By: Gavin Gretsky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On March 3, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a decision in the case of Kanatlı v. Türkiye, finding that Turkey violated European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 9 protections of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The violation stems from when Turkey brought criminal charges and punishment against a reservist who refused to comply with the annual mandatory one day of military service because he was a conscientious objector.

The applicant in this case, Murat Kanatli, is a resident of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and was a member of the Turkish-Cypriot security forces in 2005 as part of the Military Service Act which imposed mandatory military service. Under the Military Service Act, following active-duty service Mr. Kanatli was expected to serve as a reservist by performing one day of military service in military barracks. Mr. Kanatli performed this duty for three years in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Following his service is 2008, Mr. Kanatli became the Cypriot representative for the European Bureau for Conscientious Objectors and was elected to the executive committee of the organization in 2009. A conscientious objector is an individual who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of either moral or religious principles. Mr. Kanatli then refused to serve his one day of mandatory military service in 2009 because of his pacifist and anti-militarist beliefs.

Because of this refusal, the military prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against Mr. Kanatli. Mr. Kanatli challenged the constitutionality of the Military Services Act because it gave no substitute civilian service option for those opposed to compulsory military service. In 2013, the Supreme Military Administrative Court held that the Military Services Act was constitutional and imposed a fine of 167 Euros which could become a punishment of ten days imprisonment if there was a failure to pay. Mr. Kanatli refused to pay and served his ten days in jail. Mr. Kanatli also refused his annual military service in 2010 and 2011, resulting in two more criminal proceedings which were later dropped.

Mr. Kanatli filed his case against Turkey with the European Court of Human Rights in 2015, arguing that the mandatory military service without the option for civilian service as a substitute violated Article 9 of the ECHR. Specifically, Mr. Kanatli argued that the Military Service Act, and his convictions under the statute, violated Article 9 freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The ECtHR stated that the freedom of conscience was unreservedly protected and was guaranteed by the ECHR. The Court held that Turkey did violate the ECHR because the legislation required military service but did not provide any provisions for conscientious objectors to perform an alternative service and only prescribed criminal proceedings for these individuals.

Because of this violation, the ECtHR declared that Turkey must pay Mr. Kanatli 9,000 Euros in damages and 2,363 Euros in costs and expenses.

For further information, please see:

Cyprus Mail- Turkey Fined Over Cypriot Conscientious Objector- 13 Mar. 2024

ECtHR – Convention Breached by Absence of Legislation Allowing Conscientious Objectors to Opt for Civilian Service as Alternate to Military Service- 12 Mar. 2024

Philenews- Turkey Breaches Rights of Cypriot Conscientious Objector: European Court – 13 Mar. 2024

Stockholm Center for Freedom – EctHR Faults Turkey for Violating Rights of Turkish Cypriot Conscientious Objector – 12 Mar. 2024

Turkish Minute – ECtHR faults Turkey for violating rights of Turkish Cypriot conscientious objector – 12 Mar. 2024

By: D’Andre Gordon 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium – On February 23, 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal to enact new supply chain legislation, known as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which aims to increase “corporate sustainability due diligence,” reduce the environmental impact of corporate practices, and advance human rights.

The EU’s recent approval of the CSDDD is more than a legislative change; it’s a clarion call for economic systems worldwide to reckon with the legacies of exploitation embedded within them. This act, which challenges companies to transparently audit their supply chains for human rights abuses and environmental damage, introduces an ethical dimension to global commerce that holds corporations accountable beyond profit margins.

The directive marks a significant step in redressing the deep-seated imbalances created by a history of colonial practices, where the pursuit of profit too often trampled on the rights of native populations and the natural environment. However, it is crucial to address that the journey toward this legislative milestone was marked by critical discourses reflecting the delicate interplay between ambition and attainability.

Reports from ESG Today and Euronews reveal that the initial robust provisions of the CSDDD were met with political reservations, leading to a version that some consider being watered down. The adoption of the directive, though successful, emerged with raised thresholds for company inclusion and excised requirements that could have extended its reach significantly. Such compromises hint at the complexities and constraints intrinsic to policymaking within diverse political landscapes.

Despite these modifications, the legislative process has been met with measured optimism by watchdogs and social organizations, including Amnesty International, which sees the CSDDD as a vital first step in the right direction. It is an acknowledgment of the necessity for corporate accountability, but also a recognition of the directive’s present limitations. Their perspective serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice and corporate responsibility is an evolving endeavor, requiring laws like the CSDDD to be living documents, amenable to future enhancements that might expand their scope and fortify their impact.

Other groups are making similar efforts. In Canada, Indigenous communities are engaging in a parallel, yet distinctive struggle, advocating for an economy that supports not just life, but a way of life reflecting their values. Researchers like Solen Roth have detailed the efforts of Northwest Coast artists in reclaiming the commodification of their cultural heritage. Their journey towards a market model that is both less colonial and more indigenous – emphasizing fair distribution and community benefit – mirrors the ethos behind the EU’s new directive.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – EU: New European business human rights law passes crucial vote – 15 Mar. 2024

DW – EU countries back new human rights supply chain law – 15 Mar. 2024

Euronews – EU Policy: Governments support stripped-down corporate due diligence law – 15 Mar. 2024

ESG Today – Watered-down Supply Chain Sustainability Due Diligence Law Passes First Hurdle in EU Parliament – 19 Mar. 2024

European Commission Database – Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence – European Commission – 23 Feb. 2022

University of Nebraska Press – Can Capitalism Be Decolonized? Recentering Indigenous Peoples Values and Ways of Life in the Canadian Art Market – 17 Mar. 2024

By: Karla Lellis

Impunity Watch News Visiting Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On February 13, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against extensive Russian surveillance laws that mandated companies store all internet communications and provide decryption keys to security services upon request. The Court held that such practices violate the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially regarding end-to-end encryption decryption requirements.

The ruling in Podchasov v. Russia represents a resounding victory for advocates of online privacy and free expression. The ruling considers Russia’s indiscriminate data retention and decryption requirements a violation of the fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Russian legislation in question had forced internet companies, including the encrypted messaging app Telegram, to retain transcripts of all user communications for six months and metadata for one year. The laws also required firms to hand over any encrypted data to state security agencies like the FSB upon demand, with no sufficient safeguards against misuse.

The case was brought by the applicant Podchasov, a Telegram user investigated for suspected terrorism ties. He challenged the Russian data hoarding and decryption rules as violating Article 8’s privacy guarantee in communications. Ruling in favor of Podchasov, the ECHR found that the Russian mass surveillance regime permitted “public authorities to have access, on a generalized basis and without sufficient safeguards, to the content of electronic communications” — an unacceptable impairment of privacy rights.

The ruling underscores encryption’s crucial role in safeguarding digital privacy and free expression in the modern era. As the United Nations has affirmed, encryption is vital for protecting rights and enabling open communication on sensitive issues without the fear of unwarranted surveillance or repression.

While acknowledging that encryption creates obstacles for policing, the Court made clear that blanket data seizures and decryption mandates are disproportionate solutions that undermine online privacy and security for all.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – 31 Aug. 2022

ECHR Docket – Podchasov v. Russia, App. No. 33696/19 – 13 Feb. 2024

ECHR Docket – Roman Zakharov V. Russia, App. No. 47143/06 – 4 Dec. 2015

ECHR Docket – Telegram Messenger Llp and Telegram Messenger Inc. Against Russia, App. No. 13232/18 – 16 Nov. 2020

Humans Right Watch – Russia: Growing Internet Isolation, Control, Censorship Authorities Regulate Infrastructure, Block Content – 18 Jun. 2020

Phys Org – Telegram must give FSB encryption keys: Russian court – 20 Mar. 2018

Russian Federation – Criminal-Procedural Code Of The Russian Federation No. 174-Fz – 18 Dec 2001

Russian Government – Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation – ND

Telegram – FAQ – ND

By: Sarah Sandoval 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands – On March 5, 2024, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber II issued warrants for the arrest of two Russian military officers, arising from the ICC’s investigation into the ongoing situation in Ukraine.

The Court issued arrests warrants for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov regarding their involvement in attacks directed at civilian objects, causing excessive incidental harm to civilians, and inhumane acts. These offenses are in direct opposition to the Rome Statute, the treaty which governs the ICC. The Pre-Trial Chamber II, consisting of Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala, Presiding, Judge Tomoko Akane and Judge Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godinez, found that there are reasonable grounds that Kobylash and Sokolov are responsible for missile strikes against Ukrainian electric infrastructure from October 10, 2022 to March 9, 2023. These alleged missile strikes were carried out by forces under the command of Kobylash (Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force at the time) and Sokolov (Commander of the Black Sea Fleet during the time of the strikes). The strikes were either directed at civilian objects, or the damage to civilians would have been clearly anticipated and excessive. 

In a statement released by the ICC, Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC says, “all wars have rules. Those rules bind all without exception.” Kobylash, a Lieutenant General in the Russian Armed Forces, and Sokolov, an Admiral in the Russian Navy, join only two others in the list of individuals with outstanding warrants arising out of the situation in Ukraine. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, also have outstanding warrants for the unlawful deportation of children and the unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. Both warrants were issued on March 17, 2023. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the BBC that Russia does not recognize the ICC’s arrest warrants, as they are not under the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute. As such, it is unlikely that Kobylash and Sokolov will be extradited into the custody of the ICC.

For further information, please see: 

ICC – Ukraine

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov – March 5, 2024

ICC – Statement by Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants in the Situation in Ukraine – March 5, 2024

ICC – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – July 1, 2002

BBC – Russia-Ukraine war: Moscow ignores arrest warrants for Putin commanders – March 6, 2024