“The Kobani case verdicts ignored Constitutional Court and ECtHR rulings, sidelining the law,” said former European court judge Rıza Türmen, warning that the political nature of the trials could lead to Turkey’s expulsion from the Council of Europe, which is to review the cases of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ in June.
Speaking to Medyascope on Friday, a number of legal experts reacted strongly against the convictions in the Kobani case, where former pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) Co-chairs Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ were among 24 Kurdish politicians sentenced to imprisonment.
Former European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judge Rıza Türmen, Professor of Constitutional Law İbrahim Kaboğlu and Professor of Criminal Law Dr Adem Sözüer criticised the verdicts, stating that the Turkish courts had ignored rulings from both the Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) and the ECtHR.
“The Kobani case verdicts ignored AYM and ECtHR rulings, sidelining the law,” said Türmen. He stressed that the cases had been conducted under political influence, noting that the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers is to review the cases of Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ in June. Türmen warned that this process could lead to sanctions against Turkey, potentially resulting in its expulsion from the Council of Europe.
The Kobani (Kobanê) case, which has been ongoing for three years, concluded with Demirtaş receiving a 42-year sentence and Yüksekdağ 30 years and three months. While five of the defendants on remand in custody were released due to time already served, 12 others, including the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party Deputy Speaker Sırrı Süreyya Önder, were acquitted. Additionally, 36 defendants were acquitted of charges related to the deaths of six people, including the high-profile killing of the 16-year-old Yasin Börü, during the Kobani protests.
Türmen recalled the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber ruling of 22 December 2020, which found that Demirtaş’s tweets from 2014 were within the scope of his freedom of expression as an MP. “The ECtHR ruled that the violent events of 6-8 October 2014 were not the result of Demirtaş’s tweets and could not justify his detention,” Türmen explained. He emphasised that the court recognised the right to express statements that might shock or disturb, provided they did not incite violence.
“The issue began with the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of Demirtaş and others, violating their freedom of expression,” Türmen added. He insisted that Turkey is obliged to implement the ECtHR ruling, citing Article 46 of the Convention, which mandates compliance with the court’s decisions by all state organs, including judicial bodies.
Professor Kaboğlu criticised the Turkish government for using the law as a tool of revenge. “The Kobani, Gezi and Osman Kavala cases, along with those of the pardoned army generals, share a common disregard for AYM and ECtHR rulings,” he said. Kaboğlu described the trials as politically driven, targeting opposition figures deemed potential future threats by the ruling coalition of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). He also highlighted the appointment of a chief prosecutor had who initiated charges against members of the Constitutional Court as an example of judicial manipulation.
Professor Sözüer echoed these concerns, pointing out that the non-compliance with AYM and ECtHR decisions has effectively nullified the rule of law in Turkey. “In a country where AYM and ECtHR rulings are ignored, questioning a court’s decision becomes meaningless,” he stated. Sözüer argued that legal proceedings should first respect these higher court rulings to ensure justice.
The legal experts stated that the Kobani case could escalate to the ECtHR, citing ongoing violations of the standards of fair trial, such as the use of anonymous witnesses. They warned that if the current decisions are upheld, Turkey may face severe consequences from the Council of Europe, including possible expulsion.
