CAT/C/66/D/845/2017
which included cancellation of their passports, a ban on their ever working again in the
public administration and the withdrawal of their access to the social security system,
amounted to a “civil death” for the persons concerned. 6 The Parliamentary Assembly
concluded that respect for fundamental human rights is not guaranteed in Turkey. 7 The
complainant also refers to the notification received by the Council of Europe on 21 July
2016, in which Turkey announced its intention to derogate from the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human
Rights), by virtue of article 15, and concludes that, in view of this combination of
circumstances, he faces a personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his
country.
3.3
The complainant also points out that the Greek Supreme Court refused to extradite
eight Turkish soldiers on the grounds that the Greek courts could not in good conscience
agree to extradite them to Turkey, a country where, according to the Court, there was a risk
of the death penalty being reintroduced, where there was also evidence of degrading and
inhuman treatment of political dissidents and, lastly, where there was no fair trial sensu
stricto. The complainant also states that he provided the Court of Cassation with a
document attesting to the asylum request that he had submitted to the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Rabat.
3.4
The complainant maintains that the Turkish Government has accused the Hizmet
movement of being at the origin of the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016 and classifies
it as an armed terrorist organization. He denies belonging to this movement and argues that
Turkey has failed to provide any direct, irrefutable evidence to implicate him in the offence
of being a member of a terrorist organization.
3.5
In this connection, the complainant notes that the Turkish authorities accuse him of:
(a) having worked for commercial companies founded and managed by the Hizmet
movement; (b) having attended meetings with members of the movement in various hotels;
(c) having travelled outside Turkey with members of the movement; and (d) having used
the messaging app known as ByLock to communicate with other members of the movement.
According to the complainant, this information was collected in the course of interviews
with five of his former pupils, four of whom have become police officers. The fifth person
questioned said, through a third party, that his confessions had been extracted during a
“very forceful” interrogation. The complainant maintains that the information in his case
file is unsubstantiated by any direct or indirect evidence, is vague and abstract, and has no
legal merit. He affirms that he was an ordinary teacher working in commercial companies
that the Turkish authorities believe to have been founded and managed by the Hizmet
movement, and that, in the circumstances, he had no way of knowing the political views of
his employers. He adds that his trips outside Turkey were purely for tourism purposes, as is
confirmed by the testimonies included in his file. The complainant also asserts that his use
of the messaging app known as ByLock cannot be considered evidence of his membership
of the Hizmet movement, since the content he exchanged using this app was not of a
criminal nature and ByLock is in any case a legal app available to members of the public. 8
The complainant adds that the provisions of article 721 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal
Procedure give the Court of Cassation exceptional discretion to refuse an extradition
request when there are doubts as to the request’s substantiation, especially when the request
is based on vague and abstract “evidence”.9 He believes that membership of an organization
6
7
8
9
GE.19-10568
Ibid., para. 17.
Ibid., para. 20.
On 20 September 2016, in criminal case No. 225/2016 the Court of Appeal of Hatay (Turkey)
unanimously refused to instigate criminal proceedings on charges of belonging to the Hizmet
movement, as requested by the prosecution service, owing to a lack of evidence. The prosecution
service had submitted a list of elements of evidence, including the complainant’s use of ByLock. The
Court ruled that use of this application cannot be considered evidence since it has not been proven
that the content exchanged was of a criminal nature.
Article 721 stipulates that extradition shall not be agreed when the offence for which extradition is
requested is considered a political offence, or an offence connected with a political offence, by the
State of Morocco. This rule applies, in particular, when the State of Morocco has substantial grounds
for believing that an extradition request apparently related to an ordinary offence has in fact been
3