I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in ETE v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2019-09-03
  • Communication date: 2017-12-11
  • Application number(s): 35575/12
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, 13, 14, 17
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.772031
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt.
At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant was a member of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi – DTP).
The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
3713).
The Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant for having disseminated petitions in Dilektepe and Cevrimtepe Village in Bayka Province of Siirt during a picnic organised to celebrate the birthday of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK.
The petitions in questions contained the following expression in Kurdish and Turkish languages: “As a person from Kurdistan, I see and recognise the Esteemed Abdullah Ocalan as the political will in Kurdistan”.
The applicant was sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment.
The applicant relies on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, or her right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of her conviction under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Judgment