Saygı Öztürk's striking assessment on the 'right to hope' requested for terrorist leader Abdullah Öcalan

Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's call for the leader of the terrorist organization PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, to "speak in Parliament" and for "the path to be opened wide for him to benefit from the right to hope" continues to maintain its place on the agenda following his handshake with DEM Party deputies at the opening of the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

Sözcü columnist Saygı Öztürk made striking assessments regarding MHP leader Bahçeli's "right to hope" call for terrorist leader Öcalan.

Pointing out that Öcalan has been in prison since 1999 and has spent 25 years behind bars, Öztürk said, "There are those who have been in prison for 30 years. While a regulation is being made for Öcalan, we assume their situation will also be taken into account."

"IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT, THE COMMISSION WILL NOT DECIDE OTHERWISE"

Stating that if a "right to hope" regulation is enacted, Öcalan could be released or placed under house arrest for a certain period, Öztürk said, "A commission in the prison will decide whether Öcalan will be released or not. However, if the government wants it, it is not expected that the commission will make a different decision."

"Where did the 'right to hope' even come from? The right to hope is known as a regulation regarding the situation of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment who cannot benefit from the possibility of conditional release," said Öztürk in his article, adding, "There is no regulation regarding this in the Turkish Penal Execution Law. Such a regulation can be made by amending the Penal Execution Law and the Anti-Terror Law. Therefore, at this stage, this issue is not legal, but related to penal policy."

Öztürk carried the statements of Retired Military Judge and Lawyer Cengiz Demirtaş, who closely follows ECHR legislation, to his column regarding where the "right to hope" originated.

Demirtaş stated the following:

“In the 2013 case in England known as 'Vinter and Others', it was ruled that the implementation of life sentences without the possibility of review or release after a certain period constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 3 of the Convention states that no one shall be subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment. In short, the prohibition of torture), and that life sentences should be reviewed after a maximum of 25 years, and the conditions for the release of prisoners should be evaluated.”

ECHR DECISION ON LITHUANIAN PRISONER

In its 2017 decision regarding two prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in Lithuania, it included the following statements regarding the "right to hope":

Even those who have committed the most heinous and terrible acts retain their basic humanity and carry the capacity for change within them. Although prison sentences are long and deserved, they retain the right to hope that one day they may have atoned for the mistakes they made. They should not be completely deprived of this hope. Depriving them of hope is to deny a fundamental aspect of their humanity, and this would be degrading.”

In the continuation of his article, stating that those who receive life sentences can benefit from conditional release after 24 years, and those who receive aggravated life sentences after 30 years in prison, Öztürk emphasized that the provisions regarding conditional release cannot be applied to terror convicts whose death sentences were commuted to aggravated life imprisonment.

Drawing attention to the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713, Öztürk stated, "It was foreseen that the aggravated life sentence for these individuals would continue until death."

Öztürk concluded his article as follows:

WILL A DECISION BE MADE FOR APO?

Although Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the separatist terrorist organization who has completed 25 years in prison, is in prison, the state has information that he has managed his organization from İmralı for years. A criminal complaint had also been filed with the Bursa Chief Public Prosecutor's Office on this matter. In this case, can Abdullah Öcalan benefit from the ECHR's "right to hope" decision?

Considering the decisions made by the ECHR on similar issues, it should be expected that it would make a decision in this direction for Abdullah Öcalan as well. Let us immediately note that there is no case filed by Abdullah Öcalan at the ECHR on this matter. This issue was brought to the agenda by politicians.

For the full article click here