Lawyers from Asrın Law Office advocating Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan have written a 10 pages long application to the Constitutional Court on July 20 and demanded an injunction order. In their application, the lawyers stated that Öcalan’s rights have been violated, he was targeted during the coup attempt, and there has been no communication with him since the coup attempt.

MEETING REQUEST

In their application, the lawyers stated that there were enough reasons to think that Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan was targeted by the coup plotters on July 15, and expressed their concern over the threats against Öcalan’s right to life. The lawyers said it was crucial for Öcalan to be able to meet with his family and lawyers in order to alleviate the concerns regarding his health, and demanded an injunction order for the Kurdish leader.

Asrın Law Office lawyers emphasized that the 3rd article of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 17th article of the Turkish Constitution have been violated, and recalled the report the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture released after its visit to İmralı prison in Turkey on January 16-17, 2013. The lawyers stated that the refusal to create the conditions in which Öcalan feels safe, or the prevention of Öcalan from meeting with his lawyers or family would violate the aforementioned articles and imply torture and mistreatment.

'WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT ÖCALAN’S SAFETY OF LIFE'

Lawyers emphasized that the uncertainty and worries about Öcalan’s conditions and health increased after the coup attempt on July 15, and recalled the application they had made on July 18-19, 2016, in order to meet with their client. The lawyers pointed out that Öcalan’s family also made similar applications after the coup, but the state rejected all of these applications, which has led the lawyers to apply to the Constitutional Court.

'INJUNCTION ORDER MUST BE ISSUED'

In their 10 pages long application, Öcalan’s lawyers stated that the threats against Öcalan’s safety of life made it necessary for the defendant’s lawyers and family to request an injunction order from the Constitutional Court, which they said is obliged to respond quickly and positively due to the court’s bylaw articles numbered 73/2 and 73/1.