Turkey's reputation on the line

Security is intense. There is full-screen CCTV so that everything and everyone inside the court is under scrutiny. Truly intimidating are the serried ranks of prison police surrounding all four sides of the centre of the room, with some prison police actually sitting among the accused, as if to give the message that these men and women could perform acts of violence any time if not closely watched.

We are in Turkey, where the principle of the presumption of innocence till proven guilty does not hold—and certainly not in this court built specially for the occasion: to try allegations of terrorism. Yet before us we recognise former MPs, lawyers, heads of civil society organisations, and democratically elected mayors. Some of them could face life in prison if found guilty. The trial kicked off on Monday 18th October and is due to wrap up mid November. I am part of a delegation of observers with political and legal knowledge who are in Turkey to monitor the trial and report back to the British government.

The 151 people on trial are accused of having links to the armed rebel group, the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK), who have been calling for more Kurdish autonomy. Of the 151 named in the indictment, which runs to over 7,000 pages, 111 of them have been in prison for over 18 months, but their lawyers were only able to learn about what exactly these men and women were being charged with three months ago—far too little time for them to prepare a proper defence.

The judge rejected the request by the lawyers that the suspects should be allowed to speak in their mother tongue, Kurdish. He determined that Turkey, in this case, was not bound by Article 6 of the European Court of Human Rights, which sets down as one of the components of a “fair trial” the right of a defendant to use his mother tongue.

The manner in which the so-called evidence has been gathered gives cause for grave concern about whether the Kurds of Turkey have any access to real justice. It is based on unlawful (i.e. without a judge’s warrant) bugging and wire-tapping; intercept evidence gathered some two years before the arrests were made. In addition the indictment uses as “evidence” routine political propaganda and secret evidence by way of anonymous witnesses. Some conversations recorded are ludicrously interpreted by the prosecution as being coded language referring to acts of violence. For example, we learnt that suspects were interrogated about what they really meant when they said they were going to buy tomatoes, bread or melons. Several lawyers are among the detained, lawyers who, simply because they were doing their job defending their clients, have found themselves in prison.

Outside the court the crowds of people continue all day to protest the proceedings, call for the release of the 151, and the abandonment of the trial. The foreign delegations, particularly the Italian group, are vocal and visible all day, holding up banners, and making speeches.

But views vary widely on whether the government will change its policy. One elderly lawyer who told us he has suffered imprisonment and torture predicts that this trial could drag on for many years. He is pessimistic about the future. The government is set on this course of using the justice system to destroy Kurdish political activity, he says, and it will never be influenced by the censure of the EU or individual European governments.

Kurdish politician and human rights lawyer, Osman Baydemir, thinks differently. He urges us to do all we can to ensure that our governments and the media get their facts right, and listen to the voice of Kurdish politicians and human rights activists. Too often foreign commentators sit comfortably hundreds of miles away in Ankara and Istanbul and make no attempt to get the true story. In the present political climate, one fears that even the lawyers presently engaged in this trial could find themselves arrested and detained simply because they are defending the accused.

Turkey is at a crisis point. This trial is a make or break event. Turkey’s government still has the chance to step in, close the prosecution, release the suspects and restore its reputation. If it does not, how can Turkey possibly hope to join the EU? Above all else, this trial demonstrates just how far from compliance with international and European standards of justice Turkey truly is.

Margaret Owen is a human rights lawyer