By: Abigail Wilcher

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

Strasbourg, France – Osman Kaval (Mr. Kaval), a prominent businessman and human rights advocate, remains unlawfully detained despite two rulings from the European Court of Human Rights declaring his detention arbitrary and politically motivated.

Mr. Kaval is well-known for his involvement in numerous civil society initiatives. Mr. Kaval was arrested in Istanbul in 2017 and placed in pre-trial detention one month after his arrest. Mr. Kaval faced criminal charges related to his alleged participation in the mass protests in the 2013 Gezi protests and the attempted coup on July 15, 2016. Mr. Kaval is serving an aggravated life sentence in Marmara Prison for attempting to overthrow the government. Currently, Mr. Kaval is serving an aggravated life sentence in Marmara Prison, along with other high-profile prisoners, for attempting to overthrow the government.

After unsuccessful attempts to challenge the proceedings in domestic courts, Mr. Kaval appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In 2019, the Court determined that his detention was arbitrary and politically driven, finding that he was detained for exercising fundamental human rights. Further, the Court found that Turkish authorities aimed to silence him. However, despite this judgment and a subsequent European Court of Human Rights decision in 2022 regarding Turkey’s failure to implement the 2019 ruling, Mr. Kaval was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mr. Kavala has since filed a second application to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations of rights under numerous Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, Mr Kavala argues that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 7 (no punishment without law), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association, taken together with Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) have been violated as a result of the continuing arbitrary and politically motivated deprivation of his liberty which breached the terms of the ECtHR’s 2019 judgment.

The European Court of Human Rights will hold a Grand Chamber Hearing to review Mr. Kaval’s continued detention following the Court’s 2019 decision ordering his immediate release. The proceedings will address whether Turkey’s refusal to comply with that judgment, as well as Turkey’s later imposition of a life sentence in 2022, constitutes ongoing violations of Mr. Kaval’s rights. Mr. Kaval’s continued imprisonment illustrates the broader systemic failures in Turkey’s legal system by using excessive and prolonged detention. Furthermore, Osman Kaval’s imprisonment has become a defining test of whether the European Court of Human Rights’ judgements carry meaningful authority when member states fail to comply with its orders.

 

For more information:

Türkiye – Statement by the Spokesperson on ECtHR ruling against Türkiye in the Kavala Case (Nov. 7, 2022)  

Kavala v Türkiye (Third Party Intervention)  

ECHR – Case of Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2): a Six-Week Deadline is Set for Submitting Requests for Third-Party Intervention (Dec. 12, 2025)  

Türkiye: Osman Kavala Marks 7 Years Behind Bars Wrongly Detained Rights Defender Awaits New European Court Ruling (Nov. 1, 2024)   

Jailed Since 2017, Kavala says Turkish Government Made an Example of Him to Intimidate Activists (Feb. 25, 2026)  

 

By: Spencer Kwabena Boateng Mensah 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

ACCRA GHANA & ABUJA NIGERIA – In the long constitutional history of Ghana, few episodes have generated as much legal and political debate as the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. 

The controversy, which began with petitions alleging misconduct in early 2025, quickly expanded into a complex legal saga spanning domestic courts and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja. Nearly two years after the events that triggered the dispute, the case remains a reference point in discussions about judicial independence, constitutional procedure and the limits of executive authority. 

Justice Torkornoo assumed office as Ghana’s 15th Chief Justice on 12 June 2023, following her nomination by then-president Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and approval by Parliament. 

Her elevation marked another milestone for women in the judiciary—she became the third woman to lead the country’s Supreme Court since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. 

For nearly two years, her tenure appeared relatively stable. That changed in March 2025. 

On 25 March 2025, three petitions seeking her removal were submitted to President John Dramani Mahama. The petitions accused the Chief Justice of administrative misconduct and irregularities in the management of judicial resources. 

Under Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the removal of a superior court judge—including the Chief Justice—follows a defined procedure. The president must consult the Council of State of Ghana and determine whether the petitions disclose a prima facie case before appointing an investigative committee. 

After reviewing the petitions and consulting the Council of State, the president announced on 22 April 2025 that such a prima facie case existed. Justice Torkornoo was suspended pending an investigation by a five-member committee. 

The most senior justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, stepped in as acting Chief Justice. 

The First Legal Challenges 

The suspension immediately triggered litigation. 

One of the earliest challenges came from legislator Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who asked the Supreme Court to halt the removal process. His argument centered on whether the president had followed the correct constitutional procedure before determining that a prima facie case existed. 

On 6 May 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the application, allowing the process to continue. 

A second challenge soon followed, again questioning the legality of the suspension and the committee proceedings. On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court rejected that challenge as well. 

These rulings cleared the way for the investigative committee to proceed with hearings. 

Inside the Investigation 

The committee began its hearings on 15 May 2025, meeting regularly to examine the allegations contained in the petitions. 

Because Article 146 proceedings are held in camera, much of the investigation unfolded outside the public eye. Nonetheless, the process generated intense public debate and scrutiny. 

Justice Torkornoo herself publicly criticized the proceedings during a national address on 25 June 2025, describing what she believed to be fundamental procedural flaws. 

“The perversion of law, rules and due process… are driving the proceedings,” she said at the time, arguing that the investigation had strayed from constitutional standards. 

Turning to the Regional Court 

While the committee hearings continued in Ghana, the dispute also reached the regional level. 

On 4 July 2025, Justice Torkornoo filed a case against the Ghanaian state at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. The application alleged violations of her rights under regional human-rights law and argued that the suspension prevented her from carrying out the constitutional duties of her office. She sought reinstatement or other relief and $10 million in damages.  

Her legal team asked the court to declare that Ghana had breached its obligations and to grant remedies that could include restoration of her judicial status or compensation. 

The filing added an international dimension to a dispute already dominating Ghana’s constitutional landscape. 

The Historic Removal 

The committee eventually completed its investigation and submitted its report to the president. 

On 1 September 2025, President Mahama announced that he had accepted the committee’s recommendation and removed Justice Torkornoo from office for “stated misbehavior.” 

The decision marked an unprecedented moment: no sitting chief justice had previously been removed through the Article 146 procedure in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. 

For supporters of the process, the decision demonstrated that constitutional accountability mechanisms could be applied even to the judiciary’s highest office. Critics, however, warned that the episode risked undermining public confidence in judicial independence. 

Litigation Continues 

The removal did not end the legal battle. 

On 17 September 2025, Justice Torkornoo filed a new challenge at the High Court in Accra, seeking judicial review of the decision to remove her. The case questioned whether the investigative committee and the president had strictly complied with constitutional requirements. 

Meanwhile, the ECOWAS court case continued to move through preliminary stages in Abuja. 

Legal observers pointed out that while the ECOWAS court can determine whether a state violated international human-rights obligations, it cannot directly overturn decisions made under a country’s constitution. Instead, the court can issue declaratory judgments and order compensation if violations are found. 

Beyond One Case 

Even as the legal proceedings continued, Ghana’s political institutions moved forward with filling the vacancy in the judiciary’s top office. Parliament began considering the nomination of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as substantive Chief Justice. 

The episode nevertheless left a lasting imprint on Ghana’s constitutional discourse. 

For scholars and legal practitioners, the Torkornoo affair has become a case study in how constitutional removal mechanisms operate—and how fragile the balance between judicial independence and accountability can be. 

A year after the first petitions were filed, the dispute continues to echo in courtrooms, legal journals and public debates across West Africa. 

Key ECOWAS Court Decisions 

1. Interim Measures Request – Dismissed 

On 19th November 2025, the ECOWAS Court dismissed her application for provisional measures, which sought to halt the investigation and removal process while the case was pending. 

The court held that she failed to demonstrate urgency or imminent irreparable harm, partly because she filed the request months after the suspension.  

However, the court acknowledged that the case raised a prima facie human-rights issue, meaning the main lawsuit could proceed.  

1. Amendment of the Case – Granted 

 On 30th January 2026, the ECOWAS Court granted Torkornoo permission to amend her claim so that it explicitly challenges not only her suspension but also her final removal from office.  

The court rejected Ghana’s objection and directed the government to file an amended defence within 30 days responding to the expanded allegations.  

Present Legal Position  March 2026 

At the moment, the case is still pending before the ECOWAS Court as only procedural rulings have been issued. No final judgment on the merits has been delivered and Ghana has been ordered to respond to the amended claims. 

 

For further information, please see:  

Ghana’s President Removes Country’s Chief Justice after Investigation -September 1, 2025 

ECOWAS Court Dismisses Former CJ Torkornoos Bid to Halt Investigative Committees Work – November 19, 2025

Ghana Dispatch: Regional African Court Orders Ghana to Respond to Alleged Human Rights Violations – December 28, 2025 

By: Julia Wheeler 

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations and Impunity Watch News 

Medmoune v. France arises out of doctors’ decision to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment from patient “A.M.”. This decision was made despite A.M.’s drawn up advance directives, which stated his wishes for the continuation of life-sustaining treatment, even in the case of permanent loss of consciousness and ability to communicate. This raises the legal question of whether this decision was a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Background – Bruay-sur-l’Escault, France:  

In May of 2022, A.M., a 44-year-old male, was run over by a commercial vehicle that he was repairing. He suffered severe trauma, including cardiorespiratory arrest and prolonged oxygen deprivation. A.M. was admitted to the Valenciennes Hospital ICU, where it was determined that he no longer had brain-stem reflexes or brain activity and had sustained anoxic injuries.  

On May 31, 2022, pursuant to Article R. 4127-37-2 of the French Public Health Code, the hospital began its collective procedure, the process doctors follow when deciding whether to limit or withdraw treatment. On June 1, 2022, the doctors decided that treatment would be withdrawn on June 9, 2022. The applicants challenged this decision, and before the withdrawal date on June 8, 2022, the Lille Administration Court suspended it. Revisiting the decision on July 15, 2022, the head of the ICU again decided to withdraw treatment on July 22, 2022. The applicants again challenged this through an urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom, which the Administrative Court dismissed on July 22, 2022.  

The applicants appealed to France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, seeking review of the constitutionality of the legal provision authorizing the hospital’s decision. The Constitutional Council upheld the constitutionality of the provision on November 10, 2022, and the Conseil d’État dismissed the applicants’ action. 

As a final recourse, the applicants requested an interim measure from the ECHR under Rule 39. They hoped to be granted a stay of execution of the July 15, 2022, decision, and continuation of treatment while their case was pending. The judge denied the applicants’ request. 

Treatment was withdrawn on December 26, 2022, and A.M. passed away that day.  

Applicants’ Claim/Argument 

The applicants claimed that A.M.’s right to life under Article 2 was violated, as was his right to respect for private life under Article 8, and his freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 9 of the Convention. 

They criticized France’s Public Health Code for permitting doctors to override patients’ advance directives deemed “manifestly inappropriate,” arguing that this grants excessive discretion to doctors which in turn creates a risk of arbitrary interference with Convention rights.  

Decision 

The Court upheld the French legislation framework as compatible with Article 2. Under the Convention, States have the discretion to determine which factors to consider and how to weigh competing rights and interests. 

The Court acknowledged that the doctors were initially unaware of A.M.’s advance directives. After reviewing them, the medical team concluded that following the directives was not compatible with A.M.’s medical condition, and that continuing treatment would be considered “unreasonable obstinacy,” meaning it would provide the patient with no real benefit. The team also considered the family’s objections but decided that these could not override their medical judgment. The Court found that A.M.’s wishes were properly considered throughout the process. 

The Court found that the State had provided the applicants with prompt and reasonable judicial remedies, which considered various factors, such as medical evidence and A.M.’s advance directives. Therefore, the State has complied with its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.  

The Court referenced prior rulings to reiterate that while Article 8 protects personal autonomy, it does not bind States to advance directives, as they may utilize their discretion. On this basis, the Court found the French framework compatible with Article 2. Further, the Court held that applicants’ Article 9 complaints were sufficiently addressed by its Article 2 analysis.  

Significance 

This case is the first before the ECHR where it involves not a patient’s advance directives to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, but their directives to continue the treatment.  

For further information, please see: 

ECHR  

Judgment Medmoune v. France – Press Release Issued by the Registrar of the Court  

Public Health Code: Article R. 4127-37-2  

ECHR Case Law