Opinions by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Human Rights Committee (Re: Turkey)

UN

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42 of the former Commission on Human Rights. Its mandate was clarified and extended by Commission’s resolution 1997/50:

(a) To investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned;

(b) To seek and receive information from Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and receive information from the individuals concerned, their families or their representatives;

(c) To act on information submitted to its attention regarding alleged cases of arbitrary detention by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and to bring to their attention these cases;

(d) To conduct field missions upon the invitation of Government, in order to understand better the situations prevailing in countries, as well as the underlying reasons for instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty;

(e) To formulate deliberations on issues of a general nature in order to assist States to prevent and guard against the practice of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to facilitate consideration of future cases;

(f) To present an annual report to the Human Rights Council presenting its activities, findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Furthermore, the Human Rights Council encourages the Working Group in fulfilling its mandate:

(a) To work in cooperation and dialogue with all those concerned by the cases submitted to it, and in particular with States that provide information which should be given due consideration;

(b) To work in coordination with other mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, with other competent United Nations bodies and with treaty bodies, bearing in mind the role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in such coordination, and to take all necessary measures to avoid duplication with those mechanisms, in particular regarding the treatment of the communications it receives and field missions;

(c) To carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence.


The Human Rights Committee monitors States parties’ adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which to date has 172 States parties. The Committee is made up of 18 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties.

Its Optional Protocol, which to date has 116 States parties, establishes the right of individuals to complain to the Committee against States which violated their human rights. The Optional Protocol imposes an international legal obligation on State parties to comply in good faith with the Committee’s Views. Further information on the individual complaints procedures before the Committees.


We are sharing the WGAD’s and the CCPR’s opinions adopted regarding Turkey’s detention practices under the Emergency Regime

Opinions adopted by the Human Rights Committee

CCPR opinion on İsmet Özçelik, Turgay Karaman and I.Adated 28 May 2019


Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

  • UN

    The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42 of the former Commission on Human Rights. Its mandate was clarified and extended by Commission’s resolution 1997/50:

    (a) To investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned;

    (b) To seek and receive information from Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and receive information from the individuals concerned, their families or their representatives;

    (c) To act on information submitted to its attention regarding alleged cases of arbitrary detention by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and to bring to their attention these cases;

    (d) To conduct field missions upon the invitation of Government, in order to understand better the situations prevailing in countries, as well as the underlying reasons for instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty;

    (e) To formulate deliberations on issues of a general nature in order to assist States to prevent and guard against the practice of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and to facilitate consideration of future cases;

    (f) To present an annual report to the Human Rights Council presenting its activities, findings, conclusions and recommendations.

    Furthermore, the Human Rights Council encourages the Working Group in fulfilling its mandate:

    (a) To work in cooperation and dialogue with all those concerned by the cases submitted to it, and in particular with States that provide information which should be given due consideration;

    (b) To work in coordination with other mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, with other competent United Nations bodies and with treaty bodies, bearing in mind the role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in such coordination, and to take all necessary measures to avoid duplication with those mechanisms, in particular regarding the treatment of the communications it receives and field missions;

    (c) To carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence.


    The Human Rights Committee monitors States parties’ adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which to date has 172 States parties. The Committee is made up of 18 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties.

    Its Optional Protocol, which to date has 116 States parties, establishes the right of individuals to complain to the Committee against States which violated their human rights. The Optional Protocol imposes an international legal obligation on State parties to comply in good faith with the Committee’s Views. Further information on the individual complaints procedures before the Committees.


    We are sharing the WGAD’s and the CCPR’s opinions adopted regarding Turkey’s detention practices under the Emergency Regime

    Opinions adopted by the Human Rights Committee

    CCPR opinion on İsmet Özçelik, Turgay Karaman and I.A. dated 28 May 2019


    Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

84/2020Osman Karaca vs. Cambodia and TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/84
66/2020 Levent Kart vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/66
67/2020Ahmet Dinçer Sakaoğlu vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/67
74/2020 Nermin Yasar vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/74
47/2020 Kahraman Demirez, Mustafa Erdem, Hasan Hüseyin Günakan, Yusuf Karabina, Osman Karakaya and Cihan Özkan vs. Turkey and KosovoA/HRC/WGAD/2020/47
51/2020 Arif Komiş, Ülkü Komiş and four minors vs. Malaysia and Turkey) A/HRC/WGAD/2020/51
2/2020Abdulmuttalip Kurt vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/2
29/2020Akif Oruç vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2020/29
30/2020Faruk Serdar Köse vs Turkey A/HRC/WGAD/2020/30
79/2019Ercan Demir vs TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2019/79
53/2019Melike Göksan and Mehmet Fatih Göksan vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2019/53
10/2019 Mustafa Ceyhan vs. Azerbaijan and TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2019/10
78/2018Hamza Yaman vs. TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2018/78
84/2018Andrew Craig Brunson vs, TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2018/84
42/2018Mestan Yayman vs. Turkey A/HRC/WGAD/2018/42
43/2018Ahmet Caliskan vs Turkey A/HRC/WGAD/2018/43
44/2018Muharrem Gençtürk vs Turkey A/HRC/WGAD/2018/44
11/2018Mesut Kaçmaz, Meral Kaçmaz and two minors vs. Pakistan and TurkeyA/HRC/WGAD/2018/11
1/2017Rebii Metin Görgeç vs Turkey A/HRC/WGAD/2017/1


Categories: International Advocacy, Judgments & Opinions, Unjust / Wrongful Convictions

Tags: ,

2 replies

Trackbacks

  1. The Turkish Judiciary’s Violations of Human Rights Guarantees | Verfassungsblog
  2. Call for action: The case of lawyer Turan Canpolat – The Arrested Lawyers Initiative
%d bloggers like this: