DEFENSE OF TURKISH GOVERNMENT: ''DEFENSE RIGHT OF HEAD TERRORIST PRESERVED TOTALLY''

STRASBOURG - Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) started on Wednesday hearing the case of Abdullah Ocalan, the head of the terrorist organization.
Lawyer Sukru Alparslan made defense of the Turkish government.
Alparslan said ECHR in its ruling last March had said that Turkey violated Articles 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) 5 (detention) and 6 (fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Alparslan said there was not military judge in the State Security Court (DGM) judging and sentencing Ocalan, and stressed that defense right of the applicant was totally preserved. He said Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not violated.
Speaking about an accusation that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated, Alpaslan said this decision of the Section 4 of the ECHR did not have example.
Alparslan said Turkey had not executed death sentence since 1984 and that Turkey had lifted death sentence at the date when ECHR decision was taken. He said the Turkish government did not sent the application file to the Parliament being faithful to the precautionary measure of the ECHR.
Stating that Ocalan could not have any concerns that death sentence would be executed, Alparslan said, ''thus, the agreement was not violated.''
In his defense regarding Article 5, Alparslan said there were influential internal ways which the applicant could apply against custody decision and called on Section 4 to re-evaluate its assessments.
Panel of ECHR comprised of five judges had evaluated the applications of Turkey and the lawyers of Abdullah Ocalan and last July accepted hearing of the case before Grand Chamber comprised of 17 judges.
Section 4 of the ECHR claimed that Turkey violated the first and third paragraphs of Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). It later did not find sufficient replacement of civilian judge with military judge after starting of hearings, and considered that necessary opportunities and time were not given for defense.
The Court also held in its judgement that ''there had been a violation of Article 5/3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) given the failure to bring the applicant before a judge promptly after his arrest; a violation of Article 5/4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) given the lack of a remedy by which the applicant could have the lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided.'' It claimed that custody period of the head of the terrorist organization was long before he was brought to court.
Regarding Article 2 of right to life, the court said Turkey did not violate Article 2 (right to life).
The court considered Ocalan's trial with a call for death sentence as violation of Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) of the Convention.
Strasbourg court rejected the complaints that Ocalan was transferred from Kenya to Turkey illegally and exposed to discrimination.
Finally the Court held, unanimously, that no separate examination was necessary of the applicant's remaining complaints under Articles 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).
ECHR listened to the views of the applicant and Turkish government on November 21, 2000. In its ruling on Dec. 14, 2000, the Court found admissible the applications regarding Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights asking the sides to present their written views about these provisions.
The Court had also asked Turkey to postpone execution of death penalty (after the end of trial in Turkey) by taking a precautionary decision until the head terrorist's case on ECHR was concluded.
In case Grand Chamber of ECHR decides that Ocalan was not tried fairly, Council of Europe may call Turkey to re-try the head of the terrorist organization.
After ECHR decision that Leyla Zana and her friends were not judged fairly, Council of Europe asked Turkey to hear the case again.
(AY-AÖ) 09.06.2004