The Social Justice Center has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Tbilisi City Court in the case of Temur Katamadze (officially known as Gaffar Yilmaz) regarding granting him international protection in Georgia.

The document examines the specific circumstances of Temur Katamadze’s case, the human rights situation in Turkey, and the risks of torture and inhumane treatment, as well as arbitrary and discriminatory persecution, in the event of his expulsion from Georgia. The amicus curiae brief presents the latest reports and assessments from international organizations on Turkey’s human rights situation. It is crucial for the court to carefully consider the relevant international and domestic legal standards, along with the broader political context of the case.

Temur Katamadze is a descendant of the Muhajirs and an active leader, member, and activist[1] of “Chveneburebi”, an organization established by ethnic Georgians working in Turkey.[2]

Temur Katamadze arrived in Georgia in 2012 and has remained in the country ever since. Until 2019, he resided in Georgia under a work visa; however, in 2020, his request for a visa extension was denied. Throughout his stay, he made three attempts (in 2012, 2015, and 2019) to obtain Georgian citizenship, but each application was rejected by the Public Service Development Agency. Following the expiration of his residence permit, he sought to obtain citizenship through the court system. The Tbilisi City Court has been reviewing his case since 2019, but no resolution has been reached yet.

Throughout this period, the issue of Temur Katamadze’s expulsion from Georgia was never raised. However, following his arbitrary and unlawful administrative detention by local police and a five-day prison sentence imposed for his active participation in protests in Batumi, he was re-arrested just minutes after his release from the temporary detention isolator - this time on charges of violating immigration rules.[3]

Case materials indicate that a Turkish arrest warrant has been issued against Temur Katamadze. He suspects that this warrant may be linked to his friendship with members of the Gülen movement in Georgia. Although he has never been a member of the movement, numerous documented cases of persecution and harassment against members of the Gülen movement in Turkey demonstrate that these risks are real and require a thorough examination by the court.

According to our submitted amicus curiae brief, it is crucial for the court to thoroughly evaluate:  

• The arrest warrant issued against Temur Katamadze in Turkey and conduct a thorough investigation into the grounds for the request for his arrest. Despite his repeated appeals, he has not received any information from the Republic of Turkey regarding the progress of his case. Furthermore, the Migration Department has failed to properly assess the risks of ill-treatment he may face if arrested, and, for unclear reasons, concluded that he would not face any danger even if arrested in the Republic of Turkey. Additionally, the potential for political persecution has not been evaluated by the Migration Department. The court must ensure that relevant information is obtained from the Republic of Turkey to fully examine the case and accurately assess the risk of persecution;
• The prevalence of torture and inhumane treatment in Turkish prisons, along with the arbitrary criminal prosecution of members of the Fethullah Gülen movement and the lack of basic guarantees of justice;
• Temur Katamadze’s social ties to Georgia, their significance to his identity, professional, and public activities, and the potential violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life, which also concerns the protection of identity and social connections) if he is expelled from his historical homeland;
• The court should also consider that, in cases of doubt regarding certain aspects of the application, the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied in favor of the applicant. This principle acknowledges the significant challenges the applicants face in obtaining evidence to support their claims and recognizes that an unjustified denial of international protection can have severe consequences. While the burden of proof formally rests with the asylum seekers, they often lack the ability to substantiate their claims with documentary or other forms of evidence.

The Social Justice Center hopes that the court will consider the arguments presented in the amicus curiae brief and ensure a fair and objective review of the case.

Share