|
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, 25 February 2004
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:
Anti-torture panel demands access for Turkey's
No. 1 prisoner
STRASBOURG / 25 February 2004 / AFP
The Council of Europe's anti-torture committee Wednesday accused
Turkey of failing to assure that its number one prisoner, Abdullah
Ocalan receives regular visits from his family and lawyers.
The former Kurdish leader has been an inmate at the Imrali island
prison in the Sea of Marmara for four years. His sentence of death
for separatism has been commuted to life imprisonment.
The anti-torture panel visited Turkey one year ago, at a time when
Ocalan had been unable to receive visits for more than three months
because of bad weather.
"A de facto suspension of the right to visits for more than
three months would be a serious matter vis-a-vis any prisoner, and
it is quite simply unacceptable vis-a-vis a prisoner who has been
held in isolation for a very long period," the committee said.
In a written reply, Turkey said visits had to be cancelled because
of bad weather. It said that for budgetary reasons, it was unable
to supply a more seaworthy boat to link the island with the mainland,
and the prison organization made it difficult to arrange visits
on any day other than Wednsday.
But the committee said it did not find these arguments convincing.
"They are not indicative of a real determination to overcome
the difficulties faced by the relatives and lawyers of Abdullah
Ocalan in gaining access to Imrali island," it said.
The committee said it was "persuaded that further measures
could be taken to enable visits to Imrali closed prison to take
place, without placing an excessive burden on the Turkish authorities."
The panel visited Turkey as part of a regular series of inspections
that Turkey is obliged to accept as a condition of its membership
in the Council of Europe, a democracy watchdog.
Under the rules, Turkey was allowed time to deliver a formal reply
before the report and the reply were jointly published.
+++++++++++++++
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation
1. In accordance with Article 7 of the European Convention for
the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
a delegation of the CPT visited Turkey from 16 to 17 February 2003.
2. The delegation consisted of Marc NEVE, member of the CPT and
Head of the delegation, and Timothy HARDING, Director of the University
Institute of Forensic Medicine, Geneva (expert). They were assisted
by Zeynep BEKDIK and Kudret SUZER (interpreters), and were accompanied
by Petya NESTOROVA of the CPT's Secretariat.
B. Context of the visit, consultations held and co-operation
encountered
3. The visit was one which appeared to the Committee “to be
required in the circumstances”
(cf. Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention). It was triggered
by persistent reports to the effect that relatives and lawyers of
Abdullah ÖCALAN have been experiencing considerable difficulties
in gaining access to the prison on the island of Imrali in order
to visit him. By letter of 27 January 2003, the CPT requested the
Turkish authorities to provide observations concerning those reports,
as well as a list indicating the date and duration of every visit
to Abdullah Öcalan by his relatives and lawyers during the
last three months. By letter of 5 February 2003, the CPT reiterated
those requests and formally invoked Rule 30 (1) of its Rules of
Procedure.[1] By letter of 6 February 2003, the Turkish authorities
replied to the Committee’s letter of 27 January 2003. The information
provided made clear that the last visit to Abdullah Öcalan
by his relatives and lawyers had taken place on 27 November 2002.
Apparently, “weather conditions” had subsequently prevented
the relatives and lawyers from gaining access to the island.
The President of the CPT discussed this matter with the Committee’s
Liaison Officer in Ankara by telephone, and it was understood that
all efforts should be made to ensure that relatives and lawyers
of Abdullah Öcalan were able to visit Imrali Closed Prison
on the next visit day, i.e. 12 February 2003. However, the CPT subsequently
learned that the relatives and lawyers had not been able to visit
Imrali Closed Prison, the reason advanced being once again poor
weather conditions. The CPT therefore decided that a delegation
should visit Turkey in order to obtain, on the spot, information
on the visiting arrangements for prisoners held at Imrali Closed
Prison and to interview the establishment’s sole inmate.
4. The visit to Imrali Closed Prison also offered an opportunity
to review other aspects of Abdullah Öcalan’s conditions
of detention, in the light of recommendations made by the CPT after
its previous visits to that establishment (in March 1999 and September
2001).[2] However, this report will focus on the specific issue
of visits by his relatives and lawyers. Other aspects of Abdullah
Öcalan’s treatment will be the subject of a separate communication
addressing both the Turkish authorities’ response to the report
on the September 2001 visit by the CPT (in which his conditions
of detention are dealt with in some detail) and the findings during
the most recent visit. The intention is that these issues should
subsequently be discussed at the high-level talks between the Turkish
authorities and representatives of the CPT, planned for the spring
of 2003. The issue of paramount importance to the CPT is finding
means of ending Abdullah Öcalan’s isolation, which has
now lasted for more than four years.
5. The delegation visited Imrali Closed Prison on 17 February 2003
and interviewed Abdullah Öcalan at length. Further, it discussed
with the prison management the arrangements for visits by relatives
and lawyers and the transportation means between the mainland and
the island.
During the visit, the delegation also went to the Communications
Office of the Gemlik Gendarmerie District Command, which has been
designated as the point of departure to Imrali Island for relatives
and lawyers of prisoners held at Imrali Closed Prison.
Further, the CPT’s delegation had meetings, on the one hand,
with Levent ERSÜZ, Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Commander, and,
on the other hand, with Emin ÖZLER, Chief Public Prosecutor
of Bursa, and Cemil KUYU, Deputy Public Prosecutor of Bursa responsible
for supervising Imrali Closed Prison. The delegation discussed in
detail with them means of ensuring that Abdullah Öcalan’s
right to receive visits from his relatives and lawyers is fully
effective in practice.
Finally, the delegation held discussions with two of Abdullah Öcalan’s
lawyers.
6. The co-operation encountered during the visit was on the whole
very good. In this connection, the CPT is grateful to Levent ERSÜZ,
Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Commander, for providing the helicopter
which transported the delegation to the island of Imrali. The Committee
also wishes to thank Kaan ESENAR of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
for his availability and support both before and during the visit.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that, at one point during the
visit to the Gemlik Gendarmerie Communications Office, the officer
in charge refused to provide further information concerning transportation
to the island and asked the delegation to leave the premises. Following
a telephone conversation with the Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Commander,
the delegation was able to finish examining the register of visitors
to Imrali Closed Prison who had undergone searches at Gemlik and
received an assurance that the Commander would personally respond
to any other questions.
It should also be noted that the Gendarmerie staff responsible for
the external security of Imrali Closed Prison were under instructions
not to speak to the delegation and did not allow it to examine the
register of persons searched upon arrival on Imrali Island. Such
an attitude is not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention
and, in particular, Article 3 and Article 8, paragraph 2 (d).
+++++++++++++++
II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED
7. According to the Internal Regulations of Imrali Closed Prison,
prisoners held at the establishment are entitled to one weekly visit
of one hour by their relatives, as well as one visit of the same
duration by their lawyers. Up to four persons can attend each visit.
The visits are of a closed nature and are supervised by staff. Conversations
should be conducted in Turkish and no sign language is allowed.
Visits by lawyers are to take place out of the hearing of staff.
The delegation was informed that, by decision of the Ministry of
Justice, Wednesday had been assigned as the day on which visits
by relatives and lawyers should take place. Two coastal vessels
have been designated by the Ministry of Justice to provide the link
between Imrali Island and the mainland: Imrali-9, which has a capacity
of ten passengers and should remain at a distance of no more than
10 miles from the mainland, and Imrali-10, with a capacity of some
twenty passengers and a seaworthiness certificate which allows it
to travel further afield. Although initially both vessels were used
for journeys to the island by Abdullah Öcalan's visitors, subsequently
Imrali-9 was specifically designated for transporting his relatives
and lawyers, whereas Imrali-10 has been reserved for transporting
personnel or supplies.
8. The delegation sought information on the procedure for authorising
visits by relatives and lawyers of prisoners held at Imrali Closed
Prison.
The island of Imrali is located in a restricted military zone (covering
the adjoining sea within a radius of 3 miles) and all access to
it is controlled by the Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Command. A special
Gendarmerie Communications Office has been set up at Gemlik for
the purpose of performing the initial security check of relatives
and lawyers of prisoners held at Imrali Closed Prison and ensuring
their safe transportation to the island.
On the eve of each visit, the Communications Office receives an
order from the Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Command with the names
of the persons to be transported to Imrali Island. The Communications
Office monitors the weather and maritime conditions on the day of
the visit by means of contacting the Bandirma Meteorology Department
and the Gendarmerie Unit stationed on the island. This information
is reported to the Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Command and the Prosecutor’s
Office at Bursa, which are jointly responsible for deciding whether
a visit can take place. If a visit fails to take place, the Gemlik
Gendarmerie Communications Office draws up a record describing the
weather conditions or other circumstances which led to the cancellation.
9. The delegation was informed that, since 27 November 2002, the
weather conditions on each consecutive Wednesday had been unfavourable
for operating the coastal vessel Imrali-9, and therefore the visits
had been cancelled. On one occasion (29 January 2003), the boat
had in fact set out, but was compelled to return on account of the
rough sea.
At his meeting with the CPT’s delegation, the Chief Public
Prosecutor of Bursa stated that this was an exceptional situation
caused by an extraordinarily long spell of bad weather. Indeed,
difficulties of access to Imrali Island have occurred in the past,
but never for such a prolonged period of time. By way of comparison,
six visits were cancelled between November 2001 and March 2002;
however, the interruption between two visits was never longer than
three weeks. A total of 34 visits took place and 19 were cancelled
in 2001 and, similarly, 34 visits took place and 18 were cancelled
in 2002. Although most of the visits failed to take place due to
bad weather, in the case of four cancelled visits the cause was
technical problems with the Imrali-9 boat.
In this connection, reference should also be made to the instructions
for the use of coastal vessels Imrali-9 and Imrali-10, contained
in letter No 1999/2-5161 of 8 December 1999 from the Bursa Chief
Public Prosecutor’s Office, according to which “Imrali-9
must not be used in the poor weather conditions of the winter period
between 15 September and 15 April. Where necessary, the use of both
boats must be avoided in very poor weather conditions involving
winds of force 4 or more, which may endanger human life”. The
CPT would point out that wind force 4 on the Beaufort scale corresponds
to a moderate breeze with wind speeds of 11-16 knots and a sea height
of about 1 metre. Thus Imrali-9 is clearly a vessel which is not
adapted to normal navigation in the winter season.
10. The above-described state of affairs is a matter of considerable
concern to the CPT. A de facto suspension of the right to visits
for more than three months[3] would be a serious matter vis-à-vis
any prisoner, and it is quite simply unacceptable vis-à-vis
a prisoner who has been held in isolation for a very long period
(which, as already indicated, is the case for Abdullah Öcalan).
When interviewed by the CPT's delegation, Abdullah Öcalan was
clearly worried by the prolonged lack of contact with his relatives
and lawyers. According to the management of Imrali Closed Prison,
he was upset when there had been information that his visitors were
about to come and a visit had subsequently been cancelled. The gravity
of this situation is compounded by the lack of progress in implementing
the recommendations previously made by the CPT as regards other
forms of contact with the outside world.
11. The Chief Public Prosecutor of Bursa affirmed that his Office
was making “every possible effort” to enable Abdullah
Öcalan to enjoy his right to visits; in this connection, a
letter had been sent to the Ministry of Justice in September 2002,
reporting the inadequacy of the coastal vessel Imrali-9 and requesting
that a new, more seaworthy, vessel be purchased. This matter was
apparently under consideration but the Chief Prosecutor had no idea
when or whether there would be a positive outcome.
Has every possible effort indeed been made?
12. Why was the coastal vessel Imrali-9 exclusively designated
for transporting Abdullah Öcalan's relatives and lawyers, when
according to the instructions referred to above it "must not
be used in the poor weather conditions of the winter period between
15 September and 15 April" (which effectively puts visits at
stake for seven months every year)?
Why could not relatives and lawyers be transported to Imrali Island
by other existing modes of transportation? The larger coastal vessel
Imrali-10, which is scheduled to travel to Imrali Island three times
a week, is apparently more seaworthy. According to information provided
by the Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Commander, Imrali-10 failed to
make the planned crossing to the island on only 18 occasions in
2002. In January 2003, it made 11 out of 18 planned crossings to
the island (whereas Imrali-9 made none). In December 2002, when
Imrali-10 was undergoing maintenance, a military landing boat was
assigned as a replacement. Further, the delegation was told that
visiting doctors, prosecutors and prison staff are sometimes transported
by coastguard vessels. At the time of the CPT's visit, two coastguard
vessels, as well as a smaller boat, were moored at the island's
pier.
If bad weather prevents a visit from taking place on a Wednesday,
why could it not take place on another day of the week when the
weather conditions are more propitious? The Director of Imrali Closed
Prison saw no inconvenience, as far as the organisation of the work
of prison staff was concerned, in having visits on any other day
of the week. Exceptions to the Wednesday rule have apparently been
made in the past for the British lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan.
13. In the course of the meetings with the CPT's delegation, the
Turkish authorities invoked a series of arguments against the above-mentioned
alternatives.
The Bursa Regional Gendarmerie Commander stated that the two vessels
(Imrali-9 and Imrali-10) had been designated by the Ministry of
Justice and he had no authority to allocate an alternative means
of transport. As regards Imrali-10, it was used exclusively for
transporting supplies and could therefore not carry passengers.
Further, according to him, no more than one vessel could be moored
at the island, as there was only one pier, which was partly destroyed.
On the other hand, according to the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bursa,
transport to Imrali Island was the responsibility of the military
authorities, and therefore the use of other means of transport was
within their control.
Both the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bursa and the Bursa Regional
Gendarmerie Commander maintained that visits could only take place
on Wednesday because: i) it had been designated as the visiting
day by the Ministry of Justice; ii) the other days of the week had
been assigned to meeting the different requirements of the island
(change of staff, supply of provisions, military exercises and operations,
etc.); iii) it was impossible to shift the visiting day, as the
island was in a military zone and each visit required major preparatory
work and security measures.
In conclusion, the delegation’s interlocutors stated that,
under the present circumstances, the only solution to the problem
of access to Imrali Island was an improvement in the weather as
the winter comes to an end.
The CPT does not find the above arguments convincing; they are
not indicative of a real determination to overcome the difficulties
faced by the relatives and lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan in gaining
access to Imrali Island.
14. The lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan whom the delegation met
during the visit expressed serious concern about the prolonged lack
of contact with their client, who is currently facing three sets
of legal proceedings and is prevented from giving instructions in
relation to them. They had repeatedly written to the Ministry of
Justice, the Prison Directorate and the Bursa Chief Prosecutor’s
Office, requesting that steps be taken to remedy the situation.
In reply, the Ministry of Justice stated that there was no budget
to replace the coastal vessel Imrali-9 with a new boat. The lawyers’
request that the restrictions placed on the days and duration of
their visits to Imrali Prison be removed was also rejected.
15. In the light of the information at its disposal, the CPT is
persuaded that further measures could be taken to enable visits
to Imrali Closed Prison to take place, without placing an excessive
burden on the Turkish authorities. In view of the exceptional circumstances
of Abdullah Öcalan's custody, and in particular his prolonged
isolation on Imrali Island, it is absolutely essential that his
right to visits from his relatives and lawyers is fully effective
in practice. As stressed in the letter by the CPT's President to
the Turkish authorities dated 27 January 2003, ensuring that this
is the case may require proactive measures on the part of the Turkish
authorities. It is incumbent upon those authorities to ensure that
the visit regulations they have put in place are implemented in
practice.
The CPT recommends that the Turkish authorities take immediate
steps to find means of ensuring that Abdullah Öcalan’s
right to receive visits from his relatives and lawyers is fully
effective in practice. The relevant instructions should be modified
so that, if necessary, Imrali-10 can be used to transport relatives
and lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan to Imrali Island or, if that
boat is unavailable, a coastguard vessel. Further, a degree of flexibility
should be introduced concerning the day of the visits, so that if
during a given week adverse weather prevents all means of transport
from reaching the island on the allocated day, visits can take place
on another day.
16. Finally, the CPT understands that although he has been imprisoned
for over four years, visits to Abdullah Öcalan by his relatives
still take place under very restrictive conditions, namely with
the prisoner and his visitors sitting in two separate rooms on opposite
sides of a glass panel and communicating via a telephone. The Committee
invites the Turkish authorities to allow visits to Abdullah Öcalan
by his relatives to take place under the conditions applied to his
lawyers, namely in the same room, the prisoner and his visitors
seated on opposite sides of a table.
17. The CPT requests the Turkish authorities to provide within
one month a response setting out the action taken in the light of
paragraphs 15 and 16.
+++++++++++++++++
[1] Rule 30 (1) reads as follows: “Before deciding on a
particular visit, the Committee or, if appropriate, the Bureau may
request information or explanations as regards the general situation
in the State concerned, as regards a given place, or as regards
an isolated case concerning which it has received reports.”
[2] The reports on these visits, as well as the responses of
the Turkish authorities, have been made public (cf. documents CPT/Inf
(2000) 17, CPT/Inf (2000) 18, CPT/Inf (2002) 8 and CPT/Inf (2003)
13).
[3] In the period after the CPT’s visit, visits to Imrali
Closed Prison by relatives and lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan have
continued to be cancelled (on 19 February, 26 February and 5 March
2003) on the grounds of bad weather conditions. However, the Committee
understands that visits by relatives and lawyers did take place
on 12 March 2003.
|