REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON
THE KURDISH QUESTION
IN
TURKEY,
BY THE INTERNATIONAL
DELEGATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
LAWYERS
JANUARY
2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We, the members of
the International Delegation of Human Rights Lawyers, hereby wish to express
our sincere gratitude to every individual and/or members of the International
Initiative who contributed to, and facilitated, the visit to Ankara and
Istanbul in Turkey in January 2005.
The delegation
also wish to thank and acknowledge the undermentioned parties, organisations
and associations, and in particular the respective spokespersons thereof,
without whose contribution this report would not have been possible:
The AK
Parti, in particular its Vice Chairman, Mr Mir Dengir Firat MP;
The
European Union Commission in the Turkish Parliament, in particular its
Chairman, Yasar Yakis
The
Human Rights Association in Ankara, in particular its President Advocate Yusuf
Alatas
The
Union of the Turkish Bars in Ankara, in particular its President Özdemir Özok
Mazlum-Der,
in particular its President, Ayhan Bilgen;
Dehap
(Demokratik Halk Partisi), and in particular its Vice President, Mr Dr. Naci
Kutlay
Human
Rights Association (Insan Haklar Dernegi, the IHD) in Istanbul, in particular
Advocate Eren Keskin
Goc-Der
Yakay-Der
Tay-Der
Tohav,
in particular its President Advocate Senaz Turan
Legal
Representatives of Mr Abdullah Ocalan
Kongra-Gel
Ms Ayse Aslan
Seydi Firat
Yuksel Genc
Yasar Timur
Ms Fatma Ocalan
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 4
2. The Delegation 6
3. The Mandate of the Delegation 7
4. The Respective Roleplayers 8
4.1 The
AK Parti 8
4.2 The
European Union Commission in the Turkish
Parliament 10
4.3 The
Human Rights Association in Ankara 13
4.4 The
Union of the Turkish Bars in Ankara 17
4.5 Mazlum-Der 19
4.6 Dehap (Demokratik Halk Partisi) 23
4.7 Human Rights Association (Insan Haklar
Dernegi, the IHD) in Istanbul 26
4.8 Goc-Der 28
4.9 Yakay-Der 30
4.10 Tay-Der 34
4.11 Tohav 35
4.12 Legal
Representatives of Mr Abdullah Ocalan 37
4.13 Kongra-Gel 39
5. Individuals 42
5.1 Ms Ayse Aslan, Seydi Firat, Yuksel Genc
and
Yasar Timur 42
5.2 Ms
Fatma Ocalan
6. Problems experienced by the Delegation 44
7. Findings 46
8. Recommendations 52
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Kurdish people are the oldest indigenous
people living in the land between the Tigress and the Euphrates River, which
they refer to as Mesopotamia, with their own culture and their own language
which they have nurtured and protected over the years. The land presently occupied by the Kurdish
people straddles the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. In these countries they constitute a
minority. The rights afforded to the
Kurdish people differ from country to country, for example in Turkey there were
/ are attempts to integrate them into the Turkish communities, whereas in Iran
and Syria they enjoy some degree of local autonomy. In Iraq they have now, following the elections, for the first
time become part of government after years of domination under Saddam Hussein’s
ruling political party. The Kurdish
people in Turkey have been fighting for the right to self-determination for a
period in excess of 20 years. This fight
was led by Abdullah Ocalan, who is regarded as the leader of the Kurdish people
in Turkey.
1.2
In February 1999 Abdullah Ocalan was abducted in
Kenya in circumstances shrouded in secrecy, and handed over to the Turkish
authority where he stood trial for treason.
He was convicted and sentenced to death by a semi-military tribunal. This death sentence was later commuted to
life imprisonment. Since his arrest and
his subsequent sentence, he has been kept in a prison on an island called
Imrali. He is the only prisoner on that
island, being guarded constantly under tight security conditions.
1.3
He appealed to the European Court of Human
Rights against his aforesaid conviction and sentence, on the ground that he had
an unfair trial in that he was abducted, tortured, refused access to lawyers at
the time of his arrest, interrogated, tried by a semi-military court and
imprisoned under conditions that violated human rights and international
law.
1.4
This appeal was heard by the European Court of
Human Rights at Strasborg in June 2004 in the matter of Abdullah Ocalan v The
Republic of Turkey. This hearing, being
open to the public, was attended by a
number of international human rights lawyers. Present also was an organisation called the International
Initiative comprising a number of prominent non-governmental organisations and
individuals. Its objective is to call
for peace in the conflict zones of Turkey, predominantly inhabited by the
Kurdish people, as well as for the release of Abdullah Ocalan. The European Court of Human Rights has
reserved judgment in the matter, which his expected to be handed down in the
first half of 2005.
1.5
The lawyers, in consultation with the
International Initiative, decided that an international delegation should be
formed to visit Turkey as well as the prison on Imrali island in order to obtain
first hand information concerning the Kurdish issue and the imprisonment of
Abdullah Ocalan.
2
THE DELEGATION
The
members of the delegation were the following persons:
2.1
Professor Norman Paech, university lecturer, and
member of the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights,
as well as representing the Union of Democratic Lawyers in the Federal Republic
of Germany;
2.2
Advocate Rainer Ahues, a practising lawyer in
Germany and member of the Republican Lawyers Association, Germany;
2.3
Dr Rolf Gössner, a practising lawyer and
President of the German Section of the International League of Human Rights;
2.4
Advocate Heide Schneider-Sonnemann, a practising
lawyer in Germany;
2.5
The Honourable Mr Justice Essa Moosa, a High
Court Judge from the Republic of South Africa; and
2.6
Advocate Joey Moses, a practising lawyer in the
Republic of South Africa and member of the National Association of Democratic
Lawyers (NADEL), in South Africa, and convenor of NADEL’s Human Rights Research
and Advocacy Project.
3
THE MANDATE OF THE DELEGATION
3.1
The first objective of the delegation was, in
relation to the Kurdish question in Turkey, to ascertain what sort of political
solution the present government is considering and suggesting in order to
protect and guarantee the constitutional and internationally recognised human
rights of the Kurdish people living in Turkey..
3.2
The second objective of the delegation was to
visit Abdullah Ocalan in the prison on the island of Imrali in order, inter
alia, to hear his side and views and to gain an impression of the
conditions of his detention.
4
THE RESPECTIVE ROLEPLAYERS
4.1
The AK Parti
We met with the governing political party, namely AK
Parti. It’s Vice President, together
with his legal advisors, addressed us and fielded certain questions posed by
members of our delegation. From his
input, it was clear that his party and, by definition, the government of Turkey
(they being the ruling political party), is of the view that:
·
The Kurdish question is a Turkish reality which
must be dealt with;
·
The Turkish government is indeed dealing with
the Kurdish question and engaging all relevant role-players in that respect;
·
In this regard, major progress has been made to
incorporate and accommodate the Kurds within the Turkish society generally; and
·
The issue of the imprisonment and criminal
prosecution of Abdullah Ocalan is a separate issue, and totally distinguishable
from the Kurdish question. Abdullah
Ocalan is a criminal who must be prosecuted for his crimes. The solution of the Kurdish question is not
necessarily dependant on him and/or whether he is prosecuted by the Turkish
government or not.
According to the Vice
President to the AK Parti, Dengir Mir Firat, he conceded that there is a
Kurdish Question in Turkey. According
to him, however, reflecting the view of his party, the Kurdish Question should
be separated from the issue of Abdullah Ocalan: one is a social question, the other a criminal question.
The following views were
expressed: Turkey has experienced 15
years of clashes between the Kurds and the Turks, and within this period the
PKK demanded language rights and cultural rights for the Kurds. He conceded that most of these demands were
legitimate. Recently, however, most of
these questions were resolved but all of these issues and rights could not be
executed because of the armed struggle waged by PKK against Turkish forces. At
the end of these clashes, the PKK has lost the battle. After that period of armed struggle, the era
of democracy has started. In the course
of these struggles, the Kurdish people have learnt that these rights can be
obtained through democratic struggle.
A second indicator of the
changed political environment is what he has referred to as the local elections
of 28 March 2004 where their party, the AK Parti, one the third largest amount
of votes in locations predominantly occupied by Kurdish people. He and his party therefore regards this election
as a clear message by the Kurdish people that they can get their rights through
democratic struggle. According to him,
Abdullah Ocalan is not a prisoner of war in terms of Turkish law; he is an ordinary criminal.
He is of the opinion that,
within a period of 2 years, his party as the ruling party in government has
introduced and executed changes which may be looked at as “revolutions”. They are therefore adamant that even if the
Turkish government is not successful in gaining European Union membership, they
would in fact change the Copenhagen Criteria (which set out the minimum
criteria for becoming an EU member) to the Ankara Criteria.
4.2
The European Union Commission in the
Turkish Parliament
On Monday, 17 January 2005 we also met the
European Union Commission in the Turkish Parliament. The Chairman of this
Commission is Mr Yasar Yakis, who, together with two of his colleagues, courteously
welcomed the delegation and made an introductory input regarding their role and
objectives. According to him, their
role is confined to commenting on draft legislation only, and more particularly
on whether those laws are in compliance with the laws of the European
Union. The implementation of laws, ie
Turkish laws, is not their domain. That
falls under the jurisdiction of another committee which is chaired by the Deputy
Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior as well as the Minister of
Justice.
The Chairman referred us to recent developments
in human rights in Turkey. In this
regard, he pointed out that over the last couple of years several laws, mainly
in the field of human rights legislation, were passed by the Turkish
parliament, especially since the Justice and Worker Party came to power (ie AK
Parti). As a result, various Turkish
laws had to be addressed and amended, so as to be in harmony with other legislation
that might have been affected by the newly introduced human rights law. It is within this framework that the death
penalty was abolished in Turkey, which meant that the penal code of Turkey,
insofar as the references to death penalty are concerned, had to be
modified.
Other examples referred to by this Commission,
which indicate Turkish commitment to human rights, include:
·
The adherence to and implementation of Protocol No 6, which signals to a
large extent the commencement of European Union Human Rights Law in Turkey;
·
Turkey also signed Protocol No 13, in terms whereof the death penalty
would not be applicable in all circumstances, ie total abolition thereof, in
contrast to Protocol No 6 where the death penalty is also abolished with the
only exception being in the situation of war.
The fact that they have signed Protocol No 13 therefore represents a
progressive step for the Turkish government.
·
They have also recommended that the duties of the National Security
Council, especially its power, be modified.
The Secretariat had the right to ask all kinds of information from all
the Ministries. Thus they wielded a lot
of power, whereas they were supposed to be merely an advisory body to
parliament.
·
All military expenses were also made subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
·
There is also a visible broadening of the implementation of fundamental
freedoms and rights of all citizens, eg the right to gather and freedom of
expression, as well as a law which was passed allowing broadcasting in
languages other than Turkish over the national media, for example Turkish,
Kurdish and Arabic. This, however, has
not been extended to the school situation, ostensibly because Turkey is a
unitary state;
·
They have accepted the Rome Statute, in terms whereof the International
Criminal Court was established, and have therefore accepted the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court.
Their aim is generally to advise the Turkish
government as to whether there is general compliance with laws and other legal
requirements of the European Union.
This is viewed as important, particularly now that Turkey is on the
brink of applying for, and hopefully getting, European Union membership. Their
view is similar to that expressed by the ruling party. According to them, to promote a separate
Kurdish culture would be tantamount to encouraging division within the broader
Turkish society which, so the argument goes, would be in broad conflict with
the relevant European Union human rights legislation.
4.3
The Human Rights Association in Ankara
On 18 January 2005 the delegation visited the
offices of the Human Rights Association in Ankara where we were kindly and
warmly welcomed by its president, Advocate Yusuf Alatas and staff members of
the organisation. According to Adv
Alatas the Association was established in 1986, at a time when there was a
military coup in Turkey which was also characterised by massive human rights
violations. These include the banning
of opposition political parties and associations, and the imprisonment of many
political activists. It was in that
context that 97 founding members came together to form this organisation. It consists of 34 branches throughout Turkey
with approximately 18 000 members.
The Association deals with and focuses on all
parts / aspects of human rights without necessarily discriminating and/or
differentiating between various social groups.
Thus their focus would not only be on the Kurdish issue or on Abdullah
Ocalan only. It will encompass all
human rights aspects and the focus would therefore be on all human rights
violations, if any. Since its
formation, his organisation had been the target of State oppression. Thus far, 13 senior members of his
organisation have been killed. In 1999
an unknown person came into the building and into their offices (in the same
office where we met with this delegation) and one of their senior leaders was
shot, at close range several times, by this unknown assailant. This leader was struck by approximately 13
bullets but miraculously managed to survive until this day. He has subsequently left Ankara and is
disabled as a result of the gunshot wounds.
Their organisation does not get, nor accept, any
contributions from State institutions and/or State sponsored institutions. They are a member of the International Human
Rights Association and have good relations with international human rights
NGO’s such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International
Federation of Human Rights.
They have, from the very beginning, opposed the
conditions of Abdullah Ocalan’s imprisonment on Imrali where he is totally
isolated on a small island and prevented from time to time to having access to
his lawyers and family members. As a
result, their Association has challenged the solitary confinement and the
conditions of his imprisonment as a violation of his human rights.
As an Association, they see the resolution of
the Kurdish question in Turkey as integral to and dependant on the resolution
of the question of the imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan. The resolution of Abdullah Ocalan’s
continued imprisonment and the conditions of his imprisonment is critical for
internal peace in Turkey. In the
circumstances, their Association is of the view that political amnesty should
be granted to Abdullah Ocalan. They
are, in fact, prepared to launch such an application. Part of their demands include a fundamental change in the laws of
Turkey as well as the recognition of a Kurdish identity in Turkey.
They are of the view that, despite the changes
that have recently been introduced under the new ruling political party, these
changes are not fundamental changes but are merely symbolic. One example referred to is the question of
Kurdish language courses which were permitted in terms of the law but, because
of past practises on the part of the State, people still fear that action may
be taken against them if they practice and/or allow the practice of Kurdish
languages. As a result, the people,
mainly the Kurds, do not want to send their children to these schools. In addition, parents may not register their
children who are under the age of 10 for these courses.
It was put to this representative
that, according to the representatives of both the AK Parti and the European Commission
in the Turkish Parliament, Abdullah Ocalan is responsible for the killing of 30
000 people and is therefore nothing but a mere criminal and ought to be treated
as such. His association’s view is that
the issue of Abdullah Ocalan is not independent of the resolution of the
Kurdish question. Furthermore, it is
not only Abdullah Ocalan who is to be blamed for the clashes / conflict between
Kurdish people and the State forces.
The State therefore is equally to be blamed for the violence that occurred
as a result of the clashes between the two opposing forces. As an organisation they had also witnessed
the trial of Abdullah Ocalan in Turkey.
They therefore know that he has not been tried fairly. They are therefore hopeful that the European
Court of Human Rights would rule that he did not receive a fair trial and that,
for those reasons, he should be retried.
In the event of the ECHR ruling that he must be retried, then their
Association would definitely like to be involved in that process..
4.4
The Union of the Turkish Bars in Ankara
The delegation also met and was warmly received
by Advocate Özdemir Özok, the President of the Union of Turkish Bars in Ankara
on Monday, 18 January 2005. It is his organisation’s view that there are many
political prisoners in Turkey. It’s
better to focus on the general prison conditions of prisoners generally, rather
than focussing specifically on Abdullah Ocalan. Inasmuch as there should be focus generally on the requirement of
a fair trial, he conceded that there is a particular focus on fair trial requirements
in the case of Abdullah Ocalan.
As far as his organisation is concerned, they
were always in favour of democracy and lawful struggle according to lawful
means. They were always opposed to
struggle based on violence and the use of force. The Turkish Republic was established in 1923 on the basis of
equal citizenship. Despite this, there
have been numerous and serious violations of human rights. It is in this context that their organisation
has always supported the struggle for democracy. It is their belief that there
is nothing more sacred than human life.
It is also based on that perspective that their organisation has always
been critical and has in fact criticised the struggle led by Abdullah Ocalan
and his organisation (PKK) as a basis of violence.
After the 1980 coup d’etat in Turkey,
their union (of advocates) had publicly opposed the anti-democratic executions,
repression and actions by the Turkish State.
The main purpose of their union is to reach a democratic state through
lawful means. The only way to achieve
this is through education and negotiations.
There are about 52 000 lawyers in Turkey, who are invariably members of
75 bar associations. If there is less
than 30 lawyers in an area, they cannot form a baros in that area. 18 000 out of the aforesaid total of lawyers
are based and practising in Istanbul, 8 500 in Ankara and about 4 500 in
Ismir.
He conceded that the case of Abdullah Ocalan is
a very special case. Ocalan is not an
ordinary person or an ordinary convict.
He is a leader, a person of importance with hundreds and thousands of
sympathisers. As lawyers, they have to
question the State’s actions, especially where those actions infringe basic and
internationally recognised human rights.
But the human rights lawyers can also be criticised. There was a complaint by Ocalan’s lawyers a
few weeks ago about the restriction on
their visits to Ocalan in Imrali Prison.
His Association took it up by approaching the Ministry of Justice. Following this it is his view, and by
implication that of his Association, that everyone (arrested person / prisoner)
is entitled to be visited by his / her lawyer before and during their
trial. But after the trial the work of
the lawyers is done. That right,
according to him, therefore falls away. In the case of Ocalan’s lawyers, the
problem is exacerbated by the fact that his lawyers talk to the public to
convey Ocalan’s views.
Another problem, according to him, with human
rights lawyers, especially in the Turkish context, is that they restrict
themselves to one person and to one section of the population, namely the
Kurdish question. In that manner, they
come across more as lobbyists rather than lawyers. He is therefore critical about the general approach of human
rights advocates. A question of law
must be dealt with objectively. Once
you lose your objectivity and become too emotionally involved, that can lead to
you as a lawyer compromising your client’s best interests.
Although it is his view that those opposed to
the existing State must do so within the letter of the law, he conceded however
that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to address certain problems,
especially problems of a socio-political nature, within the context of the
prevailing law of the land. In such instances, and when people approach you
with such problems, as lawyers they need to develop the law. Democracy as such is also a thing that must
be developed every day and as things are changing in Turkey the lawyers will be
the first to be asked to develop the law accordingly.
4.5
Mazlum-Der
The next organisation the delegation visited was
Mazlum-Der, an organisation of human rights and solidarity for oppressed
people. The President of this
organisation is Mr Ayhan Bilgen. We
have been advised that this is the second largest organisation in Turkey. As an organisation they consist of about 18
branches with total membership of approximately 5 000. Part of their activities include public demonstrations
to draw attention to human rights violations by the State. Recently, as part of their campaigns, they
focussed on the intellectual initiatives that look at the Kurdish question and
how to resolve it through mutual dialogue.
Presently, they operate two projects, namely:
·
dealing with refugees from the east, ie Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran; and
·
education and training of people in prominent positions such as
Imams. Such education and training is
mostly in human rights.
According to him, the main problem concerning
the Kurdish question is that the State defines the Kurdish question
itself. The State then decides that it
cannot deal with a “terrorist organisation” in resolving that
question. As a general example, he
referred to television broadcasting in Turkey, wherein it is at once notable
that no names of any Kurds nor any Kurdish language would be used. That would be exceptional. If private TV channels would use Kurdish
names or broadcast the Kurdish programmes, they could be prosecuted or other
oppressive action will be taken against them.
The delegation was also informed that recently
(a few months ago), the Turkish government issued a draft project for
the transformation of local authorities.
In terms of this process, more power would be transferred to local
authorities. Consequently local
authorities would be vested with more power, which would represent a significant
shift from the centralisation of power from central government to decentralisation
thereof to local government. This was a
very important development in Turkish politics. This process, however, was suddenly stopped because it was said
by those who oppose it that should the State give more power now, the Kurdish
would want more.
The importance and sensitive aspect of this was
that this process was already adopted by parliament but it was the State who
opposed it. Thus, the State uses the
Kurdish question and the fear related thereto to stop those processes of
transformation and decentralisation of power to local authorities. The delegation was advised that in Turkey
the State and the Government are two separate entities. The State would be more militaristic in its
composition, operation and orientation.
The solution which is proposed by their
organisation is that Government should give more recognition to, and seek
closer co-operation with, civil society organisations and NGO’s generally. The problem, however, is that Government considers
civil organisations as a danger towards them.
Two examples were given in this regard.
(1) The first was that the State and the Government did not allow
NGO’s in Turkey to contribute towards the Tsunami relief for the victims there,
which the NGO’s considered to be important from a humane as well as religious
point of view. Many of the victims were
also of Muslim religious persuasion.
The government decreed that only government and State institutions could
make these contributions.
(2) Another example was that an author / activist by the name of
Fikrit Baycan was prosecuted by order of the Minister of Justice because he
referred to and uses the word “torture generals of the 1980’s” in his
book published in 1993. In contrast,
the torture generals which he identified and to which he referred were not
prosecuted. He subsequently died in
prison in 2003 in Mus. He suffered from
cancer. The Turkish authorities knew
that. Despite this, they refused to
release him. He was 33 years old.
It is his organisation’s view that Government is
the public representatives of the people.
If they do not act according to the people’s demands, they will not be
re-elected. The Government, however, is
not strong enough to challenge the State.
4.6
Dehap (Demokratik Halk Partisi)
The next organisation the delegation met (also
in Ankara on 18 January 2005) was Dehap where we were addressed by its Vice
Chairman, Naci Kutlay, and two other members.
This is a political party which focuses, amongst other things, on resettlement
and particularly the massive resettlement of predominantly Kurdish people
living in the villages and which are forcibly displaced as a result of the
armed conflict in those areas between State forces and guerrilla forces. Approximately 4 million Kurds who have
traditionally lived in the villages have now moved to the cities in the west as
a result of this internal displacement.
The obvious problem is that only a few of them are or will be able to
get jobs. The biggest challenge is to
try to have these people return to their villages. This is an almost impossible task because all these villages have
virtually been destroyed by the so-called Village Guards or the military.
They, as an organisation, also acknowledge the
recent changes in Turkish law concerning the improvement of certain rights for
Kurdish people. In a sense it is important changes that have taken place. But these changes are also very
limited. For example, the suppression
of Kurdish language continues, despite these changes. The practice of this right is still impossible. In practice there are eight language
courses. 30 minutes per week is
allocated to the Kurdish language but only the Turkish translations as officially
approved by the Turkish authorities are allowed. This 30 minute break per week allocated for Kurdish language is
therefore also generally regarded as Turkish propaganda in Kurdish. Kurdish TV channels are not allowed to
broadcast in Kurdish. As an example, a
TV station was closed down for one month for allowing a Kurdish song.
The real problem, according to them, is the
approach of government itself. They
(the Government) think all these changes are enough and they want to make
people believe that they have introduced enough changes. These changes are therefore seen as merely
symbolic and create the impression that real changes are taking place now that
Turkey is in the process of applying for EU membership.
In relation to the resettlement of the Kurdish
villagers who literally fled from their villages to the cities in the west,
this Turkish State, instead of solving the problem genuinely, has only created
the impression for purposes of the outside world that they have solved the
problem. They (the State and
government) have created a scheme in terms whereof villagers who had been
displaced as a result of conflict, and whose houses and possession were
destroyed, can apply for Government assistance in the form of resettlement
assistance. The Government will
therefore, so it is said, financially assist these families to return to the
villages and to resettle there. They
will however only get this assistance on condition that they will become part
of, and members of, the so-called Village Guard. Furthermore, they will only get this financial assistance (in
excess of EU2000) if they state that they were forced out of their houses,
which were destroyed, by the PKK terrorists, ie the Kurdish guerrilla
movement.
It is their view that the Turkish Government
introduced these regulations to prevent the people from returning to their
villages and therefore is a very superficial attempt at solving the massive
problem of resettlement. They urge the
Turkish government to co-operate with international organisations such as the
United Nations and the Red Cross. The
question of land mines in the villages is also a very important issue which is
not addressed by the Turkish government. The fact is that no compensation is
given to any victims of these landmines.
There is also no co-operation with the international community. Their view is that these victims must be
compensated by the State. There is also
still a constitutional court case pending against Dehab bought by the Turkish
government on the basis that, in promoting only one culture, ie Kurdish
culture, they are a source of divisiveness and in fact operating against the
national laws which stand for and promote a uniform culture.
4.7
Human Rights Association (Insan Haklari
Dernegi, the IHD) in Istanbul
The delegation also met representatives of the
Human Rights Association (Insan Haklari Dernegi, the IHD) in Istanbul on 19
January 2005. It was acknowledged by
these representatives that there had certainly been changes, particularly legal
changes, in Turkey which they, as an organisation, cannot deny. According to them, these changes were more
of a superficial nature without addressing the fundamental issues in Turkish
society, more particularly the controlling influence of the military and its general
role in the Turkish State.
The military, so it was alleged, plays a
substantial role in the economy of Turkey with evidence indicating that the
military is involved in approximately 38 branches of the economy. So, for example, it has been discovered that
the military is a shareholder in big business entities such as Axabankm, Oyak
and Anker. To make it appear less
auspicious and legal, the investment in a big company would be done by and
under the auspices of an association of army officials. It would turn out that it is not actually
only an association but that a large part of the company is in fact owned by
the military, which would be similar to a large industrial military
complex. Another fact brought to the
attention of the delegation that was Imrali Prison (where Abdullah Ocalan is
being detained) is not managed by the Department of Justice but directly by the
Turkish military. The military also
plays a dominant role in the National Security Council which is a controlling
force in Turkish politics.
The delegation was also advised about the
existence of two kinds of arrests in Turkey, namely the official arrests where
no direct torture would be applied to arrested persons, but they would be
indirectly tortured by refusing them food, water etc; and unofficial arrests where the arrested person would be
subjected to all forms of torture. This
has resulted in the fact that people are very scared to talk openly about
members of their families and/or acquaintances who have been arrested for fear
of being arrested and tortured themselves.
This in itself has led to a so-called culture of silence. It was in this context that their
organisation has decided to embark on a campaign to encourage people not to
remain silent anymore and to come forward and to reveal any kind of information
which they may have about arrests and torturing of any person at the hands of
any State institution (police, military etc).
They recognise that they are not a political
organisation. They regard their
struggle as going beyond the standards laid down by the European Union but
acknowledge the importance thereof.
4.8
Goc-Der
On 19 January 2005 the delegation also met with
Goc-Der, which is the Immigrants Association for Social Co-Operation and
Culture, which is based in Istanbul.
Their Organisation’s struggle is directed towards achieving and
protecting the rights of ethnic minorities and communities. These will include the Kurdish people, but
also other minorities. These other
minorities are also subjected to serious human rights abuses, yet their
complaints and/or calls for assistance are rarely heard and/or given attention
to. The hope was expressed that the
delegation could facilitate some form of intervention that could alleviate
their plight.
According to the official Government figures and
statistics, Istanbul is the biggest Turkish city with the most Kurdish
citizens. It is estimated that approximately
3 million Kurds live in Istanbul, with the vast majority of them living in
conditions of extreme poverty in the slums in and around the city of
Istanbul. Most of these people come
from the north of Turkey, which is generally known as the war zone. They would
migrate to Istanbul essentially in search of better living conditions. This, however, exacerbates the already very
serious overcrowding problem in Istanbul.
Most of those people coming from the north of Turkey cannot speak
Turkish and therefore would be unable to communicate with people in Istanbul,
for example they won’t be able to go shopping, they won’t be able to
communicate with doctors etc. Between
40% and 50% of the children from these people from Kurdish towns are in the
streets. That caused many of them to
get involved in criminal activities. It
is their view, however, that these people are not simply criminals as presented
by the police, but the product of the political problems in Turkey.
As a result of these problems, the Turkish
Parliament has passed a law in terms whereof people could apply for grants, in
the form of resettlement grants, which would assist them in resettling in their
places of origin. Despite the fact that people have applied for these grants,
no one according to them were given or has received any grants from the
State. This process is still
continuing. It is their belief that the
question of migration towards the cities, the impoverished Kurdish community as
well as other minority groups cannot be resolved without resolving the Kurdish
question. Their organisation is also
very sceptical about the nature of the Turkish Parliament in passing such a
Bill at this time, whilst Turkey is in the process of applying for European
Union membership. This Bill also
follows after various cases by Turkish citizens have been brought in the
European Court of Human Rights against the Turkish State and many of those decisions
having gone against the Turkish State. They have expressed serious doubt as to
the genuineness of the objectives as set out in the bill. They do not deny that positive changes have
been introduced by the government, but there is also a large measure of
exaggeration on the part of Government.
Nothing substantial has improved.
Their biggest problem and concern as an
Organisation is that they have been the subject of severe repression over the
last 2 to 3 years because they are regarded as terrorist supporters by the
Turkish State. There are still cases
pending against a few of their members. One of the senior members of the
organisation present, informed the delegation that in 1998 at approximately
01h00 the police entered and raided his house without any warrant and without
having the courtesy to take off their shoes (which is generally regarded as a
form of extreme disrespect). They
thereupon took him to the anti-terror unit of the police. Eventually they let him go without any
charge being laid against him.
4.9
Yakay-Der
The next organisation with whom the delegation
had a meeting, also on 19 January 2005, was Yakay-der. It was established as a result of the long
and dedicated struggle organised by what has become known as the “Saturday
Mothers”. These were mainly women who
had protest demonstrations every Saturday in front of the Galatasaray School in
Taksim for about two years. They were
mothers who lost their children in the struggle against Turkish
oppression. They were also later joined
by people who had lost relatives in that struggle. These protests by the Saturday Mothers ended in 2000 because of
the increased oppression by the State.
Their association was banned in 2000.
This organisation was then started.
The objectives of the
organisation are:
·
To investigate the unknown killings of known opponents of the State and
the disappearance of such people under very suspicious situations and
circumstances;
·
To investigate and try to find out who are responsible for the unknown
killings and/or disappearances of such activists, and to bring them to book, ie
to make certain that they are arrested, prosecuted and punished; and
·
Also to work with the families of those who have been killed or who have
disappeared.
Their biggest obstacle is that in many cases of
disappearance of people it has not been reported. Recently, they received reports from one of their clients that
members of their family were arrested by the police but that they could find no
trace of those members so arrested.
Between 1993 and 1998 the repression and
oppression of people opposed to the Turkish State were intensified. This was done:
·
by unknown gunmen shooting and killing people generally known to opposed
to the State, yet no arrests nor any prosecution would follow subsequent to
such shootings and killings;
·
people with radios, who are usually associated with being used by
members of the security forces would “arrest” such people who are
generally regarded as opposing the Turkish government. Following such arrest, these people would
not return, no trace of them would be found, nor their bodies. In this regard, mass graves were discovered
recently.
Recently the Turkish Parliament has adopted a
bill in terms whereof victims of violence can be restituted / compensated for
the damages that they have suffered.
This would include the loss of family members and the losses suffered by
those who were forcefully displaced.
However, there are seemingly insurmountable
problems presented by this bill.
Firstly, the bill restricts any family who wants to claim compensation
to a specific period of one year. In
other words, such families must lodge their applications for compensation with
a year as prescribed by the bill, ie between July 2004 until July 2005. No claims or any other compensation would be
considered which fall outside this period.
The other serious difficulty is that the bill requires such families
(victims) to prove that they have suffered any damages. In other words, these families must prove
that a family member had been killed. They must then furthermore prove
that the killing was done unlawfully, and furthermore they must then prove that
the State (a member of the security forces and/or police) was responsible for
such killing. That is seemingly,
according to the members of this organisation, an insurmountable difficulty to
prove because all these operations were conducted secretly, no one would know
what happened and, in many instances, no trace could be found of any of these
victims / family members who were “arrested” and disappeared.
It seems that this bill was modelled along
similar lines as the Truth & Reconciliation Bill in South Africa. As pointed out during this meeting, there
are however fundamental differences. In South Africa explicit provision was
made for amnesty for those members of the security forces who would come
forward and make full disclosure, ie who would openly and truthfully confess to
his or her deeds under the apartheid government. There is no similar provision in the Turkish bill. In South Africa, victims were also not
required to prove that they were entitled to restitution.
4.10
Tay-Der
The delegation also met Tay-Der which stands for
The Relatives of Prisoners. Their work
is similar to that of Yakay-der but their main focus would be the prisoner,
both those who have not been convicted and sentenced, and those who have been
convicted and sentenced. They provide
assistance in terms of legal services, financial assistance and psychological
support. They also work closely with
Mazlum-Der with whom they have been involved in a campaign in terms of which
representations were made to the Ministry of Justice by submitting a draft new
legal framework for Turkey. This draft
bill was submitted through the various bar associations, but no response has
been received. The Ministry of Justice
also did not want to meet with them. As an organisation they also propose
certain amendments to the criminal laws and restitution laws.
They are on record for campaigning for the
closure of the Imrali Prison, where Abdullah Ocalan is being detained in
solitary confinement. As an
organisation they are against his conditions of imprisonment, including the
fact that he is isolated in conditions of this type of prison. It is their view that it is not only the
prisoners who are being kept and detained in prisons such as Imrali Prison, who
are severely punished, but more importantly the families of those prisoners
because they are invariably denied the right to visit or have contact with such
prisoner.
4.11
Tohav
The delegation also met with representatives of
Tohav, which stands for the Foundation for Social & Legal Studies. This organisation is an impartial NGO and
member of civil society which was apparently founded in 1994 by 46 Kurdish
lawyers. Today there are approximately
200 members, all of whom are members who are from Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Diyarbakir,
Batman, Van and Malatya bar associations.
Its activities are funded mainly by the United Nations, which activities
include:
·
A torture and rehabilitation centre where doctors, nurses, psychiatrists
and physiotherapists would also render their services on a voluntary basis to
predominantly prisoners or ex-prisoners and victims of torture;
·
The rendering of legal aid to people in Turkey who wish to challenge
Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights (which must be merit based); and
·
Working towards finding a solution of the Kurdish question.
In this regard, they organise training seminars
focussing, inter alia, on concepts such as democracy, minorities and
minority rights, and the United Nations standards of human rights as compared
to that in Turkey, and through public awareness programmes. They see the
Kurdish issue as part of the broader issue of human rights and respect for
human rights.
The big issue confronting them is that of
political prisoners in what is called the F-types of prisons (ie maximum
security prisons as explained to us).
The majority of prisoners are political prisoners, more particularly
guerrillas of the erstwhile PKK organisation.
Over the last three months, approximately 2500 political prisoners have
been released of a total of approximately 5000 political prisoners. These political prisoners are from across
the political spectrum, all of whom are in opposition to the ruling Turkish
government and State. Presently, there
is still a very big armed group who are willing and able to wage a guerrilla
war against the Turkish security forces.
They see the resolution of the Kurdish question,
of which Abdullah Ocalan is integral, as an important prerequisite for the
cessation of armed conflict and/or hostilities between the guerrilla forces and
State security forces. The Kurdish
question can be solved within the broader context of the promotion and
application of human rights in Turkey, especially the application of the
European Union Standards of Human Rights.
Their organisation is obviously in support of that and actively promote
a broader human rights awareness.
4.12
Legal Representatives of Mr Abdullah
Ocalan
The delegation also met with the lawyers
representing Abdullah Ocalan. The allegations by members of the AK Parti, the
European Commission in the Turkish Parliament as well as the Bar Association of
Turkey (the union) were put to them.
They feel that, as the lawyers of record for Abdullah Ocalan, they are
entitled to represent him at any stage, be it before his arrest, after his
arrest, being his trial, after he has been tried, before his conviction or
after he was convicted. The attorney /
client relationship does not come to an end once the court has found one’s
client guilty and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. That relationship endures for as long as you
have a mandate from that client to represent him or her.
In the Ocalan case, their mandate was expressly
continued after the judgment and sentence by the Military Tribunal which was
set up to try and convict Abdullah Ocalan.
They, on the instructions of their client, lodged an appeal with the
European Court of Human Rights. That
appeal is still pending since the judgment of the court is still being
awaited.
As such, and as his lawyers, they are entitled
to visit and have consultations with him.
For his part, he is entitled to have access to his lawyers. He is also
entitled to have access to his medical doctors as well as to his religious
councillor and family members. All of
these rights are severely restricted and sometimes blatantly refused. In the prison where their client, Abdullah
Ocalan is kept, is on an island called Imrali Island. That, from a practical point of view, means that the lawyers,
family members, religious councillor and medical practitioner must travel to
the island by boat, which is invariably provided by the prison authorities (the
state) since no villagers are allowed in or near this island.
This island, we were informed, is guarded 24
hours per day and is surrounded by land mines in the sea surrounding the
island. Visits to Imrali Island and to
Abdullah Ocalan, who is the only prisoner being kept there, must necessarily be
arranged with the prison authorities and they invariably have the final say as
to whether anyone can visit the prisoner or not. Many reasons were given in the past for refusing anyone,
including the lawyers and family members of Ocalan, to visit and go and consult
with him. These included stormy
weather, unavailability of boats or security reasons. The fact that the prison authorities are in possession of a boat
which could sail to and from the island in any weather conditions, and furthermore
that prison officials are travelling to and from the island on a daily basis by
boat, make the reasons so given sound as excuses for preventing both the
lawyers and the family from having access to their client and family member,
and from preventing the prisoner, Abdullah Ocalan, from having access to his
lawyers and family members. This, they
feel, is in blatant violation of his human rights. They also feel, as lawyers, that they have not committed any
criminal offence by relaying many messages to their client’s family and/or
supporters since they are the only contact which he has with the outside
world. They feel that had they
committed any criminal offence the Turkish state would not have hesitated to
arrest, charge and imprison all of them.
Something which they have not done.
They feel that they are acted well within their mandate and their rights
in relation to their client, Abdullah Ocalan.
4.13
Kongra-Gel
The delegation also received, and had regard to,
submissions by Kongra-Gel. Kongra-Gel
regard themselves as the genuine representative organisation exile on behalf of
the Kurdish people in four parts of Kurdistan.
Kongra-Gel is willing to engage the Turkish, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi
Governments on mutually agreed terms and to start peaceful negotiations for a
peaceful settlement of the Kurdish.
They regard the freedom of Abdullah Ocalan as absolutely integral to a
solution of the Kurdish question not only in Turkey but also in Iran, Syria and
Iraq. Abdullah Ocalan was forcefully
and unlawfully abducted from Kenya on 15 February 1999. He has been brought before a semi-military
tribunal especially created to try him.
It was, according to them, a mere formality that they would convict Abdullah
Ocalan and impose the maximum penalty, ie the death penalty, which they
did. Although this sentence, ie the
death penalty, was later commuted to life imprisonment, it is their view that
the whole procedure was a travesty of justice and that is why the strongly
supported the view that this decision by the Turkish military court must be
taken on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That decision in that court is still pending.
Kongra-gel regards the allegations that Abdullah
Ocalan is a mere criminal who was responsible for the death of more than 30 000
people and must therefore remain punished, as ludicrous in the circumstances. According to them, he waged a legitimate war
against a very oppressive Turkish military regime which did not care at all
about the lives and living conditions and general plight of the Kurdish people. It is their view that it is the Turkish
military regime and its officials who ought to stand trial for the hundreds of
thousands of Kurdish people who were killed at their hands and who just
disappeared, mysteriously, after many of them were taken into custody
(arrested).
The notorious Village Guards established by the
Turkish government to control opposition by Kurdish people in the villages has
caused the destruction of many villages, leaving thousands of villagers displaced
without home and property, and many of them were killed in skirmishes with
these village guards.
For as long as Abdullah
Ocalan is not free, the Kurdish people and its culture oppressed and the severe
repression and oppression of the Kurdish people, especially in the villages,
continue, there can and will be no lasting peace in Turkey. The Kurdish
question is a reality in Turkey which can be solved through peaceful
means. The resolution of the Kurdish
question and Abdullah Ocalan’s conditions of imprisonment must be central to,
and a prerequisite of, Turkish admission as a member of the European
Union. Kongra-Gel is certainly willing
to enter into such peaceful dialogue with the Turkish government. Kongra-gel is on record as having extended
such an invitation to the Turkish government.
They expressed the view that the work of this delegation may lay a
foundation for such an initiative and that the initiative will be supported and
the invitation accepted by the Turkish government.
Kongra-Gel advised the delegation that the
Anti-Torture Committee of the European Council has already recommended the
lifting of his imprisonment in isolation and a measurable improvement of his
conditions of detention. But neither
Turkey nor the European Council have so far followed the recommendation of the
Committee. In terms of the more severe
conditions of his imprison in isolation and the blocking of visits by members
of his family and lawyers, nothing has changed. At the end of 2004 the lawyers’ office defending Ocalan was
searched and all the documents in it confiscated, which has restricted the
ability of his legal representatives to defend the rights of the client.
Since
Kongra-Gel announced the ending of the ceasefire, as military attacks on areas
in which Kurdish people live were continuing, military clashes have
escalated. Many areas of Kurdish
habitation have been adversely affected by this. The village guard system has not been abolished, contrary to what
was announced. Pressure is being put on
people returning to their villages to become village guards themselves. Only people who sign a statement that their
houses and property were destroyed by the PKK can get compensation. The number
of people going back to the villages is therefore extremely small.
5
INDIVIDUALS
5.1
Ms Ayse Aslan, Seydi
Firat, Yuksel Genc and Yasar Timur
The delegation also met Ms Ayse Aslam, who was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. She was also recently released after having served approximately three quarters of her sentence. She was part of the Tay-Der group with whom the delegation also met.
The delegation also met Seydi Firat, Yuksel Gene
and Yasar Timur. These were also ex-PKK
guerrillas who, according to them, had come from the mountains together with a
large number of other guerrillas as members of the Peace Group, to lay down
their arms and to start the process of negotiation with the Turkish state, in
good faith. This gesture, in terms
whereof the guerrillas would stop their military type of action and in fact
come out of the mountains and lay down their arms was in accordance with, and
in support of, Abdullah Ocalan’s call for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish
question in Turkey. They regard the
Kurdish question as a reality in Turkey, which in itself cannot be separated
from the release of Abdullah Ocalan.
The Kurds have an identity of their own and are entitled to legitimately
assert that identity. What they want,
according to them, is a peaceful solution of the Kurdish question. Instead, what has happened when they laid
down their arms and indicated their willingness to negotiate was that they were
arrested, charged and sentenced to between 5 and 10 years for being members of
a banned organisation. They were also
released from imprisonment recently.
Despite the fact that they feel betrayed by
members of the Turkish State, particularly the security forces, who created the
impression that they were also willing to negotiate but instead caused them to
be arrested, charged and sentenced, they now still feel that they must fulfil
their original mission, namely to call on the government of Turkey to start the
process of negotiation to bring about democracy in Turkey by peaceful
means. This delegation, they felt,
could play a very pivotal role in that regard.
5.2
Fatma Ocalan
The delegation was also fortunate in being able
to meet the sister of Abdullah Ocalan, Ms Fatima Ocalan. That was on the day that she was allowed to
visit him, ie 19 January 2005. The
delegation met with her upon her return from her visit to her brother at Imrali
Prison. She was very concerned about
the state of health of her brother, which she described as very bad. His health conditions had deteriorated since
the last time she saw him. She also
informed the delegation that Mr Ocalan had learned about the delegation and
that he has expressed the hope that the delegation would be able to impress
upon the Turkish state and the government the importance of a negotiated
settlement whereby democracy can be achieved in Turkey by peaceful means.
6
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY THE
DELEGATION
A serious setback experienced by the delegation
was when one of its senior members, the Honourable Mr Justice Essa Moosa, a 69
year old former human rights lawyer and anti-apartheid activist in South
Africa, was being denied entry to Turkey, despite having a valid visa. Judge Moosa, who arrived at Dubai airport in
the early hours of Monday morning, 17 January 2004, from a flight from Cape
Town, was left stranded at the airport for two days after officials informed
him that he required a letter of permission from the Turkish Minister of
Interior before he would be allowed to enter Turkey. The Judge managed to get a flight the Tuesday afternoon and arrived
in Istanbul in the evening of Tuesday 18 January 2005. He was allowed entry into the country and
went through customs without any queries and/or references to any so-called
letter from the Turkish Minister of Interior.
It remains unclear on which authority the officials at Dubai Airport
refused permission to Judge Moosa to fly to Istanbul. This type of action by the Dubai officials is deeply regretted
and deplored. It is unfortunate that
the learned Judge was therefore precluded from attending the meetings in
Ankara, with the AK Parti, the European Union Commission in the Turkish
Parliament and the organisations.
The other setback experienced by the delegation
was the unavailability of the Minister of Justice for a meeting with the
delegation. The delegation was and
remains of the opinion that the Minister is an important source of information
with regards to the allegations made, especially by the NGO’s with whom the
delegation met. The Minister could also
provide important information with regards to the allegation in relation to Mr
Abdullah Ocalan. The delegation was
unfortunately precluded from obtaining that information as a result of the
Minister’s unavailability to meet the delegation.
A serious setback
experienced by the delegation was the refusal by the Minister of Justice for
the delegation to visit the prison on Imrali Island so that the delegation
could ascertain what the conditions of imprisonment of Mr Abdullah Ocalan
entail. The delegation would also have
been able to enquire from Mr Abdullah Ocalan himself about the conditions of
imprisonment there, as well as his views in relation to his state of health and
his access to his lawyers, family and medical practitioner. The delegation would also have had the
opportunity to speak to the officials at the Imrali Prison. That opportunity was unfortunately not
availed to the delegation.
7
FINDINGS
The delegation is indebted to everyone and all
the institutions/ organisations who made themselves available for meetings with
the delegation, and more importantly for their input, which the delegation
considers to be invaluable. The delegation
has experienced all the input, discussions and exchange of ideas to be frank
and open. The overall impression of the
delegation is that there was an overwhelming display, on the part of everyone,
of a willingness to embrace the concept of human rights in Turkey and a genuine
desire to address the Kurdish issue.
There is a reluctance on the part of the ruling
political party and the European Union Commission in the Turkish Parliament to
consider the detention and imprisonment of Abdullah Ocalan as being integral to
the resolution of the Kurdish conflict.
According to both, the two are separate issues: the Kurdish question being a political issue
and the matter of Abdullah Ocalan being a strictly criminal matter. It is our view, however, that the majority
of the respondents with whom we interacted seemed to be of the view that the
Kurdish question and its resolution is inextricably linked to that of Abdullah
Ocalan.
There have been tremendous legal reforms in
Turkey which represent progressive steps by the ruling political party and the
Turkish government towards implementation and recognition of human rights. However, many of these legal reforms have
not been implemented so that those people whom it intends to assist did not and
do not really experience any improvement in their living conditions. The
changes which therefore have been introduced have not improved the lot of the
people on the ground.
It is unfortunate that the delegation was not
allowed to visit Abdullah Ocalan in prison on the island of Imrali. It is our view that the reason for such
refusal on “security grounds” was caused primarily by the fact that the
military, and not the Ministry of Justice, seems to be in control of the prison
on Imrali Island.
The continued imprisonment of Mr Abdullah Ocalan
on Imrali Island in conditions of solitary confinement is a source of serious
concern for the delegation. This is
underscored by the recommendations which have already been made by the
Anti-Torture Committee of the European Council to the effect that the
conditions of his imprisonment must immediately be improved and his solitary
confinement must be stopped forthwith.
This Committee has in fact found that his conditions of imprisonment
amount to “white torture”, which is a method for breaking the
personality and will of political prisoners.
The health condition of Mr Abdullah Ocalan is
also a source of serious concern, which furthermore underscores the
undesirability of his further and continued imprisonment, in isolation, on
Imrali Island. The delegation found
that, based on the version of Ms Fatima Ocalan, that his health condition is
indeed deteriorating to such an extent that it must be addressed
immediately. This can be addressed more
effectively if Mr Ocalan is removed from the prison on Imrali Island to facilitate
easier and speedy access to his medical doctor / specialist.
In the circumstances, the delegation found that
Section 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, generally regarded as the empowering
statute authorising the present conditions of imprisonment of Mr Abdullah
Ocalan, is irreconcilable and in fact in direct conflict with international
human rights instruments and more particularly the EU’s Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Accordingly, Article 1, Part B of Law 4771 of 3 August 2002 of
Turkey, which makes provision for imprisonment of a person whose death penalty
has been commuted, under harsh conditions, is patently in conflict with Article
3 of the Convention which prohibits torture and/or inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment.
The delegation cannot agree with the view
expressed by the AK Parti and the EU Commission in the Turkish Parliament that
Mr Ocalan is a normal criminal whose case must be kept separate from the
Kurdish question. The delegation is of
the view that, in terms of international law, the Kurdish people are entitled
to exercise their right to self-determination.
Abdullah Ocalan has historically led that struggle by the Kurdish people.
It is unfortunate that the parties (the State as well as the Kurdish people)
had to resort to violence in an attempt to address and solve the Kurdish
question. Abdullah Ocalan was
therefore, and remains, an indispensable part of the Kurdish issue. His imprisonment and conditions of his
detention can therefore not be separated from effectively addressing the
Kurdish question in a genuine attempt to solve it. Although there is seemingly a willingness to acknowledge the fact
that the Kurdish question is a reality in Turkey, the steps that have been initiated
and implemented so far indicate that there is a lack of political will to
effect fundamental change in Turkey so as to address the plight of the Kurdish
people and other minority groups in Turkey. Official policy is still far from being willing to recognise the
identity of the Kurds as a people with the same rights and freedoms as others.
Despite various progressive legal reforms, the
Kurdish language is still suppressed through harassment, bans, prosecutions and
numerous other obstacles. There is no
separate Kurdish radio, nor are there any separate Kurdish TV
transmitters. The transmission of
Kurdish cultural events such as songs, is continually met with broadcasting
bans. The two half hour broadcasts in
Kurdish over weekends, on State television, are widely regarded as propaganda
which has simply been translated into Kurdish.
In addition, Article 81 of the Law on Parties on Turkey is still in
force, prohibiting political parties to use any other language than Turkish,
notwithstanding the fact that it may be for publishing their programmes,
statutes or their material, or whether it is in closed sessions or at public
events.
Despite the legal reforms introduced under the
present ruling political party, the solution of the Kurdish question has not
been seriously addressed or considered by Government, the military or the
mainstream political parties in Turkey.
The Kurdish people are still oppressed and still being deprived of their
basic human rights. They are not
allowed to exercise their cultural and language rights.
People in the villages are living under harsh
conditions. This is exacerbated by the
continued military operations and conflict in these areas. It is also exacerbated by the reported
illegal activities of the Village Guards in these areas. People’s lives are furthermore threatened by
the presence of an undisclosed and unidentified number of land mines in these
conflict ridden areas. The destruction
of these villages, as well as peoples homes, amounts to a form of violent
displacement of the village people, causing them to migrate to the cities in
search of better living conditions.
The conditions under which people, the majority
whereof have been forcefully and violently displayed from their villages, live
in the cities, however, are seemingly not better because of serious
overcrowding and high unemployment rates within the cities. It is exacerbated by a lack of adequate
and/or sufficient housing and their inability to communicate with the city
dwellers in Turkish. This, in turn,
creates fertile ground for young children to become involved in illegal /
criminal activities.
Turkey’s negotiations and application for EU
membership were viewed generally as an historic opportunity for the
implementation and advancement of human rights in Turkey. Our general impression gained from the
people whom we have met is that, in spite of these progressive changes that
have taken place, human rights violations still persist in Turkey. There are still restrictions of basic rights
and freedoms such as restrictions on language and cultural rights, freedom of
expression, especially in regard to press and broadcasting, as well as suppression
of peoples’ right to freedom of association and organisation, and peoples’
right to religious freedom. Those who
are seen to be opposing the Government are invariably labelled as “terrorist
supporters” and, as a result, are persecuted, arrested and tortured. In some instances, those who were arrested
simply disappeared.
Various Turkish citizens aggrieved by human rights violations have approached the European Court of Human Rights and have obtained judgment against the Turkish government, especially with regard to allegations of torture. Turkey has also been ordered by this Court to pay substantial compensation to victims. Most of these cases and judgments relate, however, to the period between 1993 and 1996 and before the present ruling political party took over, when there were many cases of torture and extra-judicial killings and people disappeared and villages were destroyed. Recent cases, however, which have been brought to and heard by the European Court of Human Rights have also confirmed that human rights abuses and violations still continue in Turkey. Since the AK Parti took over as the ruling party in Turkey however, notably fewer cases have been taken by its citizens to the European Court of Human Rights. There were therefore progressive changes introduced and implemented, but it is generally felt that the pace of change in Turkey must be accelerated.
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
The delegation recommends that Turkey’s
application for membership of the European Union must be favourably considered
by the other high contracting parties to the EU (the member States), subject to
the undermentioned conditions:
8.1
Duly authorised representatives of the Turkish
Government must enter into dialogue with duly authorised representatives of the
Kurdish people, in particular Mr Abdullah Ocalan, to create the conditions for
peaceful negotiations and settlement of the Kurdish question in Turkey.
8.2
There must be an immediate cessation of armed
hostilities on the side of both parties;
8.3
Demilitarisation of governmental institutions and
other organs of the Turkish State and Government must continue and the military
must be made accountable to Parliament of a democratically elected Turkish
State, and the immediate disbanding of the Village Guards;
8.4
The decentralisation of power must also be encouraged
and must continue, more particularly decentralisation of power from central
government to local government;
8.5
The creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
which makes provision for an amnesty process for those involved in the conflict
between the Turkish State and the Kurdish Liberation Movement before the ceasefire. It should also make provision for victim
compensation / reparation to facilitate reconciliation amongst all the people
of Turkey. Such a Commission should be
conceived as part of the bridge building process designed to help lead the
Turkish nation, in all its cultural manifestations, away from a deeply divided
past to a future based on the recognition of human rights and democracy. That was indeed the very substance of the
Truth & Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. The objectives of the Truth &
Reconciliation Commission in South Africa are captured in the preamble of the
Promotion of National United and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995, the Act
that created the Truth & Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. The purpose of the Act was “to provide
for the investigation and the establishment of as complete a picture as
possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights
committed during the period from 1 March 1960 to the cut off date contemplated
in the Constitution, within or outside the Republic, emanating from the
conflicts of the pasts, and the fate or whereabouts of the victims of such
violations; the granting of amnesty to persons who make full disclosure of all
the relevant facts relating to acts associated with a political objective committed
in the course of the conflicts of the past during the said period; affording
victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered; the taking of measures aimed at the granting
of reparation to, and the rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and
civil dignity of, victims of violations of human rights; reporting to the
Nation about such violations and victims;
the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of the commission
of gross violations of human rights; and for the said purposes to provide for
the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, comprising a
Committee on Human Rights Violations, a Committee on Amnesty and a Committee on
Reparation and Rehabilitation; and to confer certain powers on, assign certain
functions to, and impose certain duties upon that Commission and those
Committees; and to provide for matters connected therewith”;
8.6
This recommendation, its feasibility and practical
implications must be explored within the Turkish context and established as a
matter of urgency;
8.7
The unconditional release of all political prisoners,
including and particularly Mr Abdullah Ocalan;
8.8
The closure of the prison on Imrali Island;
8.9
Pending the release of Mr Abdullah Ocalan, for
purposes of settlement negotiations between the parties, the immediate and
unrestricted access by his lawyers to him as their client, the immediate and
unconditional access of his medical practitioner to him and the immediate and
unconditional access of his family and religious councillor of his choice;
8.10
The creation and establishment of an independent
monitoring body / directorate to attend to and monitor complaints of arrested
persons, detainees, prisoners and/or their relatives and/or families, with the
necessary powers to investigate such complaints and to order remedial and/or preventative
steps to be taken;
8.11
The immediate abolition of the Village Guard system;
8.12
The unconditional return of all exiles, refugees,
combatants within Turkey and those in exile as a result of their opposition to
the Turkish State, and to make provision for their rehabilitation and
reintegration into civil society.
8.13
A creation of a European Commission to monitor the
implementation of the abovestated conditions, in particular human rights reform
in Turkey in which both NGO’s from Turkey and from EU member states will participate. This Commission will focus inter alia
on the plight of those whose family members have disappeared in suspicious
circumstances, on the plight of the displaced Kurdish villagers and on mechanisms
and procedures for their possible humane resettlement, the disbanding of the Village
Guard system and addressing the issues of the land mines in and around the
villages (which could be done in consultation with other UN structures and the
Red Cross).
Members of the
Committee:
Name:
The Hon. Mr
Justice Essa Moosa
Professor Norman
Paech
Advocate Joey
Moses
Advocate Rainer
Ahues
Dr Rolf Gössner
Advocate Heide
Schneider-Sonnemann