13
May 2005
1. "Rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan says his retrial would be chance to resolve Kurdish issue", imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan said the call by Europe’s top human rights court for his retrial should be seen by Turkey as a chance to meet the demands of its Kurdish minority for greater rights and make peace with his armed guerrillas, a pro-Kurdish newspaper said on Friday.
2. "Kurdish rebel leader says retrial could offer hope for peace", jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan said that his possible retrial in line with a European court ruling could pave the way for Turkey to make peace with its restive Kurdish population and armed rebels, a pro-Kurdish newspaper reported Friday.
3. "European court rules Turkey trial of Ocalan unfair", the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that Turkey’s 1999 trial of Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan was unfair, putting pressure on Ankara to grant him a retrial.
4. "Turks braced for crisis over Ocalan court ruling", Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurdish leader imprisoned since being captured by Turkish special forces in 1999, could win a retrial today in a judgment which may provoke a political crisis in Turkey.
5. "Grand Chamber Judgment Öcalan v. Turkey", press release issued by the Registrar of the European Human Rights Court.
6. "Kurdish rebels kill two Turkish soldiers, wound four in ambush in southeastern Turkey", Kurdish rebels on Friday ambushed a Turkish military patrol, killing two soldiers and wounding four others in southeastern Turkey, an official said.
7. "Syria arrests members of Kurdish parties: TV", a number of Kurdish political activists have been arrested in Syria, particularly in a town where deadly disturbances took place last year, a Kurdish political leader told Al-Arabiya television Thursday.
8. "Syria arrests members of Kurdish parties", a number of Kurdish political activists have been arrested in Syria, particularly in a town where deadly disturbances took place last year, a Kurdish political leader told Al-Arabiya television Thursday.
1. - AP - "Rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan says his retrial would be chance to resolve Kurdish issue":
ANKARA / 13 May 2005
Imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan said the call by Europe’s top human rights court for his retrial should be seen by Turkey as a chance to meet the demands of its Kurdish minority for greater rights and make peace with his armed guerrillas, a pro-Kurdish newspaper said on Friday.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that Turkish authorities violated international treaties by denying Ocalan a fair and independent trial and barring his legal representative from contacting him after he was detained. A military officer was initially part of the Turkish security court that heard the Ocalan trial.
Turkey has little choice but to retry Ocalan since the court’s decision is binding on its members, which include Turkey.
Ocalan, anticipating the ruling, told his lawyers on Wednesday that Turkey should see it “as a chance given to Turkey to resolve the Kurdish question,” the Web site of the pro-Kurdish Ozgur Politika said Friday.
He also said he would use his retrial as a platform to push for a democratic solution to the Kurdish problem, calling it a “democratic struggle,” instead of armed struggle, the Web site said.
Turkey, however, is certain to oppose any attempts to turn Ocalan’s trial into a political forum. Turkey regards his rebel group as a terrorist organization and has rejected any attempts by Ocalan to transform the group’s military struggle into a political fight.
Ocalan’s rebels declared a cease-fire after his capture in 1999, but Turkey said it would not stop its military operations until all rebels were captured or killed.
The rebels announced last year that they were resuming their fight after Turkey refused to respond to their unilateral cease-fire.
Rebel attacks have recently increased and Turkish military officers say rebels have increasingly been crossing from bases in northern Iraq into Turkey.
Ocalan said his guerrillas could decide whether to fight or not “with their free will,” the newspaper reported. “If they want to be heroes, I’m not an obstacle before them.”
Ocalan ruled his rebel group, the PKK, from his hideout in Syria until
he was forced out from his shelter. He was eventually captured in Kenya
and flown to Turkey for trial. He was sentenced to death for treason
for leading a 15-year rebel war for autonomy which killed 37,000 people,
but the punishment was commuted to life in prison after Turkey abolished
the death penalty under European Union pressure. 
2. - AFP - "Kurdish rebel leader says retrial could offer hope
for peace":
ANKARA / 13 May 2005
Jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan said that his possible retrial in line with a European court ruling could pave the way for Turkey to make peace with its restive Kurdish population and armed rebels, a pro-Kurdish newspaper reported Friday.
But he also warned that should Turkey fail to meet Kurdish demands for greater cultural freedoms, it could face a violent backlash from militants of his outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
Ocalan told his lawyers that Turkey should see Thursday's ruling by the European Court of Human Rights for his retrial as an "important opportunity, a chance to resolve the Kurdish question", the Europe-based Ozgur Politika newspaper said on its Internet edition.
He was speaking a day before the Strasbourg-based court's verdict condemning
as unfair his 1999 trial -- in which he was sentenced to death for
treason -- and recommending Turkey retry him.
Ocalan's sentence was converted into life imprisonment in 2002 and he has since been the sole inmate of the prison island of Imrali in northwestern Turkey.
Ocalan also said he would use a possible retrial to push for a democratic resolution to the Kurdish problem, and warned Turkey that Kurdish rebels could retaliate if it uses violence against the Kurds rather then meet their demands for greater cultural rights.
"We have different alternatives, but we will continue our democratic struggle," Ocalan said.
"The issue depends on the state's resolve to make a decision (to this effect). Otherwise, we may take a tougher line," he said.
Ocalan's PKK led a bloody armed campaign for Kurdish self-rule in the mainly Kurdish southeast between 1984 and 1999 before announcing a unilateral ceasefire to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The group called off the truce last year on the grounds that democratic reforms undertaken by Ankara to expand Kurdish rights were insufficient.
"I am not saying 'Do not fight'. They will make a decision on
their own free will," Ocalan said. "They want to become heroes,
I am not an obstacle before them."
3. - Reuters - "European court rules Turkey trial of Ocalan
unfair":
STRASBOURG / 12 May 2005
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that Turkey’s 1999 trial of Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan was unfair, putting pressure on Ankara to grant him a retrial.
The ruling in the French city of Strasbourg still needs formal approval but could cause immediate political problems for the Turkish government, which is trying to meet the European Union’s entry criteria -- including conditions on human rights.
"The applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal," the panel of judges said in a statement read out at the court after reaching their verdict by a vote of 11 to 6.
Dozens of Kurds cheered and chanted outside the court under a banner declaring "Free Ocalan - Peace in Kurdistan".
"The court has universally declared that there was no fair trial and in those circumstances it is pointing the way towards a retrial," Mark Muller, a lawyer for Ocalan, told reporters.
Ocalan is serving a life sentence as the sole inmate of a Turkish island prison after being found guilty of masterminding a separatist revolt in the southeast in which at least 30,000 people were killed in the 1980s and 1990s.
Thursday’s ruling confirms a verdict issued by the European Court of Human Rights in 2003 because a military judge was present for some of the hearings and Ocalan had only restricted access to his lawyers. Turkey had appealed against that ruling.
The ruling still requires the approval of the Council of Europe, European’s top human rights watchdog, but puts heavy pressure on Ankara to retry a man widely reviled in Turkey.
Government ministers said before the ruling that a verdict in favour of a retrial could trigger an explosion of Turkish nationalism and that this could upset plans for the start of accession talks with the EU in October.
There was no immediate impact on financial markets, although financial analysts have expressed concern that protests over the verdict could unsettle markets.
TURKISH GOVERNMENT COULD FACE PROBLEMS
Ocalan was found guilty in June 1999 of "treason through separatism". He had been captured in Kenya four months earlier.
An original death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after Turkey scrapped the death penalty in 2002, in line with EU requirements.
Few doubt that the retrial, in a Turkish court, would confirm Ocalan’s life sentence.
But the EU is watching the case closely as it prepares for the accession talks with Ankara, which hopes to join the wealthy bloc in a decade or so but must meets strict conditions including on human rights and democracy.
Turkey is already a member of the Council of Europe, which is also based in Strasbourg near France’s border with Germany. Both the council and the European Court of Human Rights are non-EU bodies.
But such distinctions will be largely lost on a Turkish public increasingly wary of anything European, diplomats say.
The EU has taken a close interest in the Ocalan case and in the wider issue of Turkey’s Kurdish minority and will closely watch Ankara’s response to the verdict.
Therein lies the problem for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s centre-right government. It cannot afford to ignore the ruling because of the EU but it does not want to be seen to be kowtowing to Europe because of nationalist pressures at home.
Strong support among Turks for their country’s EU accession has
slipped in recent months due to a sense that the bloc is imposing too
many conditions on membership and is basically unwilling to admit their
large, relatively poor Muslim nation.
4. - The Independent - "Turks braced for crisis over Ocalan
court ruling":
Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurdish leader imprisoned since being captured
by Turkish special forces in 1999, could win a retrial today in a judgment
which may provoke a political crisis in Turkey.
BRUSSELS / 12 May 2005 / by Stephen Castle
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights will rule in the case which has far-reaching implications for the government in Ankara and its ambitions to join the European Union.
The sole inmate of a Turkish island prison, Ocalan has appealed to the court in Strasbourg, claiming that he has been ill treated and did not receive a fair trial after he was snatched from hiding in Kenya.
A ruling in his favour would provoke a fierce domestic backlash in Turkey. The majority of the population regards the former PKK leader as the nation’s most dangerous terrorist. As PKK leader he is blamed for masterminding a separatist revolt in the south-east during the 1980s and 1990s in which at least 30,000 people were killed.
But failure to observe the ruling would compromise Turkey’s claims to have modernised its judicial system and place a big question mark over its bid to join the EU. The court’s rulings are binding on all 46 members of the Council of Europe, which include Turkey.
Ocalan - who was seized by a special forces unit and flown to Turkey six years ago - was originally sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life imprisonment and capital punishment was abolished in Turkey in 2001.
The former PKK leader claims Turkey breached international rules by treating him inhumanely on his transfer to the Imrali prison near Istanbul in 1999, discriminating against him, denying him the right to a fair and independent trial and barring his legal representatives from contacting him after his detention. He remains in solitary confinement though the Turkish authorities argue this is partly for his protection.
The Strasbourg court’s ruling comes at a sensitive time for the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who leads the Islamic-based Justice and Development Party (AKP) and who has pressed ahead with sweeping reforms to try to win EU membership talks. About a dozen members of parliament have quit the AKP in the past few months, claiming the government is losing touch with the public.
There are continuing tensions between Mr Erdogan and his Foreign Minister and political rival, Abdullah Gul, who is seen as more moderate and closer to EU political values, but the AKP remains well ahead of other parties in the opinion polls and in any case does not face a general election until 2007.
In an effort to avoid the prospect of legal victory for Ocalan, a proposal was made to exclude cases dating before 2003 from retrials. But the Turkish constitution underwrites the supremacy of international law and this is almost certain to prevail.
The government rode out a storm of protest over the retrial of Leyla Zana and three other activists last year. They were freed after a Turkish court said the four did not receive a fair hearing at their original trial in 1994 when they faced charges of collaborating with Kurdish rebels.
Nevertheless, a ruling in favour of Ocalan would reinforce a growing impression in Turkey that European institutions are biased against them.
A slump in the proportion of the population in favour of EU membership reflects the fallout over the compromises made by the government to clear the path for talks.
Negotiations between the EU and Ankara are due to start in October
and the Turkish government has agreed to extend a customs union to the
Greek-controlled half of Cyprus which became a member of the EU last
year.
5. - EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS - "GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÖCALAN v. TURKEY":
Press release issued by the Registrar
12 May 2005
The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey (application no. 46221/99).
In its judgment the Grand Chamber made the same findings of violation and non violation of the European Convention on Human Rights as the Chamber in its judgment of 12 March 20031.
Detention
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:
* a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, given the lack of a remedy by which the applicant could have had the lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided;
* no violation of Article 5 § 1 (no unlawful deprivation of liberty) of the Convention, concerning the applicant's arrest;
* a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) given the failure to bring the applicant before a judge promptly after his arrest.
Fair trial
The Court held:
* by 11 votes to six, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §
1 (right to a fair trial) in that the applicant had not been tried by
an independent and impartial tribunal; and,
* unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and (c) (right to legal assistance), in that the applicant had not had a fair trial.
Death penalty
The Court held:
* unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right
to life);
* unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition
of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 2, concerning the
implementation of the death penalty;
* unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment), concerning the implementation of the death penalty;
* and, by 13 votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial.
./..
Treatment and conditions
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:
* no violation of Article 3 concerning the conditions in which the applicant had been transferred from Kenya to Turkey or the conditions of his detention on the island of Imrali.
Other complaints
The Court also held, unanimously, that:
* there had been no violation of Article 34 (right of individual application);
and that
* it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant's remaining
complaints under Articles 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to
respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience
and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective
remedy), 14 and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, unanimously, that its findings of violations of Articles 3, 5 and 6 constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for any damage sustained by the applicant and awarded the applicant's lawyers 120,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.
(The judgment is available in English and French.)
1. Principal facts
The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Abdullah Öcalan, who was born in 1949. He is currently incarcerated in Imrali Prison (Bursa, Turkey).
At the time of the events in question, the Turkish courts had issued seven warrants for Mr Öcalan's arrest and a wanted notice (red notice) had been circulated by Interpol. He was accused of founding an armed gang in order to destroy the integrity of the Turkish State and of instigating terrorist acts resulting in loss of life.
On 9 October 1998 he was expelled from Syria, where he had been living for many years. From there he went to Greece, Russia, Italy and then again Russia and Greece before going to Kenya, where, on the evening of 15 February 1999, in disputed circumstances, he was taken on board an aircraft at Nairobi airport and arrested by Turkish officials. He was then flown to Turkey.
On arrival in Turkey, he was taken to Imrali Prison, where he was held in police custody from 16 to 23 February 1999 and questioned by the security forces. He received no legal assistance during that period. His lawyer in Turkey was prevented from travelling to visit him by members of the security forces. 16 other lawyers were also refused permission to visit on 23 February 1999.
On 23 February 1999 the applicant appeared before an Ankara State Security Court judge, who ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention.
The applicant was allowed only restricted access to his lawyers who were not authorised by the prison authorities to provide him with a copy of the documents in the case file, other than the indictment. It was not until the hearing on 4 June 1999 that the State Security Court gave the applicant permission to consult the case file under the supervision of two registrars and authorised his lawyers to provide him with a copy of certain documents.
On 29 June 1999 Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of carrying out actions calculated to bring about the separation of a part of Turkish territory and of forming and leading an armed gang to achieve that end. It sentenced him to death, under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
Under Law no. 4771, published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Assembly resolved to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. On 3 October 2002 Ankara State Security Court commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment.
An application to set aside the provision abolishing the death penalty in peacetime for persons convicted of terrorist offences was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 27 December 2002.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 February 1999. A Chamber hearing was held on 21 November 2000 and the case was declared partly admissible on 14 December 2000. In its Chamber judgment of 12 March 2003, the Court held, among other things, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c), and also of Article 3 on account of the fact that the death penalty had been imposed after an unfair trial.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber2 at the request of the applicant and the Government. A Grand Chamber hearing was held on 9 June 2004.
Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Georg Ress (German),
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss)3
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
Riza Türmen (Turkish),
Viera Strážnická (Slovakian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian),
Lech Garlicki (Polish),
Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), judges,
and also Paul Mahoney, Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment
Complaints
The applicant complained, in particular, that:
* the imposition and/or execution of the death penalty was or would be in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the Convention;
* the conditions in which he was transferred from Kenya to Turkey and detained on the island of Imrali - in particular that the Turkish authorities failed to facilitate transport to and from the island, making it difficult for his family and lawyers to visit him - amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3;
* he was deprived of his liberty unlawfully, that he was not brought promptly before a judge and that he did not have access to proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4;
* he did not have a fair trial because he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal (given the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court), that the judges were influenced by hostile media reports and that his lawyers were not given sufficient access to the court file to enable them to prepare his defence properly, in breach of Article 6 § 1;
* his legal representatives in Amsterdam were prevented from contacting him after his arrest and that the Turkish Government failed to reply to the request of the European Court of Human Rights for them to supply information, in violation of Article 34.
He also relied on Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18.
Decision of the Court4
Detention
Right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court
The Government had raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to exhaust his domestic remedies under this head. However, the Grand Chamber saw no reason to depart from the Chamber's findings in this respect, notably as to the impossibility for the applicant in the circumstances in which he found himself while in police custody to have effective recourse to the remedy indicated by the Government. Nor could the possibility of obtaining compensation satisfy the requirement of a judicial remedy to determine the lawfulness of detention. The applicant did not therefore have an effective remedy available to him and there had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
No unlawful deprivation of liberty
The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that the applicant's arrest on 15 February 1999 and his detention had been in accordance with "a procedure prescribed by law" and that there had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 1.
Right to be brought promptly before a judge
The Grand Chamber found that the total period spent by the applicant in police custody before being brought before a judge came to a minimum of seven days. It could not accept that it was necessary for the applicant to be detained for such a period without being brought before a judge. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3.
Fair trial
Whether Ankara State Security Court was independent and impartial
The Grand Chamber noted that the military judge on the bench of Ankara State Security Court which convicted the applicant had been replaced on 23 June 1999. However, the replacement of the military judge before the end of the proceedings could not dispose of the applicant's reasonably held concern about the trial court's independence and impartiality. There had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in this respect.
Whether the proceedings before the State Security Court were fair
The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber's findings that the applicant's trial was unfair because: he had no assistance from his lawyers during questioning in police custody; he was unable to communicate with his lawyers out of the hearing of third parties; he was unable to gain direct access to the case file until a very late stage in the proceedings; restrictions were imposed on the number and length of his lawyers' visits; and his lawyers were not given proper access to the case file until late in the day. The Grand Chamber found that the overall effect of those difficulties taken as a whole had so restricted the rights of the defence that the principle of a fair trial, as set out in Article 6, had been contravened. This amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 1, taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c).
The Grand Chamber further held that it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6 relating to the fairness of the proceedings.
Death Penalty
Implementation of the death penalty
The Grand Chamber noted that the death penalty had been abolished in Turkey and the applicant's sentence had been commuted to one of life imprisonment. Furthermore, on 12 November 2003, Turkey had ratified Protocol No. 6 to the Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Articles 2, 3 or 14 on account of the implementation of the death penalty.
Legal significance of the practice of Contracting States regarding the death penalty
The Grand Chamber shared the Chamber's view that capital punishment in peacetime had come to be regarded as an unacceptable form of punishment which was no longer permissible under Article 2.
The fact that there were still a large number of States which had yet to sign or ratify Protocol No. 13 concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances might prevent the Court from finding that it was the established practice of the Contracting States to regard the implementation of the death penalty as inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3, since no derogation might be made from that provision, even in times of war. However, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that it was not necessary to reach any firm conclusion on this point since it would be contrary to the Convention, even if Article 2 were to be construed as still permitting the death penalty, to implement a death sentence following an unfair trial.
Death penalty following an unfair trial
The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that in considering the imposition of the death penalty under Article 3, regard had to be had to Article 2, which precluded the implementation of the death penalty concerning a person who had not had a fair trial.
In the Grand Chamber's view, to impose a death sentence on a person after an unfair trial was to subject that person wrongfully to the fear that he would be executed. The fear and uncertainty as to the future generated by a sentence of death, in circumstances where there existed a real possibility that the sentence would be enforced, inevitably gave rise to a significant degree of human anguish. Such anguish could not be dissociated from the unfairness of the proceedings underlying the sentence which, given that human life was at stake, became unlawful under the Convention.
The Grand Chamber noted that there had been a moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty in Turkey since 1984 and that, in the applicant's case, the Turkish Government had complied with the Court's interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to stay the execution. It was further noted that the applicant's file had not been sent to Parliament for approval of the death sentence as was then required by the Turkish Constitution.
However, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that the applicant's background as the leader and founder of the PKK, an organisation which had been engaged in a sustained campaign of violence causing many thousands of casualties, had made him Turkey's most wanted person. In view of the fact that the applicant has been convicted of the most serious crimes existing in the Turkish Criminal Code and of the general political controversy in Turkey - prior to the decision to abolish the death penalty - surrounding the question of whether he should be executed, there was a real risk that the sentence might be implemented. In practical terms, the risk remained for more than three years of the applicant's detention in Imrali from the date of the Court of Cassation's judgment of 25 November 1999 affirming the applicant's conviction until Ankara State Security Court's judgment of 3 October 2002 which commuted the death penalty to which the applicant had been sentenced to one of life imprisonment.
Consequently, the Grand Chamber concluded that the imposition of the death sentence on the applicant following an unfair trial by a court whose independence and impartiality were open to doubt amounted to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3.
Treatment and conditions
Conditions of the applicant's transfer from Kenya to Turkey
The Grand Chamber considered that it had not been established 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that the applicant's arrest and the conditions in which he was transferred from Kenya to Turkey exceeded the usual degree of humiliation that was inherent in every arrest and detention or attained the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 to apply. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 3 on that account.
Detention conditions on Imrali
While concurring with the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture's recommendations that the long-term effects of the applicant's relative social isolation should be attenuated by giving him access to the same facilities as other high security prisoners in Turkey, such as television and telephone contact with his family, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that the general conditions in which the applicant was being detained at Imrali Prison had not reached the minimum level of severity required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 3 on that account.
Other complaints
Article 34
The Grand Chamber noted that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had been hindered in the exercise of his right of individual petition to any significant degree. And, while regrettable, the Turkish Government's failure to supply information requested by the Court earlier had not, in the special circumstances of the case, prevented the applicant from setting out his complaints about the criminal proceedings that had been brought against him. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 34.
Other complaints
The Grand Chamber considered that no separate examination of the complaints under Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18 was necessary.
Article 46
The Grand Chamber reiterated that the Court's judgments were essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it was primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46.
However, exceptionally, with a view to assisting the State concerned
to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court had sought to
indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an
end to a systemic situation. In such circumstances, it might propose
various options and leave the choice of measure and its implementation
to the discretion of the State concerned. In other exceptional cases,
the nature of the violation found might be such as to leave no real
choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court might
decide to indicate only one such measure.
In the specific context of cases against Turkey concerning the independence and impartiality of the state security courts, Chambers of the Court had indicated in certain judgments that were delivered after the Chamber judgment in the applicant's case that, in principle, the most appropriate form of redress would be for the applicant to be given a retrial without delay if he or she so requested.
The Grand Chamber endorsed this general approach. It considered that, where an individual, as in the applicant's case, had been convicted by a court which did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represented in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.
However, the specific remedial measures, if any, required of a respondent State in order to discharge its obligations under Article 46 had to depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case and be determined in the light of the terms of the Court's judgment in that case, and with due regard to the above case-law of the Court.
***
Judge Garlicki expressed a partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion; Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Caflisch, Türmen, Garlicki and Borrego Borrego expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion and Judges Costa, Caflisch, Türmen and Borrego Borrego expressed a further joint partly dissenting opinion, all of which are annexed to the judgment.
***
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court's judgments.
1 The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
2 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
3 Elected in respect of Liechtenstein.
4 This summary, produced by the Court's Registry, does not bind the
Court.
6. - Pravda - "Kurdish rebels kill two Turkish soldiers, wound four in ambush in southeastern Turkey":
13 May 2005
Kurdish rebels on Friday ambushed a Turkish military patrol, killing two soldiers and wounding four others in southeastern Turkey, an official said.
The attack near the city of Bingol came a day after the European Court of Human Rights called for the retrial of imprisoned Kurdish rebel chief Abdullah Ocalan, saying he did not receive a fair trial in 1999.
The clash, which started Friday morning, was still underway and Turkish reinforcements were rushing to the area, the official said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity.
Rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, have battled government forces in a conflict that has killed more than 37,000 people since 1984.
Clashes in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast tapered off after
a rebel truce in 1999, which followed the capture of their leader, Abdullah
Ocalan. But there has been a recent surge in violence.
7. - AFP - "Germany outraged at Turkish paper's Nazi portrayal":
BERLIN / 11 May 2005
German political leaders called on Turkish authorities on Wednesday
to take action against an Islamist newspaper which
portrayed Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as a Nazi.
The Anadoluda Vakit newspaper illustrated an article about Schroeder on May 5 with swastikas, according to a reproduction of the page in Germany's Die Welt newspaper on Wednesday.
Around 10,000 copies of Anadoluda Vakit are sold in Germany, which is home to around 2.5 million Turks.
Dieter Wiefelspuetz, a leading member of Schroeder's Social Democratic Party (SPD), said: "This is unacceptable. I call on the Turkish authorities not to turn a blind eye if this happens again in the future."
Kristina Koehler, of the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said the article was "unacceptable and shaming for Turkey".
The newspaper in question is currently being investigated by prosecutors in the German cty of Darmstadt for inciting racial hatred by claiming that the Holocaust was a fabrication.
In February, the publishers of Anadoluda Vakit, Yeni Akit, were banned
in Germany under legislation aimed at stamping out incitement to violence.
8. - AFP - "Syria arrests members of Kurdish parties: TV":
DUBAI / 12 May 2005
A number of Kurdish political activists have been arrested in Syria, particularly in a town where deadly disturbances took place last year, a Kurdish political leader told Al-Arabiya television Thursday.
"Numerous members of Kurdish parties have been arrested," said Hassen Saleh, chief of the Yakiti party. Saleh, who did not give any details, told Al-Arabiya he was speaking from the northeastern town of Qamishli, on the Turkish border.
In March 2004, clashes pitted Kurdish protestors against Syrian security forces and Arab tribes in Qamishli and Aleppo. The Kurds said 40 people died, while the Syrian authorities gave a death toll of 25.
Hundreds of Kurds were arrested following the disturbances. On March 30 of this year, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered all of them released. Saleh said this "campaign of arrests ... is taking place despite the presidential pardon."
He added that the pardon had not been fully carried out, and that "more than 100 Kurds still remain in prison.
Saleh added that he was concerned for the fate of a Kurdish Muslim dignitary, Sheikh Mohammed Maashuq al-Jaznawi, who has not been heard from since leaving the Islamic studies centre in Damascus two days ago.
Syria is home to some 1.5 million Kurds, around nine percent of the
population. They are fighting to have their language, culture and political
rights recognised.