Abstract
Osman Kavala v Turkey is emblematic of many existing and structural problems in Turkey. While each issue deserves close attention in its own right, they are also inextricably intertwined. Each issue is either a result or a cause of one another – factors that cumulatively contributed to the judicial farce and injustice that Kavala faced domestically. So one cannot help but think about the Matryoshka dolls when looking at the oddities of the particular case on one hand, and different layers of human rights challenges underlying it on the other. This case focuses in on the ECtHR’s substantive findings in the judgment, and sees whether the Court went further into the unraveling of the Matryoshka dolls in Turkey. It also explores the newly appointed Turkish Judge Yuksel’s dissenting opinion, which clearly challenges the gist of the majority’s significant findings in the judgment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
