. Özmen, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. 3.     The Government were represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     At the material time the applicant was the co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party ( Demokratik Bölgeler Partisi – “the DBP”), a left-wing pro‑Kurdish political party. 5     On 12 November 2015 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant on the charge of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK/KCK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party/Kurdistan Communities Union). The applicant’s speeches during and after the “events of 6-8 October 2014” and the “trench events” (see paragraphs 6-20 below) were used as the basis for opening the investigation (see the case of Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no.   14305/17, §§   17-54, 22 December 2020) for a detailed description of the facts surrounding the events of 6-8 October 2014 and the trench events). The applicant’s speeches 6 .     Between 27 January 2015 and 18 April 2016 the applicant, in his capacity as the co-chair of an opposition political party, made a number of speeches and statements at party meetings, public demonstrations and press conferences. 7 .     On 27 January 2015 the applicant gave a speech at a public meeting organised by the provincial organisation ( İl teşkilatı ) of the DBP in Diyarbakır. The relevant parts of his speech read as follows: “Kobani is free, is there anything greater than this? May it be a gift to the Kurdish people, the people of the Middle East, President Apo and all the martyrs. Every day, every year ... Kurdistan will become more and more free. ... Our struggle will continue until Kurdistan and President Apo become free.” (“ Kobani özgür bundan daha öte bir şey var mı? Kürt halkına, Ortadoğu halkına, Başkan Apo’ya ve tüm şehitlere armağan olsun, kutlu olsun. Her gün, her sene, ... Kürdistan özgürlüğüne kavuşacak. ... Bu mücadelemiz Kürdistan ve Başkan Apo özgürleşene kadar devam edecek. ”) 8.     On 6 September 2015 the applicant gave a speech to a group of people who had gathered in front of the DBP building in Diyarbakır to protest against the imposition of a curfew in the Sur district. The relevant parts of his speech read as follows: “We want to say this once again here in Amed [Diyarbakır]. We have no problem with the peoples of Anatolia, our Turkish brothers, our Laz brothers, our Circassian brothers. We have a problem with this state of the AKP [the Justice and Development Party] ... These murderous state and government policies pit our peoples against each other. What do we want so much that they are turning towards our cities [and] burning and destroying houses in our cities with tanks and artillery? We want democracy, we want freedom, we no longer want to be governed from Ankara. That’s the whole point. Our people in Sur, Silvan, Lice, Cizre, Silopi, everywhere are saying that we want to develop local democracy, we no longer want to be governed by a district governor, a governor appointed by a person from Ankara. ... the results caused by the district governors and governors appointed by Ankara are ... massacres, persecution, oppression and torture. ... We want this regime to change, to democratise and for these cities to be governed by people elected by the people. ... We want democracy ... Every day our cities are bombarded by tanks and artillery because we want democracy. This is the situation that Suriçi is facing. ... As a delegation, we will now go to Sur on your behalf and try to witness what is happening there and to play a role in preventing further deaths.” (“ Biz buradan Amed’ten bir kez daha şunu söylemek istiyoruz. Bizim Anadolu halklarıyla, Türk kardeşlerimizle, Laz kardeşlerimizle, Çerkez kardeşlerimizle hiçbir sorunumuz yok. Bizim bu AKP’li devletle sorunumuz var ... Bu katil devlet ve hükümet politikaları biz halkları karşı karşıya getirip kırdırıyor. Ne istiyoruz da bu kadar kentlerimize yöneliyorlar, tanklarla ve toplarla kentlerimizde evleri yakıp yıkıyorlar. Demokrasi istiyoruz, özgürlük istiyoruz, artık Ankara’dan yönetilmek istemiyoruz. Bütün mesele budur. Halkımız Sur’da, Silvan’da, Lice’de, Cizre’de, Silopi’de, her yerde şunu söylüyor: biz yerel demokrasiyi geliştirmek istiyoruz, artık Ankara’dan bir kişinin atamış olduğu bir kaymakam, bir vali tarafından yönetilmek istemiyoruz. ... Ankara’nın atamış olduğu kaymakam ve valilerin yol açtığı sonuçlar ... katliamdır, zulümdür, baskıdır, işkencedir. ... Bu rejim değişsin demokratikleşsin bu halkın seçmiş olduğu insanlar tarafından bu kentler yönetilsin istiyoruz. ... Demokrasi istiyoruz ... İşte Suriçi’nin yaşamış olduğu durum budur. ... Biz şimdi bir heyet olarak sizlerin adınıza Sur’a gideceğiz ve orada olan bitenlere tanıklık etmeye, yeni ölümler olmasın diye rol oynamaya çalışacağız. ”) 9 .     On 10 November 2015 the applicant gave a statement to the press at the party headquarters, which was published on social media and some websites. He stated: “People in the cities are proposing a new system based on local democracy – what we call self-governance. We do not want to be governed from Ankara with a unitary, centralist system. We want to govern ourselves. The AKP [Justice and Development Party] responds with war, tanks and cannons. In this country, discussing the presidential system is allowed, but it is forbidden to discuss democratic autonomy. So, shouldn’t we be able to discuss what kind of regime we should have in this country? Can only the AKP discuss it? All the press and media are open to the AKP. They say: ‘The presidential system should be discussed in this country’. By all means, let it be discussed. But democratic autonomy? No, you cannot discuss that. Is that possible? That is called fascism. A system can be discussed, but no other alternative can be discussed. That cannot happen. That is why we are facing a civil coup in this country. We have the right to talk about the future of this country. Our project is democratic autonomy. The AKP government, which silences all opposition groups, is trying to prevent any project other than its own from being discussed. But we will discuss [other ideas] and [we will] struggle. This country is ours, and we are proposing a new future for all peoples. I would like to make it clear that we do not approve of certain attitudes of some HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) deputies and some intellectual writers, who consider themselves democrats, regarding the election results, the actual situation and the people’s struggle. It is a big mistake to consider the people’s struggle for democratic autonomy and self-governance as a factor [negatively] affecting the election process without seeing the AKP’s policy of war and repression, without considering its [policy] anti-democratic. That is manipulation and a method of psychological warfare of the AKP and we see that many parts of society also fall for this method of psychological warfare. The right thing to do is to be on the side of the people. The people want local democracy, they are establishing local democracy in opposition to the dictatorship. [For which they are blamed]. We cannot accept that. After having [blamed the people], no one can call himself a democrat. A discourse that legitimises the current massacres by the State instead of standing on the side of the people is unacceptable. We will explain the [idea of] democratic autonomy to all levels of society in the provinces, districts, and villages. [We will explain] what it is, what it is not, we want to eliminate the perversion [of this term]. We call for resistance against this policy of massacre that the state is currently carrying out in the cities of the region. Our people must resist, struggle, and not surrender. The AKP will not be able to make the Kurds obey. Everybody [else] may have turned around and done U-turns. But we will not bow down. We will continue to struggle. We will act in a principled way. Our concern is to solve the problems of our people. We do not believe that the problems of our people will be solved by the current impositions. At the moment, we are facing an AKP government that denies the [existence of the] Kurdish problem [but] we will continue striving to solve that problem. If the AKP government changes its policy on the Kurdish question, the peace process and Rojava, we are ready for all kinds of talks, discussions and the construction of a new future in the interests of our people. The Kurds must struggle, inspired by the spirit of mobilisation, in all cities, especially in Silvan, [and] in all cities which are under attack with tanks and artillery.” (“ Kentlerde insanlar, yerel demokrasiye dayalı- biz buna öz yönetim diyoruz- yeni bir sistem önermesi içerisindedir. Tekçi, merkeziyetçi bir sistemle Ankara’dan yönetilmek istemiyoruz. Kendi kendimizi yönetmek istiyoruz. AK Parti ise buna savaş, tank, topla yanıt veriyor. Bu ülkede başkanlık sistemini tartışmak serbest, demokratik özerkliği tartışmak yasak. Peki, bu ülkede biz, nasıl bir rejim olması gerektiğini tartışamayacak mıyız? Sadece AKP mi tartışabilir? Bütün basın, medya AKP’ye açılmış durumda. ‘Başkanlık sistemi bu ülkede tartışılmalı’ deniliyor. Eyvallah tartışılsın. Peki, demokratik özerklik? ‘Hayır, tartışamazsınız.’ Böyle bir şey olur mu? Bunun adı faşizmdir. Bir sistem tartışılabilecek, onun dışında hiçbir alternatif tartışılamayacak. Böyle bir şey olamaz. Onun için bu ülkede bir sivil darbeyle karşı karşıyayız. Biz, bu ülkenin geleceğiyle ilgili söz söyleme hakkına sahibiz. Bizim projemiz, demokratik özerkliktir. Bütün muhalif kesimleri susturan AK Parti hükümeti, kendi dışında hiçbir projeyi tartıştırmamaya çalışıyor. Ama biz tartışacağız, mücadele edeceğiz. Bu ülke bizim, bütün halklar için yeni bir gelecek öneriyoruz. Açık belirteyim, kimi HDP milletvekilleri dahil olmak üzere demokrat olarak geçinen aydın yazarlar çevreler dahil olmak üzere, şu ana kadar seçim sonuçları ve yaşanan süreçle, halkın geliştirdiği mücadeleyle alakalı olarak, ortaya koydukları kimi tutumları doğru bulmuyor, kabul etmiyoruz. AKP’nin uyguladığı savaş politikalarını görmeden, uyguladığı baskı politikalarını görmeyip, bunu anti-demokratik değerlendirmeyip, halkın demokratik özerklik, öz yönetim çerçevesinde mücadele etmesini, seçim sürecini etkileyen faktör olarak, değerlendirilmesi büyük yanılgıdır. Bu bir manipülasyondur, AKP’nin psikolojik savaş yöntemidir ve birçok kesimin de bu psikolojik savaş yöntemine geldiğini görmekteyiz. Doğru olan halkın yanında olmaktır. Halk yerel demokrasi istiyor, diktatörlüğü karşı, yerel demokrasi geliştiriyor. Birileri de çıkıp, halkı suçlayacak. Böyle bir şeyi kabul edemeyiz. Bunu söyledikten sonra kimse kendine demokrat diyemez. Halkın yanında olmak yerine, devletin şu anki katliamlarını meşrulaştırmak üzere söylem kabul edilemez. İllerde, ilçe, köylerde, toplumun bütün kesimlerine demokratik özerkliği anlatacağız. Ne olduğunu ne olmadığını, bu çarpıtmaları ortadan kaldırmak istiyoruz. Devletin şu anda bölgedeki kentlerde uyguladığı bu katliam politikalarına karşı, direniş çağrısı yapıyoruz. Halkımız direnmeli, mücadele etmeli, teslim olmamalı. AKP Kürtler’i biat ettiremeyecektir. Herkes dönmüş, ‘U’ dönüşü yapmış olabilir. Ama biz baş eğmeyeceğiz. Mücadele etmeye devam edeceğiz. Biz ilkeli hareket edeceğiz. Derdimiz halkımızın sorunlarının çözümüdür. Biz, şu anki dayatmalarla halkımızın sorunlarının çözüleceğine inanmıyoruz. Şu an, Kürt sorunun reddeden bir AK Parti hükümetiyle karşı karşıyayız, bununla mücadele etmeye devam edeceğiz. AK Parti hükümeti, eğer Kürt sorunu, çözüm süreci, Rojava politikalarını değiştirirse, halkımızın çıkarları doğrultusunda mevcut iktidar kimse, her türlü görüşme, tartışma ve yeni bir gelecek şekillendirmeye de hazırız. Bütün kentleri, başta Silvan için olmak üzere, tank, toplarla saldırılara maruz kalan bütün kentlerin Kürtler’in seferberlik ruhuyla mücadele etmesi gerekiyor. ”) 10.     On 13 December 2015 the applicant made a statement to the press at Dağkapı Square ( Dağkapı Meydanı ) in the Sur district. The relevant parts of that statement read as follow: “Look, a part of our city, which we see behind us, is currently under occupation. We can see such things when a state invades ... another country. ... the Suriçi region has been surrounded by the military and police, and our people have been held hostage for days under the name of a curfew, [which has been enforced arbitrarily without being] based on any code, law, legislation or constitution, and there have been clashes there for days. Our people are hungry, thirsty, miserable ...” (“ Bakın arkamızda gördüğümüz kentimizin bir bölümü şu anda işgal altında. Bir devlet gidip bir başka ülkenin devletini işgal ettiğinde biz bu tür görüntüleri görebiliyoruz. ... Suriçi bölgesi asker ve polis tarafından ablukaya alınmış günlerdir sokağa çıkma [yasağı] adı altında, ne olduğu belirsiz olan, hiçbir kanun, hiçbir hukuka, hiçbir yasaya ve anayasaya dayanmayan keyfi bir uygulama ile halkımız orada adeta rehin tutulmakta ve günlerdir orada çatışmalar oluyor. Halkımız aç, susuz, perişan ... ”) 11.     On 18 December 2015, a news portal published a statement by the applicant in which he gave his opinion about the right to self-determination. The applicant said the following: “In 2003 [Türkiye] signed the convention recognising the right to self ‑ determination, that is the right of peoples to determine their own destiny. Erdoğan was the then Prime Minister. He has committed to this. ... we remind you of that signature. We are not talking about a right of separation, but we remind you that it was signed by the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic. In 2013, it was Erdoğan who said that ‘even our ancestors, the Ottomans, called [that region] Kurdistan and why [shouldn’t we establish] a seven-region [federal] system in Türkiye.’” (“ [Türkiye] 2003 yılında self determinasyon hakkı yani halkların kendi kaderlerini tayin hakkını kabul eden sözleşmeyi imzalamıştır. Başbakan Erdoğan’dı o zaman. Bunu taahhüt etmiştir. (...) bu attığınız imzayı hatırlatıyoruz. Bir ayrılma hakkından söz etmiyoruz ama bunun Başbakan’ın, Cumhurbaşkanı’nın imzaladığını hatırlatıyoruz. 2013 yılında ecdatlarımız Osmanlı bile Kürdistan dedi Türkiye’de yedi bölgeli eyalet sistemi neden olmasın diyen Erdoğan’dı. ”) 12.     On 20 December 2015 the following statement made by the applicant was published on some news portals which were allegedly controlled by the PKK: “If a state uses tanks and cannons against its people, it is legitimate to resist it. The AKP has declared war not only against the Kurds but against the whole of Türkiye. The State is an occupier in Kurdistan. The Kurds lost 100 years ago, but they will not lose this time. The dispute has grown – take your place, struggle. If the Kurds succeed, Turkey will become more democratic. ... Consequently, this process is a process of active struggle for us. In this process all means of struggle are legitimate. If a state has started to use all kinds of weapons, tanks, cannons, soldiers and police against its society, the right to resist is the most legitimate of rights.” (“ Bir devlet toplumuna karşı tank ve top kullanıyorsa buna karşı direnmek meşrudur. AKP sadece Kürtlere değil tüm Türkiye’ye savaş açmış durumda. Devlet Kürdistan’da işgalcidir. Kürtler 100 yıl önce kaybetti, ama bu kez kaybetmeyecek. Kavga büyümüştür, yerinizi alın, mücadele edin. Kürtler başarırsa Türkiye demokratikleşir. ... Dolayısıyla süreç bizim açımızdan aktif mücadele etme sürecidir. Bu süreçte her tür mücadele yolu meşrudur. Eğer bir devlet, toplumuna karşı silah, tank, top, asker ve polis her türlü enstrümanı kullanmaya başlamışsa buna karşı direnmek en meşru haktır. ”) 13.     On 26 and 27 December 2015 the applicant attended the extraordinary meeting of the Democratic Society Congress in Diyarbakır. On 26   December 2015, he gave a speech, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The unitary nation-state system must change itself from now on, the nation-state system must be abandoned. All peoples living in this geograph[ical area], all ethnic structures, all beliefs and all social segments, especially us Kurds, as the main element of this country, should have a new arrangement, a new social contract; a new social forum should be formed in which they can coexist in this country freely with their own identity, language and self-governance in a framework that can also have political autonomy. In other words, unitary, centralised nation-building must be abandoned.” (“ Tekçi ulus devlet yapılanması bundan sonra kendisini değiştirmek durumunda olmalıdır, ulus devlet yapılanmasından vazgeçilmesi lazım. Bu coğrafyada yaşayan bütün halklar, biz Kürtler başta olmak üzere bütün etnik yapılar, bütün inançlar ve bütün toplumsal kesimler bu ülkenin ana unsuru olarak bu ülkede kendi kimliğiyle, diliyle özgür bir şekilde ve kendi kendini yönetebilecek bir şekilde siyasi özerkliği de olabilen bir çerçevede bir arada olabileceği yeni bir düzenlemeye kavuşmalıdır, yeni bir toplumsal sözleşmeye kavuşturulmalıdır, yeni bir toplumsal forum oluşmalıdır. Yani artık tekçi, merkeziyetçi ulus yapılanmasından vazgeçilmelidir. ”) On the second day of the meeting he gave another speech in which he once more defended self-governance and resistance. 14.     On 5 January 2016 the applicant gave a statement to the press after the police raided and searched the DBP’s building in Diyarbakır. The relevant parts of his statement were as follows: “There is no democracy anymore in Türkiye. There is no such thing as law in Türkiye. There is only the AKP junta. The AKP government has seized the country, carried out a coup and is waging a war against our people. ... We will continue to struggle for democracy together with our people. ... we will continue to struggle against this AKP junta and coup together with our people every moment and every minute ...” (“ Türkiye’de demokrasi diye bir şey kalmamıştır. Türkiye’de hukuk diye bir şey yoktur. Sadece ve sadece AKP cuntası var. AKP hükümeti ülkeye el koymuş, darbe yapmış ve halkımıza karşı da bir savaş yürütmektedir. Kurumumuz da bu çerçevede basılmıştır. ... Biz demokrasi mücadelesi vermeye, halkımızla beraber demokrasi mücadelesi vermeye devam edeceğiz. ... her an her dakika halkımızla birlikte bu AKP cuntasına ve darbesine karşı direnmeye mücadeleye devam edeceğiz ... ”) 15.     On 6 January 2016, the applicant made a statement to the press in which he criticised the operations carried out by the security forces in the south-east of Türkiye and described as a “war crime” the killing of S.D., a member of the DBP, and two others on 4 January 2016 during those operations. He also called on citizens to protest against the killing of civilians, which he described as “extrajudicial executions”. The relevant parts of his statement read as follows: “Yesterday in Silopi, three of our women friends, including our party council member S.D., were murdered because of the state’s intention and attacks. S.D. [was] a civilian politician who worked for 20 years in the lawful struggle of the Kurdish political movement ... and [most recently] in the Democratic Regions Party. ... And lately she served as a member of the party assembly. A member of a party established in accordance with the constitution and regulated by law was assassinated. ... They are among 215 of our civilian friends who have been massacred since July. ... This government has blood on its hands. ... When we establish a democratic legal order, they will be held accountable before that democratic legal order. ... I call on everyone ... to take to the streets and show their reactions to these extrajudicial executions and massacres.” (“ Dün Silopi’de parti meclis üyemiz S.D.’nin de içinde bulunduğu üç kadın arkadaşımız devletin yönelim ve saldırıları sonucu katledilmiştir. ... S.D. 20 yıldır Kürt siyasi hareketinin legal mücadelesi içerisinde ... ve şimdi de Demokratik Bölgeler Partisinde çalışmış görev almış sivil bir siyasetçidir. ... Ve en son olarak da parti meclisi üyesi olarak görev alan bir arkadaşımızdı. Anayasayla kurulmuş yasalarla düzenlenmiş bir partinin ... üyesi katledildi. ... Temmuz ayından bu yana katledilen 215   sivil arkadaşımızdan biri bunlar. ... Bu hükümetin eli kana bulaşmıştır. ... Demokratik bir hukuk düzeni inşa ettiğimizde bu demokratik hukuk düzeni karşısında hesap verecekler. ... Herkesi ... bu yargısız infazlara, bu katliamlara karşı sokağa çıkıp tepkilerini göstermeye çağırıyorum. ... ”) 16.     On 27 and 29 February 2016, the co-chairs of the Democratic Society Congress, the People’s Democratic Congress, the Peoples’ Democratic Party and the DBP held a joint press conference. During his intervention, the applicant made statements calling on the government authorities to lift the curfews and reiterating his call for protests against the operations carried out by the security forces in the district of Sur. 17.     On 2 March 2016 the applicant made statements to the media in a television programme broadcast on Özgür Gün TV, a channel which was allegedly controlled by the PKK. The relevant parts of his statement read as follows: “... people are facing a policy of war carried out by the AKP. ... all our institutions and democratic organisations are subject to the AKP’s war policy. Our municipalities are among the most targeted. So far, as a result of the policy which they have pursued against our communities, 20 of our friends have been arrested ... and around 60   municipal council members and members of the provincial general assembly have been dismissed. ... even during the fascist coup d’état of 12 September such things did not happen. ... Every day one of our party buildings is raided [and our members/partisans] are arrested ... or threatened. ... The aim of all this, the aim of all these practices, the aim for all these policies is that the Kurds do not reappear on the stage of history and democracy does not develop in Türkiye. ... We have begun to take the situation in Sur seriously again ... These blockades must be lifted, and the massacre policy abandoned to save the people there.” (“ ... halkımız AKP’nin yürütmüş olduğu savaş politikası ile karşı karşıyadır. ... bütün kurumlarımız, demokrasi kurumları AKP’nin savaş politikasının hedefindedir. Belediyelerimiz de bunun başında geliyor. Belediyelerimize yönelik bugüne kadar uyguladıkları politikalar neticesinde hala 20   arkadaşımız tutuklu ... 60 civarında belediye meclis üyesi ve il genel meclis üyemiz görevden alındı. ... 12 Eylül faşist darbesinde dahi bu tablolar yaşanmamıştı. ... her gün bir parti binamız basılıyor, gözaltına alınıyor, ... tehdit ediliyor. ... Bütün bunların nedeni ne, bütün bu uygulamaların bu politikaların nedeni ne, Kürtler tarih sahnesine yeniden çıkmasın diye ve Türkiye’de demokrasi gelişmesin diye. ... Sur’un durumunu tekrar biz ciddi bir şekilde ele almış durumdayız ... Bu ablukaların kalkması katliam politikalarından vazgeçilmesi oradaki insanların da kurtulabilmesi için. ”) 18.     On 16 April 2016, the applicant made a statement to the press criticising the arrest of members of the DBP, deputies of opposition parties and human rights activists. The relevant parts of his statement read as follows: “(...) Thousands of our party members, workers in civil society associations, patriotic people, [and] people who are in favour of democracy, resolution and peace in Türkiye have been arrested. ... The toll [over the past] seven months is now 1,100 detainees, thousands of arrests, and thousands of deaths. ... Political genocide operations have been launched against us as the Democratic Regions Party [and] our municipalities, [against] the members and leaders of the People’s Democratic Party, including their deputies, [and against] non-governmental organisations. This will only decrease the chances of reaching a democratic solution and deepen the war. ... Of course we want to live together. We want to live together under the same roof, with equal rights, [and we want to live] freely. We prefer it that way, but if you take away the means of achieving it, these people will naturally try to fend for themselves in the new century.” (“ ... binlerce parti üyemiz, sivil toplum derneklerinin çalışanları, yurtsever insanlarımız, Türkiye’de demokrasiden, çözümden, barıştan yana olan insanlarımız gözaltına alındı. ... Yedi ayın bilançosu, şu anda bin yüz tutuklu, binlerce gözaltı, binlerce ölüm. ... Demokratik Bölgeler Partisi olarak bizlere, belediyelerimize, Halkların Demokratik Partisi milletvekilleri dahil olmak üzere yöneticilerine, üyelerine, sivil toplum örgütlerine karşı siyasi soykırım operasyonları tekrar başlatılmış durumda. Bu demokratik çözüm imkanlarını ortadan kaldırmaktan ve savaşı derinleştirmekten başka hiçbir işe yaramayacaktır. ... Elbette birlikte yaşamak istiyoruz. Aynı çatı altında eşit haklarla birlikte yaşamak istiyoruz, özgürce. Tercihimiz bundan yana ama bunun imkanlarını ortadan kaldırırsanız bu halkta elbette ki yeni yüzyıl şekillenirken kendi başının çaresine bakmaya çalışacak. ... ”) 19.     On 18 April 2016, the applicant made a statement to the press and reiterated his previous criticisms of the then government. He said: “... The direction of change in Türkiye should be towards local democracy and the method should be democratic and political, not violent. The AKP is now trying to consolidate its system by favouring the way of violence, by trying to crush all opponents, all those who think outside its perspective, by trying to make them obey it. ... Our party’s ... members are being arrested and detained because they defend local democracy, decentralisation ... and democratic autonomy, because they try to explain, organise, and develop this [democratic autonomy], which is contrary to the AKP’s [policy]. ... Even ... two of our party members, S.D. and M.Y., lost their lives as a result of the attacks in Cizre and Silopi. They are martyrs of our party, martyrs of democracy. ...” (“ ... Türkiye’nin değişim istikameti yerel demokrasi yönünde olmalı ve yöntem de demokratik, siyasal yollarla olmalı, şiddet yöntemiyle olmamalı. AKP şimdi şiddet yolunu tercih ederek, bütün muhalifleri, bütün kendi perspektifi dışında düşünen kesimleri ezmeye çalışarak, biat ettirmeye çalışarak, sistemini tahkim ettirmeye çalışıyor. ... Parti ... üyelerimiz, AKP’nin bu perspektifinin aksine, yerel demokrasiyi, yerinden yönetimi ... demokratik özerkliği savunduğu, bunu anlatmaya, bunu örgütlemeye, geliştirmeye çalıştıkları için gözaltına alınıyor, tutuklanıyorlar. ... Hatta ... iki parti meclisi üyemiz S.D. ve M.Y., Cizre ve Silopi’de saldırılar sonucu hayatını kaybettiler. Onlar partimizin şehitleridir, demokrasi şehitleridirler. ... ”) 20 .     On 1 May 2016 the applicant participated in a meeting at which he gave a speech in favour of democratic autonomy. He said: “I bow with respect in front of all our people who struggle for freedom in every city of Kurdistan and I believe ... that the Kurdish people will be able to live freely in their own land like all other peoples in the world. ... Today we propose democratic autonomy as a solution [f]or two reasons: [it can] protect the unitary integrity of countries and allow peoples to live freely. ... Autonomy will solve the Kurdish problem, autonomy will also solve the problem[s] of poverty and unemployment. ... Do not be fooled by those who distort and interpret the democratic autonomy project in a different way. ...” (“ ... Kürdistan’ın her kentinde özgürlük için mücadele eden bütün insanlarımızın önünde saygıyla eğiliyorum ve inanıyorum ki ... Kürt halkı da dünyadaki diğer bütün halklar gibi kendi topraklarında özgürce yaşayabilecektir. ... Bugün biz çözüm açısından demokratik özerkliği öneriyoruz. İki nedenden dolayı: Demokratik özerklik hem ülkelerin üniter bütünlüğünü koruyabilecek hem de halkların özgürce yaşayabileceği bir modeldir. ... Özerklik Kürt sorununu da çözecek, özerklik aynı zamanda yoksulluk sorununu da çözecek, işsizlik sorununu da çözecektir. ... Demokratik özerklik projesini başka şekilde çarpıtıp yorumlayanlara kesinlikle kanmayın. ... ”) The applicant’s pre-trial detention and prosecution 21.     On 12 November 2015 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK/KCK. The applicant’s above ‑ mentioned speeches were used as the basis for opening the said investigation. 22.     On 10 May 2016, in the course of the criminal investigation, the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on the instructions of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office, which described him as a member of a terrorist organisation. 23.     On 12 May 2016 the prosecutor ordered that the applicant’s detention in police custody be extended. Later the same day the Diyarbakır 2nd   Magistrate’s Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the prosecutor’s decision to extend his detention by the police. There is no indication in the case file as to whether the applicant was questioned by the police. 24.     On 13 May 2016 the applicant, assisted by three lawyers, appeared before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. The latter questioned the applicant about speeches he had given during the meetings of the DBP and public demonstrations, and statements he had made to several media organisations between 27 January 2015 and 18 April 2016 (see paragraphs 6-20 above). According to the record of the questioning ( sorgulama tutanağı ), the prosecutor read out the content of each of the above-mentioned speeches and statements made by the applicant and asked him to provide an explanation. 25.     The applicant denied the accusations of membership of a terrorist organisation and maintained that in his interventions he had criticised the government’s actions and policy in his capacity as the leader of an opposition political party. He stated that his statements in favour of, and demands for self-determination and self-governance should not be subject to investigation and that he had not made any statement encouraging the digging of ditches and the building of barricades. He explained that by words such as “struggle” and “resistance” he had meant political and civil struggle against the government’s war policies, and that his calls for civil disobedience had referred to non-violent acts. 26.     The applicant added that on 6 September 2015 he had delivered a speech to a group gathered in front of the DBP’s party building. He asserted that the sole purpose of his speech had been to prevent the group from marching to Sur. He dismissed the allegations that he had participated in an unauthorised demonstration. He explained that he had used the term “occupation” in his speech on 13   December 2015 to draw an analogy with scenes of occupation of one country by another. With regard to his speech on 6   January 2016, he indicated that he had criticised the authorities for their negligence in the deaths of S.D. and two other people who were civilian politicians and not members of a terrorist organisation. He said he had qualified the killing of civilians as a “war crime” because the government had a responsibility to protect civilians, which it had failed to do. The applicant further stated that in his statement of 2 March 2016 he had used the terms “political genocide” to characterise the arrest of DBP members and mayors. As regards his statements about the government’s alleged use of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) against the Kurds, he affirmed that they constituted political criticism, and that similar allegations had been put forward elsewhere in public opinion. He maintained that he could not be held responsible for slogans chanted, banners carried, and photographs brandished in support of the PKK during his interventions as he had participated in press statements and gatherings only as a speaker. He further affirmed that he had never made comments in his speeches regarding members of a terrorist organisation who had died during the “trench events”. During his interview he also stated that the Democratic Society Congress and the People’s Democratic Congress, whose invitation he had accepted to attend some press conferences, were legally established umbrella organisations. He added that he had no connection with those organisations, either at the executive or any other level. 27.     Then the applicant was asked to add some further observations. He replied as follows: “... All the statements I made were aimed at ending the conflict. They are critical statements against government policies. I have not taken any action to prevent the operations carried out by the security forces.” Finally, his answer to the question as to whether he was a member of the PKK/KCK and whether he had received instructions from the organisation was as follows: “I have no connection with the armed organisation PKK/KCK or any other such organisation. I have not received any orders or instructions from anyone with links or connections to that organisation. The fact that my statements cover the same topics as those made by the leaders of an illegal organisation or that statements have been made on similar topics does not mean that I have a connection with a [terrorist] organisation. I clearly state that I do not accept any violent methods and that I use democratic forms of politics as a method of struggle. No criminal offence has been committed as a result of my statements.” 28.     Following the questioning, the public prosecutor sought an order for the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an armed terrorist organisation (Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code). 29.     On the same day the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır Magistrate’s Court. The applicant, assisted by his lawyers, essentially repeated his statement to the prosecutor. He emphasised that his statements on “self-governance” were in line with the political stance of the DBP and that he had been making such statements for years. He further stated that the system of self-governance which the party defended was respectful of the territorial integrity of Türkiye and was peaceful. He indicated that his party had never advocated separatism or armed struggle. He further specified that the fact that the DBP and the PKK both defended “self-governance” did not mean that his party approved of the methods employed by that organisation. He also added that his interventions during the recent operations of the security forces had been aimed at saving the lives of civilians. He declared to the magistrate that his calls to protest against the government’s actions had been in line with the law and that the protests had consisted of switching off lights or organising public demonstrations. 30 .     The magistrate also examined the applicant about some documents that had been seized from his house and from the DBP headquarters. In particular, he questioned him about two documents entitled “Corruption Investigation Report” ( Yolsuzluk Araştırma Raporu ) and “Report of A.D.” ( A.D.’in raporu ). According to the case file, the first report concerned allegations that donations collected by the party were being used for personal purposes. In the latter report, A.D., a party member, stated that she wanted to divorce her husband and asked the party executives for help. The applicant explained that the said documents related to internal matters of the party. 31.     At the end of the examination, the applicant claimed that there was no evidence in the case file to establish a link between him and the PKK or to prove that he had acted on its instructions. 32 .     Having heard the applicant, the magistrate ordered his pre-trial detention, noting that there was concrete evidence giving rise to a strong suspicion that an offence had been committed under Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation. He considered that the applicant had made statements in support of the PKK/KCK’s declaration of “self-governance” and had been at the forefront of illegal activities carried out in response to calls of that organisation. He also mentioned that, in his statements, the applicant had described the operations of the security forces as attacks, persecution, oppression, and massacres, and the activities of the terrorist organisation as resistance, struggle, and war, and that under the guise of political activity he had called on the people to take to the streets in accordance with the aims of the terrorist organisation. The magistrate further indicated that the applicant had aimed to disseminate the policies of the terrorist organisation through the activities he carried out, following the instructions received from senior leaders. He also stated that the applicant’s activities had been continuous and intensive. In his decision, the magistrate also relied on the content of the house search report and pieces of evidence discovered during searches conducted by the police at the DBP headquarters (the case file does not contain the search reports referred to by the magistrate). 33.     As to the grounds for the applicant’s detention, the magistrate noted that the offence in question was among those listed in Article 100 §   3 of the   CCP – the so-called “catalogue offences” – for which a suspect’s pre-trial detention was deemed justified in the event of strong suspicion. Subsequently, taking into account the severity of the sentence prescribed by law for the offences in question, he held that the measure of pre-trial detention was necessary and proportionate and that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient. 34.     On 20 May 2016 the 3rd Diyarbakır Magistrate’s Court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the order for his detention, stating that the detention order had been in compliance with the law and the procedure. 35.     On 12 June 2016 the the 1st Diyarbakır Magistrate’s Court, in the course of an automatic periodic review, of the ordered the applicant’s continued detention. The magistrate stated that the case file contained concrete evidence giving rise to a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence. He also took into account the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the alleged offence and the fact that it was a “catalogue” offence. 36 .     On 13 June 2016 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court in respect of the applicant, charging him, in particular, with membership of an armed terrorist organisation, namely the PKK/KCK, under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor made particular reference in the indictment to the applicant’s above-mentioned speeches and statements. The indictment also referred to the objects and documents seized from the applicant’s house and the DBP headquarters, in particular some banned books allegedly containing propaganda of the PKK and its leader, a lighter bearing the inscription “President Apo”, and documents allegedly showing that the applicant and the DBP had adopted the policies of the PKK. 37.     On 29 June 2016 the 5th Diyarbakır Assize Court accepted the bill of indictment filed by the public prosecutor. On the same day, the court also ordered the continuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, finding that it was justified by the fact that the alleged offence was among those listed in Article   100 § 3 of the CCP and by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence. Taking into account the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence in question, the Assize Court held that the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was proportio