AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SUES LOCAL GOVERNMENT OVER

UNCLAS ISTANBUL 000556 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR EUR/SE AND DRL E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV TU SUBJECT: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SUES LOCAL GOVERNMENT OVER FROZEN BANK ACCOUNT Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. ¶1. (SBU) Summary. Amnesty International's (AI) Turkey branch filed civil cases against two local government authorities, the Beyoglu District Governor's office and the Istanbul Governor's office, for failing to respond to queries related to the January seizure of 75,000 YTL (approx 57,000 dollars) held in AI's local bank account. AI officials told us that they still have not been officially notified of the justification for the decision to freeze the accounts. Although Turkish law stipulates that all organizations must receive permission from the local authorities to conduct fundraising, AI claims this requirement is not uniformly applied. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) The Director of the Amnesty International (AI) Turkey office told us that they were not given prior notification of a January decision by the Istanbul Governor's office to freeze the organization's bank accounts. Their bank was reluctant to provide them with details on the freeze order, beyond indicating that the basic charge was "unauthorized fund raising." AI applied to the governor's office to learn the justification for the decision, but according to AI received no response, despite a legal requirement for a response to be given within 60 days of the application. In mid-May AI filed suit in a local administrative court requesting a stop-action decision as well as compensation for their loss. ¶3. (SBU) Immediately following their application to the court, AI was fined for "unauthorized fund raising" by the Beyoglu District Governor's office. According to AI, the official document they were given by the district governor's office indicated they had 15 days to appeal the fine and directed them to apply to the Court of First Instance. However, the AI lawyer informed them that the appeal period was only 7 days and that they must apply to a different administrative court. AI applied to both courts within the 7 day window. The Court of First Instance refused to hear the case. The case remains open at the administrative court. AI officials refused to speculate whether the incorrect instructions were intentional, but indicated that the action was not a sign of "good will." ¶4. (SBU) AI officials told us that they received authorization to function in 2002 and had not experienced any problems with local government since that time. The Turkish Law on Fund Raising requires official authorization for fund raising by any organization that is not already listed by the Ministry of Interior as "an organization working for the public good." Membership fees and donations to associations do not fit the definition of fund raising. ¶5. (SBU) AI officials speculate that complaints they filed against police harassment and detention of AI members involved in a street campaign may have prompted the freezing of the bank accounts as well as the fine. They claim that the fund-raising activities they engaged in are common and that they have been singled out for harassment by the authorities. They further argue that only 1,200 YTL (less than USD 1,000) of the 75,000 YTL (approx USD 57,000) in their accounts was raised by the methods in question - online credit card payments and direct donations on the street - and that "it is unfair that they seized all 75,000." ¶6. (SBU) Comment: We have no way of knowing what caused the governor's office to issue the freeze order for AI's account and no way to substantiate AI's claim that their complaints about police mistreatment prompted retaliation by the governor's office. However, in Turkey governors and deputy governors are Ministry of Interior appointees not elected officials. Similarly police officers are central government (Ministry of Interior) employees not local or city employees. We will continue to monitor this case. End Comment. JONES