Schlagwort-Archive: TIHV

Prof. Dr. Şebnem Korur Fincancı von Physicians for Human Rights geehrt

Liebe Leser*innen,

die Men­schen­recht­sor­gan­i­sa­tion Physi­cians for Human Rights (PHR; NY, USA) hat bei sein­er jährlichen Spenden­gala Prof. Dr. Seb­nem Korur Fin­can­ci, Präsi­dentin der Human Rights Foun­da­tion of TurkeyTürkiye Insan Hak­lari Vak­fi (HRFT/TIHV) für ihre Arbeit geehrt. Aktuell ist sie in einem von vie­len Seit­en kri­tisierten Prozess in der Türkei angeklagt. Sie ist Mitau­torin der Anti-Folterkon­ven­tion “Istan­bul-Pro­tokoll” und Jahrzehnte in der Men­schen­rechts­be­we­gung aktiv.

Hier die Pressemit­teilung der PHR

Hier die Web­site der HRFT/TIHV.


Brief über die Verurteilung von Dr. Serdar Küni

Liebe Leser*innen,

wir möcht­en auf fol­gen­den Brief als Kom­men­tar über die Verurteilung des Arztes und Men­schen­rechtlers Dr. Ser­dar Küni­hin­weisen. Der Brief ist kein offizieller Bericht von Amnesty International:

Con­vic­tion of good med­ical prac­tice by the Şır­nak Local Court on behalf of Ser­dar Küni MD is unacceptable!

25 April 2017

Dear friends and colleagues,

As you know, Ser­dar Küni MD. Human Rights Foun­da­tion of Turkey Cizre Rep­re­sen­ta­tive and for­mer pres­i­dent of the Şır­nak Med­ical Cham­ber was arrest­ed on Octo­ber 19th, 2016 and has been detained since then pend­ing tri­al. Küni is tried for his alleged treat­ment of per­sons alleged to be ‘mil­i­tants’ and alleged to be ‘mem­bers of a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion’, and he is accused of mem­ber­ship to the armed organization.

The first hear­ing of the case was held on March 13th, 2017, at the Şır­nak 2nd Heavy Penal Court. Dur­ing the first hear­ing, it became very obvi­ous that these alle­ga­tions are not based on any con­crete evi­dence. The wit­ness tes­ti­monies upon which the alle­ga­tions rely, do not include any spe­cif­ic infor­ma­tion that can be linked to the charges. Fur­ther­more, the tes­ti­monies have been denied also by the wit­ness­es them­selves, who stat­ed that they have tes­ti­fied under tor­ture and that the con­cerned tes­ti­monies have been fab­ri­cat­ed. Despite all, Ser­dar Küni MD. wasn’t released in this first hear­ing and the hear­ing was postponed.

The 2nd hear­ing of the case was held on April 24th, 2017 in the pres­ence of nation­al and inter­na­tion­al observers, includ­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the most promi­nent inter­na­tion­al med­ical and human rights orga­ni­za­tions. The local court stat­ed that no rela­tion­ship of MD Küni with the armed orga­ni­za­tion was detect­ed. Yet, at the end of this hear­ing, despite the absence of any con­crete evi­dence, the court con­vict­ed and sen­tenced MD Küni to 4 years 2 months impris­on­ment. At the same time, Küni was released pend­ing final deci­sion of the Gaziantep region­al high court.

We believe, the con­tra­dic­to­ry atti­tude of the pan­el of judges and its deci­sion to release MD Küni, is indica­tive of the fact that the pan­el was not con­vinced by the nature of the evi­dence. We are deeply con­vinced that in this case where there is no con­crete evi­dence, MD Küni will be def­i­nite­ly acquit­ted by the region­al high court in the fur­ther period.

The pro­ceed­ing has shown us clear­ly that what’s on tri­al is in fact, the uni­ver­sal eth­i­cal prin­ci­ples relat­ed to med­ical prac­tice. Despite immense dif­fi­cul­ties, MD. Ser­dar Küni has been, for many years and in the wit­ness of many, prac­tic­ing human rights-based med­i­cine in Cizre dis­trict of Şır­nak, with a strong com­mit­ment to the eth­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic ref­er­ences of good med­ical prac­tice. Since the very first day, we know that the real tar­get of this “tri­al” is nation­al and inter­na­tion­al law and con­ven­tions, uni­ver­sal eth­i­cal prin­ci­ples of good med­ical prac­tice and main­ly human conscience.

As HRFT, we extend our most sin­cere grat­i­tudes to all our friends and col­leagues who stood by Ser­dar Küni in this process. Thanks to an enor­mous sol­i­dar­i­ty envi­ron­ment both at the nation­al and inter­na­tion­al lev­els, Ser­dar Küni is with us again. We believe that with sup­port of you all, he will be acquit­ted as required, and this case will be an exem­plary one in terms of good med­ical prac­tice in con­flict envi­ron­ments through­out the world.

We will share with you our sched­ule in the upcom­ing days.

Warm regards,

Metin Bakkalcı



Neuer Bericht Prozess gegen Dr. Serdar Küni vom 25.04.2017

Eine von Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al unab­hängige inter­na­tionale Beobachter­gruppe hat fol­gen­den Bericht veröf­fentlicht, auf den wir aus­drück­lich hin­weisen möcht­en. Er han­delt von dem besorgnis­er­ren­gen­den Prozess gegen Dr. Ser­dar Küni von der türkischen Menschenrechtsstiftung:


Tri­al of Dr. Ser­dar Küni,

Şır­nak 2nd heavy penal court

Case no: 2017/230


25 April 2017


State­ment of Inter­na­tion­al Del­e­ga­tion of Tri­al Monitors


[Cizre, Turkey] Dr. Ser­dar Küni, a med­ical doc­tor work­ing in the Cizre office of Human Rights Foun­da­tion Turkey, was con­vict­ed of sec­tion 220/7 of the Turk­ish Penal Code, “aid­ing and abet­ting ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions”, on 24 April 2017 dur­ing the sec­ond hear­ing of his trial.


The court sen­tenced Dr. Kuni to four years, two months impris­on­ment, but released him from prison pend­ing his appeal.  No writ­ten judg­ment to explain the rul­ing is yet available.


The charges were based on alle­ga­tions that Dr. Kuni pro­vid­ed med­ical treat­ment in a secret loca­tion to indi­vid­u­als who were said to belong to a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion dur­ing the clash­es in Cizre between 2015 and 2016. His arrest, deten­tion and pros­e­cu­tion is part of  a wave  of arrests, dis­missals and oth­er legal actions tak­en against human rights defend­ers, med­ical pro­fes­sion­als, lawyers, jour­nal­ists, and aca­d­e­mics since July 2015 in the south­east, and through­out Turkey after the failed mil­i­tary coup in July 2016.


We, mem­bers of the inter­na­tion­al del­e­ga­tion observ­ing the court on 24 April mon­i­tored this tri­al because of con­cerns about the tar­get­ing of mem­bers of the med­ical pro­fes­sion for car­ry­ing out their pro­fes­sion­al respon­si­bil­i­ties. Our role, as pre­sent­ed to the Court in advance, was to observe the extent to which inter­na­tion­al fair tri­al stan­dards enshrined in inter­na­tion­al law and bind­ing on Turkey, were applied.


Our  con­clu­sions are that the tri­al pro­ceed­ings ignored the most basic of inter­na­tion­al fair tri­al stan­dards, and failed to take into account the arbi­trary nature of the charges against Dr. Küni. Our prin­ci­pal con­cerns about the tri­al process are sum­marised below.


  • Arbi­trary arrest and deten­tion: Dr. Küni was accused and ulti­mate­ly con­vict­ed for pro­vid­ing med­ical treat­ment to patients. How­ev­er, doc­tors can­not refuse to treat patients on the basis of their known or per­ceived affil­i­a­tions; a doc­tor is eth­i­cal­ly bound to treat indi­vid­u­als who require med­ical treat­ment. To deny med­ical treat­ment would have forced Dr. Küni, to breach fun­da­men­tal aspects of the code of med­ical ethics, recog­nised worldwide.


  • The admis­si­bil­i­ty of evi­dence: The evi­dence pre­sent­ed by the pros­e­cu­tion was lim­it­ed to state­ments which should have been deter­mined to be inad­mis­si­ble by the Court.


  • Use of anony­mous wit­ness­es: The pros­e­cu­tor, in his open­ing state­ment referred to ‘evi­dence’ pro­vid­ed by anony­mous wit­ness ‘Vatan’. As this wit­ness was nev­er pro­duced in Court, there was no way for the defence to test the verac­i­ty of what was alleged, to know the con­di­tions under which the evi­dence was tak­en, or indeed to con­firm that ‘Vatan’ was a real per­son. Fur­ther­more, the infor­ma­tion con­tained in the state­ment of ‘Vatan’ as sum­marised by the pros­e­cu­tor, appeared to relate to alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing events in 2012, which were out­side the time­frame of the charges set out in the indictment.


  • Use of evi­dence alleged­ly pro­cured by tor­ture: the oth­er wit­ness evi­dence con­cerned four indi­vid­u­als each of whom alleged that they were forced to sign con­fes­sions under tor­ture. Med­ical reports pro­duced by the pros­e­cu­tion to demon­strate that the con­fes­sions were vol­un­tary were con­tra­dict­ed by a med­ical expert, who point­ed to numer­ous flaws and incon­sis­ten­cies. No fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion of the tor­ture alle­ga­tions is known to have tak­en place, despite Turkey’s oblig­a­tions to do so under the Con­ven­tion Against Tor­ture and the Euro­pean Con­ven­tion on Human Rights.


  • Reliance on hearsay evi­dence: the state­ments pro­duced by the four wit­ness­es appeared from the prosecutor’s sum­ma­ry to con­sist whol­ly of hearsay evi­dence against Dr. Küni. For exam­ple, the state­ments appar­ent­ly includ­ed qual­i­fi­ca­tions such as “we have heard through our con­tacts” that Dr. Küni was treat­ing such patients. The pros­e­cu­tor ten­dered no direct evi­dence by any witness.


  • Proof beyond a rea­son­able doubt: There was a lack of evi­dence put for­ward by the pros­e­cu­tor. Nonethe­less they took the deci­sion to con­vict Dr. Küni. This con­tra­venes the fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of the pre­sump­tion of inno­cence; a con­vic­tion should result only when the evi­dence of guilt is beyond a rea­son­able doubt.


Dr. Küni was on tri­al as a sin­gle doc­tor, but the man­ner in which the legal pro­ceed­ings were con­duct­ed have poten­tial­ly wide-rang­ing impacts. Through this case, the pros­e­cu­tion has sought to crim­i­nalise the basic duties and ethics of the pro­fes­sion, which is in and of itself an act of intim­i­da­tion and harass­ment. We are con­cerned about the prece­dent this case will set across the med­ical pro­fes­sion. Our con­clu­sions about fun­da­men­tal fair tri­al vio­la­tions also call into ques­tion the impar­tial­i­ty and inde­pen­dence of the judges in this case. 



On behalf of:


Gun­nar M. Ekelove-Sly­dal, Nor­we­gian Helsin­ki Committee

Car­la Fer­st­man, REDRESS

Ernst Lud­wig Iske­nius, Ger­man Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion and Inter­na­tion­al Physi­cians for the Pre­ven­tion of Nuclear War-Ger­many (IPPNW)

Bar­bara Nep­pert, IPPNW, Euro­pean section

Andreas Speck, War Resisters’ Inter­na­tion­al (WRI), La Transicionera