APO SUSTAINED A DISASTROUS DEFEAT IN ECHR

Following the declaration of the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding terrorist Abdullah Ocalan on March 12, 2003, one of the most interesting comments covered in the press organs was published in Star daily on March 14, 2003 under the title “Apo Sustained A Disastrous Defeat in ECHR” signed by Saygi Ozturk.

Saygi Ozturk, who emphasized that he benefited from the report issued by the Ministry of Justice regarding what the verdict of ECHR means, clarifies the points the public opinion is curious about;

“The lawyers of the head of the terrorist Abdullah Ocalan applied to the ECHR, claiming that Turkey violated a total of 12 articles of the Convention. The Court accepted only the three of the applications. It ruled that the articles 6, 5, and 3 were violated.

Bu the Court refused the complaint that Ocalan’s capture in Kenya and transfer to Turkey is contrary to the article 5 of the Convention. According to this rule, a person can be seized and arrested as suggested in the law under legal conditions.

Terrorist Abdullah Ocalan claimed that he was in solitary confinement on Imrali Island in the context of the article 3 of the Convention and the conditions of his detention were inhuman.

Pointing at the recommendation Torture Watch Committee that he should be given a television and provided with a telephone to be able to talk to his lawyers, the Court stated that these were unacceptable. In this context, the Court respected the thesis of the Turkish Government that the mentioned was the leader of an armed separatist group and if he were benefited from these means, the organization would revive. The Court also shares the concern that he would not be protected in an ordinary prison.

This is an important development, because 2 organs of European Council, namely ECHR and the Torture Watch Committee, have fallen in divergence, and ECHR refused the establishments of the Committee and accepted the opinion of the government. Thus, in future, relying on this verdict, the Turkish Government will be able to refuse the Committee’s claims regarding inhuman conditions of Imrali, solitary confinement and transfer.

ECHR refused the complaints of the mentioned lawyers that the articles 7, 8,9,10,13, 14 and 18 of the Convention were also violated and deemed it unnecessary to carry out an examination.

The lawyers of Ocalan did not ask for compensation, but demanded this right to be reserved, if the Court determined the violation of the Convention.

But the Court unanimously refused the demand for the reservation of the compensation, indicating that it was sufficient to have determined that the articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention had not been violated, and this determination itself was deemed a means of fair satisfaction.

The lawyers of Ocalan requested a total of 485.802.59 Euro for costs and expenses.

According to the Court, the demand of costs and expenses has to be reasonable. This fee should be determined according to the degree of their service and the success they have achieved. According to the Court, the lawyers at the Court presented information regarding to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey and the information that could be obtained from everywhere and common publications rather than legal evidences. Besides, although the lawyers insisted on many violations, the Court accepted only a few of them. The Court found the representation of the applicant by 14 lawyers and 3 assistants unnecessary and awarded the lawyers with 100.000 Euros. 

As a result, despite the claims that all articles of the Convention were violated, the decision on the violation of only 3 rules could not be regarded as a success for the applicant.

In addition, the Court’s refusal of the compensation demand of the applicant be kept reserved is extremely noteworthy. The lawyers may be expected to demand the case be examined in the Grand Chamber for only this reason.

The Court’s not considering the Torture Committee’s stabilizations such as the inhuman condition, solitary confinement and transfer to another prison and accepting the thesis of the Turkish Government is an important development and is of the quality to prevent the future demands regarding the matter.

Finally, the Courts assessments about the costs and expenses are disapproving and discouraging for the lawyers. This is a lesson given them by the Court.