After the Turkish Constitutional Court’s rejection of applications for a retrial of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, lawyers applied to the European Court of Human Rights for this purpose. ECHR had identified violations in 2003 and 2005 regarding the trial of Öcalan in Turkey, and paved the way for Öcalan’s retrial. Turkey had recently passed new legislation in order to prevent Öcalan’s retrial.

Turkish Constitutional Court rejected the application of lawyers for the retrial of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan. After the Constitutional Court’s rejection, Öcalan’s lawyers applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Cengiz Yürekli, a lawyer from Asrın Law Office, stated that they had applied to the Constitutional Court for retrial through the Law 6459 that had come into effect in 2013. After the court’s rejection, Yürekli and other lawyers applied to the ECHR on June 6, 2016 for Öcalan’s retrial.

Yürekli emphasized that the trial of Öcalan in 1999 violated the law, and the ECHR identified these violations in 2003 and 2005. Yürekli gave the following statement as he cited the ECHR decision on the violations during Öcalan’s trial in 1999: "Öcalan was detained longer than legally allowed; was prevented from taking legal measures, seeing his lawyers, or accessing his files; was tried in a military court which is not independent and neutral. The only way to remedy for these violations is the fair trial of Öcalan in an independent and neutral court."

Yürekli noted that the Turkish state had anticipated that the ECHR would make this decision, and passed new legislation in order to prevent Öcalan’s retrial. Turkey rejected Öcalan’s lawyers’ demands for retrial in ways that violated the law, and deprived hundreds of people of their right to retrial even though the new legislation was aimed at Öcalan. The ECHR then decided upon the retrial of hundred of people, which created a crisis in the Turkish judiciary system.

Yürekli recalled that they applied to Turkish courts for the retrial of Öcalan in 2013, but courts at all levels rejected their application and mostly, without an explanation. Yürekli noted that the Constitutional Court made a political decision and rejected Öcalan’s lawyers’ applications, even though Öcalan had the right to retrial. Yürekli added that the lawyers also applied to the Ministry of Justice, but did not receive any positive response on this issue.

Lastly, Yürekli recalled that him and other lawyers of Öcalan have been banned from meeting with their clients over the past 5 years, and neither Öcalan nor his lawyers of family have been informed about his legal procedure.