BY ISMET BERKAN
RADIKAL- The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled yesterday that the trial of Abdullah Ocalan was unfair, and urged a retrial. The ECHR argued that Turkish authorities had violated international treaties by denying Ocalan a fair and independent trial. Let the jurists discuss the details and complexities of this ruling. I have three simple questions in mind, and I’d like to share them with you.
The first is this: Ocalan is the most important criminal and the most notorious murderer inTurkish history. What does Turkey’s failure to try him in line with international standards mean?
Thousands of terrorists were tried by the State Security Courts (DGM) [an institution since abolished] in this country. Most of them were PKK militants. Nearly all of the convicted applied to the ECHR, and they won their cases because one of the judges in the cases was always from the military. In addition, the ECHR usually ruled that 15 days, the time given the defense to prepare for trial, was insufficient and that the Turkish courts had violated these defendants’ right to a fair trial.
We were all familiar with the case law of the ECHR, but we didn’t care. However, as soon as Ocalan was caught, the Constitution was immediately amended and the military judge was replaced by a civilian one. However, the trial procedures did not change at all and the defense had no additional time to prepare.
Despite the constitutional amendment, a military judge sat through most of the Ocalan trials because it took longer than expected to put the amendment into force. In the meantime, Turkey failed to give a fair trial to Ocalan, the biggest outlaw in Turkish history.
Let me ask the question one more time: What does it mean that we denied even Ocalan a fair and independent trial?
Here’s my second question: What does it mean to deprive 90 people, whose only fault was to be tried at the same as the terrorist leader, of the right to retrial?
Let me give you the answer: This is nothing but discrimination which will cost Turkey further losses at the ECHR.
My last question is: Is it really correct for our rules to shy away from the case on such a critical and multidimensional issue by arguing that it has nothing to do with the problem and leaving it in the hands of the courts?
Of course it’s not. Today we will learn the true meanings of statesmanship and good governance. Of course it’s the prime minister and the government’s duty to lead the country in such a complex situation.
I believe that putting such a heavy burden on the shoulders of an ‘independent’ high criminal court which would not have to directly face the political consequences of its ruling is obviously incorrect.
The government should at least remove all legal obstacles to Ocalan’s retrial. And then it might refer the issue to the independent judiciary.