Turkey has remained to continue to be governed under state of emergency. A new emergency decree law was recently issued. The recent one provides a commission to examine the proceedings, instituted under the former ones. Beforehand, Erdoğan had suppressed the criticism of “ the innocent ones are also suffering with the guilty”, coming from the community, saying he wouldn’t think of it. Even, they obtained fetwa (an opinion on a matter involving islamic religious law) from Hayrettin Karaman, expert on fıqh ( Muslim canonical jurisprudence).

The remedies are not effective and accessible for the ordinary citizens, but not for those who have an acquaintance from AKP. For example, the kaimakam of Gökçebey (governer of a district) had been arrested by the denouncement of a head of the ruling party, AKP, in the district. As a result of being references of IHH authorities (pro Erdoğan and radical islamic association, leading the event of Mavi Marmara) and working to reconcile the parties of the deputies of AKP, that kaimakam was released. There are lots of examples like this. Moreover, the saying of Metin Gündoğdu, AKP deputy of the province of Ordu “ I called the public prosecutor of the district, Ünye, and I gave him a period of two hours to release someone. Then, the judge in that district released that person whose name I gave him, saying there was a wrongdoing” captured the mind of the public.

As to be understood by means of the above-mentioned examples, the ruling party does not take the domestic public into consideration. The emergency law no.685 was already issued not for the domestic but for the international community. It aims to get rid of the widely and as of concern criticism of the European Court of Human Rights and several European institutions. In fact, they also ignore the international criticism but were afraid of the general and individual measures that might be ordered notably by ECHR. In fact, the general secretary of European Council, Jagland, had given this advice to them. Furthermore, the Venice Commission, criticising the unlawful practices seriously, had supported this advice of Jagland. However, the commission, they intended, was not like this. Beforehand, the commissions had been established to compensate the damage of the victims in the fight against terror. While the counterparts in Europe were expecting a commissin just like of that, they faced “a painted donkey (a saying means trying to deceive someone)”. I hope, the Eeuropeans will not be able to be tricked in this way. Have it been, it means they do not have something good in their minds.


A law no. 5233 was adopted in 2004 to compensate the damages of the victims injured in terror operations. This law aimed to resolve the issues as soon as possible by the way of reconciliation. Immediate after it entered into force in 2014, it concluded nearly 385 thousand applications. That attempt had really something good in mind and aimed to conclude the applications. In case of the applications concerning evacuating the villages in that period, the ECHR didn’t make the applicants be obliged to exhaust the domestic remedies before the establishment of the commissions, however, declared the applications inadmissible after the establishment of the commission by the way of directing them to apply for the commission.

The above-mentioned commissions were established by the governer of the provinces. They had being widely operated with just 88 commissions across the country. They were local and had the chance of confirming the validity of the complaints. Under the prisiding member of the deputy of governer of the province, the commissions had constituted of the public officials, one each of whom was from the ministry of finance, ministry of public works, ministry of health, ministry of industry and ministry of trade and one was a lawyer appointed by the Bar of that province. Despite the members were public officials, the fact that they were local and also expert on the concerned issues made the dispute resolved in duly and properly manner. In addition, the commissions should conclude the complaints in two years.


The only common peculiarity of recently established commission with the former ones is the number 7. The number of the members of the former commissions was also 7. However, there is a such different that it was 88 times 7 for the former ones, nowadays, only seven members should examine all the applications. Furthermore, at that time, in some provinces where the number of the applications was high like Hakkari, more than one commissions could be able to be established. By this way, 385 thousand applications could be able to be concluded in a timely manner. Up to now, the number of the dismissed under the emergency decree laws has reached 135 thousand. When the number of officials, employed in the closed private education&health institutions, associations, foundations, newspaper&radio organizations added to those dismissed, the probable number of the applicants exceeds 200 thousand. Having regard to the big files of thousands of the juristic personalities, shut down under emergency decree laws, it can be easily understood that the only goal of the ruling party, AKP, is to get rid of the domestic and international criticism and also trick the ECHR and european counterparts keeping them busy.

Professor İzzet Gönenç, writing the draft of the Turkish criminal code, stated that the claim on the issue that newly legal remedy has become effective and accessible by the way of the establishment of the commission, will be misleading. He pointed that it would delay the compensation of the damages. Moreover, Kerem Altıparmak, lawyer and academics, shared his calculation about the time period concerning the conclusion of the applications would take at least 10 years.

Shortly, they say that a new remedy has been effective and accessible any more, however, you have to bring a piece of snow from the Kaf Mountain (a turkish proverb which means making trouble about the proceedings in order not to resolve it). The jurisprudence isn’t required to be able to understand that the establishment of the comission is not a reasonable, easily accesisble and admissible remedy. On the other side, those having jurisprudence will share my opinion about the trickness of the commission against the law and also the European Human Rights Convention. If Jagland, being more moderate to Erdoğan rather than the other European leaders, finds this regulation satisfactory, we can even mention about law collusion. Accordingly, the ECHR’s duty in this point is not to approve these tricks and the attempt to modify the legal provisions as they want. Otherwise, the trust in ECHR and the mechanism to administer the justice will be demolished.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email