AİHM Kararlarının icra edilmesi
Konu: AİHM Kararlarının icra edilmesi Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights Hazırlayan (Reporter) Mr Jurgens(Hollanda)
Bay Jurgens’in raporu gerçeklere dayanmamaktadır.
AİHM kararlarının yerine getirilmesi, Türkiye için halen devam etmekte olan bir süreçtir ve aslında bütün ülkeler için de bu durum geçerlidir. Türkiye AİHM kararlarının yerine getirilmesi konusunda kararlıdır.
Bay jurgens bu konuda çifte standartlı davranmaktadır.
İçerik: I examined the report in detail and listened carefully to Mr Jurgens’ presentation. Not only for Turkey, but for all member countries, implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is an ongoing process. Turkey, in this process, is determined and has the political will to implement the decisions of the Court. With this understanding, we welcome any debate about the implementation process, but I stress that such a debate must be based on the facts. I am sorry to say that that is not the case with Mr Jurgens’ report.
The list in the report is not factual. It does not consider the fact that the implementation process is ongoing. It is not possible to take a snapshot from just one day. It is misleading. For example, on page 8 there is a list of eighty-one cases against Turkey in respect of payment of just satisfaction. I do not know when Mr Jurgens got that list from the Committee of Ministers, but I have to say that those cases, without exception, have been implemented.
The report is not fair and it has not been prepared in a fair way. I repeat: the implementation process is an ongoing process. If you take a picture of just one day, every country would have such a list. I know that Mr Jurgens does not like to be called a man of double standards. As a judge, perhaps he does not deserve such a criticism in general. However, I am sorry to say that in respect of Turkey, Mr Jurgens has some unacceptable double standards. His observations on freedom of expression are a clear example. They do not reflect the recent legal reforms achieved in Turkey. In this respect, his addendum is also misleading. Another example is the Loizidou case, which is a political case, as Mr Jurgens said here only a year ago. I believe that Mr Jurgens’s recommendation would not be helpful in finding a resolution to this political problem.
Turkey attaches great importance to preserving the credibility of the control mechanism for the Court’s judgments. Despite the huge political problems faced in executing the Loizidou judgment – I think that Mr Jurgens knows a lot about this issue – Turkey pursues its efforts to find a solution through consultations. I should like also to refer to the importance of the face-to-face talks between Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides. We consider that Mr Jurgens’ call for sanctions against Turkey is counterproductive in such a critical political context. I am afraid that that call might have grave consequences and might provoke some sort of hate. I hope that such provocation would not be based on ethnic origin or religion.
Turkish democracy faces a real threat from extremist parties and political figures. The Council of Europe should not support a threat to democracy in Turkey. European history has shown us that no hate should be provoked anywhere. There should be no place for hate in democracies, whether on religious or ethnic grounds.