The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the outline of the case of the above-mentioned parliamentarians, former members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/174/12(b)-R.2), and to its resolution adopted at its 173rd session (October 2003),

Taking account of a communication from the President of the Turkish IPU Group dated 13 April 2004,

Taking account further of the information provided by the sources on 27 and 30 October, 7 November 2003 and 14 January 2004, including a copy of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) trial observers' report,

Recalling that, apart from Mr. Sinçar, whose assassination in September 1993 has remained unpunished, the persons concerned lost their parliamentary mandates as a result of the banning of the political party to which they belonged; six went into exile and the others were sentenced to prison terms which four of them, Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak, who were sentenced in December 1994 to a 15year prison term, are still serving; in its judgment of 17 July 2001 on their case, the European Court of Human Rights found, inter alia, that "they suffered such violations of their right to defence that they did not enjoy a fair trial" and granted them an equitable satisfaction,

Recalling that, in January 2003, the Turkish Parliament passed legislation permitting the retrial of Leyla Zana et al., which opened on 28 March 2003 before the Ankara State Security Court,

Considering that, according to the President of the Turkish IPU Group, “the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are of a descriptive nature and only determine whether there is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR in the case of Zana and others. Nevertheless, the Turkish Court’s original judgment will remain valid until the retrial procedure is concluded”; noting in this regard that the Court has on all occasions dismissed the request for a suspension of the execution of their prison sentence and for their release on bail,

Considering the observations made by members of the European Parliament attending the trial and the trial observer report from the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), according to which the Court failed to respect the principle of equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence and "…was neither independent nor impartial"; the ICJ report noted in this regard a clear violation of the presumption of innocence given that (i) the president of the Court had commented in open Court that "the deficiencies and mistakes identified by the European Court of Human Rights will not change the guilt of the accused", (ii) the defendants had frequently been referred to as the "convicted" ("hukumlu"), (iii) on 20 June 2003, the Court refused the application for release of the defendants on the basis that the conviction given in 1994 was still valid; the report also noted serious fair trial deficiencies with respect to the layout of the Court, the examination of witnesses, the recording of legal submissions of the defence and statements of the defendants, the opportunity for the defence to adduce relevant evidence, the failure of the prosecution to disclose material evidence against the accused, and the lack of continuity of the judges' panel,

Considering also that, on 20 November 2003, the four persons concerned filed a petition in the European Court of Human rights complaining that their retrial lacked fair trial guarantees,

Considering finally that, on 21 April 2004, the Ankara State Security Court handed down its judgment, upholding the conviction of Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Sadak and Mr. Dogan and their sentencing to 15 years’ imprisonment; the verdict drew widespread international criticism, notably from the European Parliament, which had monitored the trial; the defence counsel intended to appeal the verdict,

1. Thanks the President of the Turkish IPU Group for his letter of 13 April 2004;

2. Is shocked that, as shown in the detailed trial observer reports, the sentence handed down on Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Sadak and Mr. Dogan was once again the outcome of proceedings patently failing to respect the fair trial guarantees laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which Turkey is bound to respect as a party thereto;

3. Affirms that, if they are to make sense, retrial proceedings must respect all fair trial guarantees, in particular the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to present their defence and thus to clear themselves of the charges against them;

4. Considers therefore that the retrial proceedings were fundamentally flawed from the outset, given not only that the presiding Judge had taken part in the original proceedings and openly stated his conviction of the guilt of the accused, but also that the authorities claim validity of the original judgment until conclusion of the retrial proceedings, when the European Court of Human Rights had disposed of its legal foundations by ruling that it was the outcome of an unfair trial;

5. Considers that the failure to respect the presumption of innocence, coupled with the bias displayed by the court throughout the proceedings in favour of the prosecution, reflects profound disregard for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which gave rise to the retrial in the first place, and hence for Turkey’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights;

6. Again urges the competent authorities to release forthwith the four former MPs, who have already served 10 years in prison as a result of an unfair trial; urges the Turkish Grand National Assembly to use all its powers to that end;

7. Notes that the four former parliamentarians concerned have once more taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights; wishes to ascertain whether the Court will examine the case as a matter of urgency given that the implementation of an earlier judgment is at issue;

8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the Turkish parliamentary and other competent authorities and to the Council of Europe;

9. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 111th Assembly (September-October 2004).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 110th IPU Assembly and related meetings in PDF format (file size 540K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS