A solution for Osman Murat Ülke and other conscientious objectors?
The Council of Europe has increased its pressure on Turkey in the case of conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke.
more on War Resisters' International
UPDATE: 29. November 2008
Military Court Delivers Bad Jokes:
Notes On the Second Session of Mehmet Bal's Torture Trial on November 25th 2008
Earlier this year, on the night of June 8, 2008 conscientious objector Mehmet Bal was taken under custody near his apartment in Arnavutkoy, Istanbul. Mehmet was taken to the Besiktas Military Police station that night where he was subject to severe maltreatment including the violation of his right to use bathroom facilities, getting punched and insulted and being forced to wake up with hot water. The next day, June 9th, he was taken to the 3rd Army Corps Hasdal Military Court and arrested for failing to attend some ongoing trials at the Adana Military Prison. After being taken to the Hasdal Military prison in order to wait for his transfer to Adana, Mehmet was heavily beaten by three inmates with a 45 centimeters long wooden rod under running cold water. The inmates were acting under the direct orders of the interior security officer of the military prison. With the intervention of his lawyers, Mehmet had filed a lawsuit against those responsible both for the maltreatment at Besiktas Military Police Station and the torture at Hasdal Military Prison.
In August 2008 Mehmet received a decision of “No Grounds for Prosecution” prepared by the military prosecutor Ertan Aydil. This document pushed the events at Besiktas Military Police station entirely out of the range of prosecution and also pronounced that there was no ground for prosecuting the ranked officers at Hasdal Military prison for ordering Mehmet's torture. However, the office of forensic medicine had documented the torture, especially the fact that Mehmet had been beaten with a blunt object. Thus even though the high rank officers were protected, the military prosecutor felt obliged to open a case on the charges of “wounding on purpose” against the three inmates who did the actual beating. But even then the military prosecutor asked for a reduction in their sentence on the allegation that they had committed the crime “under provocation.” Moreover, the same military prosecutor also applied to the Eyüp Attorney General in order to sue Mehmet from article 301 as some of the witnesses and the accused alleged in their statements that Mehmet “insulted the Turkish Military Forces and the state.” We have not yet heard back from the Ministry of Justice about this ridiculous allegation. But we are hoping that this attempt to turn the victim into a suspect will remain as a bad joke.
But there seems to be no end to the jokes in this whole court process. For instance, Mehmet Bal and his lawyers were unable to attend the first session of this torture trial that was held on October 21st because in what seems to be purposeful orchestration, the court invitation was sent to his lawyer Suna Coşkun only a few days before the trial, although the trial date was set almost a month prior to that. The invitation reached Suna Coşkun the night before the trial, making it impossible for Coşkun who resides in Ankara to attend the trial in Istanbul the next morning. So the statements of all three of the accused and most of the witnesses were taken in the first session of the trial in Hasdal without being confronted or cross-examined by the complainant and the lawyers of the complainant. Furthermore, many witnesses gave their statements out of the courtroom between court sessions. And the worst was that the court excused the accused from attending any more court sessions after the first one.
Mehmet attended the second session of the trial that was held on November 25th along with the lawyers Suna Coşkun, Ahmet Tamer (from the Human Rights Association (IHD)) and Murat Özdemir (from the Comission for the Prevention of Torture within the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (THIV)). There were also four of us present as observers of the trial and supporters of Mehmet. The surprised look on the military judge's face when he saw Mehmet, his lawyers and the observers, as well as the fact that three accused who were previously excused from attending were present suggested that they were intending to conclude the trial in this session in the absence of Mehmet. Another bad joke was that it was the very same military prosecutor who penned both the allegation against the torturers in Hasdal, as well as the “No Grounds for Prosecution” decision and the complaint against Mehmet from article 301, was present at the session on the 25th as the prosecutor of the complainant! This prosecutor who prepared every single file of this case, who alternately works for and against Mehmet, did not speak throughout the entire session except to raise his objection against the demands of the lawyers to re-summon the witnesses heard in the previous session.
Other than the three accused, there were three previously unheard witnesses at the session. One of the witnesses was a soldier who was detained in the same ward at the time of torture. Another “witness” was the interior security officer who gave the actual order for torture himself and should have been sitting in the seat of the accused but was absolved thanks to that decision of “No Grounds for Prosecution” mentioned earlier. Another witness was a sergeant. The witnesses and the accused generally repeated the statements they had made at the first session of the trial. Only the sergeant significantly changed his story from the earlier obviously fabricated account to a more truthful one.
Despite all odds the four hour long session was a success on many grounds. The lawyers worked in coordination as they demonstrated the discrepancies between the earlier statements of the accused and the witnesses as well as the contradicting statements from different witnesses that annulled one another. The lawyers demanded that the matter of the late court invitation be investigated; that the witnesses who were heard at the first session be summoned again; to be informed about the witnesses who were discharged from the military and be present at their hearings at local courts. In addition to the evaluation of these demands, there are also unheard witnesses from the complainant's side and some documents that are still to arrive. Thus the trial was adjourned to December 30th, 2008.
The minutes of the court session of November 25th is a filtered and coded document prepared under the absolute control of the military judge in charge. The judge was manipulating, steering and protecting both the witnesses and the accused throughout the session. Further, he was remolding these manipulated statements before they were ever typed by the court reporters who could write down only what he dictated to them. For instance one of the accused said something to the effect of “If I had really hit him, he would have died or become crippled. Look, let me hit him once here. If he does not fall to the floor at the first strike, I'll accept all the accusations.” These threatening words were softened by the judge into the following: “There is a difference of stature between us. If this was true, he should have been crippled.” Because the monitors in front of the judge and the court secretary could not be seen by the lawyers, they could not object to the contents of the court minutes right there and then but they will officially file objections in retrospect both against the contents of the minutes, the physical make-up of the court room that prevents them from seeing the monitors, as well as the fact that the same prosecutor seems to prosecute everything.
in Turkish
UPDATE: 20. August 2008
We just received bad news about the case Mehmet Bal had against his torturers. The military prosecutor decided there was no need for trial in the case of officers and soldiers neither for the mistreatment at Besiktas military police station nor for the outright torture at Hasdal military prison.
They did press charges against the three soldier-inmates in Hasdal military prison for "wounding" but they ask for reduction in their sentences because they were purportedly "provoked."
On a ridiculously ironic note, because the inmates argued in their statement that Mehmet "insulted the Turkish armed forces", the crafty military prosecutor filed a 301 case against Mehmet. Because of the new amendment in the law, now 301 cases require authorization from the Ministry of "Justice." If the MoJ gives their OK, then we're looking at a new 301 case.
Here's a short news story about this new developlent in English from bianet:
http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/109129/torture-goes-unpunished-conscientious-objector-may-be-sued-for-insulting-military
The Military Prosecutor sees no need to file a lawsuit for the bad treatment and torture conscientious objector Bal had to endure. Instead, Bal may be sued under article 301 for insulting the Turkish Armed Forces.
Bia news center - Istanbul
Merspeaksout's Weblog
UPDATE 4. April 2008: Ismail Saygi withdrew his conscientious objection
after beeing mistreated.
July 2007: Conscientious Objector (CO) Osman Murat Ülke, currently again under immanent threat of 17 months imprisonment for refusing military service. Please support Mr. Ülke and other COs with signing this online petition and letters to the representatives in charge. (further infos: first blog entry below)
Military Court Delivers Bad Jokes:
Notes On the Second Session of Mehmet Bal's Torture Trial on November 25th 2008
Earlier this year, on the night of June 8, 2008 conscientious objector Mehmet Bal was taken under custody near his apartment in Arnavutkoy, Istanbul. Mehmet was taken to the Besiktas Military Police station that night where he was subject to severe maltreatment including the violation of his right to use bathroom facilities, getting punched and insulted and being forced to wake up with hot water. The next day, June 9th, he was taken to the 3rd Army Corps Hasdal Military Court and arrested for failing to attend some ongoing trials at the Adana Military Prison. After being taken to the Hasdal Military prison in order to wait for his transfer to Adana, Mehmet was heavily beaten by three inmates with a 45 centimeters long wooden rod under running cold water. The inmates were acting under the direct orders of the interior security officer of the military prison. With the intervention of his lawyers, Mehmet had filed a lawsuit against those responsible both for the maltreatment at Besiktas Military Police Station and the torture at Hasdal Military Prison.
In August 2008 Mehmet received a decision of “No Grounds for Prosecution” prepared by the military prosecutor Ertan Aydil. This document pushed the events at Besiktas Military Police station entirely out of the range of prosecution and also pronounced that there was no ground for prosecuting the ranked officers at Hasdal Military prison for ordering Mehmet's torture. However, the office of forensic medicine had documented the torture, especially the fact that Mehmet had been beaten with a blunt object. Thus even though the high rank officers were protected, the military prosecutor felt obliged to open a case on the charges of “wounding on purpose” against the three inmates who did the actual beating. But even then the military prosecutor asked for a reduction in their sentence on the allegation that they had committed the crime “under provocation.” Moreover, the same military prosecutor also applied to the Eyüp Attorney General in order to sue Mehmet from article 301 as some of the witnesses and the accused alleged in their statements that Mehmet “insulted the Turkish Military Forces and the state.” We have not yet heard back from the Ministry of Justice about this ridiculous allegation. But we are hoping that this attempt to turn the victim into a suspect will remain as a bad joke.
But there seems to be no end to the jokes in this whole court process. For instance, Mehmet Bal and his lawyers were unable to attend the first session of this torture trial that was held on October 21st because in what seems to be purposeful orchestration, the court invitation was sent to his lawyer Suna Coşkun only a few days before the trial, although the trial date was set almost a month prior to that. The invitation reached Suna Coşkun the night before the trial, making it impossible for Coşkun who resides in Ankara to attend the trial in Istanbul the next morning. So the statements of all three of the accused and most of the witnesses were taken in the first session of the trial in Hasdal without being confronted or cross-examined by the complainant and the lawyers of the complainant. Furthermore, many witnesses gave their statements out of the courtroom between court sessions. And the worst was that the court excused the accused from attending any more court sessions after the first one.
Mehmet attended the second session of the trial that was held on November 25th along with the lawyers Suna Coşkun, Ahmet Tamer (from the Human Rights Association (IHD)) and Murat Özdemir (from the Comission for the Prevention of Torture within the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (THIV)). There were also four of us present as observers of the trial and supporters of Mehmet. The surprised look on the military judge's face when he saw Mehmet, his lawyers and the observers, as well as the fact that three accused who were previously excused from attending were present suggested that they were intending to conclude the trial in this session in the absence of Mehmet. Another bad joke was that it was the very same military prosecutor who penned both the allegation against the torturers in Hasdal, as well as the “No Grounds for Prosecution” decision and the complaint against Mehmet from article 301, was present at the session on the 25th as the prosecutor of the complainant! This prosecutor who prepared every single file of this case, who alternately works for and against Mehmet, did not speak throughout the entire session except to raise his objection against the demands of the lawyers to re-summon the witnesses heard in the previous session.
Other than the three accused, there were three previously unheard witnesses at the session. One of the witnesses was a soldier who was detained in the same ward at the time of torture. Another “witness” was the interior security officer who gave the actual order for torture himself and should have been sitting in the seat of the accused but was absolved thanks to that decision of “No Grounds for Prosecution” mentioned earlier. Another witness was a sergeant. The witnesses and the accused generally repeated the statements they had made at the first session of the trial. Only the sergeant significantly changed his story from the earlier obviously fabricated account to a more truthful one.
Despite all odds the four hour long session was a success on many grounds. The lawyers worked in coordination as they demonstrated the discrepancies between the earlier statements of the accused and the witnesses as well as the contradicting statements from different witnesses that annulled one another. The lawyers demanded that the matter of the late court invitation be investigated; that the witnesses who were heard at the first session be summoned again; to be informed about the witnesses who were discharged from the military and be present at their hearings at local courts. In addition to the evaluation of these demands, there are also unheard witnesses from the complainant's side and some documents that are still to arrive. Thus the trial was adjourned to December 30th, 2008.
The minutes of the court session of November 25th is a filtered and coded document prepared under the absolute control of the military judge in charge. The judge was manipulating, steering and protecting both the witnesses and the accused throughout the session. Further, he was remolding these manipulated statements before they were ever typed by the court reporters who could write down only what he dictated to them. For instance one of the accused said something to the effect of “If I had really hit him, he would have died or become crippled. Look, let me hit him once here. If he does not fall to the floor at the first strike, I'll accept all the accusations.” These threatening words were softened by the judge into the following: “There is a difference of stature between us. If this was true, he should have been crippled.” Because the monitors in front of the judge and the court secretary could not be seen by the lawyers, they could not object to the contents of the court minutes right there and then but they will officially file objections in retrospect both against the contents of the minutes, the physical make-up of the court room that prevents them from seeing the monitors, as well as the fact that the same prosecutor seems to prosecute everything.
in Turkish
UPDATE: 20. August 2008
We just received bad news about the case Mehmet Bal had against his torturers. The military prosecutor decided there was no need for trial in the case of officers and soldiers neither for the mistreatment at Besiktas military police station nor for the outright torture at Hasdal military prison.
They did press charges against the three soldier-inmates in Hasdal military prison for "wounding" but they ask for reduction in their sentences because they were purportedly "provoked."
On a ridiculously ironic note, because the inmates argued in their statement that Mehmet "insulted the Turkish armed forces", the crafty military prosecutor filed a 301 case against Mehmet. Because of the new amendment in the law, now 301 cases require authorization from the Ministry of "Justice." If the MoJ gives their OK, then we're looking at a new 301 case.
Here's a short news story about this new developlent in English from bianet:
http://www.bianet.org/english/
The Military Prosecutor sees no need to file a lawsuit for the bad treatment and torture conscientious objector Bal had to endure. Instead, Bal may be sued under article 301 for insulting the Turkish Armed Forces.
Bia news center - Istanbul
Merspeaksout's Weblog
UPDATE 4. April 2008: Ismail Saygi withdrew his conscientious objection
after beeing mistreated.
July 2007: Conscientious Objector (CO) Osman Murat Ülke, currently again under immanent threat of 17 months imprisonment for refusing military service. Please support Mr. Ülke and other COs with signing this online petition and letters to the representatives in charge. (further infos: first blog entry below)Monday, November 26, 2007
Council of Europe increases pressure on Turkey
Sunday, November 25, 2007
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - TURKEY
Parliamentary Question: Prison sentences for conscientious objectors in Turkey
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3895/07EN by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
Subject: Prison sentences in Turkey for conscientious objectors and renewal of the sentences for as long as the conscientious objection continues
1. Is the Commission aware of the continuing practice in Turkey of punishing the refusal to perform military service with long prison sentences instead of a requirement to perform alternative forms of service, and the additional fact that once the sentence has been served, the person in question is returned to the barracks for military service, with each subsequent refusal being punished by a further term of imprisonment?
2. Is the Commission aware that the European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey guilty of inhumane treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)? When does the Commission expect the practice to stop?
3. Can the Commission confirm the information transmitted to the Council of Europe by Turkey on 6 June according to which a draft law has recently been introduced in Turkey whereby the practice of repeated punishment of conscientious objectors would be brought to an end, provided that they abide by their original reasons and refuse military service on those grounds?
4. Is the Commission aware that despite the judgment referred to in paragraph 2 and the announcement referred to in paragraph 3, repeated sentencing of conscientious objectors is still widely practised, as in the case of Murat Ülke, who was recently sentenced to 17½ months in prison because he had again refused military service(1)?
5. Does the Commission agree that the change in the law referred to in paragraph 3 cannot be expected before the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 24 January 2006 is executed? Does it consider it desirable for Turkey to absolve Ülke as quickly as possible from further prosecution and the execution of the most recent judgment, in order to put an end to the illegal situation in which he has had to live in Turkey for years?
6. Is the Commission prepared to make efforts to ensure that this issue is placed on the agenda as quickly as possible in the framework of the ongoing cooperation negotiations between the EU and Turkey, and, above and beyond that, in the talks relating to preparations for Turkish membership of the EU?
(1)See letter of 11 July 2007 from Fischer, Ücpinar and Boyle, lawyers to the CoE. See also
WRITTEN ANSWERE-3895/07EN by given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission ( 06.09.2007)
The Commission is closely following the proceedings against Mr Osman Murat Ülke, and is aware that the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ülke versus Turkey is pending execution.
The current Turkish legal framework does not regulate adequately the issue of conscientious objection. As indicated by the European Court of Human Rights, this creates a risk that those who refuse to perform their military service on conscientious or religious grounds face repetitive and unlimited penal sanctions, thus resulting in a violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Developments related to conscientious objection are reviewed as part of the accession negotiations, in the context of Chapter 23 - Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. As appropriate, they are also raised with the Turkish authorities in the framework of the regular political dialogue. Lastly, the Commission monitors the execution of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights as part of the annual Commission Progress Reports, in line with the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey.
Parliamentary Question: Conscientious objection in Turkey
WRITTEN QUESTION by Marios Matsakis (ALDE) to the Commission
Subject: Conscientious objection
Turkey continues to persecute, convict and jail conscientious objectors who refuse to be conscripted into the Turkish army. And this despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in January 2006, in the case of Osman Murat Ulke, which found Turkey guilty, awarded damages to Mr Ulke and urged Turkey to introduce legislation recognising conscientious objection. Since then, Turkey has changed nothing. Is the Commission aware of this problem? What effective representations is the Commission making towards Turkey in order to remedy the situation?
ANSWER given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission
The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member. The current Turkish legal framework does not regulate adequately the issue of conscientious objection and exposes those who refuse to perform their military service on conscientious or religious grounds to the risk of repetitive and unlimited penal sanctions. The cumulative effect of these sanctions has been found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to constitute degrading treatment (violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in the case of Ülke v. Turkey.
Ensuring the full execution of judgments of the ECtHR is a short term priority of the 2006 Accession Partnership for Turkey's accession. In this regard, the Commission raises these issues in the context of the political dialogue with the Turkish authorities at all appropriate levels.
ABHaber 21.11.2007 Brussels
Council of Europe demands Turkey stops persecuting OSMAN MURAT ÜLKE
Updates:
Press Release
see previous Press Release and Council of Europe Decision
on Refusing to Kill
Newspaper Confiscated for "Anti-Military" Article
The 32nd issue of a local Gaziantep newspaper was confiscated after an article entitled "Mother, Don't Send Me to the Army" was published.
Bıa news centre - Gaziantep
14 November 2007, Çarşamba
Erol ÖNDEROGLU
The Gaziantep 1st Criminal Court of Peace has ordered the confiscation of the 32nd issue of the local "Coban Atesi" (Shepherd's Fire) newspaper after journalist Berkant Coskun wrote an article entitled "Mother, Don't Send Me to the Army". The newspaper stands accused of "damaging the public image of military service".
Immediate reaction
Judge Saban Kaplan decreed the confiscation of the issue "because the article contained passages which committed the crime of damaging the public image of military service". He cited Article 25/2 of Press Law No. 5187.
Article 25/2 is concerned with "Confiscation and a ban on distribution and sales". Since the article also calls for an investigation, the newspaper's editor-in-chief Yasin Yetisgen was called to the police station to give a statement.
The court's decision was an immediate response to the Public Prosecution's demand on the same day. The police went to the newspaper office and collected 130 copies of the relevant issue.
"I am afraid, mother"
The article in question referred to the Geneva and LaHague Conventions and called operations of the Turkish Armed Forces in the Oremar
(Daglica) region of Hakkari a "massacre"; it also referred to the social effects of these operations on children and Kurds.
One passage of the text reads: "I am afraid, mother, take me inside, I am afraid...The army wants [me] because they say there will be a war, mother they tell me 'lie down' and 'get up'. Mother, they give me a gun and tell me 'kill'...Switch off your television, mother, they are deceiving you as well...This song goes around in my head when I watch the heroic (!) soldiers' operations on television..."
Conscientious objection prosecuted in Turkey
Article 318 of the new Turkish Penal Code, which is concerned with "damage to the public image of military service", has been used against pacifists, journalists and rights activists. Journalist Perihan Magden of the "Aktüel" magazine was acquitted under the article, but conscientious objector Halil Savda, writer Serpil Köksal, pacifists Murat Dünsen and Ibrahim Kizartici, "Birgün" reporter Gökhan Gencay and "Ülkede Özgür Gündem" reporter Birgül Özbaris are still on trial under the article.
First case in 1989
The first case against conscientious objection began in 1989, when Tugrul Eryilmaz, editor-in-chief of the "Sokak" (Street) magazine and self-declared conscientious objectors Tayfun Gönül and Vedat Zencir were given suspended sentences for "damaging the public image of military service". The "Günes" newspaper which covered the statements of the objectors was later also investigated.
The article reads: "(1) People who suggest or encourage activities which damage the public image of military service are to be punished with a prison sentence between six months and two years. (2) Should the act have taken place in the media or press, the punishment is increased by a half." (EÖ/AG)
Friday, November 9, 2007
1 December 2007: Prisoners for Peace Day
Prisoners for Peace Day 2007:
Support antimilitarists in Turkey (English)
Unterstützt die Anitmilitaristen in der Türkei
download (English) it as Pdf-File and spread it!
German
Spanish
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
End the War Demonstrations throughout America
A Summery of that great Weekend (27th October 2007) in America
Friday, October 26, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 39437/98, judgment of 24 January 2006, final on 24 April 2006)
Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)1091
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" and "the Court");
Having regard to the judgment in the case of Ülke transmitted by the Court to the Committee for supervision of its execution once it became final on 24 April 2006;
Considering that, in its judgment, the Court found that the applicant's repeated convictions and imprisonment for having refused to perform compulsory military service on account of his beliefs as a pacifist and conscientious objector amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention;
Considering further that the Court found that the existing legislative framework was insufficient, as there was no specific provision in Turkish law governing the sanctions for those who refused to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds and that the only relevant applicable rules appeared to be the provisions of the Military Criminal Code, which made any refusal to obey the orders of a superior an offence;
Stressing the obligation of every state, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the judgments of the Court, including through the adoption of individual measures putting an end to the violations found and removing as far as possible their effects for the applicant, as well as general measures not least to prevent similar violations;
Noting that, at the 997th meeting of the Committee of Ministers (June 2007), the Turkish authorities declared that a draft law had been prepared aiming to prevent new violations of Article 3 similar to that found in the present case, and that this draft would be transmitted to the Prime Minister's Office for submission to Parliament following the opinions received from the relevant ministers;
Noting further the Turkish authorities' declaration that this law, once adopted, would prevent repetitive prosecutions and convictions of those who refuse to perform military service for conscientious or religious reasons, on grounds of "persistent disobedience" of military orders and that it was also intended to cover the necessary individual measures to be taken in this case.
Noting with concern that, following the government's declaration, the applicant was summonsed on 09/07/2007 to present himself in order to serve his outstanding sentence resulting from a previous conviction and that his request for a stay of execution of his sentence was rejected by the Eskişehir Military Court on the ground that the said declaration before the Committee of Ministers could not lead to a stay of execution of the applicant's sentence because the content of the law under preparation – including whether or not it contained provisions that would apply for or against the applicant's case – was unknown;
Emphasising in this regard that the Convention and the judgments of the Court have direct applicability in Turkish legal order by virtue of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution;
Regretting that, despite Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, the applicant is now facing a real risk of being imprisoned on the basis of a previous conviction;
Stressing the necessity to take urgent individual measures in this case;
URGES therefore the Turkish authorities to take without further delay all necessary measures to put an end to the violation of the applicant's rights under the Convention and to adopt rapidly the legislative reform necessary to prevent similar violations of the Convention;
INVITES in particular the Turkish authorities rapidly to provide the Committee with information concerning the adoption of the measures required by the judgment ;
DECIDES to examine the implementation of the present judgment at each human rights meeting until the necessary urgent measures are adopted.
1Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Thank you !!!
Today the 1000th person signed on the Petition for
Conscientious Objector
Osman Murat Ülke
Teşekkürler/Sağol - σασ ευχαριστώ!
Danke - Thank You
Grazie - Grazias
Kiittää - Merci
Osman Murat Ülke
Teşekkürler/Sağol - σασ ευχαριστώ!
Danke - Thank You
Grazie - Grazias
Kiittää - Merci
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Soldiers Say No
Soldiers Say No
THIS WEBLOG is dedicated to those Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airpersons who refuse to fight in illegal wars or to commit war crimes. These young men and women face persecution because they are following their consciences and obeying international law. They need and deserve our support, and we need them. When even more soldiers say no, the wars will be over.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Interview with Ossi
Interview of Hakan Ataman, SG of the Human Rights Agenda Association with Osman Murat Ülke via e-mail on 26.07.2007
H.A: Dear Ossi, you spent almost 2 years in prison for refusing military service and now the prosecutor's office in Eskişehir called you on 14 June 2007 to defend yourself on a prison term of 17.5 months. How do you evaluate the call (order)?
O: I was not called to defend myself. I was called to serve a sentence of 17 months and 15 days imprisonment relating to two verdicts from the trials until 1999. This situation in itself is weird, because I almost served all of these sentences. On 9 March 1999, the day of my release, we reckoned that there were three or nine days that I had not served – maybe less or none at all. But the prosecutor first issues an order and intends to make the exact count later.
In the end all of this is unimportant, because after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the promises the Turkish authorities made to the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe, I should not serve 3 to 7 days, not even one single day. What has to be done is to stop the violation on a general and individual level. Even if this does not lead to imprisonment, the violation, in the words of the court the "civil death", continues in an aggravated form day by day.
Therefore, we demand that on the individual level the procedures are stopped and further that my obligation to do military service is ended and that I am legalized in every respect.
HA: Do you think that a connection can be detected between the fast rise of militarism in Turkey lately and the call you received despite the judgment of the ECHR and the suggestions of the Committee of Ministers? What is your opinion on this?
O: There is no direct hint that the prosecutor's office in Eskişehir acted on direct intervention of the General Staff. But even if the situation can be explained with a Kafkaesque irony of bureaucratic mechanisms and the lack of communication within the State, we cannot ignore the role of militarism in this equation. Did we not live under the custodianship of the military, no military official would have repudiated the Ministry of Defence that announced that a law on conscientious objection would be passed right after the judgment of the ECHR and the necessary steps would have been taken by now.
HA: The notion of conscientious objection is not limited to the judgment of the ECHR. It is a basic human right with an intense ethical and political background. This background is too broad and rooted to be reflected in courts' decisions. Therefore, we speak not only about abiding to courts' decisions, but of a much wider problem. What can you say about this?
O: Certainly. Concerning the judgment of the ECHR and the question to put the right to conscientious objection into the context of universal law, we can say that detecting the "disparity of the sentence and its consequences" the Court postponed a decision concerning the essence of the problem.
The right to conscientious objection is taken as a standard among the individual rights in countries where the relationship between State and individual is determined in a liberal framework. But in countries where the State believes to have the right to form the citizens ideologically and to have power on their bodies and will, conscientious objection becomes a threat to undermine the whole socio-political framework. If the individual insists on having the first say on his body and will, in short his or her life, this is an aspect that starting from each questioning individual relates to the whole social construct and, therefore, exceeds the individual.
If the State responds to such a pressure with an even more rigorous attitude and insists on authoritarian norms, the area of questioning expands and the loss of legitimation intensifies. This is the general dilemma of authoritarianism.
Conscientious objectors in Turkey have always, that is for 17 years now, accepted conscientious objection as a concrete indicator of criticism towards militarism. Like in the example of Ghandi, that many people do not take serious or worth to be studied, this attitude of civil disobedience goes beyond individual losses and punishment and leads to discussions of the negative aspects of society and structural problems based on libertarian and ethical arguments. Just to name some of the headings: occupation of politics by the military; the continuing war; the militarist manipulation in education; the distorted historiography built on taboos; the militarized construction of gender identities and the related role divisions...
You may say that I am exaggerating, but I have seen conscientious objection as a litmus paper among all those who have said something on the subject in Turkey so far, clearly marking those who are in favour of a free and humane structure of society and those who promote an abstract raison d’etat.
HA: Even though there are not too many at risk of being imprisoned for being conscientious objectors in recent years, there has been an increase in imprisonments. Halil Savda was arrested and just recently released. In addition, during the latest arrests of Halil Savda and Mehmet Tarhan torture and ill-treatment occurred. Taking the subject as a whole, it seems that what is done to the conscientious objectors does not only aim at them but is planned in order to traumatize the whole society. That is, the society is given a message. What do you think about this?
O: This has always been the common aim of torture, whatever the reason for it may be. The State announces the impossibility of being questioned with violence and hopes to take all dynamics and minds in society as hostage. Concerning the example of conscientious objection, the completely indefinite future of conscientious objectors must be mentioned here. The individual burden is much heavier and therefore reservations in the face of State power dominate the majority. But disquieters, who do not sacrifice the voice of conscience to concerns of security have always existed and the effects have been bigger than the persons. This is one of the dark spots that authoritarianism cannot take under control.
HA: The last question: What can organizations of civil society do for recognition of conscientious objection or what would you suggest?
O: Speaking for Turkey, first of all, they can start to do something. There are some exceptions, but so far the activities are far from being sufficient.
At least since the judgment of the ECHR the question marks in many people's mind as to the legitimation of conscientious objection have been lifted. I wish that our struggle on this soil over the last 17 years could have had such an effect by itself.
This being so, many NGOs have not taken the problem as an issue for themselves or are unconsciously calculating the risks and prefer to wait and not to prioritize the matter. Any NGO that is truly concerned about the custodianship of the military and/or individual liberties should get in touch with conscientious objectors and should try to understand the history and basics of the problem in order to draw its own conclusions.
There should be seminars and internal education not only on conscientious objection, but also on contents, dimensions and meaning of antimilitarism in Turkey.
Abroad a huge amount of literature was developed on the subject. This has to be studied.
The individual objectors need legal and political support. I'm not saying that all NGOs have to appoint a lawyer immediately, but sending observers to the trials and reflecting on what can be done afterwards would be a beginning.
The government must be put under pressure to implement indisputable legal documents. Open letters can be written and interviews can be given to the press.
Platforms that were established on the war in Iraq or other specific subjects should be extended to cover conscientious objection.
Of course, this list can be extended.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Media Watch
It is especially the German Media who gives attention to the case of Conscientious Objector Osman Murat Ülke, besides the very main active NGOs like Connection e.V., Zentralstelle KDV, href="http://www.friedenskooperative.de/">Netzwerk Friedenskooperative, IPPNW, Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft - Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen Mainz and the War Resisters' International, which are mainly supported by the foundation Bewegungsstiftung and the international NGO Payday.
Chronology of publishments (beginning with the latest):
05.09.2007 - Neue Rheinische Zeitung
30.08.2007 - Jungle World
28.08.2007 - Junge Welt
27.08.2007 - Linksnet
05.08.2007 - Sunday's Zaman (English)
04.08.2007 - Turkish Daily News (English)
01.08.2007 - Neue Rheinische Zeitung
31.07.2007 - Linke Zeitung
26.07.2007 - Jungle World
25.07.2007 - Jetzt - Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ)
25.07.2007 - Neues Deutschland
20.07.2007 - Glocalist
18.07.2007 - Junge Welt
17.07.2007 - The Scotsman (English)
where else I found alerts and publications:
13.08.2007 - Interview with Osman Murat Ülke on köXüs (Turkish)
29.07.2007 - Zeitfragen (Blog, German)
- Kurdisches Politikforum (German)
28.07.2007 - Medizinische Flüchtlingshilfe Bochum e.V.
27.07.2007 - Planet Hop (Blog, German)
26.07.2007 - Human Rights Agenda Association (HRAA), Interview
26.07.2007 - HRAA, Interview with Osman Murat Ülke (Turkish)
23.07.2007 - Hippytrasher on Myspace (Blog, English)
23.07.2007 - Residua (Blog, Spanish)
22.07.2007 - Davinca (FotoBlog, English)
19.07.2007 - Amnesty International
- Amnesty International US
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Initial Situation
Conscientious Objector (CO) Osman Murat Ülke at danger of re- imprisonment
Osman Murat Ülke, Halil Savda, Mehmet Tarhan, Lior Volynitz, Omri Evron
Turkish conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke, who spent 2 1/2 years in prison from October 1996 until March 1999, and who won his case at the European Court of Human Rights in 2006, received a new order from the military prosecutors office of Eskisehir informing him that he is expected to present himself within 10 days of issue of that notice to the prosecutor in order to serve a sentence of 17 months and 15 days in respect of earlier convictions for refusing to undertake military service.
Failure to do so would result in a warrant being issued for his arrest. The document in question had been issued on 14 June 2007, so that it is highly likely that presently there is an arrest warrant for Osman Murat Ülke, putting him at high risk of arrest and reimprisonment.
please send protests to: the Turkish President and a Petition to the Council of Europe
in German
in Turkish
in Spanish
in English
please sign the Petition on Payday too
further infos:
Clara Immerwahr Award 2007 for Osman Murat Ülke
Clara Immerwahr Award 2007 für Osman Murat Ülke
the Case on War Resisters' International
the Case on Refuse to Kill
the Case on Amnesty International
the Case on Savaskarsitlari (Turkish)
the Case on The Scotsman
Lior Volynitz refuses to fight against the People of Occupied Palestine
Omri Evron as well refuses to fight against the People of Occupied Palestine
Israeli Conscientious Objectors
listen to Universal Soldier by Donovan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
