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
Cologne, 13 June 2005
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:
The Ocalan case as a farce - Kurdish leader
demands trial before an international tribunal
On May 12, 2005 the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) gave
its decision in the Ocalan case. The Kurdish leader, the decision
says, had not had a fair trial, his right to defence had been restricted,
and he had been treated inhumanely by handing him a death sentence.
In this way, the Strasbourg judges, in principle, confirmed their
decision of first instance. However, their recommendation, that
Turkey should reopen the Ocalan case, was new. The court asked the
Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe to monitor the implementation
of its decision.
All in all, Mr. Ocalan's lawyers regard the decision as positive,
although they also found it partly unsatisfactory, since the court
had not complied with their appeal in a central point, i.e. the
illegal circumstances of Mr. Ocalan's abduction. This point, however,
had been extraordinarily important for the appeal, because it had
been Ocalan's illegal abduction by the U.S. secret service CIA that
had made it possible to hand the Kurdish leader over to Turkey.
This, in turn, had lead to the show trial on the Turkish prison
island Imrali the Strasbourg judges had to evaluate. Hence, the
circumstances of these events as well as the breaches of law committed
in their context are still at issue. The appellant holds, that the
decision does not consider the background of the society as a whole
that lies at the heart of his case. While an appeal at the European
Court is always an individual appeal, its is at least questionable
in a legal sense, if the social and political context can be ignored
completely. Although Mr. Ocalan is doubtless an individual, he is
at the same time also the product of a conflict, for which he was
held responsible personally and in a biased way.
However, this conflict still remains unsolved, and a solution does
not even seem in sight. Rather, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is
heading into a new escalation at the moment. There are daily media
reports of clashes between Turkish soldiers and Kurdish Guerrilla
fighters. The list of casualties is growing steadily. Although the
Kurds have declared their wish for peace they have offered a cease-fire
once more, provided the Turkish army agrees to take up negotiations
and declares to comply with the cease-fire both Turkish government
and army still focus on the military option. A new war seems already
within reach.
The military, who still set the tone, were not amused about the
decision of the European Court. Leading generals categorically ruled
out a reopening of the Ocalan case. Army general Buyukkanit called
it an unacceptable affront, since the army was part of the conflict.
Then, what is Abdullah Ocalan? Being a prominent representative
of his people, is he not also a part of the conflict? It may be
debatable, whether he is a prisoner of war, but not whether he is
a political prisoner. The European Court of Human Rights concludes
in its decision, that it would be best to reopen the Ocalan case.
Apart from the fact, that a new trial will only make a quite limited
contribution to the solution of the conflict, it is more than questionable,
if a fair trial for Ocalan in Turkey is possible at all. Turkey
itself is still far from being exactly a state under the rule of
law. There is still the perception, that the state has to be protected
from its citizens, instead of the other way round. The quite unlimited
power of the Turkish military, the arbitrariness of the authorities,
and the limited independence of the Turkish courts are evidence
of this situation. This evaluation is also nourished by remarks
made by leading Turkish politicians, saying that a new trial would
not change the decision in any way. The new Turkish penal code,
which originally had been passed as a reform on the way to Europe,
confirms such fears. The new code particularly restricts the rights
of lawyers and the media, including the rights of Mr. Ocalan's lawyers,
of course. Before that, rather weird allegations could already lead
to persecution by the authorities. Now, a thoughtless remark concerning
their client may suffice to officially relieve them of their duties.
Ocalan himself was only recently able to comment on the decision
of the ECHR, because his lawyers had been arbitrarily denied access
to their client for three weeks. When they eventually met one week
ago, they were accompanied by a representative of the prosecutor's
office, who recorded the complete conversation. Both Ocalan and
his lawyers protested these procedures. Ocalan's lawyers announced
they were not prepared to allow themselves to be used in a farce
like this. Therefore, they would abstain from further visits, also
at the request of their client. According to his lawyers, Mr. Ocalan
does not believe that a fair trial will be possible in Turkey. Therefore,
he would only agree to a tribunal, that would have to include the
misdoings of all conflict parties. Such a trial was not realistic
at the moment. Only an international tribunal could warrant a fair
trial.
Time will show, if there is a judicial way to realise such a tribunal.
It is eventually the political will of the international community
to contribute to a solution of the Kurdish question, or not. From
the decision of the European Court in the Ocalan case it has become
clear, however, that the law cannot replace politics. The international
community is required to invite Turkey to play a more constructive
part concerning the Kurdish question. The recent killings make it
clear, that this problem will not simply vanish into thin air. We
need an international effort and political pressure in order to
keep a still solvable conflict from escalating. A solution of the
Kurdish question must be made a criterion for Turkey's potential
EU-membership. The Ocalan case is part of this. Hence, a trial before
an international tribunal, where the background of the conflict
is also included, would be an important contribution.
|