[ad_1]
In his written statement, Supreme Court Attorney General Şahin affirmed that political parties, which are indispensable elements of democratic political life, are institutions that aim to contribute to the economic and social development of society.
Emphasizing that it is essential that political parties achieve these goals peacefully within the framework of universal and democratic norms of law, Şahin nevertheless said Constitution 68/3. and article 90 of the Law on Political Parties regulates that political parties must continue their activities within the framework of the Constitution and the provisions of the law.
Recalling that in article 14 of the Constitution, it is stipulated that none of the fundamental rights and freedoms may be used in the form of activities “aimed at destroying and abolishing the indivisible integrity of the state with its country and nation”, Şahin said:
“In paragraph 6 of article 69 of the Constitution and article 103 of the Law on Political Parties, the permanent dissolution of a political party for acts contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 68 of the Constitution, but the Constitutional Court determines that of this nature they have been committed and have become the center of attention. In the continuation of the paragraph, a political party is the center of such acts if such acts are committed intensively by the members of that party and this situation is adopted tacitly or explicitly by all the organs of that party, or if these acts are committed in a determined manner by the directly referred party organs.
Prosecutor General Şahin affirmed that in the first paragraph of article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is established that “everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association”. He stressed that the principle that restrictions can be imposed by law in order to Prevent treatment, protect health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
“THE ECHR HAS ACCEPTED THAT TERRORISM IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON TO CLOSE THE PARTIES”
Şahin made the following assessments in his statement:
“In fact, the European Court of Human Rights has even accepted the non-condemnation of terrorism as a sufficient justification for the dissolution of political parties. Directors and members of political parties must continue their activities within the framework of democratic principles, not be affiliated with or linked to terrorist organizations, disturb the indivisible integrity of the state with its country and nation, and In this context, the rulers and members of the Peoples’ Democratic Party act in a way that does not accept the democratic and universal rules of law, They act together with the terrorist organization PKK and affiliated organizations, act as an extension of the organization, disrupt the indivisible integrity of the state with its country and nation, and since it was understood that they intended to eliminate, the closure of the aforementioned political party was requested. Constitutional court “.
HOW WILL THE PROCESS WORK AFTER THAT?
The Attorney General of the Supreme Court of Appeals drafted an indictment against the HDP with a request for ‘closure’ and sent it to the Constitutional Court. In the prepared indictment, HDP is claimed to be “the focus of the terrorist organization.” In this context, the Constitutional Court will make the judgment as the Supreme Court. The accusation of the General Prosecutor’s Office will be accepted as an accusation in the Constitutional Court. Based on this accusation, the Constitutional Court will start the trial on a date to be determined.
IT CAN BE DECIDED TO CUT OFF THE AID TO THE TREASURE
A defense will be requested from HDP within the scope of the trial. HDP will defend in the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court will decide whether the HDP terrorist organization is the center of attention or not. If the Constitutional Court decides that it is the “focus”, the process can go all the way to closure. However, the degree of focus will also be decisive. The Constitutional Court can impose a political ban on some members of the HDP, not close the party, or decide to suspend Treasury aid. A political ban on the founders of the party is one of the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES
After the accusation of the Attorney General of the Supreme Court reaches the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court will examine that accusation as a court. Then the procedure will check whether there is any deficiency or not. Later, at the accusation acceptance stage, you will prepare a consent report.
HOW WAS THE PROCESS DEVELOPED?
In the Kobani indictment prepared by the Ankara Attorney General’s Office, a lawsuit was filed against HDP executives at the time. During the events of October 6-7, HDP co-chairs Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ were in prison without this charge. A very comprehensive indictment was prepared against the HDP regarding its affiliation with the PKK terrorist organization, and the indictment included many detections that the HDP was related to the terrorist organization and was linked to Qandil. After these detections, it was indicated that the legal process that led to the closure of the HDP began.
FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF THE SME INCIDENT EXAM
With Operation Gara carried out by the TSK, frequent demands from politics to shut down the HDP reached the agenda. MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli has clearly stated that steps must be taken to close the HDP and that they can submit a request in this regard if necessary. The Attorney General of the Supreme Court began its investigation in recent weeks. The main basis of the investigation was the Kobani indictment prepared by the Ankara Prosecutor General’s Office.
FEZLAS PREPARED ON 9 HDP LAWYERS
The Ankara Prosecutor General’s Office had been working on Kobani’s prosecution for about two or three years. In the indictment, which was quite comprehensive, the HDP Co-Chairs and the VQA members at the time were placed on the defendant’s stand with this indictment. Before long, the trial would begin with that accusation. A report on 9 HDP members who are still MPs was prepared and sent to Parliament. It was stated that the immunity of these deputies should be lifted and the way open for their trial.
THE COURT OFFICE PREPARED YOUR APPEAL
While the fezleke process was continuing in Parliament, the Supreme Court Prosecutor General’s Office reviewed the report prepared by both the Kobani prosecution and the Ankara General Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the Kobani incidents. His investigation was concluded and Bekir Şahin, the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, presented his case before the Constitutional Court ex officio demanding the closure of the HDP.
