Eren Keskin, a prominent human rights lawyer and defender, reflects on the current moment of political transition in Turkey in her opinion piece titled ‘Şimdi değilse ne zaman?’ (If not now, when?), published in Yeni Yaşam Gazetesi. In response to the recent dissolution decision of the PKK, Keskin calls on the Turkish state to take concrete democratic steps, including the release of ill and political prisoners. She also critically reflects on Turkey’s failure to comply with its international legal obligations, highlighting systemic issues such as the political dependence of the Forensic Medicine Institute and the continued enforcement of ‘enemy criminal law’.
The original article has been translated by Medya News.
If not now, when?
Eren Keskin
As people living in this geography, we are preparing for a new era. Though we do not know exactly what this period may bring, we are waiting with hope. As human rights defenders, we have consistently advocated peaceful, disarmed solutions, even during the most intense phases of conflict. Today, this stance is being echoed ever more by various segments of society, especially by the political leadership. This is undoubtedly a positive sign.
But what is it that this process will bring us? The Kurdish movement has declared that it has laid down its arms and formally announced at a congress that the era of armed struggle in our region has come to an end. As human rights defenders and members of various societal groups, we welcomed this declaration. It was a pivotal moment. The cessation of armed conflict should remove all obstacles to freedom of expression and thought.
Yes, this is how it should be. But will it truly happen?
This is where the challenge lies. The fundamental concern is whether the state will take meaningful and constructive steps during or after this process, and what those steps might be. We have long emphasised that the Republic of Turkey is a signatory to numerous international treaties, including those of the United Nations and the European Union. The ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is, of course, the most well-known of these to the public. The Republic of Turkey has not only signed these treaties, but its Constitution has also included a provision in Article 90 that stipulates, in cases of conflict between national and international law, the latter shall prevail. Through this, Turkey has recognised international agreements as having the force of law. But is this the case in reality? Certainly not. This is because the Republic of Turkey is not governed by the rule of law in the true sense. Thus, there is a vast gap between the written law and its implementation.
If Turkey had adhered to the ECHR, our right to freedom of expression and association, as well as many other rights such as the right to privacy, freedom from torture, and protection from discrimination, would have been safeguarded. But this is not the reality. If it was, our current demands, chiefly the release of ill and political prisoners, as well as the abolition of anti-terror legislation operating under the logic of ‘enemy criminal law’, the reinstatement of the Istanbul Convention and an end to hate speech and violence targeting LGBTQ+ individuals and refugees, would have been met.
Yet we still face uncertainty today. We are left wondering whether any of these demands will be realised. We do not know. We really do not know. Take the issue of ill prisoners, for example. Will the state release them? I would like to revisit a particularly distressing case that I have previously shared, that of Fatma Tokmak. Fatma Tokmak has been imprisoned since 1996. She was detained for a crime she did not commit and held in custody for 20 days alongside her two-and-a-half-year-old son, Azat. While they were in custody, cigarettes were extinguished on Azat’s hands and back to coerce Fatma into confessing. Both the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey and the Council of Forensic Medicine confirmed that these injuries were caused by deliberate burns. However, Turkey’s Council of Forensic Medicine distorted the facts by claiming that the timing of the injuries could not be determined. Despite these attempts to obscure the truth, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ultimately found Turkey guilty.
And Fatma was arrested after such a traumatic ordeal in custody, during which she and her son were tortured. While in prison, she developed a severe heart condition. In 2000, while her case was still pending, she was released on medical grounds. However, once her sentence had been finalised, she was re-imprisoned. She has remained in Bakırköy Women’s Prison ever since. Her illness has worsened. She can barely breathe and often requires hospitalisation. Despite repeated confirmation by prison authorities and independent doctors that her condition is severe and a report by the Human Rights Foundation stating that she is unfit for incarceration, the Council of Forensic Medicine continues to insist that she remain in prison.
Related Article:
Turkey: Seriously ill prisoner refused right to meet lawyers for five years
At this juncture, I would like to draw attention to the crucial role played by the Council of Forensic Medicine. It is the only official institution authorised to assess prisoners’ fitness and document cases of torture. However, it operates under the shadow of political power. We have repeatedly emphasised that assessments by independent doctors and hospitals should be recognised as evidence. Furthermore, although the ECtHR ruled against Turkey’s refusal to recognise independent medical reports in the case of Şükran Aydın v. Turkey, Turkey continues to grant the Council of Forensic Medicine exclusive authority, despite having no legal obligation to do so.
According to data from the Human Rights Association, 1,412 documented ill prisoners are currently being held in Turkish prisons. These are only the cases that have reached the Association. Many more remain unheard and unseen. Among them are prisoners who are gravely ill and still awaiting release.
If a new era has indeed begun, and if both the political leadership and various segments of society are speaking of peace and disarmament, then what is preventing the release of ill prisoners? There is no time to lose. Many prisoners with terminal illnesses and critical conditions are waiting behind bars for release. As human rights defenders, we must ask: ‘If not now, when?’
And, of course, the issue is not only about ill prisoners; many others are imprisoned solely for their beliefs, including politicians, members of parliament, co-mayors and Gezi prisoners, as well as journalists. Many people are behind bars solely because of their thoughts and beliefs, and they should be released immediately. If the disarmament process has begun, there can be no justification for keeping them in prison.
