The government of Turkey refuses to recognize the fundamental right of conscientious objection to military service /Η κυβέρνηση της Τουρκίας αρνείται να αναγνωρίσει το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα της άρνησης στράτευσης για λόγους συνείδησης

*

Over the past 10 years, 55 men who are Jehovah’s Witnesses have petitioned the Turkish government to recognize their right to conscientious objection. Because their petitions have been denied, they have faced numerous prosecutions, burdensome fines, and in the case of some, years in prison. Currently, 15 young Witness men in Turkey are facing repeated prosecution for their refusal to serve in the military.

Τα τελευταία 10 χρόνια, 55 Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά έχουν ζητήσει από την τουρκική κυβέρνηση να αναγνωρίσει το δικαίωμα που έχουν να αρνηθούν τη στράτευση ως αντιρρησίες συνείδησης. Τα αιτήματά τους όμως έχουν απορριφθεί, με αποτέλεσμα να ασκηθούν σε βάρος τους πολλαπλές ποινικές διώξεις και να τους επιβληθούν δυσβάσταχτα πρόστιμα. Κάποιοι μάλιστα έχουν καταδικαστεί σε πολυετείς ποινές φυλάκισης. Αυτή τη στιγμή, 15 νεαροί Μάρτυρες στην Τουρκία υφίστανται επανειλημμένα ποινικές διώξεις επειδή αρνούνται να υπηρετήσουν στο στρατό.


* jw.org, 17 Μαρτίου 2014 / March 17, 2014,
"Turkey Refuses to Conform to European Standards in the Matter of Conscientious Objection" /
"Η Τουρκία Αρνείται να Συμμορφωθεί με τα Ευρωπαϊκά Πρότυπα στο Ζήτημα της Αντίρρησης Συνείδησης".

~ ~

ECHR protects rights of conscientious objectors in Turkey /Το ΕΔΔΑ προστατεύει τα δικαιώματα των αντιρρησιών συνείδησης στην Τουρκία

The absence of an alternative to military service
in Turkey is in breach of the right
to conscientious objection

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Erçep v. Turkey (application no. 43965/04), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

A violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and,

A violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.

The case concerned the refusal by the applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness and conscientious objector, to perform military service for reasons of conscience.


Principal facts

The applicant, Yunus Erçep, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). He is a Jehovah’s Witness who was baptised at the age of 13, and refuses to perform his military service as required by section 1 of the 1927 Act, according to which “all adult males of Turkish nationality shall be liable to conscription for military service”.

The applicant was declared fit to perform military service on 6 January 1997 and was called up for the first time in March 1998. Under the relevant legislation people who failed to report for duty when called for military service were regarded as deserters.

Each time a new call-up period began, criminal proceedings for failure to report for duty were brought against the applicant in the Trabzon Military Criminal Court. He was sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for failing to report for duty following approximately 15 call-ups.

In a judgment of 7 May 2004 the military court decided to impose an aggregate sentence totalling seven months and 15 days’ imprisonment. On 3 October 2005 Mr Erçep began serving his sentence. Five months later he was released on licence.

On 6 October 2006 Parliament passed a new law under which military courts no longer had jurisdiction to try civilians. The criminal proceedings still pending were transferred to the ordinary courts. Since then Mr Erçep has been tried before the criminal courts on the same charge. Since March 1998, more than 25 sets of proceedings have been brought
against him. As a result of his persistent refusal to perform military service he faces further criminal proceedings with each new call-up.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant complained that his successive convictions for refusing to serve in the armed forces amounted to a violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complained of having been obliged, as a civilian, to appear before a court made up exclusively of military officers.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 October 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:

Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),
Guido Raimondi (Italy), Judges,
and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.


Decision of the Court

Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion)

The Court had recently reviewed its case-law concerning conscientious objectors, in its Grand Chamber judgment in Bayatyan v. Armenia. In that judgment it had noted that Article 9 did not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection. However, it considered that opposition to military service, where it was motivated by a serious and insurmountable conflict between the obligation to serve in the army and a person’s conscience, constituted a conviction or belief of sufficient importance to attract the guarantees of Article 9. In the today's case the Court observed that Mr Erçep was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious group that had consistently opposed military service. There was no reason to doubt that his objection was motivated by anything other than genuinely-held religious beliefs.

In Turkey, all citizens declared fit for national service were required to report for duty when called up and to perform military service. No alternative civilian service existed. Conscientious objectors had no option but to refuse to enrol in the army if they wished to remain true to their convictions. In so doing, they laid themselves open to a sort of “civil death” because of the numerous sets of criminal proceedings which the authorities invariably brought against them; they could face prosecution for the rest of their lives. The Court considered that that situation was not compatible with law enforcement in a democratic society.

In virtually all the member States of the Council of Europe (47 European countries) which still had military service, some form of civilian service had been introduced in order to provide alternatives for people opposed to military service for reasons of conscience.

The Court took the view that the numerous convictions imposed on Mr Erçep because of his beliefs, in a situation where no form of civilian service offering a fair alternative existed in Turkey, amounted to a violation of Article 9.

Article 6 (right to a fair trial)

Mr Erçep complained of the fact that, as a civilian, he had had to appear before a court made up exclusively of military officers. The Court observed that, despite being accused of an offence under the Military Criminal Code, the applicant was, for criminal-law purposes, not a member of the armed forces but a civilian. Furthermore, it was clear from a judgment of the Jurisdiction Disputes Court dated 13 October 2008 that, in Turkish criminal law, a person was considered to be a member of the armed forces only from the time he or she reported for duty with a regiment.

The Court considered it understandable that the applicant, a civilian standing trial before a court composed exclusively of military officers, charged with offences relating to military service, should have been apprehensive about appearing before judges belonging to the army, which could be identified with a party to the proceedings. In such circumstances, a civilian could legitimately fear that the military court might allow itself to be unduly influenced by partial considerations.

Acknowledging that the applicant’s doubts about the independence and impartiality of that court could be regarded as objectively justified, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that regard.

Article 41

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Turkey was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

* ECHR 254 (2011) 22.11.2011,
"The absence of an alternative to military service in Turkey is in breach of the right to conscientious objection"
["Η απουσία εναλλακτικής της στρατιωτικής υπηρεσίας στην Τουρκία αποτελεί παραβίαση του δικαιώματος στην αντίρρηση συνείδησης"].
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]    *    *


* ΑΠΕ-ΜΠΕ, 22 Νοεμβρίου 2011,
"Δικαιώθηκε μάρτυρας του Ιεχωβά που αρνήθηκε να υπηρετήσει την στρατιωτική του θητεία στην Τουρκία".

Fighting for religious freedom in Turkey / Αγώνες για θρησκευτική ελευθερία στην Τουρκία

Bülent Arınç, 13 October 2011,
'Symposium on Religion and State Relations',
hosted by Doğuş University, Turkey.

The Lausanne convention (1923): A decisive factor for an Orthodox Christian Greece & a Muslim Turkey in modern times /Συνθήκη της Λωζάνης (1923): Ένας καθοριστικός παράγοντας για μια Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Ελλάδα & μια Μουσουλμανική Τουρκία στη σύγχρονη εποχή

The agreement to make a formal separation between the populations of Greece and Turkey, through a two-way process of deportation, sent a convulsion through the region and the world when it was announced, tentatively in December 1922 and definitively the following month. There was undeniably a certain cold, deadly logic about it. New borders were being drawn, economic assets were being reallocated, and as a natural consequence, people were being divided up as well. Henceforth, it was determined, Greece would be an almost entirely Orthodox Christian country, while in Turkey, the overwhelming majority of citizens would be Muslim. Anybody who lived in the 'wrong' place, from the viewpoint of religion, would be deported across the Aegean to start a new life in the 'right' country. It was a natural move, in the sense that the atrocities and humanitarian disasters of the past few months, the war of the past three years, and the economic and social changes of the past century, all seemed to point in that direction; and at the same time, it was profoundly unnatural.

The terms of the divorce were laid down in the grim words of a convention signed on 30 January 1923 at the conference in Lausanne, where a triumphant Turkey, an exhausted Greece and the leading world powers had gathered to map out the future of a volatile region then known as the Near East. The conference, which did not conclude for another six months, was intended to put an end to a decade of continuous warfare and, from Turkey's point of view, to consolidate in the diplomatic arena the hard-won gains of the battlefield.

Article One of the Lausanne convention reads as follows:

... There shall take place a compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory. These persons shall not return to live in Turkey or Greece without the authorization of the Turkish government or of the Greek government respectively.

[...] In the Ottoman system, spiritual affiliation had served as by far the most significant distinction between the subjects of the Sultan. It made a huge difference to your life whether you were an Ottoman Muslim, an Ottoman Orthodox Christian or an Ottoman Jew. This determined how much tax you would pay, what role you would play in public life and by what law you would be judged. Because the empire was organized as a Muslim theocracy, it expected its non-Muslim subjects to behave, as it were, theocratically; in other words, to organize themselves into religious groups where the spiritual leader also doubled as head of the community, and could answer to the Sultan for the behaviour of his flock. In stressing the primacy of religion, the Ottoman authorities were to some extent following the precedent set by the Byzantine theocracy, as well as Islam's own theocratic tradition. In any case, at least in its classic form, the Ottoman system did not distinguish between its subjects by virtue of their speech or customs or beliefs about their own 'national' origins. An Ottoman Muslim might speak Serbian, Arabic, Albanian or Turkish; it made no difference to that person's status in the eyes of his rulers.

By the end of the Ottoman era that was changing; religion was giving way to 'nation' as the main source of identity and affiliation. When the Ottoman theocracy was at its height, the Greek-dominated Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was an important agency of the imperialregime, enjoyed huge influence over all the Orthodox Christians of the empire; but in the 19th century, as the intensity of ethnic consciousness increased, new religious authorities were created or revived by the Slavs and Arabs in particular, which were identical to the Greek Patriarchate in doctrine but gave expression to a different national identity. Formally speaking, the bitter conflict which raged in Ottoman Macedonia at the end of the 19th century was between the bishops of the Greek and Bulgarian hierarchs of the Orthodox church; but this was not so much a religious war as a war over national identity in religious disguise.

In most parts of the Ottoman empire, as in most other places that were either in Europe or influenced by European ideas, the elite had been infiltrated by a new doctrine, that of modern nationalism. This was a theory which aspired to supplant religion as the main category by which people defined themselves, and was itself something akin to a religion in its claim to explain and guide human behaviour, and to deal in eternally valid truths.

* Bruce Clark,
Twice a Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey

[Διπλά Ξένος: Πώς Διαμόρφωσε τη Σύγχρονη Ελλάδα και Τουρκία η Μαζική Εκδίωξη],

Harvard University Press, 2006,
pp./σσ. 11, 14, 15.





Βιβλιοκριτική:

Κύριλλος Νικολάου,
Βιβλιοπαρουσίαση: Οι ανταλλαγές πληθυσμών ανάμεσα στην Ελλάδα και την Τουρκία,
Ενημερωτικό Δελτίο ΑΩ του Συνδέσμου Υποτρόφων του Ιδρύματος Ωνάση (onassis.gr), Σεπτέμβριος 2007.

The religious life of Turkey during the 12th to 15th cent. / Η θρησκευτική ζωή στην Τουρκία κατά την περίοδο από τον 12ο ως τον 15ο αι.

As is well known, Anatolia, from before the Roman dominion and throughout it, was a region which had a very rich and varied panoply of pagan cults which had survived from ancient times and had roots stretching backover thousands of years. Affected by various outside influences, these cults had developed their own, particular forms. By the time the region was taken over by Byzantium, it had already been under the influence of Christianity for some considerable time. Despite this, the Orthodox faith,which became the official religion of the empire, was unable fully to penetrate the most remote corners of Anatolia over the first few hundred years of the empire’s existence. Even in the sixth century when Byzantium was at its height, Christianity was not able completely to overthrow the pagan cults but was only able to mask them. As true pagan cults worshipping various gods from former times continued to exist, even Christianity itself cannot be said to have been more for many ‘Christians’ than a basic and crude Trinity of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. These ‘Christians’ pursued their beliefs in their old gods and various saints who were either imagined or real people by adapting them to Christianity. It is known that the first Christian priests who carried out missionary activities in various parts of the empirewere only successful in making a new religion there by providing a new interpretation of the old beliefs and by making this interpretation acceptable. This approach produced various types of popular Christianity created from an amalgam of Christianity and pagan cults which continued to exist and to be practised.

One of these was that of the dualist churches which came into existence as a result of the influence of the Manichaeists. Having been declared heretics in the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire, they had fled from Iran and taken refuge in Anatolia where they had, in appearance, become Christian. In its political struggle with Byzantium, Iran encouraged the propagation and spread of Zoroastrian propaganda in Anatolia. Followers of religions which appeared as a reaction to Zoroastrism, such as eastern Mazdaism and Manichaeism, were forced to flee from Iran into Anatolia where Christianity came forceably into contact with them. Over time and under the influence of these Iranian religions, new Christian sects with a dualist character based on the concepts of goodness and evil of the gods, such as Marcionism (‘Marika’ in Islamic hereseyographic  sources), and Paulicianism (‘Bavlakiyye’ and ‘Bayalika’ in Islamic hereseyographic sources) which was to play an important role in the emergence of Bogomilism and Tondrakism, emerged. These sects had a powerful influence on the Byzantine population (the Armenians and the Greeks), especially in the rural areas.

This amalgamation of religious ideas resulted gradually in the formation among the various ethnic-religious groups such as the Greeks, Armenians and Suriyanis in Anatolia of independent ‘heretical’ churches outside the Orthodox fold. At the same time, the Orthodox faith itself also underwent changes. In particular, new separatist sects such as the Jacobites and Nestorians appeared as a result of the influence of various old Greek and Hellenistic schools of philosophical thought. These were labelled ‘deviational’, heretical, by the Orthodox church and by the Byzantine administration which claimed control of it. Although the Byzantine government, faced with these separatist religious currents, took forceful measures to strengthen Orthodoxy, and, forcing the various ethnic groups in Anatolia to accept the church, sought to use the church as a means to ensure the compliance of the population, this policy produced the opposite effect and Anatolia instead became the setting for various religious struggles.

Thus, when the Turks began to settle in Anatolia in the eleventh century they encountered a highly heterogeneous religious environment. The regions of inner and eastern Anatolia were divided into the small churches we have described, which had arisen as a reaction to Orthodoxy and which, for various political, social, economic and cultural reasons, were spread among the ethnic groups, apart from the Greeks. A point which must be stressed here in particular is that this religious division played an important role in the easing of the Turkish conquests in Anatolia and in their diffusion, and, therefore, favourably assisted their settlement in the region. Let us once more stress that the local population, exasperated by the state’s attitudewhich opened the way to separation of religious views and crushed by high taxation, were not particularly willing to oppose the Turks.


* The Cambridge History of Turkey,
Vol./Τόμ. 1, Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453,
M. Kunt - K. Fleet (ed.),
Cambridge University Press, 2009,

pp./σσ. 381, 382.