Reactions continue to come through after the interim decision announced on 18 September by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (CoE CM) regarding the “Gurban Group” case, which includes the “right to hope” for Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, Emin Gurban, Civan Boltan, and Hayati Kaytan. The Committee granted Turkey until June 2026, pointing to the parliamentary commission established for legal regulations, instead of initiating an infringement procedure against the Turkish state and government, which have not implemented for 11 years the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling on the “right to hope.” That ruling defined Abdullah Öcalan’s 27-year-long absolute isolation in Imralı Type-F High-Security Prison as “torture.” Newroz Uysal Aslan, lawyer of Abdullah Öcalan and MP for the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), spoke to ANF and said that with this decision, the CoE CM has trampled on its own principles.

Lawyer visits were blocked not by disciplinary sanctions but by arbitrary decisions

Newroz Uysal Aslan, who was a lawyer at the Asrın Law Office before being elected as a MP for the DEM Party, began her remarks by describing the recent meeting of three of her colleagues with their client, Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, after six years, as a positive step. Aslan, who last visited Imralı together with her colleague Rezan Sarıca on 7 August 2019 to meet with Mr. Öcalan, recalled the process as follows: “Lawyer restrictions, if you remember, began in July 2011. We were only able to go to Imralı Island in August 2019. That visit took place because of the hunger strikes and death fasts launched under the leadership of Leyla Güven, MP for the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and Co-Chair of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK), against the Imralı isolation, which spread to many parts of the world. Therefore, this visit was not a step taken by the state based on rights or politics but rather stemmed from the growing reaction against the isolation. Indeed, after the meeting, intensified isolation was once again imposed in Imralı. With the process initiated by Mr. Öcalan’s call for peace and democratic society on 27 February, for the first time in six years, three of our colleagues from the Asrın Law Office were able to go to the island. The realization of this meeting is significant not only in terms of breaking the isolation legally, but also because it revealed that lawyer visits had not been banned through disciplinary sanctions, as the court had claimed, but instead through arbitrary and political decisions.”

If legal improvements are to be made, they must start with Mr. Öcalan’s conditions

Aslan underlined that if there is to be a return to law in this process, the conditions of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, as the main actor and principal interlocutor, must be improved. She said: “Lawyer visits need to become regular. Family visits should not be limited to holidays but must be carried out on the basis of rights, in accordance with domestic law and international conventions. Delegation visits must also be ensured; other rights such as letters and telephone calls must be applied as a whole. The implementation of these rights is already a legal obligation. If legal improvements are to be made in this process, they must start from Imralı, from Mr. Öcalan’s conditions.”

The Committee of Ministers trampled on its own rules and founding principles with this decision

Newroz Uysal Aslan spoke about the interim decision of the CoE CM regarding the “right to hope.” She stated that the decision complied neither with the committee’s internal regulations nor with its founding principles. She added that in the case of Mr. Öcalan, it did not correspond to the structural severity of the violations experienced by thousands of people affected by aggravated life sentences in Turkey. Aslan said, “First of all, the Committee did not initiate an infringement procedure. Normally, since the issue causing the violation is structural, the state concerned is required to change its laws. However, Turkey’s most recent action plan included no commitment, timeline, or schedule. On the contrary, it presented a plan that repeated the exceptional status of aggravated life imprisonment.” Newroz Uysal Aslan also said, “In its interim decision, the Committee referred to the legislative proposals we submitted regarding amendments to aggravated life sentence laws and requested that they be discussed in the General Assembly, while also pointing to the National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission established under the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. This exposed the political nature of the issue. The right to hope had become a matter that the ECtHR, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and the CoE CM had persistently concealed under legal pretexts. In this sense, for the CoE CM to refer a matter such as the right to hope, which should have been monitored after 11 years to a commission tied to the political process amounted to a confession of its political dimension. A confession of what? A confession of the political nature of the right to hope. It was, in fact, an admission that Mr. Öcalan’s political position and political reasons were the grounds on which the right to hope was denied.” She continued, “If the right to hope has not been implemented for 11 years, this stems precisely from the political stance of the Committee, its approach to a solution, and its cooperation with Turkey. In that respect, this was an important but insufficient decision. If the Committee had taken Turkey’s past practices into account and, instead of granting time until June 2026, had initiated an infringement procedure and referred the matter to the commission, it would have appeared more realistic and serious. Unfortunately, the Committee did not show such seriousness. This is a clear indication that it acts in line with the political positions of states. For an institution that exists on the basis of democracy, law, human rights, and justice, and that monitors these principles in European and member states of the Council, to take a stance according to a state’s political position means undermining and trampling on its own principles. The Committee is acting in a way that contradicts its very existence. From beginning to end, this is a political stance.”

The government can pass the right to hope in parliament without waiting for the commission

Aslan noted that as former MP from the HDP and current MP from the DEM Party, they had submitted more than 100 legislative proposals on the right to hope, which have been kept waiting in the Justice Commission and the Human Rights Inquiry Commission of the parliament. Aslan said, “The government can pass the right to hope through parliament by discussing these proposals without waiting for the commission. The fact that the government is stretching this issue out over time is entirely related to Mr. Öcalan’s conditions. Otherwise, Turkey is obliged to implement these interim decisions immediately. It is the Committee itself that must ensure this obligation is fulfilled. There are processes of cooperation, compromise, negotiation, and dialogue between the Committee and Turkey. Therefore, the responsibility for the failure to implement the decisions for years lies not only with Turkey but also with the CoE CM itself.” Aslan also said, “The only significant point in the interim decision of the Committee is that it pointed to a concrete mechanism through the commission. In previous processes, for example, the Committee was asking for data and information, but it was not saying, ‘do this specifically.’ In this interim decision, it now proposes two paths for Turkey: first, bring the legislative proposals submitted by MPs to the agenda and refer them to the General Assembly; or second, use the existing commission and turn the right to hope into a proposal as part of this process. Parliament opens this week, and if Turkey wished, it could immediately bring the right to hope to the agenda as a legislative proposal and pass it.”

The right to hope must be given legal priority

Uysal said, “Numan Kurtulmuş pointed to October for legal regulations, but the right to hope must be given legal priority in these arrangements. From the very beginning, it was confirmed, first by international research and later by the ruling of the ECtHR that aggravated life imprisonment was not in line with international standards and was equivalent to the death penalty. Turkey was warned that it should not impose this sentence.” Uysal also said, “Turkey has persistently violated an international convention that it is obliged to implement and has legally suspended it for 11 years. The right to hope is now a right that can no longer be postponed legally. Politically, the demand for Mr. Öcalan to be freed from isolation and to gain his physical freedom is not only a one-year-old demand but a 27-year-old one. Thousands of actions, vigils, campaigns, conferences, and applications have been carried out worldwide. The issue of the right to hope is also something that could legally open the door to freedom.” She continued, “The freedom of Mr. Öcalan, who represents the will of millions, is a matter that politically the state can neither delay nor ignore. His isolation conditions are now at a point that politically, morally, and conscientiously no one who believes in democracy and peace can tolerate or accept. In this respect, the right to hope is a legal obligation and politically one of the very first steps that must be taken.” Uysal added, “If the aggravated life sentence legislation in Turkey is amended, the possibility of Mr. Öcalan’s freedom will arise. Parliament is the body that can make this legal change. Members of Parliament submit proposals, which are then discussed in the Justice Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the relevant commissions, before coming to the General Assembly as a draft law or proposal. There, it is debated, voted on, and passed through the normal legislative procedure.” She concluded, “The commission created for this process is not a specialized commission established by law in parliament, but one that will form the legal background of the process. This does not mean that the commission itself can make laws. It can only prepare a report on this issue and submit recommendations to the General Assembly of Parliament, such as ‘this law should be changed,’ ‘this should be done in such a way,’ or ‘this step should be taken,’ and its priority must be this.”