Filenews 19 December 2023
A citizen from Turkmenistan detained since 2020 will continue to remain in detention as a person deemed a danger to the security of the Republic.
His name, as mentioned in documents of the Republic, is on the lists of Interpol and is considered a terrorist suspect, which is why when he went on 21/1/2020 to the offices of the Aliens and Immigration Service in Larnaca with his wife and son to apply for international protection, he was arrested and detained by decree until today.
Questioned by members of the YAM, he said that they departed by plane from Turkmenistan on 13/3/2017 and went to Istanbul and from there to the occupied areas through the illegal airport of Tymbou. According to a letter from the YAM, he claimed that since 1992 as a teacher, he had been teaching Gülenism in Turkmenistan schools and that he was far-right. That is why he is wanted in his country. According to a letter from the YAM, the appellant is identified in databases of a service cooperating with the Republic regarding terrorism cases. Due to the content of the above letter of the YAM, it was considered that it was not possible to impose alternative measures to his detention and therefore on 20/1/2020, for reasons of national security, the contested decree was issued against him.
He appealed to the Court which, after analysing the testimony and inspecting the confidential material delivered to him, dismissed his appeal. The applicant filed an appeal against the rejection decision, arguing that the authorities perceived the evidence cited as wrong. His lawyer disputes the findings of the YAM and argued that he neither taught Gülenism in schools since there is no such subject, nor is he far-right as erroneously in her suggestion, the Republic reports, but is a member of the Fethullah Gulen movement. For its part, the Republic disputed his position, questioning how he then traveled to Turkey since he is a fan of Gülen or whether he knew about the mass persecution of Gülenists.
The Court of Appeal, in a majority ruling last week, dismissed his appeal, in full agreement with the Court of First Instance, which had concluded that the secret documents before it were evidence that identified the appellant as a person considered a danger to national security and that his detention was justified as a measure strictly necessary to ensure the protection of the national security of the state. In the present case, the Court had stated, the applicant possessed in his person characteristics that make him a person dangerous to the national security of the State. The classified documents I have in front of me are evidence that points to a person deemed a danger to national security."
According to the Court of Appeal, the appellant was provided with satisfactory evidence enabling him to respond to the allegations against him and therefore had access to compensatory procedures guaranteeing his rights. "In light of the above, we agree with the Court of First Instance's finding that the appellant's detention, which was taken in compliance with the principle of proportionality, was justified on grounds of national security," the Court of Appeal concluded.
