International Initiative
Freedom for Ocalan Peace in Kurdistan
P.O. Box 100511, D-50445 Koeln
E-Mail: info@freedom-for-ocalan.com
Url: www.freedom-for-ocalan.com
Cologne, 4 May 2004
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:
The Kurdish question and European justice
final act of the Ocalan case
On June 9 the appeal hearing will start before the European
Court For Human Rights
On March 13, 2003 after three years of proceedings the European
Court For Human Rights (ECHR) gave its decision in the case Abdullah
Ocalan versus Turkey. The Kurdish leader had not had a fair trial
before an independent jury they announced, his right to defence
had been restricted, and he had suffered inhumane treatment by the
imposition of the death penalty. Mr. Ocalans lawyers welcomed
the courts decision as a rather positive one although the
think it utterly insufficient. They immediately appealed this decision
as did Turkey which was also unhappy with the courts ruling.
What are the reasons for the appeal? The Ocalan lawyers maintain
that the court had ignored a grave violation of article 5 of the
European Convention constituted by Mr. Ocalans illegal abduction
from Nairobi (Kenya) on February 15, 1999. From the lawyers
point of view the court should also have considered the circumstances
of the abduction which, however, had been disregarded completely.
Refusing an enquiry into these circumstances would indeed disagree
with the common sense of justice they maintain. Furthermore, there
was the issue of the death penalty. Although the death penalty had
meanwhile been abolished, Mr. Ocalan had been kept in complete solitary
confinement ever since he had been brought to the Turkish prison
island of Imrali. This would also constitute a violation of the
ban on torture in the same sense as had been ruled by the court
concerning the imposition of the death penalty and the following
uncertainty as to its execution. The court had not taken a firm
stand on this issue the lawyers complain. Turkey, however, does
not accept the courts ruling that Abdullah Ocalan had not
had a fair trial since such a conclusion would also reflect Ocalans
status: He had become a political prisoner because of a conflict
still unresolved. Turkey wishes to avoid the possibility of such
an interpretation at any rate.
On June 9, 2004 the appeal hearing will start before the Grand
Chamber of the European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg. Nineteen
judges will have to decide on the above issues. What hopes do Ocalans
lawyers have? In a statement given to the coordination office of
the International Initiative they make it clear that their first
priority is to get a ruling that calls Mr. Ocalans abduction
illegal. They also want Abdullah Ocalan to be heard in person by
the court either on Imrali or by video-conference. Furthermore,
they want an affirmation of the courts ruling that Abdullah
Ocalan had not had a fair trial, that his solitary confinement was
a violation of the European Convention, and a request that it be
ended immediately. Ocalans lawyers also hope that the court
will include the political background of the case in its considerations
this time. While it was true that Abdullah Ocalan was an individual
he was also result of a conflict for which he was not solely responsible.
While searching for an amicable solution between the disputing parties
in this trial the Kurdish question and a democratic solution should
also be mentioned. Otherwise an amicable agreement would be impossible.
Therefore, on June 9, 2004 it will become clear to what extent
European justice is able to contribute to a solution of the Kurdish
question. Several thousand appeals with the ECHR the majority of
which ended with a conviction of Turkey for major human rights violations
give a clear indication of the fact that this issue cannot be reduced
to the individual level. However, the ECHR cannot ignore the character
of the Convention which safeguards an individuals human rights
within the scope of the Council of Europe. Although intrastate conflicts
may eventually have also an individual component, such a conflict
must not be reduced to such an individual. With a view to the unresolved
Kurdish question we may expect the court to take account of this
reality if it wants to live up to its mission as keeper of
European justice.
It is already clear, however, that Turkey still has a long way
to go before it will be a genuine democracy. This remains also true
in spite of the praise of the recent Turkish reforms by some EU
strategists who only have their own economic interests in mind Without
a solution of the Kurdish question Turkey will not be democratic.
An undemocratic Turkey, however, must not become a member of the
European Union.
|