Lawyer: Lack of legal basis leaves peace process hostage to political decision 

In the context of the peace process and the democratic society—as well as the necessary legal measures required to secure the physical freedom and address the legal status of Leader Abdullah Ocalan—lawyer Müslüm Dalar, a board member of the Amed (Diyarbakır) Bar Association in Northern Kurdistan, spoke to ANHA agency.

Dalar began by referencing the European Court of Human Rights ruling of July 9, 2013, which mandated the existence of an effective mechanism to review life imprisonment sentences within a period not exceeding 25 years.

"Mr. Ocalan’s situation must be assessed on a legal basis."

Dalar pointed to the ongoing discussions regarding Leader Abdullah Ocalan’s legal status, stating: "The law defines the rights, powers, and responsibilities of individuals, institutions, and society, as well as their relationship with the state within the legal system. Accordingly, Mr. Abdullah Ocalan’s situation should also be assessed on a legal basis."

Dalar also highlighted the legal status of Leader Abdullah Ocalan and his role in the ongoing peace process in Turkey aimed at resolving the Kurdish issue, emphasizing the need for a legal framework that would enable him to lead this process. He warned that the absence of such a framework leaves the entire peace process hostage to political decisions and undermines the rule of law.

In response to a question regarding the legal steps required to secure Leader Abdullah Ocalan’s physical freedom—twenty-six years after his arrest—in light of current circumstances and both domestic and international law, Dalar replied: "Under the Turkish judicial system, Mr. Abdullah Ocalan is not merely a detainee; he is a convicted prisoner. However, the current debate is not about the conviction itself, but rather the regime under which the sentence is being served. Consequently, the issue is not limited to the conviction; it concerns whether the execution of the sentence complies with human rights standards."

He noted that Turkey’s system of aggravated life imprisonment—specifically the provisions of Article 107 of Law No. 5275 (on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures) and relevant sections of the Anti-Terror Law (Law No. 3713)—completely eliminates the possibility of parole for certain offenses. This effectively transforms the sentence into life imprisonment without any hope of release.

According to the European Court, individuals serving life sentences must undergo an independent and objective review of their status during their incarceration, allowing for consideration of whether they should be released or continue serving their sentence.

Dalar emphasized: "Nor can the legal system tell a convicted person at the outset that they can never regain their freedom; such an approach conflicts with the prohibition against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

The *Vinter* judgment, delivered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court on July 9, 2013, stands as a landmark ruling regarding the "right to hope." It affirmed the necessity of an effective mechanism to ensure the review of life imprisonment sentences within a period not exceeding 25 years.

Dalar highlighted the need for a precise definition of the term "legal status"—particularly given the ongoing peace process and democratic societal developments—when discussing the legal status of Leader Abdullah Ocalan from both legal and constitutional perspectives. He stated: "While the term is frequently used in public political discourse, in a legal sense, it defines the rights, powers, and responsibilities of an individual, institution, or group, as well as the nature of their legal relationship with the state within the legal system."

He continued: "Legal status is not a privilege; rather, it is a legal framework designed to provide safeguards and ensure legal certainty. Furthermore, discussing 'legal status' goes beyond mere detention conditions or the penal execution regime; it concerns the legal structuring of his role in the democratic process aimed at resolving the Kurdish issue, the rights and powers enabling his participation in that process, and the legal guarantees ensuring this participation." Dalar pointed out that there are international precedents offering similar models in this regard—such as the process of ending apartheid in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was not viewed merely as a prisoner but was legally and politically recognized as a key party to the negotiations. A similar approach was taken in Colombia during the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which involved establishing specific legal frameworks within transitional justice mechanisms to strike a balance between criminal law and a political solution.

Dalar explained that the common thread among these experiences is that conflict resolution processes rely not only on political will but also require legal guarantees; their absence leaves the process hostage to specific individuals and transient political agendas. He attributed this to the foundational principles upon which the Turkish Republic was built in 1923—principles that have exacerbated and perpetuated the problem to this day—asserting that the Turkish state must abandon its unilateral approach and recognize the rights of the Kurdish people.

Dalar emphasized: "This is where the concept of a 'democratic society' gains its significance. A democratic society is not limited to elections, parliaments, or constitutional institutions; the European Court of Human Rights defines it as a dynamic concept rooted in pluralism, participation, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the peaceful management of societal differences. A genuine democratic society must manage the peace process through legal mechanisms."

He stressed that the discussion regarding the legal status of leader Abdullah Ocalan should not be confined merely to the conditions of his personal detention. Instead, questions must be raised about how Turkey addresses the Kurdish issue within its legal framework, how it interprets the principle of a democratic society, and what constitutional and legal tools it intends to employ to manage the peace process.

Dalar affirmed that the fundamental prerequisite for lasting peace is that the process be safeguarded by legal guarantees; any peace process lacking a legal framework is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.

He noted that it is the law—not transient politics—that ensures the continuity of institutions. Therefore, the central issue requiring discussion today is: what legal frameworks will Turkey establish to ensure the success of the peace process? Solutions based on individuals remain temporary; only solutions grounded in the rule of law are capable of enduring.

Dalar believes that building a democratic society requires the protection of fundamental rights—such as freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and the right to political participation—as well as the assurance of legal certainty.

He pointed out that constitutional and political reforms are among the most critical changes required of the Turkish state, noting that the Kurdish issue is not merely a matter of criminal law, but rather an issue of democracy, citizenship, and the constitution.

Furthermore, limiting the peace process and the development of a democratic society to mere amendments regarding the implementation of the penal code would be insufficient. Reforms must instead encompass the strengthening of local democracy by expanding freedom of expression, developing mechanisms for political participation, solidifying the principle of equality before the law, and guaranteeing fundamental rights in accordance with international standards.

Dalar explained that any role played by leader Abdullah Ocalan within the peace process must exist within a legal framework; the issue is not about granting an individual exceptional status above the law, but rather about resolving a societal problem. He stated: "Without securing the legal foundations for the peace process and for Mr. Abdullah Ocalan, the process remains contingent upon political decisions, thereby conflicting with the principle of the rule of law."

Sh-S

ANHA