The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is set to review the conviction of Osman Kavala, inviting the Turkish government to provide information and documents related to the judicial process concerning Kavala. This move by the ECHR, which decided to review the conviction without waiting for the decision of the Constitutional Court, signals a significant development in recognizing that the Constitutional Court is no longer an effective remedy for appeal, according to Veysel Ok, co-director of the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA).
The ECHR's inquiry to the government includes questions on whether the presumption of innocence was violated in Kavala's case, whether the prolongation of the process before the Constitutional Court contradicts the convention, and if the involvement of judges who previously engaged in political activities breaches the criterion for a trial by an impartial court. Additionally, the case will be examined in the context of Article 18 of the Convention, known as the prohibition of abuse of rights.
Veysel Ok highlighted the ECHR's decision to proceed with the case before the Constitutional Court's ruling as a crucial step indicating the absence of an effective domestic legal remedy in Turkey. He mentioned that if the Constitutional Court's decisions are not implemented, the ECHR's potential bypassing of the court to make a violation ruling could become a common practice, raising significant concerns for the Turkish judiciary.
Previously, the ECHR ruled in favor of Kavala in his first application, finding his detention violated his rights to personal liberty and security and freedom of expression, ordering his immediate release. Although he was released following this decision, a new arrest warrant on a different case file resulted in the continuation of his detention. While Turkey claimed to have implemented the ECHR's decision, the Committee of Ministers responsible for overseeing the execution stated that the violation continued and demanded Kavala's immediate release.
In his application, Kavala argued that the extended duration of his detention violated his rights, his right to be tried by an independent court was breached, politicians' statements about the case violated the presumption of innocence, and he was not afforded the principle of equality of arms in the proceedings. Furthermore, he stated that the conviction against him was incompatible with the principles of legality and predictability. The case will also address the prohibition of abuse of rights under Article 18.
Following the responses from the parties involved, the ECHR will proceed to review the case. A ruling of violation could potentially lead to reconsideration of Kavala's release.
