Prague, 15 May 2007 Plaintiff:                    

MUDr. Ergün Yekta Uzunoglu, born 10 May 1953Permanent residence Třemblaty 90, 251 65 Ondřejov, Czech Republic                                   

Citizen of the Federal Republic of GermanyLegal representation:            

Mgr. Janem Kutějem, attorney of the Czech Bar Association, no. 9689                                   

Preslova 1269/17, 150 00 Praha 5 MUDr. ERGÜN YEKTA UZUNOGLU v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

Complain no. 16034/04Request for priority hearing of a complaint under Article 41 of the Rules of Court of the European Court for Human RightsPlaintiff declaration

Copied to the attention of:

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

The Czech Helsinki Committee

The Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77)

PEN Club Czech RepublicAmnesty International 

I.INTRODUCTIONThe plaintiff hereby supplements and expands his complaint against the Czech Republic filed at the European Court for Human Rights on 29.4.2004.

II.REQUEST FOR PRIORITY HEARING OF THE COMPLAINTThe plaintiff’s case is without a doubt the most shocking case of the failure of the Czech justice system in its 18-year history. This exceptionally shocking case is exceptional not only due to the extreme length of the proceedings, but also due to the circumstances under which it occurred, the long-term nature of the violation of the plaintiff’s human rights, and the gravity of the results. This case reveals systemic flaws in the Czech justice system and criminal justice authorities, particularly the police and state prosecution.The plaintiff is a physician, once active in the international organization Doctors Without Borders, a founder of several hospitals in Iran, a co-founder of the Kurdish Crescent (parallel to the Red Cross), a co-founder of the Kurdish Institute in Paris, the founder of that same institution in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the initiator of a translation of the Bible into Kurdish. Until his arrest in 1994 he was one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic, a humanist, a translator, an author and a publisher. In September 1994, immediately prior to the realization of his rights in a completed commercial contract to build electrical power plants worth USD 360 000 000, the plaintiff was arrested and four false charges were filed against him. The scandalous, unlawful arrest of the plaintiff was personally conducted by a high official in the Czech Police, Josef Opava, who was subsequently proven to be the head of the 36-member criminal “Berdych Gang”. Thirteen years after MUDr. Uzunoglu was arrested, Opava was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment without parole at the start of 2007 by a first-instance court. Other police officers from the “Berdych Gang” participated in the plaintiff’s arrest and were involved with the criminal justice authorities during the plaintiff’s case. The members of the “Berdych Gang” are being prosecuted in the Czech Republic (and some have already been convicted) for very serious organized criminal activity. These are persons from the police being prosecuted for the torture, hold-ups, murder, blackmail and kidnapping of business people and others, police officers who abused their official positions and police weaponry and falsified documents to perform their crimes.After his arrest, the plaintiff was held in custody for 2.5 years, during which he was systematically tortured and physically and psychologically abused. One of the plaintiff’s three co-defendants who was also subjected to physical and psychological abuse died shortly after his release from custody at the age of 34 due to lack of medical attention. Evidence proving the plaintiff’s abuse – particularly medical reports documenting the results of torture – is part of the criminal complaint file. During his detention, the Federal Republic of Germany awarded the plaintiff German citizenship after thoroughly reviewing the case. Germany authorities delivered a German passport to the plaintiff while he was imprisoned in the Czech Republic. In the years that followed, all the charges against the plaintiff except one (allegations of blackmail) have been either shelved or halted. The charges of alleged blackmail are based only on the continually changing testimony of an illegal Turkish immigrant, a person with multiple identities who walks around Prague armed with a Scorpion military automatic weapon, has no demonstrable source of income or employment, and is an agent of the Czech Police involved in many criminal groups operating and being prosecuted in Western Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany and the USA. After 12 years, this witness/agent/aggrieved party, Turkish citizen Gurkan Gönen, alias Göksel Otan, testified in court under oath that MUDr. Uzunoglu never tortured him (“the defendant never tortured me, he wasn’t even there. .. He never struck me.”). Leading representatives of the gigantic English pharmaceuticals company BOOTS, with whom the plaintiff spent the entire time during which he was alleged to have captured and tortured Gönen, and who therefore are able to unequivocally corroborate MUDr. Uzunoglu’s alibi, have never been deposed during the past 13 years, even though the plaintiff gave this incontrovertible alibi from the first moments of his arrest.In his summing-up, the state prosecutor was unable to defend any of the charges and therefore merely based his concluding statement on an absurd, unsupported contemplation denying that the principle of the presumption of innocence and the inquisitorial principle govern Czech criminal procedure, stating that in his view the plaintiff purely theoretically might have committed the crime with which he was charged, continuing: “Had he confessed at the time, we wouldn’t have to be here today.” The state prosecutor did not claim, and he could not claim – since there was not once piece of either direct or indirect evidence – that the plaintiff committed the crimes of which he was charged.Regardless of the non-existence of any direct or indirect evidence of the alleged blackmail the judge of the District Court for Prague 4, Mgr. Vítězslav Rašík, issued a preliminary verdict on 29.3.2007, file number 2 T 11/2002, finding the plaintiff guilty of the crime of blackmail and sentencing him conditionally. The plaintiff, his representative, and the representative of his co-defendants immediately appealed this absurd verdict on the spot. There was an immediate, massive wave of criticism and protest against this preliminary verdict of the District Court for Prague 4 on 29.3.2007 and against the entire course of the trial (see Article III of this filing for more details).The preliminary verdict and the serious procedural flaws in the trial were immediately condemned by leading international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, the Czech Helsinki Committee, Action Courage and leading personalities worldwide. Several MEPs decided to ask the Czech representatives at the European Parliament in Brussels how it is possible that a judge in a state with the rule of law can convict someone without either direct or indirect evidence. As of today the District Court for Prague 4 has not issued a written verdict and has not transferred the plaintiff’s complaint to the appeals court for decision. Once again, in violation of the law, an unauthorized delay is occurring in the proceedings and the rights of the plaintiff are being curtailed. This is the substance of the matter to be heard before your court.The criminal proceedings on the blackmail charge alleged against the plaintiff are in their 13th year. For the 13th year in a row, in the course of these criminal proceedings, the fundamental human rights of the plaintiff guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms are being grossly violated, in particular the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for privacy and family life, the right to an effective legal remedy, the right to personal liberty and security, the right to legal representation, and the right to protection of private property. The plaintiff’s right to hear and summon witnesses has been denied over the long term during the course of the criminal proceedings. Over the long term, the plaintiff’s right to effective legal representation has been violated. For example, for one year of his detention in custody, the plaintiff was not permitted any visits, even though the law permits one visit every three weeks. It was never made possible for the plaintiff to learn the results of the investigation, which the law of the Czech Republic entails as an obligation of the criminal justice authorities. This fundamental right of the plaintiff was intentionally diminished despite the fact that the plaintiff fought for this right for many months and turned to the President of the Czech Republic for the purpose of guaranteeing this fundamental right. The plaintiff’s co-defendants, who did not speak Czech, were never given the opportunity to review the criminal proceeding files, as the file was never translated into any other language. Since the criminal case was conducted against all three of them, the restriction of his co-defendants’ right to necessary representation is also a restriction of the rights of the plaintiff.During the course of the criminal proceedings, one of the plaintiff’s co-defendants died (he was not even 35 years old at the time of his death) as a result of lack of treatment for a serious illness during his time in custody. The plaintiff and his representative repeatedly raised the fact that this person was dead both in writing and orally during the course of the main hearing, requesting that the judge halt the criminal proceedings as required by law. Nevertheless, the judge ignored this communication of the facts and, in violation of both the law and ethics, issued an international arrest warrant for the co-defendant, who had been dead for five years, causing psychological, social and material damage to his family living Turkey. The plaintiff’s ex-wife and his daughter, who live in the Federal Republic of Germany, were persecuted by the Czech Police and by the state prosecutor legally responsible for “oversight” of the criminal proceedings. The Czech authorities abused international conventions to conduct their persecution, as these persons had nothing to do with the criminal charges against the plaintiff. The German Police were requested by the Czech authorities to investigate these persons and find their current addresses, enabling the witness/agent/aggrieved (see above) to subsequently blackmail and threaten them. Persecution by the Czech authorities was also conducted against other people who had no connection with the plaintiff’s criminal proceedings and could never have been connected to them, even beyond the borders of the Czech Republic; neither the plaintiff’s closest relatives nor the co-defendants were ever granted entry visas for the Czech Republic for the purposes of visiting the plaintiff in detention, thereby intentionally damaging the plaintiff’s social and family relationships and causing psychological harm. During seven main hearings, the court was unable to determine the whereabouts of the crown witness/agent/aggrieved, who avoided appearing in court even though his Prague dwelling is not quite 100 metres away from a police station. The District Court for Prague did not summon the crown witnesses in the case, instead intentionally summoning persons who knew nothing about the case and never could have known anything about it, as they were not direct participants in the events. In another case the court summoned police officers without requesting the Interior Ministry of the Czech Republic to release them from their obligation to preserve confidentiality; the persons concerned could say practically nothing about the case in court. The court thereby intentionally interfered with the discovery of the objective truth, as it must have known the police officers would be unable to testify unless released from their obligation to preserve confidentiality. The District Court for Prague 4 also attempted for several years to have the criminal proceedings removed from the Czech Republic to Turkey through the use of biased, untrue information. The court hoped to avoid issuing a verdict in the case, and took illegal steps to try to arrange for the matter to become lost in the system entirely. From the very beginning of the proceedings the court was aware that the plaintiff had permanent residence in the Czech Republic, had been a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1996, and had been persecuted in Turkey for more than a quarter-century due to his engagement in protecting the human rights of the Kurds there. Quite apart from that, the main “aggrieved/witness/agent”, also living in the Czech Republic, had been avoiding return to Turkey. This fact demonstrates the unambiguously improper approach taken by the District Court for Prague 4. In the end, Turkey properly refused to take on the criminal proceedings, but this intentionally incorrect approach led to further significant delays in the proceedings. The criminal proceedings conducted against the plaintiff are burdened by enormous, unsubstantiated delays caused by the Czech authorities and a concurrent absence of effective means of redress against such delays. From the very beginning of the proceedings, i.e., from 1994 until today, the plaintiff, his representative, his co-defendants and their representatives have filed and continue to file numerous repeated complaints against these delays, not only to the criminal justice authorities, but also to the Government of the Czech Republic and the Office of the President. The Office of the President has repeatedly criticised the criminal justice authorities for these delays and demanded, in vain, that they cease.The Czech Republic itself filed a declaration as part of these criminal proceedings on 23.10.2003 under file number 2 T 11/2002 based on the fact that: “The length of these criminal proceedings is in violation of the international conventions by which the Czech Republic is bound.” The chair of the judge’s panel of the District Court for Prague 4 hearing this case, Mgr. Vítězslav Rašík, responded in a declaration on 25.9.2003 file number 2 T 11/2002 that: “It can therefore be summarized that even though this does not concern a matter which would in any way markedly differ in complexity from the usual criminal charges being heard, the criminal proceedings have lasted for more than nine years, during which time no one has been found guilty of the charges.”More than 3.5 years has passed since this verdict, during which time the case still has yet to be finally closed, and the fundamental rights of the plaintiff guaranteed by the Charter continue to be grossly violated, with all that entails for the plaintiff. The effects caused by the Czech Republic’s illegal approach prior to the final closure of the proceedings are completely permanent, ineradicable and irreparable (the disruption of the family, personal and social life of the plaintiff for at least 13 years; serious damage to his mental and physical health; the actual liquidation of most of his extensive international business activity and the frustration of his business transactions worth many millions of dollars; the damaging of his good name and reputation; disruption of his publishing activity, international humanitarian activity, and work as a physician for many years, etc.). The plaintiff believes that only a speedy verdict from the European Court for Human Rights which will rule on the violation of the plaintiff’s fundamental human rights guaranteed by Article 6 paragraph 1, Article 8, and Article 13 of the Convention will cause the Czech Republic to immediately refrain from other illegal interference with the plaintiff’s human rights guaranteed by the Convention and to refrain from further delays to the proceedings.The plaintiff therefore respectfully requests of the European Court for Human Rights that a senate or its president rule according to Article 41 of the Rules of the Court of the European Court for Human Rights to prioritise the plaintiff’s complaint number 16034/04 for hearing.III.PROTESTS AGAINT VIOLATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTSThe unusual intensity of the violation of the fundamental rights of the plaintiff during the criminal proceedings conducted against him in the Czech Republic is testified to by the wave of protests by leading public personalities and many recognized organizations from all over the world against the Czech Republic’s approach and against the absurd preliminary verdict by a Czech court in March 2007.Protests against the violation of human rights by the Czech Republic in the plaintiff’s case have been led by the international headquarters of Amnesty International in London, the Czech Helsinki Committee, the Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77), the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Czech Republic, Action Courage, the Czech PEN Club, the Kurdish Institute in Belgium, many Members of the European Parliament, parliamentary deputies and senators from the Czech Republic and abroad, and hundreds of leading public personalities from around the world including leading scholars, lawyers, politicians, physicians, educators, artists and others.Both the Government of the Czech Republic and the Parliament of the Czech Republic have repeatedly lobbied on behalf of the plaintiff. Senators have repeatedly submitted written enquiries to the ministries concerned, i.e., the Justice Ministry and the Interior Ministry, regarding the delays and the violation of the plaintiff’s rights.Thousands of newspaper articles in many languages have been published on the human rights violations committed against the plaintiff.In 2007 a book was compiled on the plaintiff’s case entitled Presumed Guilty, with a foreword by Professor František Janouch and contributions by leading personalities, including the ombudsman (Public Defender of Rights) of the Czech Republic, former Czech Interior Minister Ruml, etc.Below are just a few of the many recent protests, statements, reactions, complaints and warnings issued regarding the human rights violations in the plaintiff’s case.

A.CALL BY THE INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IN LONDON TO THE CZECH AUTHORITIES IN THE MATTER OF MUDr. YEKTA UZUNOGLUOn 29.3.2007 the international headquarters of Amnesty International in London issued a call in several languages to the Czech authorities to investigate the serious procedural flaws that have occurred during the court trial of the German citizen of Kurdish origin Yekta Uzunoglu.This recognized human rights organization expressed serious concern that MUDr. Uzunoglu’s right to a fair trial has been denied including the right to be tried without unnecessary delay. The international headquarters of Amnesty International finds other shortcomings in the violation of the right to summon and question witnesses and the denial of the right to effective representation.The international headquarters of Amnesty International also calls on the Czech authorities to undertake a review of the course of this case for the purposes of discovering the deficiencies in the criminal justice system which lead to the violation of MUDr. Uzunoglu’s right to a fair trial. “Investigation of this case could also serve to prevent similar failures in future,” writes the international headquarters of Amnesty International in a letter sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic.Evidence:            

Press release by the international headquarters of Amnesty International in London dated 29.3.2007 

B.CALL AND DECLARATION FROM THE EMBASSY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE CZECH REPUBLICOn 16.1.2007, the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany responded (after many years of carefully following the case) to the years of groundless delays in the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff when Ms Lydia Daimer, head of the legal and consular department at the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany sent an urgent written call to the president of the District Court for Prague 4 for an explanation. In this call, the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany itself states that the court is intentionally delaying these proceedings and violating the principles of a fair trial. In the view of the plaintiff, the answer sent by the District Court for Prague 4 to the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany is in direct contravention of the case law of the ECHR itself on the matter of procedural delays.Evidence:             Request from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany for an explanation of the groundless delays in the criminal proceedings conducted against the plaintiff dated 16.1.2007 and the response of the District Court for Prague 4 to this request from 19.1.2007

C.PROTEST – HUNGER STRIKE BY LEADING PERSONALITIES WORLDWIDE AGAINST THE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF MUDr. YEKTA UZUNOGLU On 13.3.2007 the plaintiff announced he was going on hunger strike in protest against the gross, long-term violations of his human rights and the conditions in the Czech justice system. The strike was undertaken with the aim of achieving the fastest possible resolution to his scandalous case, which is already a European embarrassment for the Czech Republic, and with the aim of initiating widespread public discussion of how to rectify the currently desperate situation in the Czech judiciary.Dozens of leading public personalities from around the world immediately joined MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu’s hunger strike. From the Czech Republic alone, the following people expressed solidarity and support for MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu:

President of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, many members of both houses of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, university professors, leading representatives of organizations protecting human rights, lawyers, physicians, journalists, business people, etc..The following people joined a solidarity hunger strike with MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu:Václav HavelPresident of the Czech Republic 1989-2003Professor František Janouch – physicist, university professor, founder and chair of the Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77)Markus Pape – German journalist working in PraguePhDr. Libuše Šilhánovápresident of the Czech Helsinki Committee, recipient of the state award for serviceCzech SenatorJaromír ŠtětinaPhDr. Květa Jechová – university educatorCzech MP Svatopluk KarásekDoc. Dr. Miloslav Kalab – university educator, recipient of the Pfizer Prize, founder of the journal Food Structure, consultant with the UN FAO on IndiaJan Rejžek – screenwriter, actor, criticKlaus-Henning Rosen (Germany) – former head of Willy Brandt’s officeVáclav Marhoul – actor, screenwriter, directorCzech MP Táňa FischerováHelena Illnerová –former chair of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicMartin Chramosil – computer specialistIvan Peschka – poet, priestJUDr. Milan Hulík – attorneyCzech MEP JUDr. Stanislav KřečekIng. Karel Jech – Councillor, Capital City of Pragueprof. Dr. Pavel Štěpánek, Ph.D. – university professorJan Křivonožka – ecologistTomáš Kramár – anti-corruption expert, Oživení associationDoc. Dr. Ing. Boris Krška – university educatorMgr. Radim Ucháč – president, Movement For Life ČRAlena Abbrentová – educatorMartin  Vadas – publicist and screenwriterJan BeránekJosef HrdinkaMonika Uzunoglu Slávka Pešulová – managerMgr. Petr Nymburg – university educatorDr. Pavel Gan (SRN) – university educatorMilan and Zdeňka Bárta – trade unionistsJiří Stránský – former president of the Czech PEN Club for many years, authorRNDr. Gustav Louženský – university educatorVěra Trakalová – economistJiří Fojt – entrepreneurPepa Nos – composer, songwriter, musician, singer, actor, yoga teacherClaudie Nikolajenková – human rights activistMagdalena ŠebestováGabriela ČervenáDoc. RNDr. Zdeněk Kluiber, CSc. Ph.D. – university educatorJaroslav KosJan Dus –Evangelical priestPetra Alexander (USA)Igor LinhartIvana and Milan Bárta Ing. Karel Hegenbart – publicistJitka Žáková – nuclear physicistMartin ŠtumpfJan Šinágl – independent journalistKarel Kramář – publicistVěra Roubalová – former spokesperson for Charter 77Pavla Hájková – employee of the Czech Senateprof. Dr. Jan Čermák – university educatorMgr. Karel Mrzílek – physicistJiří JínaPhilipp Janýr – politicianIng. Hynek BulířPetr KotoučekOtakar Vojtěch – physicistBc. Jana MulačováIda Kaiserová – translatorEmílie NečasováMichal DočekalDušan DvořákDobroslava GabryšováDaniel VacekEva a Jindřich RůžičkoviJiří Peňás – publicistprof. PhDr. Daniela Jarušková, CSc. – university educatorLadislav Maria Wagner – President of the Internacional plastique groupe Faubourien, Honourable Member of the Masaryk Academy of Arts, recipient of many awards (the Hopper Award, Los Angeles; the  Salvadora Dali de Pueblo Award; EU Award for Artistic Activity; First Prize Carte G, Sao Paulo; etc.)Božena WagnerováBarbara Issa Wagnerová – painter, recipient of the Rudolf II Award (2002)Jaromír VacekDana KrižaničkováJozef Wagner – former Czech MPProf. RNDr. Dušan Mlynarčík, DrSc. – Dean of the Pharmaceutical Faculty, Comenius University, Bratislava, SlovakiaAlena Rusňáková – human rights activistprof. RNDr. Martin Černohorský, CSc. – university educator, Chancellor of the Czech Conference of University RectorsMartin Maděra – publicist and human rights activistMartin Reiner – publisher, poet, essayistDr. Marta ChovancováMgr. Tomáš Jurčík – university educatorV. Heřman LangIng. Blanka CísařovskáDavid NavaraGeorg Warning (Germany) – Amnesty International workerDoc. PhDr. Zdeněk Pinc – sociologist and philosopherMgr. Eliška PincováBc. František PincVratislav PincBenedikt PincJindřich PincBarbora PánováMartina RychlíkováBřetislav Rychlík – directorJana CejpováTomáš CejpLubor VelebaZuzana Schreiberová – educatorMilan Hanyš – college studentAlida Horváthová – journalist and editorJiří Vaněk (Sydney, Australia)Petr PojarJUDr. Mgr. Jaroslav Grinc, Ph.D. – university educatorGerald TurnerMilan KozelkaIng. Pavel GalleProkop Voskovec –poet, translator, dramatistVlasta Voskovcová (Paris, France) – artistVladimír Hučín – human rights activistLadislav Zikmund – educatorEmanuel Mandler – historian, publicistAndrea LexováIng. Zora RysováJiří HrdinaPetr BorkaMilan HrabalMUDr. Petr Kašpar – physician, university educatorFedor Gál – sociologist, publisherUrban Westling (Šweden) – co-founder, Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77)Marta KordíkováBernhard von Grünberg (Germany) – German politician and lawyerNaďa Dvorská – artistEva Vavrušková – HR Director LogicaCMGRNDr. Marie Fojtíková – university educatorJana Červenková – authorJitka Pešulová Jitka Pešulová (the younger).PhDr. Monika MacDonagh-Pajerová – diplomatFrantišek VaněkMichal ŠimekDoc. Ing. František Hezoučký – former director of the Temelín Nuclear Power PlantPavel NovotnýJaroslav KarafiátDalibor Pech – spokesperson for the Strasbourg CommitteeMilan M. HorákPavla Béliveau (Paris, France)Martin GromanHana RůžičkováJaroslava KratochvílováMVDr. Zdeněk Hladký – veterinarianMUDr. Eva VaníčkováBohdana Pfannová – managerŠimon PellarIng. Pavel VlasákŠtěpánka MatúškováMartin PatřičnýIvan Martin Jirous – poet, publicist, critic, recipient of the Jaroslav Seifert AwardPavel KačírekIng. Josef CyrusMojmír Kovář – politician, former deputy of the Czech and Slovak Federal AssemblyJaromír JirkaHélène Krulich-Ghassemlou (Paris, France) – widow of the legendary Kurdish leaderSaša Vovsová – artistPhDr. Arnošt BurgetMichal HrickoDagmar VolencováJarmila Stibicová – Amnesty International workerAlena Stehnová – Amnesty International workerVladimír Doležal – Amnesty International workerMilada KabeláčováIvuše SochrováZdeněk IngrKristýna MartušováDalibor Fencl Evidence: article, “Vaclav Havel to Hold Symbolic Hunger Strike for Kurdish-born Doctor” published 23.3.2007 in Süddeutsche Zeitung (Havel unterstützt deutsch-Kurdischen Unternehmer)Amnesty International statement in Czech, English and French

D.MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFMEP Ruth Hieronymi, MEP Jo Leinen and others including the then-chair of the European Parliament’s Constitutional Committee devoted intensive interest to the plaintiff’s case. They prepared a petition calling on the Czech Republic to end the unnecessary delays in the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. MEP Hieronymi also strove for support for the petition from the Christian Democratic faction of the EP. Her colleagues were subsequently to ask the EP to enquire of the Czech representation in Brussels how it is possible for a judge in a country with the rule of law to convict a person against whom there is neither direct nor indirect evidence.

E.CZECH HELSINKI COMMITTEE AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S HUMAN RIGHTSThe Czech Helsinki Committee has concerned itself in detail with the plaintiff’s case from the very beginning in 1994, when MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu was first charged. The Czech Helsinki Committee (ČHV) believes the case of MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu testifies to the all but irreparable failure of the Czech justice system and the Police of the Czech Republic on a grand scale. The plaintiff is appending hereto the various statements on the plaintiff’s case produced by ČHV lawyers which describe the development of the plaintiff’s case in detail and contain the ČHV’s own conclusions of fact and legal conclusions on the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff proposes these statements be introduced by the European Court for Human Rights as evidence during the plaintiff’s proceedings against the Czech Republic. Evidence:             Statements by the Czech Helsinki Committee on the plaintiff’s case from 24.10.1995, 6.3.1996, April 1996, 12.9.1996, 19.9.1996, 31.10.1996, and 5.6.2003. An article by PhDr. Libuše Šilhánová, chair of the Czech Helsinki Committee and recipient of the state award for service, published in the biweekly journal MOST: “Conflict of economic interests ends in martyrdom by court”   

F.CHARTER 77 FOUNDATION (NADACE CHARTY 77)AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S HUMAN RIGHTSFor several years, the Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77) has emphatically protested the gross violation of the plaintiff’s rights in the trial conducted at the District Court for Prague 4. The foundation has long criticised the evident flaws in MUDr. Uzunoglu’s trial and drawn attention to the serious mistakes committed by the Czech justice system in the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff was awarded a prestigious prize in 2006 by the Charter 77 Foundation, – the František Kriegl Prize for civic bravery. Evidence:             statements of the Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77).Certificate presented on 1.6.2006 by the founder and chair of the Charter 77 Foundation (Nadace Charty 77), Professor František Janouch, on the occasion of the award of the František Kriegl Prize for civic bravery. The plaintiff’s acceptance speech given on the occasion of his receiving the František Kriegl Prize for civic bravery on 1.6.2006

G.KURDISH PEN CLUB AND KURDISH INSTITUTE AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S HUMAN RIGHTS The Kurdish PEN Clun has also concerned itself with the 13-year case, turning to the French Parliament with a request for it to investigate whether MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu’s human rights have been violated by the proceedings.  The Czech PEN-Club has repeatedly issued an official declaration criticising the criminal justice system’s approach to the case of MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu. The Kurdish Institute co-founded by MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu has also requested that the Czech representation in Brussels investigate whether the plaintiff’s human rights are being violated in the proceedings against him. Evidence:             Kurdish PEN Club statement on the case of MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu. Czech PEN Club statement on the case of MUDr. Yekta Uzunoglu.  

H.INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR CONDEMNATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE PLAINTIFF’S CASELeading European legal experts are currently preparing to establish an international criminal tribunal at which renowned legal experts would review the approach of the Czech courts and criminal justice authorities to the plaintiff’s case and then issue moral and legal findings.The widow of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Andrei D. Sakharov, Ms Yelena Bonner, has agreed such a tribunal could be called the Sakharov Tribunal. This tribunal, in the view of the plaintiff, could unequivocally morally condemn the Czech Republic for its brutal, long-term violation of the plaintiff’s rights, eventually resulting in correction of the systemic flaws in both criminal and civil proceedings in the Czech Republic and to the reform of the Czech judiciary and state prosecution.


Evidence:             Report by Justice Paul Springer of the High Court