The Constitutional Court (AYM) issued a violation ruling in the case of Free Women’s Movement (Tevgera Jinên Azad-TJA) activist Songül Kapancı, who was initially detained on charges of “terror organization membership” and later released under judicial control, only to be re-arrested on the same grounds. The Court noted that despite attending hearings after her initial release, a second arrest was ordered, which posed a threat to her right to liberty and security. 

 

Songül Kapancı was first detained on April 29, 2021, and an indictment was filed on May 3, 2021, alleging “terror organization membership”. She was released under judicial control after the first hearing on September 20, 2021. On March 19, 2022, the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered her re-arrest under a new investigation based on the same charges. The indictment, citing “continuity of actions,” was merged with the previous case. On May 18, 2022, she was again released under judicial control.

 

At the final hearing of the merged case on June 21, 2023, Diyarbakır 11th High Criminal Court acquitted Songül Kapancı in the merged file but sentenced her to 6 years and 3 months in prison in the main case on charges of “terror organization membership”. 

 

Her objection to the second arrest was rejected by the Diyarbakır 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace on March 30, 2022. She filed an individual application to the Constitutional Court on April 29, 2022, claiming the second detention violated her right to liberty and security. 

 

VIOLATION DECISION 

 

The Constitutional Court reached a decision three years later, ruling that Songül Kapancı’s detention on March 19, 2022, violated her right to liberty and security. The Court emphasized that she was detained a second time over similar incidents that led to her first detention and noted that the local court did not adequately explain why judicial control measures were insufficient despite her compliance. 

 

The ruling stated: “Considering that the applicant complied with judicial control and attended the next hearing, the lack of a concrete explanation as to why judicial control was inadequate compared to detention was deemed a deficiency.”

 

The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the proportionality of the detention and concluded that the measure violated the safeguards under Article 19 of the Constitution. 

 

NOT REVIEWED  

 

The Court deemed Songül Kapancı’s oter claims, related to violations of “freedom of expression,” “freedom of association” and “freedom of assembly” inadmissible for review.  Songül Kapancı plans to appeal these rejected claims to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).