International Initiative
Freedom for Ocalan – Peace in Kurdistan
P.O. Box 100511, D-50445 Koeln
Telephone: +49 221 130 15 59
Fax: +49 221 139 30 71
E-Mail: info@freedom-for-ocalan.com
Url: www.freedom-for-ocalan.com

Istanbul, August 2001

INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:

Interview with Ocalan lawyers Hadice Korkut and Dogan Erbas of Asrin Law Office by the International Initiative 'Freedom for Abdullah Ocalan - Peace in Kurdistan', Istanbul:

Q: The European Court of Human Rights was expected to sit on 31 August 2001 in order to deliberate on the application of Abdullah Ocalan v. Turkey. We understand, however, that the Court has now granted a new time-limit for final submissions until 28 September 2001. Why is that, and have you been able to finalise your preparations?

A: Our preparations for legal submissions are continuing. Mr Ocalan himself has prepared extensive draft submissions in his own right which we unfortunately have not had full access to as yet. We need to rely on information contained in this document in order to finalise our legal submissions. It will be only after having had full access to the draft our client has prepared that we can finalise our submissions.

Q: What is the reason for your not having had access to the document?

A: Mr Ocalan is still deprived of adequate facilities in terms of access to Counsel. He is not allowed to directly deliver or receive any written documents from his lawyers. Despite the fact that ae Government's own rules, any written communication and exchange of documents is required to be handled by the State Prosecutor of Bursa, various units of state agents have access to and control over these documents because of the status of Imrali Island as a prohibited military zone. Mr Ocalan's communication with the European Court is subjected to these restrictions, too. Whenever we asked the authorities to grant us access to documents Mr Ocalan had prepared for his application before the European Court, we were informed that they had been forwarded to the "competent authorities" and that we would be granted access to them once the examination was completed. So far, we have only received the first part of the draft submissions our client has prepared. We will have to peruse the draft submissions as a whole in order to finalise our legal submissions.

Having said that, we have more or less finished work on issues raised in our complaints on the specific violations of individual articles of the Convention as declared admissible by the Court in December 2001. This work also entails expert opinions on the right to self-defence or defence of necessity and on article 125 of Turkish Criminal Code which foresees capital punishment for separatism.

One of the reasons why this case is so comprehensive is that it has as an underlying reality one of the most serious historic, social and political problems in the whole of the Middle East, the Kurdish question. This problem affects nearly all the Kurds living in Turkey, roughly half of the 40 million Kurds in the Middle East. The application we are talking about is a case that has come up as a result of 15 years of what even the Turkish authorities themselves named a "low intensity warfare". It is the case of the leader of one of the parties to this conflict, the PKK. Individual human rights violations discussed in a large number of other applications to the European Court of Human Rights have been committed in the course of this conflict. That is why this case can be regarded as the sum total of all individual human rights violations that have occured in the context of the conflict rooted in the Kurdish problem.

The Court has now set a time-limit for final submissions until 28 September 2001, but under given circumstances it will be difficult to finalise our submissions until that date. We are confident that the Court will find an appropriate way to deal with these problems when having regard to the factual conditions causing the delays. After all, the Court decreed first interim measures as far back as 04 March 1999 to the effect that the government should ensure that the Applicant is enabled, through the lawyers of his choice, effectively to exercise the right of individual petition to the European Court.

Q: So you are holding the Turkish government responsible for these delays?

A: The conditions under which the Applicant is held are the crucial point here. Ever since his apprehension on 15 February 1999 he has very restricted access to information on relevant developments and discussions both in Turkey and on the international plane. He cannot even follow the daily press. Although parallel with the European Application there are new domestic proceedings pending against the Applicant, legal visits are restricted to one hour per week and subject to cancellation on grounds of adverse weather conditions.
These conditions immensely aggravate the problems our client and us have in preparing the Application. We already mentioned the delays in getting access to the documents the Applicant has prepared. Our repeated representations to the authorities have never received a positive answer. Even negative answers come quite late. The Court will have to have regard to these facts in order to ensure that the proceedings are fair and satisfying for the parties involved.

Q: What can you tell us about the content of the submissions prepared by Mr Ocalan himself?

A: It is difficult to talk about a document we have not had the chance to study in its entirety. As far as we can see he discusses a variety of issues in detail. An important issue he raises is the chain of events that led to his apprehension by Turkey, starting from his eviction from Syria to his illegal abduction on 15 February 1999 from the premises of the Greek Embassador in Kenya where he was legally required to enjoy international protection. These events took place in various European countries and in Kenya, and in all those places Mr Ocalan was confronted with a wide range of irregularities, confusing incidents and breaches of law.
He furthermore discusses the domestic proceedings in Turkey and the climate in which they were held, including the whole of the charges brought against him to the effect of his being sentenced to death. He maintains that his trial was a merely formal one, a spectacle that was designed to serve the end, even by illegal means, of presenting him as the sole responsible for a 15-years-long war that in reality is the outcome of a grave social and historical problem.
The third dimension of his observations is to discuss how the Kurdish question, this most important of all social and political problems in Turkey, can realistically be solved. Mr Ocalan explores avenues of a solution based on scientific, historical and politological method.

You will appreciate that Mr Ocalan's own statements on these issues are of decisive importance. Mr Ocalan has been very eager to prepare exhaustive observations, but he faces great difficulties in obtaining access to relevant material and means. For example he was not allowed a typewriter. Under these circumstances, it was very difficult for him to finish his work within the given time-limit. We also need to mention that the physical and psychological strains caused by long-term solitary confinement have an adverse effect on his capacity to concentrate.

Q: Does he face serious health problems, then?

A: The climatic conditions on Imrali Island and the lack of fresh air and facilities for physical exercise have caused certain problems. Mr Ocalan complains about problems with his sinus that may have an allergic cause. Having said that, such health problems are not of a gravity and seriosity that would influence his physical well-being, but we would like to emphasise that more adequate detention conditions should be created.

Q: What do you expect to happen after the final observations of the two parties are submitted to the Court?

A: It will be more reasonable to discuss this once the substantive proceedings have taken place. The Court will sit on 28 September 2001 and decide in the light of the parties' submissions what further procedure it holds appropriate to follow in the case. We expect a case in full compliance with the procedural requirements of the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Ocalan has indicated that he does not exclude the prospect of a friendly settlement if it serves to find a solution to the problem underlying his case. Any proposal on part of the Government will be considered by the Applicant, but truly constructive proposals will have to be satisfying and realistic.
One point on which both the Applicant himself and his legal representatives insist is a full fact-finding hearing to be held on Imrali Island. Mr Ocalan expects the Court to hear him in person since he has the express wish to convey some crucial information on the chain of international events that led to his apprehension and on his police custody and interrogation. We are confident that hearing Mr Ocalan - who is the only direct witness of a number of confusing incidents - in person will throw an entirely new light on some factual and legal issues central to the case. From that point of view one might presume that such a fact-finding hearing would be in the interest of the Court which always seeks to secure highest international standards of jurisdiction.

Q: Is this a realistic demand?

A: We hope it will be done. There are certain precedents where a delegation of the Court held fact-finding hearings in Diyarbakir and Ankara. There are no procedural obstacles as far as the Court is concerned. The Turkish Government on its part will have to fulfill its obligations as a high contracting Party to the European Convention of Human Rights. The Government has already allowed a delegation of state prosecutors and judges from Belgium and another one from Norway to visit Imrali Island and take statements from our client concerning domestic proceedings in the respective countries, although it was by no means obliged by the Convention to do that. This shows that there are no technical obstacles to allowing a delegation of the Court to visit Imrali Island. But it is up to the European Court to decide whether it considers such a fact-finding hearing necessary or not.