Madımak is still burning

"There is no other hell, you are living it right now." 

 Behçet Aysan 

Some fires do not end on the day they are extinguished. The flames recede from the walls, the smoke clears; what remains is a silence carried for years. This is also true for what happened at the Madımak Hotel on July 2, 1993. Those present at the Madımak Hotel that day were not parties to a conflict. Among them were poets, writers, academics, artists, and students. They had come to Sivas for a cultural event. By the end of the day, Turkey faced one of the most severe mass attacks, which also targeted freedom of thought and expression.

Although thirty-three years have passed, the legal dimension of the incident is still being debated, and the judicial process continues to come to the agenda with new decisions. The Constitutional Court's recent violation ruling has added a new page to this long legal saga.

On July 2, 1993, thirty-three intellectuals and artists, along with two hotel employees, lost their lives as a result of the arson attack on the Madımak Hotel during the Pir Sultan Abdal Festivals held in Sivas. Two demonstrators also lost their lives during the events. This attack, which is considered one of the most severe mass violations of the right to life in the history of the Republic, left a deep social wound.

The cases opened after the massacre lasted for years. Conviction rulings were issued against many defendants. Conversely, some defendants could not be apprehended for many years, and some files became the subject of debates regarding the statute of limitations. The passage of time did not end the debates over whether the legal process had been completed. The file transcended the boundaries of criminal law and became one of the fundamental topics of human rights law.

The violation ruling recently issued by the Constitutional Court is also noteworthy in this respect. The court unanimously ruled that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated in the individual application regarding the Madımak Massacre. Although the reasoned decision has not yet been published, the short decision announced reveals once again that constitutional guarantees regarding the right to life are not limited to the day the incident occurred.

What happened not only gave rise to individual responsibilities in terms of criminal law but also opened to debate the public authorities' obligation to protect the right to life. The fact that a social event had such severe consequences necessitated a broad legal evaluation, starting from the security measures at the time of the incident and extending to the trials that lasted for years.

Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life. This guarantee is not limited to the state not interfering with an individual's life. The effective investigation of incidents resulting in death, the identification of those responsible, the completion of the trial process within a reasonable time, and its conclusion in a way that satisfies the public conscience are also among the state's positive obligations.

The established case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court converge on the same point. The right to life provides a two-fold protection: substantive and procedural. The substantive dimension refers to the protection of an individual's life. The procedural dimension concerns the effectiveness of the judicial process conducted after a death. Failure to conduct an effective investigation or the prolongation of a trial beyond reasonable limits can, in itself, result in a violation of the procedural dimension of the right to life.

The importance of the Madımak decision emerges here. Despite the fact that thirty-three years have passed, the Constitutional Court did not view the file as an event that happened in the past; it reminded that the state's constitutional obligations continue. This approach shows that the right to life is not a time-bound guarantee and that the search for justice is also under constitutional protection.

Of course, when the reasoned decision is published, it will be seen in detail on which concrete shortcomings the violation is based. Whether the court focused on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, effective investigation, proceedings conducted against fugitive defendants, or other procedural deficiencies will become clear with the reasoning. However, the message given even by the short decision is clear. The right to life necessitates that the judicial process conducted after a death incident also be operated in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.

The Madımak massacre file is no longer just a criminal case concerning the past. This file is a constitutional benchmark showing how effectively the state can act in the face of grave human rights violations. The Constitutional Court's latest decision reminds us of the same truth: The right to life is not a guarantee that ends at the moment of death. It is a state obligation that continues until justice is served.

The fire at Madımak was extinguished years ago. However, the legal and conscientious burden of what happened that day is still being carried. The Constitutional Court's violation ruling once again reminds us that the search for justice does not expire. Files that are truly closed are not only those on which a decision has been rendered, but those where society is also convinced that justice has been served.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir