I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KERVANCı v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-12-08
  • Communication date: 2017-09-27
  • Application number(s): 76960/11
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-3, 6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3-b, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.782321
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


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 1980 and lives in Istanbul.
At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, she was a documentary filmmaker.
The application concerns her conviction for membership of the MLKP, an illegal armed organisation, under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and the criminal proceedings brought against her with the charge of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The applicant attended to the reading of a press statement protesting the adoption of a new law on execution of prison sentences and filmed the event and the ensuing clashes between the police and some of the demonstrators.
The first‐instance court considered that the applicant had had the intention of creating propaganda material in favour of the MLKP when she filmed the event and that her acts were committed on behalf of that organisation.
The Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code.
On the other hand, it decided to discontinue the proceedings brought under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as they had become time-barred.
The proceedings against the applicant lasted almost six years and five months.
The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

Judgment