The Administrative and Observation Boards in prisons have been responsible for numerous unlawful practices since 2021. One such violation occurred during the process leading to the release of Soydan Akay. His lawyer, Esra Bilen, stated that even if these boards are not abolished, they must be restructured to prevent further injustices.

Soydan Akay completed his 32-year imprisonment on 12 May, following both serious health problems and a long legal struggle. Akay suffers from prostate cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, hepatitis B, hypertension, and heart conditions. In March alone, he was hospitalized seven times. Although he became eligible for conditional release in 2023, the Administrative and Observation Board blocked his release on four separate occasions. His lawyer, Esra Bilen, a member of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), responded to ANF’s questions regarding the process.

Although Soydan Akay became eligible for conditional release in 2023, his release was postponed four times. What were the reasons for these delays despite his eligibility?

As with many prisoners subject to Administrative and Observation Board decisions, the rulings in Soydan Akay’s case were unlawful, arbitrary, and based on vague allegations. For instance, for the past eight years, he has been held in solitary confinement based on an alleged intelligence report. This same intelligence report was also used to justify recording his meetings with lawyers on camera for eight years. Furthermore, it was the basis for postponing his release on four separate occasions. In reality, Soydan Akay should have been released two years ago. To his already unjust and unlawful 30-year imprisonment, two additional years of arbitrary detention were added. In a normal criminal proceeding, a person cannot be detained solely on the basis of an intelligence report. Yet, Soydan Akay was deprived of his freedom for an extra two years based solely on such a report, after already serving 30 years in prison.

As his lawyer, what kind of legal struggle did you pursue throughout this entire process?

Throughout the eight-year period, we objected to all restrictions placed on attorney visits and to the decisions made by the Administrative and Observation Board. We also brought all these unlawful practices before the Constitutional Court. However, the Constitutional Court did not even review these files. We recently learned that one application we submitted years ago was only taken under review two weeks ago. It is obvious that any violation ruling issued after all these unlawful acts will not restore a sense of justice or undo the harm that has been caused. Still, we will continue our legal struggle to ensure that these violations are recorded in history.

What urgent steps must be taken in the current debate on sentence execution reform, especially considering the functioning of the Administrative and Observation Board in relation to long-term and ill prisoners like Soydan Akay?

In all sentence execution reforms introduced so far, including during the high-risk pandemic period, political prisoners have consistently been excluded. The first step in any new reform must be to ensure that political prisoners are not excluded from its scope. Another critical issue is the treatment of sick prisoners. Even when the Forensic Medicine Institute issues a report stating that a prisoner is unfit to remain in prison, they are still kept behind bars based on baseless reports from the police claiming that the person is “a threat to public safety.” The condition and right to life of sick prisoners are far too important to be left at the discretion of law enforcement. Therefore, the legal article that enables this arbitrariness must be repealed in the upcoming reform.

Another major source of the unlawful and arbitrary decisions taking place in prisons is the Administrative and Observation Board itself. Although these boards were established in 2005, their powers were expanded in 2021, precisely because the release of political prisoners arrested in the 1990s and now serving 30-year sentences was expected that year. To block these releases, the boards were turned into bodies that could effectively act in place of the courts, restricting people’s freedom without justification.

Should the Administrative and Observation Boards be restructured?

In my view, the Administrative and Observation Boards should not be restructured, they should be abolished entirely. If they are to continue existing at all, their role must be limited to what was defined in 2005, with very restricted authority limited solely to the internal functioning of the prison. Although some of these boards include a public prosecutor, many do not even have a single legal expert, yet they are granted authority over many fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and security. However, restricting fundamental rights should only be possible through a court decision. When such powers are handed over to administrative bodies, we have unfortunately seen how easily they can be abused.