The Constitutional Court confirmed that Binali (Deniz) Camgoz should be extradited to Turkey, that such a decision of regular courts does not violate the European Convention and that the constitutional appeal of his defenders is completely unfounded.
They made that decision on October 3, 2023, when they rejected the constitutional appeal of Camgoz's defenders, lawyers Marko Radović i Miloš Vuksanović.
In the decision, the judges of the Constitutional Court state that they examined and assessed that the interpretations of the regular courts, which previously made a decision on the extradition of Camgoz, are in accordance with the Constitution from the aspect of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The council that made that decision was presided over by a judge Desanka Lopičić, and it was also made up of judges Milorad Gogic i Budimir Šćepanović.
A citizen of Turkey, who is wanted by the local authorities for the most serious crimes, was arrested on July 6, 2022 in Podgorica, and the Police Department announced at the time that he had a forged passport with his name written on it Mehmet Ali Bayhan.
According to local media, he is the leader of an organized criminal group, and his criminal record includes various crimes - murder, wounding, kidnapping, detention, extortion and torture committed in Izmir and its surroundings, illegal collection of checks and bonds...
Although the investigating judge, panels of the Higher, Appellate and Constitutional Courts considered that proceeding under the international extradition obligation is more important than protecting the rights of the individual, the Minister of Justice Andrej Milović recently decided that Camgoz should stay in Montenegro.
They are not religious politically
The judges of the Constitutional Court cite the decisions of their colleagues from the lower courts, so they emphasize that Camgoz does not enjoy the right of asylum on the territory of Montenegro, and that the crimes for which extradition is requested are not considered political crimes or crimes related to such crimes, and in addition it is not even a matter of criminal acts that consist solely of violation of military duties:
"Although the applicant in the constitutional appeal stated the violation of several constitutional and convention rights, the Constitutional Court previously points to the practice of the European Court, which took the legal position that extradition proceedings do not fall within the scope of application of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention, except exceptionally when the person whose "...a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country" is written in the decision of that court.
They reason that the lower-level judges appreciated the allegations of the appeal highlighted in the direction of the circumstances related to the violation of basic human rights of Camgoz in the event that he is extradited to the competent authorities of Turkey, and that he will be exposed to discriminatory treatment - but he assessed that such allegations were not founded.
"This is for the reason that in concrete terms there must be a real danger of exposure to risk and the consequences must be predictable. Specifically, the court requires that it be proven that there is a serious basis for believing that the defendant would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if he were extradited, more precisely, not only that he is at a real risk of prohibited treatment, taking into account the general situation in the country, but and that this risk is greater than the risk of others when they are in similar circumstances. As the aforementioned was absent in the specific case, i.e., as the evidence in the case files and everything that was attached to the appeal does not indicate the existence of a real risk that the defendant's life and safety will be threatened if he is extradited to the Republic of Turkey, these are the allegations of the appeal in completely without grounds", the decision reads.
Conditions for extradition met
Citing constitutional and convention norms that prescribe the right to a fair trial, the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial court, as well as the obligation to extradite, the judges of the Constitutional Court emphasize that the High Court found that the legal prerequisites for the extradition of Camgoz were met .
"And that the panel of that court found that there are no circumstances that indicate that he would be exposed to persecution or punishment because of his race, religion, citizenship, belonging to a certain group or because of his political beliefs, or that his position would be made difficult because of any of these reasons, and that the same will have adequate treatment before the competent authorities of the requesting country, which position was accepted by the Appellate Court of Montenegro in its decision", adding that the regular courts justify this position by assessing the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 11 of the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
"Whereas the court specifically dealt with the analysis of the legal qualification of the criminal offenses charged against the applicant, as well as weighing what is more important in the specific case, whether proceeding according to the international obligation to extradite or protecting the rights of the individual, especially in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which absolutely prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment regardless of the victim's behavior".
On June 1, 2023, the judges of the Appellate Court judged that they had no basis in any evidence found in Camgoz's defense files, which pointed to the defendant's poor health condition, but also that such a condition was worsened by the negligent treatment of him while he was staying in Turkey
There is no real risk of bad treatment
It was established that membership of a certain religious, ethnic or political organization cannot indicate that there is a danger of persecution, or negative treatment in case of extradition. This conclusion is drawn by the courts from the position that in the specific case there must be a real danger of exposure to risk and the consequences must be foreseeable," the decision of the Constitutional Court quotes.
They state that the court in the specific case requires proof of the existence of a serious basis for believing that the defendant would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if extradited, that is, not only that he is at a real risk of prohibited treatment, taking into account the general situation in the state, but also that this risk is greater than the risk of others when they are in similar circumstances.
"As the aforementioned was absent in the specific case, the circumstances of the case in question, in the opinion of regular courts, do not indicate the existence of a real risk for the applicant," the decision reads.
The Constitutional Court points to the practice of the European Court, which took the legal position that extradition proceedings do not fall within the scope of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention, except exceptionally when the person whose extradition is sought in the requesting country would be subjected to or threatened with a "flagrant denial of a fair trial". .. That point of view was later confirmed in numerous judgments of the European Court," the decision of the Constitutional Court reads
It has not been proven that the police are to blame for the son's death
The judges of the Constitutional Court point out that the regular courts dealt with the issue of Camgoz's ethnic, religious and political affiliation and the event related to the death of his minor son, for which the Turkish citizen holds police officers responsible...
"In this regard, the Appellate Court of Montenegro expressed the opinion that the event related to the death of the applicant's minor son was the subject of consideration before the competent judicial authorities of the Republic of Turkey, that the same procedure has been legally concluded, and that no one's responsibility for the death of the applicant's son, nor the police officers who were charged with his murder".
Unlike them, the Minister of Justice refused to extradite Camgoz three and a half months later, referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey "in which the responsibility of the police officers was determined in relation to the critical event"...
Bonus video:
