Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan made a "Call for Peace and Democratic Society" on 27 February in order to solve the Kurdish question in a democratic and peaceful way. The call emphasised the responsibilities of both sides and the PKK declared a ceasefire. However, the state has not yet taken any steps in this regard. One of the issues that the state needs to take steps on is the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), whose decisions Turkey is committed to abide by. One of the most important of these judgements is the ECtHR's decision on the violation of the "right to hope" of Abdullah Öcalan. It is frequently stated that this step would facilitate the solution of the Kurdish problem.

 

Dr Rolf Gössner, a jurist from the University of Bremen, who is among the 115 people who sent a letter to Xavier Bettel, President of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE), on 10 February to ensure Abdullah Öcalan's physical freedom and Gössner has been dealing with the Kurdish question, the human rights situation in Turkey and a disastrous German-Turkish ‘security cooperation’ since the 1990s. Dr Gössner answered our questions.

 

Firstly we want to ask how you got to know Abdullah Öcalan and the Kurdish freedom struggle and what impact this had on you and your work?

 

I have to go back to the 1990s and expand a little: Back then, I was a lawyer representing the parents and siblings of a Kurdish teenager in court together with a colleague who later became part of Abdullah Öcalan's legal team. The young Kurd was Halim Dener, who had been shot dead by a policeman. Halim Dener had been caught in Hanover in 1994 sticking up posters of the ‘Kurdistan National Liberation Front’, which is banned in Germany, arrested and shot when he broke free. 

 

In this court case against the police marksman, I had to deal with the deadly effects of state anti-terror policies in the Federal Republic of Germany. And I had to experience that the police marksman was acquitted - to the chagrin of Halim Dener's grieving relatives, who had travelled from Eastern Anatolia to hear the verdict. This trial had a strong impact on me and prompted me to take a further interest in the ‘Kurdish question’ and to campaign for its resolution in terms of human rights.

 

After this trial in Germany, which caused a sensation at the time, you were also involved in international trial observations and human rights delegations; can you say something more about this?

 

Yes, that's right: after this and another trial against a high-ranking PKK representative at the end of the 1990s, I launched a political initiative together with the human rights organisation medico international for international observation of the trial against Abdullah Öcalan before the Turkish State Security Court (appeal from March 1999). The aim was to organise and guarantee independent observation of the trial. It was feared that these criminal proceedings in Turkey would not be conducted and decided in accordance with human rights and the rule of law. This was later confirmed to a large extent.

 

That is why later, in 2004, there were also appeal proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg/France - practically as the last instance for Abdullah Öcalan at European level. I observed this process on behalf of the International League for Human Rights and reported on it. It was about the question of the legality of Öcalan's trial in Turkish courts and his conviction for treason - first to death, then to life imprisonment after the abolition of the death penalty in Turkey. He himself could not be present in Strasbourg as he was not granted prison leave to represent his case in person. In 2005, the ECtHR finally declared the trial against Öcalan unfair and sentenced Turkey to pay compensation for violating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

 

In 2005, I took part in a human rights delegation of lawyers from Germany and South Africa, which took us to Ankara and Istanbul. We wanted to find out about the human rights situation and developments in Turkey. To this end, we spoke to official bodies, Kurdish opposition activists and NGOs, and of course we focussed on the Kurdish question in particular. At the time, there were hopes for détente - partly because of the EU accession negotiations at the time (which were later frozen again due to systematic human rights violations). We had also requested a visit from Abdullah Öcalan to the prison on the island of Imrali in order to gain a personal impression of the problematic prison conditions. However, our request was rejected by the Turkish Minister of Justice ‘for security reasons’.

 

What insights have you gained from all your activities and impressions?

 

In particular, I realised that the ‘Öcalan case’ and the state's treatment of Kurds was and continues to be a yardstick for the Turkish human rights situation and development as a whole. But I also realised the following: That an overall human rights and (geo-)political perspective is needed in order to finally achieve a viable solution to the violent Kurdistan conflict. Although this is first and foremost a conflict within Turkey, it has long had far-reaching repercussions that extend to Syria, Iraq and the European Union (EU). 

 

For years and decades, the EU and Germany have been heavily involved in the Turkish state's escalating anti-terror doctrine and have thus flanked its PKK counter-strategy and policy of repression against Kurds: for example, with the inclusion of the PKK in the EU terror list, with the PKK ban in Germany and the resulting policy of repression. And this continues to this day, despite the change that the once violence-orientated Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) has long since undergone in Europe, in Germany, towards a peaceful, democratic solution to the conflict.

 

What significance do the democratic solution to the Kurdish issue and the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan have for you? This question arises particularly after his recent call to the PKK and its supporters to lay down their arms and disband the organisation.

 

For me, both are very important, because the release of Abdullah Öcalan and the overdue solution to the Kurdish question must be seen in an overall context. As an important Kurdish representative, Öcalan must be involved in a political solution to this important issue, especially as he had long before declared his willingness to find a peaceful solution and called for a ceasefire and a peace process between Turkey and the PKK. 

 

With his latest appeal, which is described as ‘historic’, Öcalan has now gone one step further: After more than 40 years of violent conflict, he has now demanded that the PKK leadership cease the armed struggle, lay down their arms and disband the organisation. This appeal, which opens up great opportunities, should prompt the Turkish government to finally solve the underlying problem: it must decisively improve the situation of Kurds and fully recognise their rights. We will certainly come back to what this means in detail at the end.

 

You and many other signatories recently sent a letter to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe calling for Öcalan's physical freedom. How did this initiative come about and what was the purpose of this letter?

 

Perhaps it should be mentioned beforehand that there was already a first open letter to the Council of Europe last year - to its Committee against Torture (CPT) because of the solitary confinement conditions that have been imposed on Abdullah Öcalan for decades. The CPT has the possibility and also the duty to visit detention centres in Council of Europe member states, including Turkey, in order to gain an impression of the situation on the ground. That is why we are calling for a delegation to be sent to Imrali without delay in order to carry out an independent review, clarification and amendment of the extreme detention situation of the prisoners on Imrali. In the event of human rights violations, the CPT must intervene with the utmost vigour and insist that Turkey fully complies with its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. In response to our appeal, the CPT signalled to us that it wanted to take care of the situation - although this still sounded rather non-committal. 

 

Now to the second open letter you are asking about: over a hundred signatories from the public sphere wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the beginning of February. We demand legal and political steps for the release of Abdullah Öcalan after more than 25 years of imprisonment under the worst conditions. The aim is to initiate and implement a solution to the Kurdish question with his help and co-operation in negotiations with the Turkish government. This, we argue, presupposes the release of Öcalan under conditions that enable him to conduct such negotiations at all. After all, he is still a key figure in the Kurdish freedom movement and only as a free man can he negotiate. After his new appeal, we are already a significant step further: now his total isolation should finally be lifted and his release should be imminent ...

 

In your letter you mentioned the ‘right to hope’. What can you say about the ‘right to hope’ and why has this right been denied to Abdullah Öcalan so far?

 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) derives this ‘right to hope’ from the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3 ECHR). This means that it is unlawful to sentence a person to life imprisonment and detain them for life without any hope of release. In Öcalan's case, the ECtHR ruled back in 2014 that his aggravated life imprisonment, which excludes the possibility of parole, violates the ECHR. The court admonished Turkey to amend its laws accordingly in order to guarantee the individual right to hope. 

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe reaffirmed this in September 2024 and announced a new review by September 2025. So far, however, there is no evidence that Turkey is complying with this - on the contrary: Turkey does not recognise this right, which is why it continues to deny it to Öcalan and many other life prisoners in Turkey. But this denial is and remains a breach of European convention and jurisprudence. For without hope of release, life imprisonment, especially under isolation conditions, ultimately becomes a death sentence in instalments. But with the new developments following Öcalan's appeal, there is probably some movement on this issue ... 

 

In your letter, you referred to the judgements of the ECtHR and the standards of the ECHR. In this context, how do you assess the fact that Turkey is ignoring the judgements of the ECtHR and thus disregarding its own constitution, and that the ECtHR has not yet taken any concrete steps in this regard?

 

In fact, Turkey is undermining and disregarding the ECHR and judgements of the ECtHR, which it should, however, observe and implement as a member of the Council of Europe. After all, as a member state of the Council of Europe, Turkey is bound by the ECHR, according to which, for example, no one may be subjected to torture or inhuman punishment or treatment - and this includes particularly inhuman solitary confinement conditions; or according to which, as explained above, no person sentenced to life imprisonment may be denied the ‘right to hope’.

 

In reality, however, there are few possibilities to enforce judgements of the ECtHR against member states in order to effectively and sustainably remedy conditions that violate human rights. However, despite the very limited possibilities for exerting influence, I believe the question arises as to whether the Council of Europe and its committees have exerted enough pressure on Turkey to date to take the most effective action possible against torture and other human rights violations. It is long overdue for Turkey to face real consequences for its violations of the law. And this could also include targeted sanctions against those responsible for the Turkish solitary confinement system. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe already urged sanctions and punitive measures against Turkey in 2021 and 2023, albeit in other cases, as part of an ‘infringement procedure’. In an extreme case, Turkey could even be expelled from the Council of Europe, as happened to Russia after its war of aggression against Ukraine in 2022 (which, however, pre-empted this vote by withdrawing). However, when membership of the Council of Europe ends, the state in question automatically withdraws from the ECHR, meaning that it is no longer bound by it - and thus the population concerned may become even more defenceless.

 

Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan is holding talks with the İmralı Delegation, but on the other hand, Öcalan and other prisoners held on İmralı Island are still prevented from meeting with their families and lawyers. How do you evaluate this?

 

These meetings - which are positive - can only be a start. In any case, Öcalan's isolation, which violates human rights, must be lifted immediately and completely. Now more than ever after Abdullah Öcalan's new appeal. The ball is now in the Turkish government's court. Abdullah Öcalan is holding talks with the İmralı delegation, but the visits of Abdullah Öcalan's lawyer and his family are still being prevented. This does not fit together and is more than contradictory. Therefore: Allowing the interviews is very important and good, they must be continued; but the basic prerequisite is and remains the lifting of the solitary confinement conditions, which violate human rights, so that interviews with lawyers and relatives can take place. And this with the prospect of release. Ultimately, the political will of the Turkish government must also be measured against this.

 

Incidentally, the fact that numerous raids, arrests and detentions of members of pro-Kurdish opposition parties, critical journalists and human rights activists are being carried out in Turkey at practically the same time - for allegedly supporting the PKK - is also inconsistent with the facilitation of these talks. Board members of the Kurdish DEM party, the party that held the talks with Öcalan and which led to an important step towards a solution to the conflict, are probably also affected.

 

What is your appeal to the responsible political actors in Turkey as well as to the international public in the current situation? 

 

One of the most important prerequisites for peace in Turkey, for an improvement in the human rights situation and for the democratisation of the country will be a just and sustainable solution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. This is the real historical challenge. This problem remains unresolved as long as Kurds and their representatives continue to be oppressed, persecuted and deprived of their cultural and democratic rights. 

 

Now, after Abdullah Öcalan's call from prison to end the armed struggle, there are finally hopes for a new peace process. This is a success for the democratic Kurdish movement and a huge opportunity for Turkey and beyond. This appeal could be the prelude to serious and tough negotiations between Kurdish representatives and the Turkish government, which now has its turn - in the hope that President Erdoğan and his autocratic government are not only interested in power-political manoeuvres and aims to expand their own power. Despite all the scepticism, the decades-long spiral of oppression and persecution, terror, violence and retaliation could now finally be broken.

 

And so, in this context, my appeal is very brief: Negotiations on a just and sustainable solution to the Kurdish question must include the recognition of Kurdish identity and their cultural and democratic rights in Turkey, including social, political and cultural equality, reinstatement of the forcibly deposed mayors in Kurdish cities, release of the numerous Kurdish and other prisoners who are imprisoned for political reasons; Ending the new wave of repression against Kurdish and other members of the opposition, ending the bombing of Kurdish-populated and self-administered areas in Syria in violation of international law. And in general: democratisation of Turkey and respect for human rights and international law.

 

What is your expectations and demands of the EU and Germany, especially in this new situation?

 

Radical change is also needed in the EU and in Germany, namely in European policy towards Turkey and the Kurds. This includes finally putting an end to the terror stigmatisation, criminalisation, persecution and exclusion of Kurds, their organisations and media in Europe and Germany. Germany and the EU must do everything in their power to support and promote a dialogue process and a solution to the Kurdish question instead of obstructing it as they have done up to now. And this includes in particular: lifting the ban on the PKK, which has already caused so much harm in Germany, ending the anti-terrorist criminal proceedings for supporting the PKK and removing the PKK from the EU terror list. These instruments no longer fit in with the times. The rigid ban policy has discriminated against and criminalised tens of thousands of politically active Kurds, placed them under general suspicion, labelled them as potential perpetrators of violence and ‘terrorists’ and declared them to be domestic enemies and security risks and marginalised them. In addition, the increased deportations of Kurds to Turkey must be reconsidered. Despite its membership of the Council of Europe, Turkey is still far from being a safe country of origin for politically active Kurds, many of whom have fled Turkey because of their persecution.

 

In this respect, the EU and its member states have an increased responsibility and obligation, no matter how critical or hostile they may have previously been towards the PKK, its policies and its activities. The Kurdish question, and the minority question in general, is less than ever a terror problem, but a political and human rights challenge for Turkey with far-reaching consequences for Europe and the Federal Republic of Germany.

 

MA / Hîvda Çelebi