IPU logoINTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
PLACE DU PETIT-SACONNEX
1211 GENEVA 19, SWITZERLAND

REPORT OF THE DELEGATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS TO ANKARA (11 AND 12 APRIL 1996) REGARDING THE CASE OF
LEYLA ZANA
SELIM SADAK
SEDAT YURTDAS
HATIP DICLE
MEHMET SINCAR
MAHMUT ALINAK
AHMET TURK
ORHAN DOGAN
SIRRI SAKIK
IBRAHIM AKSOY
FORMER DEPUTY FOR DIYARBAKIR
FORMER DEPUTY FOR SIRNAK
FORMER DEPUTY FOR DIYARBAKIR
FORMER DEPUTY FOR DIYARBAKIR
FORMER DEPUTY FOR MARDIN
FORMER DEPUTY FOR KARS
FORMER DEPUTY FOR MARDIN
FORMER DEPUTY FOR SIRNAK
FORMER DEPUTY FOR MUS
FORMER DEPUTY FOR MALATYA

A. MANDATE AND COURSE OF THE MISSION

At its 72nd session, held in Geneva from 22 to 26 January 1996, the Committee expressed the wish to pursue with the Turkish authorities, on the occasion of its 73rd session to be held in conjunction with the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Istanbul, the dialogue it had initiated during the mission to Turkey in January 1995, regarding the cases of the above former MPs. It also attached particular importance to meeting with the former MPs themselves. The Committee expressed its preference for such a visit to take place prior to its Istanbul session, on 11 and 12 April 1996. It designated its Vice-Chairperson, Senator Hugo Batalla, and the Hon. Clyde Holding as members of such a delegation, to be accompanied by the Committee's Secretary Ms. Schwarz and two interpreters.

On 6 March, the Turkish authorities agreed to the visit, which consequently took place on 11 and 12 April 1996.

The delegation was able to meet with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mehmet Agar. The meeting originally scheduled with the President of the Turkish National Group, Mr. Irfan Köksalan, proved impossible owing to his engagements in connection with the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Istanbul and finally took place during the Committee's session in Istanbul. The requested meeting with the Minister or Minister of State for Human Rights did not take place since the newly established Turkish Government does not comprise such a post.

The delegation was further able to meet with the following persons:

  • Ms. Leyla Zana, Mr. Hatip Dicle, Mr. Orhan Dogan, Mr. Selim Sadak and Mr.Ibrahim Aksoy at Ulunçalar Prison (Ankara State Security Prison)
  • Mr. Ahmet Türk and Mr. Sirri Sakik
  • Mr. Yusuf Alatas, lawyer of the former MPs concerned
  • Mrs. Cihan Sinçar

The delegation wishes to thank the Turkish authorities for enabling it to carry out this visit. It wishes in particular to thank the Minister of Justice and the President of the Turkish IPU Group for sharing their views with the delegation. It is especially appreciative of the fact that the delegation was authorized to meet the former MPs concerned in prison for a sufficient length of time without the presence of any witness.

B. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS

1. Minister of Justice

The discussion started with the delegation recalling the IPU's and the Committee's concern at the situation of the MPs in question in particular as regards their expulsion from Parliament and the closure of their party. The delegation pointed out that IPU's concerns were shared by the European Union and the Council of Europe. In view of the fact that the case of four of them (Zana, Dicle, Dogan and Sadak) is currently pending before the European Commission of Human Rights, the delegation wished to ascertain the possibility of their being released pending the procedure before that international jurisdiction. It also wished to ascertain the stage reached in the investigations into the murder of Mr. Sinçar in September 1993. Finally, it expressed the wish to be able to meet with the imprisoned former MPs in the most unrestricted way.

In response to this, the Minister stressed that the Turkish judiciary was independent and that its verdict could not be called in question by anybody, including the Government. In this connection, he qualified the Turkish judges as "the safest public servants". He regretted that former MPs were imprisoned, but MPs, as lawmakers, should know that they have to abide by the law. He added that "we would like no guns to be used and people to stop treading the wrong path". In this connection he stated that there were no problems with legally organized bodies: "People should voice their views democratically; the Constitution makes this possible at the political level."

He also referred to the current military offensive in the south-east of Turkey, stating that there was a misunderstanding: military measures were necessary since a democratic country had to safeguard its citizens and the indivisibility of its territory. No country could tolerate armed attacks. In this connection, he underlined the geo-strategic importance of Turkey and the importance of peace in the region for peace in Europe. He said that the Government made all possible efforts to solve the situation. Turkey had made its choice, namely that of a complete integration into Europe as a democratic and secular State. His Ministry was working hard on drafting new legislation consistent with European standards and likely to improve the situation.

He stated further that the problem in the south-east was one not of law and order but of economic and social order. He stated that a programme of economic reforms was being carried out in the south-eastern parts of Turkey, e.g. one of the country's biggest hydroelectric schemes. Economic growth in the region would ultimately bring about the solution of many problems existing in the region. One must be patient and fight patiently for the realization of human rights. One must find a solution shared by the people living in the region.

As regards the delegation's question whether the former MPs might be released pending the procedure before the European Human Rights Commission, he stated that this was impossible under the prevailing law. However, the MPs concerned had every opportunity of preparing their defence.

Regarding progress in the investigations into the murder of Mr. Sinçar, he said that the identity of the murderer had been established. However, that person, who was a member of the fundamentalist "Hezbollah", was currently living in Iran.

After authorizing the full delegation to visit the former MPs in prison, including the Committee's Secretary and Mr. Batalla's Aide de Camp, he stated that the visit would take place in the most liberal way. He stressed that this was a special authorization, given the fact that normally only relatives were allowed visits.

2. Meeting with the President of the Turkish National Group, Mr. Irfan Köksalan

For the reasons given earlier, the meeting with the President of the Turkish National Group took place during the Committee's session held in conjunction with the 95th IPU Conference in Istanbul.

The delegation first made a point of clearly voicing its rejection of terrorism. It then asserted that the former MPs were, by virtue of their mandate, bound to represent the views of their constituents and, as representatives of south-east Turkey, they had a duty to raise the problems affecting that part of the country in Parliament, which they regarded as the appropriate forum for working on a political solution to the conflict. The delegation also stressed its view that Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin should fully enjoy their cultural rights and be able to hand down their culture and language to their children. It asserted its views that such demands were not tantamount to separatist claims; a political solution to the "Kurdish question" could only stem from negotiations with democratically elected MPs of Kurdish background. That would be difficult to achieve, the delegation said, if prospective participants in such negotiations were given harsh and oppressive sentences.

The President of the Turkish National Group stated that ten years previously there had been no Kurdish problem. Only with the emergence of the PKK had problems arisen. He pointed out that about a third of the members of the TGNA had always been of Kurdish origin, that he had campaigned for the last elections together with people of Kurdish origin and that out of the 32 Ministers serving in the current Government, seven were of Kurdish origin. "Our people of Kurdish origin", he said, is not a minority". There was no difference between them and himself. They had the right to exercise their political and economic rights and enjoyed all their cultural rights. They could wear their colours, though not in Parliament. Nobody was prosecuted for speaking Kurdish. Kurds could marry according to their traditions and could celebrate the Newroz feast; in one instance the former Prime Minister Ciller even celebrated it with them. There was a confusion as to the real meaning of minority and cultural rights, a conceptual confusion.

He then referred to the oath-taking ceremony when Parliament convened for the first time after the 1991 elections and said that the MPs in question all arrived with the Kurdish colours displayed somewhere on their outfit, that they took their oath in Kurdish and only took it in Turkish after being warned by the Chairman, the MP of the longest standing, himself of Kurdish origin. It was the Social-Democratic Party under the presidency of Mr. Inönü which had made their entry into Parliament possible. He had seen the extent of Mr. Inönü's suffering and humiliation that day. However, all that was no justification for prosecuting or detaining those MPs.

He then said that the 450 and now 540 MPs of the TGNA were representatives firstly of the Nation as a whole and secondly of their region. He was from the rural parts of Ankara and knew that economic assistance to the south-east was far in excess of that granted to other regions of Turkey, while machines were destroyed, schools burned, and teachers killed as a result of PKK terrorism. In his constituency, an officer or a soldier was lost daily in the conflict. At the funerals their own people had shouted at them: "The PKK is in Parliament".

He continued by stating that the MPs concerned had been mostly absent from the parliamentary sessions. According to the rules, a member absent at five sessions in a month would be questioned by the President, who had nevertheless not exercised that right. Only a minority of them attended the sessions, put questions and proposals to the Government. Ministers answered and troubles arose, with MPs attacking each other physically so that sometimes the Ministers themselves had to separate them. Those were the difficulties they faced in Parliament.

Then the judiciary took over. The issue was not a mere political one, it was an issue of the survival of Turkey, it was a separatist issue fuelled by external forces. The judiciary had given its verdict. The case was now before the European Commission of Human Rights. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and the individual complaints procedure, Turkey was bound by a decision of the Court and would respect it. "Turkey will do whatever is necessary in view of our membership in that organization."

Finally, responding to a question of the delegation, he stressed that the different sentences handed down on the MPs concerned, who had all originally been prosecuted for treason and separatism, crimes carrying the death penalty, was the best proof of the independence of the Turkish judiciary, which decided only on the basis of firm evidence.

3. Meeting with the former MPs

(a) Meeting with those imprisoned

The delegation was able to meet with Ms. Leyla Zana, Mr. Hatip Dicle, Mr. Orhan Dogan, Mr. Selim Sadak and Mr. Ibrahim Aksoy at Ulunçalar Prison (Ankara State Security Prison ?) between approximately 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. without any witnesses being present. The meeting took place in a small courtyard adjacent to the kitchen which the MPs concerned may use. The delegation did not see the cells which they share. It was informed that Ms. Zana was being held in separate quarters within the prison.

The delegation wished in particular to ascertain their present conditions of detention and to hear their views on the possible outcome of the proceedings still under way.

Conditions of detention

They stated that they had no particular complaints about their conditions of detention. They spent most of the day inside and part of it outside in the courtyard. They were allowed to buy and cook their own food. Once a week they were able to meet their families, but in "closed meetings". Ms. Zana said that her husband had been released in January and was now living in England. Her two children were living in France. On one occasion, when her elder son was visiting her, he was detained for some time without any reason known to her. She is not authorized to telephone her children or her husband. None of them was allowed to make telephone calls.

They stressed that their conditions had become acceptable and recalled in this respect that they had been held, during their first five and a half months of detention in a cell measuring 30 square metres without any of the facilities they now enjoyed, such as a toilet and a kitchen. It was only due to international pressure, in particular from a counsellor of Mr. Clinton, that their conditions had changed.

Observations regarding the past trial and proceedings before the European Human Rights Commission

As regards their views on the possible outcome of the judicial proceedings still pending, they started by referring to the atmosphere in which their trial had taken place and stressed in this respect that, since becoming MPs in October 1991 till the end of their trial and even after, they had been the target of a Government-instigated campaign. They were described as terrorists, murderers and people aiming at a division of the State. They had already been judged even before the start of the trial.

For that reason alone their trial had been unfair. In addition, no evidence for the allegations put forward by the Court had been given and the defence evidence had not been investigated. The accusations were only linked to political actions and declarations and opinions expressed in Parliament. The State knew perfectly well that the DEP and they themselves had no organic link with the PKK. In addition, the judgment was not handed down by an independent court since one of the three persons sitting on the court was a military officer. In that connection, they stated that the new Minister of Justice had declared his intention to re-create 63 such courts. They stated further that most of the prosecution witnesses were members of village guards, made up of confessors. One of those had killed eight soldiers and a prosecutor. In spite of having been sentenced to life imprisonment, he had been released upon the intervention of the then Prime Minister. Being questioned about the use of tapped telephone conversations as prosecution evidence, they stated that this evidence had been rejected by the Court. They further pointed out that the decision of the Cassation Court had been announced on TV by the Head of the Armed Forces, General Dures. They also pointed to the discriminatory treatment inflicted upon them: while the murderers of 37 persons killed in Sivas in July 1993 also sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment were released after only four years, they still had nine years to serve.

They felt that the State, by instituting the trial against them, wanted to intimidate future candidates for election to the TGNA in the region. It also sought to prevent them from publicizing through their activities as MPs - nationally and internationally - the anti-democratic behaviour of the State.

As regards the proceedings before the European Human Rights Commission, they reported that at the end of February 1996, the Commission had declared the case admissible. The Turkish Government was now bound to provide its observations within 90 days. They believe that the Commission, whose decision is not binding, will suggest a gentleman's agreement. Since, in their view, the Turkish Government will not agree to this, the case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.

General observations regarding the "Kurdish question"

The MPs reiterated that the Turkish State, over the past 70 years, had been unable to solve the Kurdish question. The Turkish State was carrying out a policy of assimilation. If a Kurd in Turkey said that he was a Turk, he had no problem and could even become a Minister. However, if a Kurd said that he was a Kurd and claimed rights deriving from national and international norms, he or she was considered guilty. Kurds were not allowed to use their language, to practise their culture, to live with their history and to exercise their political rights. In recent years, political parties established by Kurds, such as HEP, OZDEP, DEP and DDP, had been banned because they publicly raised the Kurdish question. HADEP, the successor party of DEP, was under strong pressure and threatened with closure. More than 100 people belonging to the leadership of the above parties had been assassinated without their murderers ever being identified. Kurds were unable to set up associations. Whenever Kurds sought to assert their identity, they were treated as separatists. The PKK was a result of that policy. Had there been a dialogue, the PKK would not exist. If there was no support from the population, the PKK would not exist. The PKK was the most radical fringe of the Kurdish population fighting for recognition.

They told the delegation that when they first became MPs, the Kurdish colours (red, green and yellow) were banned in the region with a special decree replacing the green of the traffic lights by blue. They introduced the Kurdish colours into Parliament simply by means of their clothing, while the propaganda said that Turkish MPs had taken the Kurdish flag to Parliament.

The State's policy towards the Kurds was one of violence: in the past five years, 3,000 Kurdish villages had been burned and 4,000 civilians had been killed. 53% of the budget was devoted to the war in the south-east.

The new Prime Minister Yilmaz had stated that unless the Kurdish question was solved, no other problem could be solved. However, they were uncertain of his intentions since the policy of assimilation was still continuing.

Political demands

As regards their political demands, Ms. Leyla Zana stated that they were not questioning the boundaries of Turkey: "At a time of globalization, why should we want to shut ourselves up in a small State ?" Their ideal was a federal system, a system comparable to that of Belgium. The Constitution should be modified so as to secure the recognition of the Kurds therein. Kurdish children should have the right to be taught their language; their cultural rights should be recognized; Kurds should be part of Parliament with their identity; they should have the right to create parties and associations; local government should be reinforced; the governors and local security chiefs should be elected. It should be possible to say without ending up in jail: "I am of Turkish nationality, but I do not belong to the same ethnic group."

Situation of Mr. Aksoy

Mr. Aksoy stated that he had been sentenced under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act for what he had said and written. He had been sentenced by the State Security Courts of Konya and Istanbul. Konya had sentenced him to 20 months and Istanbul to 24 months in jail. During his imprisonment, on 17 November 1995, the judgment of the Konya Court was reviewed owing to the modification of Article 8 and his sentence was reduced to 10 months. On 30 November 1995, the Istanbul Court reviewed its first judgment and stated that its former judgment was no longer applicable and that he should be released. Thus, two different sentences based on the same law had been handed down on him.

He referred to one of the offending statements. As Secretary General of HEP, at the time when he was MP, he had said in a speech delivered in Konya that HEP was the party of the oppressed. Asked whether the HEP was therefore the party of the Kurds, he had answered: "if the Kurds are oppressed, we are also the party of the Kurds."

(b) The meeting with Mr. Türk and Mr. Sakik

Mr. Türk and Mr. Sakik echoed what their imprisoned colleagues had said, namely that they had no intention of dividing the country; they strove for the recognition of the Kurdish language, culture and identity; they did not belong to any armed organization and they had consistently condemned violence.

They pointed out, in particular, that at the beginning they had been eight MPs, all accused of the same crime of separatism and treason, and that the Prosecutor had demanded the death sentence. Four of them had finally been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and four to 14 months' imprisonment despite the similarity of their situations and the evidence against them. For example, the appeal addressed to the United Nations Office in Ankara had been signed by all of them. In their view, this showed the purely political nature of the judgment.

They stated that since the inception of the Turkish State, no political decision had been taken without the approval of the military. No proposal from the National High Security Council had ever been turned down.

Despite the pressures and threats against them, both had stood as candidates in the December 1995 elections. Both had won a majority of the votes in their respective constituencies although prevented from campaigning. Mr. Sakik was shot at on his first visit to his constituency, as a result of which he did not return. Mr. Türk reported that he had decided not to travel to his constituency on learning that the villagers were threatened with the burning of their village should they vote for him. Both stressed that, despite these obstacles, their party had won a majority in the region.

4. Meeting with Mr. Yusuf Alatas, lawyer of the MPs concerned, except Mr. Aksoy

Mr. Alatas stated that, on 17 January 1996, all judicial remedies at the national level having been exhausted, he had submitted an application to the European Commission of Human Rights, regarding the judgment handed down on Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak. The application is based on Articles 3 (freedom from torture and ill-treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security of the person), 6 (fair trial), 9 (freedom of thought), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (right to freedom of association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He pointed out that in 1987 Turkey had ratified the individual complaints procedure and accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey was therefore obliged to abide by a decision of the Court, which was binding. However, apart form political pressure, in particular from Council of Europe countries, there was no mechanism obliging Turkey to carry out a decision of the Court. He felt that if the MPs concerned were released owing to a decision of the European Commission or Court, this would constitute an encouragement for all those believing in the need for change.

As regards the trial of Mr. Türk, Mr. Yurtdas, Mr. Alinak and Mr. Sakik, he informed the delegation that at a hearing held in the morning of 11 April, the Court had handed down its judgment, sentencing the four former MPs under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act to 14 months' imprisonment and a fine. Any sentence under this Article exceeding 12 months' imprisonment entailed permanent loss of political rights and the right to exercise certain professions, such as that of a lawyer. Therefore, the convicts were deprived for the rest of their lives of their political rights, thus being unable to stand in elections; and Mr. Alinak and Mr. Yurtdas, who were lawyers, were banned from exercising their profession for the rest of their lives. In this connection, he pointed out that the Court had the right to reduce a sentence by a sixth. Had it made use of that right, the convicts would have been sentenced to less than 12 months and thus have retained their political rights. Mr. Alatas will appeal against this decision to the Court of Cassation.

He quoted from the Court transcript of two offending statements made by Mr. Türk and Mr. Sakik in which they both stressed their acceptance of the integrity and indivisibility of the Turkish State. (Mr. Sakik: "I see the country as a unity where coexistence is possible; a country where everybody can live in democratic conditions and we want everybody to be able to do that. I want to live in unity and peaceful coexistence together with Turks." Mr. Türk: "I believe, that the Kurdish problem can be discussed in a democratic context and also that our relations can be peaceful. As I said in many speeches: if we are unable to discuss, a solution will not be found and Turkey's future will be dark").

Mr. Alatas reported also that the Court had considered as offending an appeal to the United Nations Office in Ankara calling for an end of the state of emergency in the south-east, signed in 1992 by many, including the MPs concerned, as well as an appeal to the OSCE regarding the burning of villages.

Moreover, referring to the administration of evidence by Ankara State Security Court, he told the delegation that a request of the Court to produce two witnesses detained in prison was refused by the prison in question, the prison officials stating that the detainees concerned were away on a "special mission".

Furthermore, he referred to the judgment regarding Mr. Alinak in which the Court stated that such a thing as the Kurdish language did not exist. "If one deduced all Turkish words from Kurdish, there remained only 250 words."

Mr. Alatas further expressed his apprehension as to the appointment of Mr. Agar as Minister of Justice. Mr. Agar had before been Director of the Police and the Security and as such responsible for the miscarriage of justice, among others in the case of the many killings of the leaders of Kurdish parties. He expressed his fear that the conditions of detention of Ms. Zana etc. might become more severe and that they might be separated and sent to prisons in different parts of the country.

5. Meeting with Mrs. Cihan Sinçar

Mrs. Sinçar stated that her husband had been elected in 1991 as deputy for Mardin. Originally, the population had asked his father to stand for election. However, in view of his age, he had refused and asked his son to be a candidate. Her husband, who wanted to serve his electorate, had spoken in the TGNA of the burning of villages, killings of people and destruction of cattle. Twenty days before he was killed, the police came three times to his father's home, where she was living at the time with her three children, and searched the house. The last time, they took Mr. Sinçar's father, then aged 80, to the police station and told him to dissuade his son, who was staying in Ankara, from returning to the region. They told him that his son would meet the same fate as his two brothers, who had joined the PKK and both been killed. The police released his father after holding him for seven days in custody.

When two members of the HEP were shot in Batman, her husband decided to go there. He first went to Diyarbakir together with a friend, the brother of one of the persons killed. On their arrival by plane, the police were there and took the friend away. The police were accompanied by a "confessor". Mr. Sinçar then went to the police to find out what had happened to his friend. There, he again met the same "confessor" together with a colleague. The next morning, her husband went to Batman. He talked to her by telephone and gave her his telephone number; it was their last conversation. At about 5 p.m. the wife of Mr. Ahmet Türk called her to tell her that her husband had been killed. Mrs. Sinçar stated that her husband had been shot ten times in one of the main streets and that he had been left for half an hour on the pavement. Eye witnesses reported that he had been shot by four masked people. One of them had come very close to her husband. The post-mortem revealed that one of the shots had been fired at a range of 5 cm only. She stressed that, although the murder had been committed in broad daylight and in a place with a usually heavy police presence owing to the state of emergency in the region, and although there was a police station 100 m from the place of the crime, no police had been in the vicinity when her husband was killed. She herself had previously visited Batman and immediately been surrounded by police.

She stated that for three years she had received no information about the investigations into the murder of her husband. She did not believe that the Hezbollah had killed her husband; the organization had expressly denied any involvement in the murder.

As regards financial compensation, she stated that for one year she had received nothing. Now she was receiving 20 million Turkish pounds (US$ 275) a month. She was not entitled to any retirement benefits. The director of the TGNA's retirement fund had told her that she was not entitled to draw any benefits from the fund since her husband had not served a full two years as an MP and no authorization to the contrary had been issued by the President of the TGNA.

She reported that she had stood for election in December 1995 on a HADEP ticket despite receiving many death threats. She had won a majority of votes in Mardin. However, owing to the 10% national-level threshold, she could not enter Parliament. She was now working for HADEP in a leading position.

6. Final remarks of the delegation as endorsed by the Committee

1. The Committee is gratified to note that the conditions of imprisonment are acceptable and that the former MPs themselves consider them satisfactory. It nevertheless notes with concern that Ms. Zana, whose family is now living abroad, may not telephone her children and that, on one occasion, one of her sons who visited her in prison was briefly detained and that she does not know why. The Committee strongly hopes that family members exercising their right to visit the MPs in prison will not be intimidated in any manner and that ways will be found of enabling Ms. Zana to maintain contact with her children, if only by telephone.

2. The Committee noted with great interest that, according to the Minister of Justice, there were no problems with legally organized bodies and that "People should voice their views democratically; the Constitution makes this possible at the political level." It cannot but stress that the former DEP deputies were democratically elected; that three of them who were able to stand for re-election in December 1995 obtained many votes in their constituencies, despite the many obstacles to their campaign. The Committee notes that the former MPs did not belong to any separatist organization and they recognize their Turkish citizenship. In the opinion of the Committee, the former MPs were voicing their views and that of their electorate democratically. It therefore wonders what in the eyes of the Turkish Government constitutes democratic expression permitting Turkish citizens of Kurdish background to raise and discuss matters relating to the assertion of Kurdish cultural identity and the many human rights violations being committed in south-east Turkey.

3. The Committee is unable to dispel its concerns regarding the fairness of the trial, in particular the right of the defence to present its case and the administration of evidence. It notes, however, that the case of Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak is pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. It notes in this respect the clear stand of the President of the Turkish National Group as to Turkey's obligation to abide by a decision of the jurisdiction established under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Committee also notes decision N° 40/1995, adopted by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, whereby the detention of the MPs concerned was declared arbitrary, and the fact that the Working Group requested the Government of Turkey to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into line with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It hopes that the MPs concerned may be released pending the proceedings of the European Commission of Human Rights.

4. It notes that Mr. Türk, Mr. Yurtdas, Mr. Alinak and Mr. Sakik were sentenced, on 11 April 1996, at the close of their re-trial before Ankara State Security Court, to 14 months' imprisonment under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act for separatist propaganda. It notes with great concern that as a consequence of their being sentenced to a prison term exceeding 12 months, they will be deprived of their political rights for life and that Mr. Alinak and Mr. Yurtdas, who are both lawyers, will be debarred for life from exercising their profession. It also notes in this connection that the judge had the right to reduce the sentence by a sixth, which would have been brought down to under 12 months and therefore would not have had the same consequences.

The Committee considers that owing to these consequences the sentences become harsh and oppressive, which seems to reflect a deliberate attempt to prevent these former MPs from engaging in any future political activity. It nevertheless notes that they have the right to appeal against the decision and that they will exercise it.

5. It notes that the eight former MPs all were indicted under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which states that "any person who carries out any action with the aim of bringing all or part of the territory of the Turkish State under the sovereignty of a foreign State or to separate any part of the territory from the control of the Turkish State, shall be punished by death". It notes also that the evidence brought against them in their trial was essentially of the same nature. Nevertheless, four of them were found guilty of belonging to a terrorist organization and four of conducting separatist propaganda. It notes that, in the view of the authorities, this illustrates the independence of the Turkish judiciary while, in the eyes of the deputies, the characterization of the crimes and the convictions delivered responded more to political than to legal considerations.

The Committee cannot but express its perplexity at the considerable differences that exist between the sentences handed down on each of the MPs in respect of similar charges and prosecution evidence.

6. The Committee expresses concern that the MPs concerned may have been prosecuted for having exercised their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It notes in this respect that the European Parliament recommends the suppression of Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

7. Finally, the Committee notes that the murderer of Mr. Sinçar has been identified; that, however, he is no longer in Turkey. It deeply regrets once again the circumstances of Mr. Sinçar's murder, which was perpetrated in broad daylight in a region with a usually heavy police presence, and that, despite the authorities' frequent assertions that the police had identified the culprits and even, in one instance, apprehended the look-out man, the police were unable to arrest the killer. The Committee also hopes that the Turkish Parliament will be able to make an exception and provide retirement benefits to Mrs. Sinçar.


Human rights of parliamentarians | Home page | Main areas of activity | Structure and functioning