This judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of *Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2)* represents a landmark ruling concerning the persistent failure of a member state to execute previous judgments and the systemic misuse of the criminal justice system against a human rights defender. The applicant, Osman Kavala, has been deprived of his liberty since 2017, despite an acquittal in 2020 and two prior ECHR judgments finding his detention arbitrary and politically motivated. The Grand Chamber found that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the Criminal Code was unforeseeable and arbitrary, effectively criminalizing lawful civil society activities. The Court concluded that the applicant’s prosecution and conviction were predominantly motivated by an ulterior purpose to silence him, violating his rights under the Convention. Consequently, the Court ordered his immediate release and the elimination of the consequences of his conviction, while also mandating systemic reforms to the Turkish judiciary. This judgment is **** for Ukraine and Ukrainians, as it reinforces the binding nature of ECHR judgments and provides a critical precedent for protecting human rights defenders and political opponents against the instrumentalization of criminal law in the Council of Europe area.
### Structure and Main Provisions
The judgment is structured into several core legal assessments:
1. **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the government’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ruling that the Constitutional Court’s procedural inertia rendered the remedy ineffective in this specific case.
2. **Articles 10 & 11 (Freedom of Expression and Assembly):** The Court found that the criminalization of the applicant’s activities—such as lobbying, organizing meetings, and international advocacy—was not “prescribed by law” due to an unforeseeable and overly broad interpretation of the Criminal Code.
3. **Article 6 (Fair Trial):** The Court identified fundamental shortcomings, including the lack of independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the refusal to hear defense witnesses, and the reliance on contextual inferences rather than concrete evidence.
4. **Article 5 (Right to Liberty):** The Court ruled that the entire period of detention since 2019 was arbitrary and lacked a permissible legal basis, noting that the post-conviction detention resulted from a “flagrant denial of justice.”
5. **Article 18 (Limitation on Use of Restrictions):** The Court confirmed that the proceedings were predominantly motivated by an ulterior purpose to punish the applicant for his human rights work.
6. **Article 3 (Inhuman/Degrading Punishment):** The Court held that the irreducible nature of the aggravated life sentence, without any prospect of review or release, violates the Convention.
7. **Article 46 (Execution):** The Court issued specific instructions for individual measures (release and annulment of conviction) and general measures (systemic judicial reform).
### Key Provisions for Practical Use
* **Exhaustion of Remedies:** The judgment clarifies that when a domestic remedy (like a Constitutional Court application) suffers from “procedural inertia” in the face of a clear, ongoing violation of liberty, an applicant is not required to await a final domestic decision before approaching the ECHR.
* **”Flagrant Denial of Justice”:** The Court establishes that a conviction resulting from proceedings that fundamentally destroy the essence of a fair trial (Article 6) renders the subsequent detention “unlawful” under Article 5 § 1(a), even if it follows a formal conviction.
* **Criminalization of Civil Society:** The ruling provides a strong shield for human rights defenders, explicitly stating that activities such as international networking, documentation of rights violations, and public advocacy cannot be equated with criminal acts or “insurrection.”
* **Systemic Misuse of Law:** The judgment serves as a powerful tool for legal practitioners to challenge the “artificial magnification” of criminal charges where authorities use broad, vague provisions to target political opponents or activists.
* **Binding Nature of ECHR Judgments:** The Court reaffirms that the obligation to execute judgments is not merely a matter of international law but a fundamental requirement of the rule of law, which must be prioritized by domestic courts.
