PLACE DU PETIT-SACONNEX
1211 GENEVA 19, SWITZERLAND
| INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION PLACE DU PETIT-SACONNEX 1211 GENEVA 19, SWITZERLAND |
|
TURKEY
Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary
Council
Referring to the outline of the case, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/164/13(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 163rd session (September 1998) concerning the case of the above-mentioned parliamentarians, former members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Recalling that Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak, who are currently serving the 15-year prison sentence handed down on them in December 1994, were never accused of any acts of violence or advocacy of violence; that the verdict relied heavily on the deputies' public speeches and writings quoted in the indictment - in which they repeatedly assert the Kurdish minority to be a group with a distinct identity but do not advocate violence - as evidence of their membership of the PKK; that the acts relied on in the judgment as evidence of membership of the PKK include: a press statement in connection with the taking of the parliamentary oath; the " wearing of yellow, green and red accessories " while taking the oath; a public statement to the United Nations on 2 April 1992 calling for investigation into the killing of civilians during disturbances at the time of Newruz, the Kurdish New Year, of 21 March 1992, and a petition of 20 November 1991 to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe calling for that organisation to appoint a body to monitor human rights in Turkey, Recalling that contacts which Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak reportedly had with PKK members and in particular Mr. Abdullah Öcalan were considered by Ankara State Security Court which tried them inter alia as proof of their membership of the PKK; noting in this connection that some of them had admitted having met Mr. Öcalan in Damascus in early 1993, however, with the blessing of the then Head of State, Mr. Turgut Özal; recalling further that, in his letter of 30 June 1998, the President of the Turkish National Group had said he failed to understand why the Committee and indeed the Council had relied on speculations regarding the alleged blessing given by President Özal to a mission to Damascus, Noting in this connection that, on 18 September 1992, Hürriyet published an article under the title " Özal calls for a ceasefire " which reports in the following terms about a meeting President Özal had with Mr. Alinak, Mr. Sakik and Mr. Dogan: " After his meeting with the HEP deputies, the President of the Republic declared that if the arms were to fall silent, certain steps could be envisaged. ... His statement was interpreted as a call for a ceasefire. It is understood that this appeal was to be conveyed by the HEP deputies after their Congress to the leader of the PKK, Mr. Öcalan. The President of the Republic said on the occasion of his meeting with the three HEP deputies that the situation was very dangerous; it might well worsen and hence something had to be done ... ", Considering that according to a report that Mr. Dicle issued from prison, the record of the trials pending against him and judgments handed down on him for articles he has published in the press since his imprisonment is as follows: (i) Sentenced under Article 312/2 of the Turkish Penal Code to 2 years and 4 months in prison by State Security Court (DGM) N° 3 of Istanbul, decision upheld by the Court of Cassation, for an article entitled " The Attatürk International Peace Prize " published on 31 May 1995 by Yeni Politika; this case is currently before the European Commission on Human Rights; (ii) Sentenced under Article 8/1 of Law N° 3713 to one year in prison by DGM N° 2 of Ankara for an article in a book published by the IHD (Turkish Human Rights Association) entitled " Human Rights Panorama "; this decision was overruled by the Court of Cassation, which called for a heavier sentence under Article 312 of the Penal Code; the trial is still under way; (iii) Sentenced to 4 months in prison by DGM N° 2 of Ankara, a decision upheld by the Court of Cassation, for an article entitled " Hear the cry of humanity from the thousands in prison " published on 26 July 1995 in Yeni Politika; (iv) Sentenced to 2 years in prison by DGM N° 2 of Istanbul for an article entitled " The drama of Dersim " published in Ülkede Gündem on 4 August 1997; this case is currently before the Court of Cassation; (v) The other trials against him by the Istanbul DGM, which is calling for 1 to 3 years' imprisonment, are as follows:
Considering that the conditions of detention of the former deputies concerned are said to have significantly deteriorated; that, thus, not only are they reportedly no longer authorised to receive visits from foreign delegations (including one from the European Parliament) but also the visits of their families are subject to increasing restrictions; that, henceforth, only direct family members are authorised to one half-hour visit per week in a partitioned visiting room; that " open " visits have reportedly been prohibited for over a year, even on the occasion of traditional holidays when they are granted for ordinary prisoners; that medical visits are likewise said to be increasingly difficult and accompanied by harassment, insults and ill-treatment; that Ms. Zana, in protest against this treatment, reportedly refuses visits to the military hospital under a military escort; that her state of health has apparently worsened; that the authorities are believed to want to punish her for her refusal to be released on medical grounds without her colleagues being released at the same time, Recalling finally that the case of Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak is still pending before the European Court of Human Rights, Considering the constant affirmation of the Turkish parliamentary authorities that Turkey is making every effort to bring its law and practice into line with European human rights standards, including freedom of speech, Mindful of the interpretation given to the right to freedom of expression by the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in Handyside v. UK (1976), whereby this right is not only applicable to " information " or " ideas " that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population; that such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no " democratic society ",
|
