The European Court of Human Rights owes us an answer to the following questions:
● With its decision on the forced disappearance of Yusuf Bilge Tunc, the European Court of Human Rights has deemed Turkish government’s ostensible and late investigations as sufficient regarding its obligations. Is not the ECHR aware of the fact that, it is implicitly paving the way for further forced disappearances by the Erdoğan Regime?
● What is the reason behind ECHR’s silence on the persecution of thousands of members of the Hizmet movement with ridiculous accusations that goes so far as printing books in a moderate worldview, organizing charity acts to support students, depositing money in a perfectly legitimate state approved bank and even sending kids to perfectly legal and extremely successful private schools?
● Why does the ECHR reject the applications of political detainees who were arbitrarily denied the right to parole in Turkey while all sorts of real criminals benefited from it?
● Why does the Court inexplicably delay its judgments on the cases of journalists Hidayet Karaca, Mustafa Ünal and Mehmet Baransu? They have been denied their freedom for more than 8 years just because they conducted critical journalism.
● Why is the Supreme Court of Europe silent on the arbitrary detention cases in Turkey, whereas the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention frames them as possible grounds for “crimes against humanity”?
● Does not the Court encourage the oppressors to further violate human rights on a wide range by hesitating to confront them with its rulings? As Judge Kuris underlined it: “if a regime decides to go rogue, it should do it in a big way. And if responsibility can be escaped by “doing it big”, why not give it a try?”
● If any we would like to know the rationale and legal justification behind the ECHR’s policy of delay regarding the Erdoğan regime’s uprooting and annihilation of Hizmet Movement? What is the reason behind giving the oppressor all the time he wants without even shaming him?
● How does the Court, the ultimate protector of human rights, explain its obvious lack of commitment to the core values of the European Convention?
● How on earth the ECHR adopts judgments with serious shortcomings and leaves the victims to the mercy of an authoritarian regime that oppresses them in the first place? Needless to say, the Court risks losing its reputation as the supreme guarantor of human rights and democratic values in Europe. It is heartbreaking that we cannot anymore say, “il y a des juges à Strasbourg!”
● How can it be justified that the Court displays a discriminatory policy of prioritization and constantly postpones or disregards the complaints coming from the members of Hizmet Movement?