organizers do not notify the authorities, knowing that the assembly would not be approved and security
forces would be placed at the venue to disperse the ‘illegal assembly’ even before it begins.
The governors also have broad powers of banning any form of assembly, demonstration, or marches
for a period of time. During the State of Emergency, this power was extended to ban any form of
protest speech or action for any duration of time. This power has led to interesting restrictions, such
as a ban on reading newspapers collectively or creating a car convoy to protest or celebrate something.
As pointed out in the 2014 EU Progress Report, “concepts such as ‘general morality’, ‘Turkish family
structure’, ‘national security’, and ‘public order’ were used widely and allowed too large a margin of
discretion to authorities, hindering the respect in practice of freedom of association. Two LGBTI
associations faced closure requests based on ‘general morality’.”6 The power to interpret laws and make
discretionary decisions on the fate of assemblies significantly problematize the exercise of the right to
assemble in Turkey.
The use of excessive force by security forces is too common
Although international standards dictate that even in violent assemblies, the individuals perpetrating
the violence should be targeted by the security forces for the preservation of the peace within the
assembly. Therefore, in police interventions to assemblies, the burden of proof to demonstrate the
need to intervene with the particular individual rests with the State. However, the overwhelming trend
was the indiscriminate use of dispersive tools, such as tear gas and pressurized water, on protesters.
Given the recent collective memory on protesters losing their eyes, and sometimes their lives, with
targeted gas canisters by the police, this factor creates an especially strong chilling effect on the right to
assemble in Turkey.
An important ECtHR judgment on this issue is Oya Ataman v. Turkey (2006), which has since created
its own group of judgments against Turkey, based on the excessive use of force by the police on
protesters. In these groups of cases, “the ECtHR found that the amount of suffering and pain inflicted
on the protesters amounted to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3.
Instances including use of tear gas on an apprehended protester, hitting those gathering on the head
with truncheons and pulling the hair of a protester over a stair step, and facial injuries were deemed to
violate Article 3.”7 In the monitoring period, in nearly half of the assemblies intervened by the police,
there was use of excessive force. A video recording of an assembly that occurred in November shows
a police chief orderings his officers to not be afraid of firing with real bullets. Such evidence shows the
extent to which these interventions are discretionary and out of proportion.
According to the international standards of the positive obligations of the state, the communication
between the organizers of the assembly and the security forces to ensure the safety of the protesters.
In the data collected by AMER, however, organizers were often charged for assemblies where ‘illegal’
banners were opened and ‘illegal’ slogans were shouted. Additionally, in the 2016 Pride Parade for
instance, the organizers attempting to communicate with the police to allow for some of the event to
take place were detained. Police officers and dispersive equipment are transferred to the venue of the
assembly in preparation, point their cameras and weapons of tear gas are directed at the protesters, and
all available means of intervention are used on peaceful protests. The use of force has been found to
be a systemic problem by international authorities and the European Court; this monitoring report
confirms that finding.
EU Turkey Progress Report 2014, pg.53
Çalı, Başak. THE EXECUTION OF THE ATAMAN GROUP CASES (Application No. and Judgment Date:
74552/01, 5 December 2006) MONITORING REPORT (December 2014)
6
7
15