Kurdish people's leader Abdullah Öcalan’s lawyer, Rezan Sarıca, spoke about the current situation in Imralı and the discussions on the "right to hope," emphasizing that legal changes are necessary to access this right.

Lawyer Sarıca also commented on MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli’s statements about the "right to hope" and the previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the issue. He noted that Bahçeli suggested this right could be granted under certain conditions, but it remains uncertain whether the Parliament will comply with this proposal or whether, even if such a regulation is made, the judiciary will implement it.

Lawyer Sarıca pointed out that the "right to hope" does not directly mean freedom, but stressed the importance of legal reforms in line with democratic and societal needs. He criticized the idea of making fundamental rights, such as the "right to hope," subject to political negotiations and reminded that the government has a responsibility to adhere to international agreements and protect these rights.

Lawyer Sarıca also emphasized that the government’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches are obligated to comply with legal norms, and that it is crucial to explain why the necessary actions have not been taken over the past decade. His statements implied that Öcalan's legal situation should be addressed within the framework of fundamental rights and freedoms, rather than being treated solely as a political bargaining chip.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a ruling on this issue, and some legal articles need to be amended to end the violations. Could you explain which articles the court refers to?

The ECHR found that the regulation requiring Mr. Öcalan’s aggravated life sentence to be served for life violates the prohibition of torture and, in its 2014 “Öcalan No. 2” decision, ruled that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been breached. Similar decisions were made in Vinter v. United Kingdom (2013), Kaytan v. Turkey (2015), Gurban v. Turkey (2016), and Boltan v. Turkey (2019). As long as the violation continues, these rulings will persist because the problem is systemic and structural. Articles such as Article 47 of the Turkish Penal Code, Articles 25 and 107/16 of the Execution Law, and Article 17/4 of Law No. 3713, which embody this structural issue, must be abolished or amended.

'Legal rights cannot be subject to political conditions'

As a country bound by the ECHR, Turkey is obliged to comply with these rulings according to Article 46. Likewise, per Article 90 of its Constitution, Turkey must adhere to the ECHR. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which monitors the implementation of the rulings in the Öcalan, Gurban, Kaytan, and Boltan cases, called on Turkey in 2021 and 2024 to urgently make the necessary legal changes. Therefore, subjecting the required amendments to any political condition is inconsistent with the Constitution and international law, particularly with the ECHR mechanism. Such a condition is also incompatible with the prohibition of torture and with the logic and rationale of the ECHR ruling. Continuing the current conditions exacerbates torture and mistreatment.

Do you expect any new legal regulations related to Imralı?

Introducing a legal regulation that aligns with the ECHR ruling is a procedural matter that must be addressed immediately and without conditions. Only with such adjustments would freedom become a legal possibility for Mr. Öcalan. However, the specifics and structure of these legal changes are critically important. The essence of the issue involves discussing the right to hope in terms of freedom within legal and democratic frameworks. Initiating this discourse right after implementing these regulations - or concurrently without delay - would be more credible, reliable, and predictable.

In other words, the core issue is that Mr. Öcalan has been imprisoned for nearly 26 years. Throughout this time, and even prior to it, he has consistently advocated for a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue, striving for peace. As is widely acknowledged, he has played a role in advancing democratic approaches and stabilizing efforts for a peaceful settlement. Thus, discussing the right to hope and the right to freedom in the context of establishing a democratic order is crucial, and further delays should be avoided.

In his speech, Bahçeli used the term 'isolation,' marking the first official acknowledgment of it, though for 25 years Kurds have claimed isolation exists at Imralı, despite strong denial of this claim from government circles. Following this official acknowledgment of 'isolation,' the issue has now taken on a new dimension in both domestic and international law. How do you interpret this situation?

The state of isolation and lack of communication in Imralı has been a long-standing issue raised by us as legal professionals, both within Turkey and on international platforms, especially in Europe. Despite all types of pressure, the Kurdish people, their allies, and the democratic public have protested and exposed this isolation, reaching millions opposing it. Numerous authorities and bodies in Turkey and Europe have been held accountable and urged to take lawful actions. The democratic public had expectations regarding these efforts.

The isolation in Imralı became a prominent global issue, and it’s clear that recent developments are also related to this. We have long argued that this system of isolation, along with general stagnation in Turkey, cannot continue indefinitely. Bahçeli’s acknowledgment has merely made the issue more visible, prompting even those who were previously silent to start engaging with it. However, it’s worth noting that international assessments have already recognized this isolation long ago. These developments extended beyond recognition and also involved calls to end the isolation.

Is Turkey violating the international law it has signed in Imrali?

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), in its most recent report (2020), found that the justifications used to base the disciplinary sanctions imposed on family visit bans were misleading and political. It recommended that conditions be improved for family and lawyer visits and the right to defense. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) sent a precautionary decision to Turkey on September 6, 2022, stating that the prisoners ‘should be allowed to see their lawyers immediately and without any restrictions.’ It reminded us of this decision again on January 19, 2023.

During the 80th session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCCT) in July 2024, many important issues, such as isolation, visit bans, lawyers’ inability to access files, consecutive disciplinary punishments, the fact that these processes are carried out in secret from lawyers, the fact that no news has been received since March 25, 2021, and the lack of steps in line with international standards regarding life sentences were asked as questions to Turkish government officials.

Of course, the delegation could not provide convincing, sufficient and legally justified answers, and the Imrali isolation could not be defended. The following week, the UNCCT rapporteurs published their interim observation report and recommended that the isolation conditions be made legal and that legal changes be made for the right to hope. I would like to remind you that they will be in contact with the government to ensure that these recommendations are fulfilled by September 2025. In parallel with such developments, there were many developments such as calls and letters from Nobel Prize winners.

Do you believe that things will change in the coming days?

Currently, no lasting development has occurred to eliminate the multi-faceted legal irregularities at Imralı. A family visit was allowed for Mr. Öcalan, after 43 months. This only partially lifted the veil on isolation. Apart from that, no real changes have taken place. We haven’t been able to meet with him for over five years, and the ban on lawyer visits remains in effect. Our requests for meetings continue to go unanswered.

As lawyers, we are still denied access to disciplinary actions and other restrictive decisions, which are conducted secretly and illegally, preventing the exercise of his right to defense. Disciplinary sanctions continue to be issued.

Since being transferred to Imralı in 2015, we haven’t had a single meeting with Mr. Konar, Mr. Yıldırım, or Mr. Aktaş, nor have their families. Mr. Aktaş, despite reaching 30 years of detention this past April, has not been released. There’s been no direct communication with them. It’s clear that Bahçeli’s statement has not changed anything yet. Arbitrary and political systems are in place instead of legal standards and international laws. There has been no adherence to the recommendations from the CPT or the UN Human Rights Committee regarding the lawyer situation.

For instance, the report from the CPT's last visit to Imralı in September 2022 is in Turkey's possession but has yet to be published. The UN's precautionary decision regarding lawyers has also yet to be implemented. So, while the Imralı isolation system remains firmly in place, we have not seen any shift in policy on the societal, social, or judicial levels that would suggest a solution to the Kurdish issue.