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.
|