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. Ocalan’s lawyers welcomed the court’s 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 court’s 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. Ocalan’s 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 court’s ruling that Abdullah Ocalan had not had a fair trial since such a conclusion would also reflect Ocalan’s 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 Ocalan’s 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. Ocalan’s 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 court’s 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. Ocalan’s 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 individual’s 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.