While the wars and conflicts caused by the imperialist states and affiliated powers in the Middle East geography continue uninterruptedly, historical developments are taking place regarding the solution of the Kurdish issue, which is one of the most important issues of the region. Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan, together with the Imrali Delegation of the Peoples' Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party, made a “Call for Peace and Democratic Society” on 27 February. The PKK announced on 1 March that it would fulfil the requirements of the call and decided to cease fire. 

 

While the call continues to be discussed all over the world, all eyes turned to the state/power wing, one of the interlocutors of the call. Although the government declared that it approached the call "positively", it has not yet taken any concrete steps. Besides, there has been only one meeting with Abdullah Öcalan since the day the call was made. Öcalan held a family visit on 31 March as part of the Eid al-Fitr. All applications made by the family and lawyers to go to İmralı since 27 February have been left unanswered. 

 

The lawyers of Asrin Law Office, which represents Abdullah Öcalan, have been applying to both the prosecutor's office and the prison administration twice a week. 

 

Cengiz Yürekli, one of the lawyers among the applicants, evaluated Mezopotamya Agency's (MA) issues about the developments after the historic call and the ongoing isolation. 

 

 You apply for a meeting with your client Abdullah Öcalan twice a week. What is the latest situation regarding these applications?

 

There is a process on the agenda right now. At the same time, there is a call made by Devlet Bahçeli. There is a call made by Mr Öcalan to the public, the state and all relevant parties on 27 February. This call has had a tremendous impact both at national and international level. Such a process makes us hopeful for the abolition of the İmralı system and the improvement of the conditions in İmralı.

 

However, we need to state very clearly that these processes and developments do not require us to ignore the 26-year history of İmralı. 26 years of isolation and torture system is in issue. We were not able to receive any news for the last 4 years. There were some visits back and forth. On 23 October, there was a visit by Ömer Öcalan. Some delegation meetings took place afterwards. But regardless of the political and social debates, I can state that there is no change in the conditions in İmralı. There is no legal change.

 

There is a process under the leadership of Mr Öcalan which is intended to lead to success. However, there are no changes and positive developments that correspond to this process. We are still unable to meet with our clients. There is not the slightest correspondence or communication with our clients still held in İmralı. In fact, we have been a little lacking in putting this on the agenda. I can also give self-criticism for this. In February, there was a ban on family visits again. In this respect, the current restrictions continue.  In 2022, there was a visit to İmralı by the CPT. The fact that this report has still not been released due to Turkey's refusal to authorise it will help us to understand the concept in İmralı.

 

What changes should be made or what steps should be taken in terms of the legal conditions you mentioned?

 

The current process has created an undeniable state of tremendous expectation. It has created a serious hope. Mr Öcalan has transferred this hope, energy and power to the outside world through the delegation. In order for this process to proceed in a healthy way, Mr Öcalan's conditions must change. Mr Öcalan's freedom has come to the agenda. This needs to be ensured. Free working conditions need to be created. The İmralı system needs to be abolished. But before all this, lawyer and family visits must be realised, regardless of the necessity of the process, purely as a matter of legal necessity. We have learnt through the delegations and families that there has been no change in the conditions in İmralı. The daily meeting times are still as stated in the CPT report in 2019.

 

How often can Abdullah Öcalan meet with Ömer Hayri Konar, Hamili Yıldırım and Veysi Aktaş, other prisoners in İmralı?

 

As far as we have learnt, they come together for 1 hour on weekdays. For example, the call made there is a call in which our other 3 clients also take part. Conditions for discussion and writing together need to be created. At the moment, there is a family visit ban imposed in February. It is a family visit ban given on the grounds of "disciplinary penalty". Similarly, a ban on visiting lawyers is currently in force. There is no change in these matters. We understand from the interview given by Ömer Öcalan that one of our clients there has not been able to access television for 4 years. But we cannot establish any communication with them to overcome this deficiency. Of course, the travelling of political delegations, the fact that families can go after a long time, and even the fact that a photograph is reflected outside is very valuable and valuable. But this does not mean that the conditions in İmralı have changed or that there is a corresponding development.

 

You said "Abdullah Öcalan's freedom has come to the agenda". Did you express this from a legal point of view or in terms of the current process discussions?

 

This is not the first time we have said this. We said that the legal door to Mr Öcalan's freedom has been opened. We said that his freedom is on the agenda. In this respect, we actually discussed it under two separate headings. Firstly, the ongoing process is being carried out under the interlocutor and leadership of Mr Öcalan. The necessity of this is democratic negotiation. Conceptually, democratic negotiation means that the negotiators are under equal conditions. Mr Öcalan stated this in 2019. If you remember, at that time he used the concepts of universal law, free politics and democratic reconciliation.

 

Conditions for democratic negotiation need to be created. In other words, while a negotiating party has unlimited conditions, it is not possible for Mr Öcalan to carry out this process and make it successful under conditions of isolation. Mr Öcalan is working hard. For 26 years we have witnessed this. He is making all kinds of sacrifices to lead these processes to success. There has never been a demand for his own conditions. But as a matter of course, conditions for democratic negotiations must be created. From Europe to many other places, the Newroz areas also showed this. Mr Öcalan's freedom is the main demand.

 

Is it possible develop solution without Abdullah Öcalan's physical freedom?

 

There may be an intention for a solution, but it is out of the issue for a solution to develop. Because the creator, the pioneer and the main interlocutor of this solution is Mr Öcalan. It is not possible for him to carry out this process without reaching conditions where he can work freely. In other words, this is objectively a necessity of the ordinary course of life. At the current stage, Mr Öcalan's freedom is at the highest level in social demands.

 

What is the situation in legal terms?

 

In legal terms, Mr Öcalan's freedom is up for discussion and is a legal necessity. Although it is linked to the process, this legal ground can perhaps be used as a tool for the progress of the process. It can play such a role. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) considered the aggravated life imprisonment sentence as a "violation" in the case of Mr Öcalan and demanded that his freedom should be opened to discussion.

 

Are you talking about the "right to hope"?

 

Yes. The concept of "right to hope" is something that has been on the agenda long before this process. It is on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Committee will put it on its agenda again in September 2025 and will probably have certain correspondence with the Turkish government before that. As you know, constitutionally, this decision is above the laws of Turkey and must be implemented. There is such a legal obligation. But in terms of the stage we have reached, in terms of the ongoing process, in terms of the success of this process, the physical freedom of Mr Öcalan must be discussed. In this respect, the "right to hope" can provide a basis for this.

 

Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç said that the "right to hope" is not in the legislation. What does the legislation say about this?

 

It is true that the "right to hope" does not exist in Turkish legislation. However, Article 90 of the Constitution includes a provision stating that "international conventions in conformity with human rights are superior to laws and must be implemented". In other words, it is under constitutional guarantee. The Republic of Turkey is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECtHR). It has accepted the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. And it is currently before the Committee of Ministers, the executive authority. In other words, there is an obligation to include it in the legislation. The absence of the "right to hope" in the legislation constitutes a violation of the legislation. What needs to be done now is to amend the legislation and change the relevant legal provisions. It is a legal obligation to create space for the "right to hope".

 

 The call dated 27 February was discussed a lot and is still one of the most talked about issues. As Öcalan's lawyers, how did you evaluate this call?

 

The call is really a manifesto. It is a statement that fits on a single page but is worth tens of volumes of books and materials. In order to understand what this statement means or what it aims to achieve, it is necessary to know and master the initiatives that Mr Öcalan has taken since the past. However, it would be a misleading concept to consider it only as a solution to the Kurdish issue. Mr Öcalan does not only offer an alternative to the Kurds, he offers a new future to all the oppressed, all the excluded and all the peoples of the region. He offers a new alternative for life.

 

As it is often said, it is actually a pioneering call for the second century of the republic to find its true fulfilment. For example, while discussions on peace are being conducted, the search for social freedom is generally ignored. What is at stake here is not just a issue of non-conflict and the end of violence. It is actually a search for social freedom. In other words, not only Kurds are addressed there. There is a call to different ethnic identities, beliefs, social blocks and genders in Turkey. There is talk of respecting the identities of all beliefs and peoples, and of creating their own organisations on socio-economic grounds. And it says 'democratic reconciliation is inevitable, democratic society is the greatest need'.

 

The Kurdish issue is an issue related to the democratisation of Turkey and requires legal changes. Considering Abdullah Öcalan's call, is this also a call for a transformation in Turkey's founding philosophy and mentality?

 

Definitely. This call is an attempt to change and transform the paradigm on which the Republic of Turkey was founded. Mr Öcalan's main claim is to subject the state and society to democratic change and transformation. In this struggle, the body may be Kurdish, but the spirit and mentality is humanity. In other words, Mr Öcalan is a pioneer and a leader with universal thinking and international character. The main basis of all the issues of the Republic of Turkey is the inability to face the Kurdish issue and make peace.

 

The denial of the Kurdish issue brings with it the denial of other identities. In other words, depriving the Kurdish people of freedom, not recognising and denying their identity, has never brought freedom and democracy to the other components of Turkish society. Because creating these conditions of oppression means compromising on one's own freedom and compromising on democracy. Unfortunately, this issue lies at the root of the issues the republic has been experiencing for 100 years.

 

Do you think that the government or the opposition is approaching such a deep-rooted issue on the right ground?

 

Undoubtedly, there is a debate, and it is very valuable to have this debate. However, it must be said clearly that this discussion is not being conducted on the right ground. A serious discussion equivalent to this call is not being conducted. Such an attitude and behaviour is not taken. Today, there are regional developments and discussions that affect the entire Middle East. Under the leadership of Mr Öcalan, we are talking about a political movement that affects the entire Middle East, affects all the peoples of the region and is the interlocutor of transatlantic states. We are talking about its components. We are talking about the leadership of Mr Öcalan. While all intellectuals and writers in Europe have access to first-hand sources on this issue, unfortunately the society in Turkey, and especially the opposition, is insensitive to this issue. It is far away from being fed at its main source. Those who do not have enough wisdom and knowledge develop interpretations by pulling this text from left and right. But this text contains 50 years of struggle. There is a 100-year analysis of the republic. There is a thousand years of Turkish-Kurdish relations and much more than that, there is an analysis of civilisation. In other words, Mr Öcalan distilled all this and compressed it into a one-page text. However, unfortunately there is no discussion on this. For example, democratic politics and the creation of a legal dimension were mentioned. But for some reason there is opposition to this. So are you against the existence of democratic politics in Turkey? Are you against the establishment of law and legal dimension in Turkey? Are you demanding the opposite of this? There is opposition to this, but there are no reasonable grounds underlying it. It is not clear why this is being opposed.

 

 Does the government oppose it?

 

Both the government and the opposition oppose it. For example, in order to demolish a derelict building or to renovate it in accordance with its original design, you need a decision from the municipal council. Certain procedures have to be followed. In other words, even the simplest situation is bound by laws and legalities. However, the discourse on the legal dimension is ignored for the solution of a huge issue of the republic, even long before that. This is really a preposterous approach.

 

 Could you elaborate on the legal dimension?

 

Legal guarantees are needed to ensure that the parties to the call fulfil their obligations. This is a priority. Beyond this, in order for Mr Öcalan to fulfil his call, the legal issue in İmralı must be overcome and the isolation situation must be overcome. Certain legal steps need to be taken for the solution of the Kurdish issue. These are all components of the process. I mean, what will happen without these steps being taken? OK, let it progress in time, but all these are a necessity. Mr Öcalan has made his call. His interlocutors said they would fulfil the requirements of this call. The Kurdish people as a whole declared in the Newroz squares that they were behind this call. On 4 April, he declared that he stood behind this call. But what will be the other equivalent of this? How will this be realised? What will be the opposition's approach towards this?

 

 How do you evaluate the attitude of the opposition in this process? 

 

Devlet Bahçeli did something very serious. He said, "Let Öcalan come and make his call in the parliament, let him benefit from the 'right of hope'". We are not in a position to issue intentions. Politics is not something that is conducted by relying on intentions or believing in sincerity. Politics is a medium where you are taken into account and in a negotiation position to the extent that you have power. But this approach (Bahçeli's call) is an approach that makes the lack of a solution to the Kurdish issue no longer an instrument of pressure between the government and the opposition. Since 2002, the AKP has been saying "I want to solve the Kurdish issue, but there are forces preventing this". The MHP, led by Devlet Bahçeli, is described as these forces. It is the politics on the far right of the political spectrum. This was the case in the 2013-15 period. Bahçeli took this trump card away from both the opposition and the government. He invited everyone to be sincere about the Kurdish issue. The claim may be different, the intention may be different, I am not discussing these, but he offered such a ground. He said, ‘If you are serious, come and solve the Kurdish issue with my consent’. He also told the opposition not to talk from the belly, let them come in. 

 

There were delegation meetings. They visited political parties. Even the parties and political formations that define themselves as leftist and socialist, whose sincerity we do not doubt, did not display the approach of Devlet Bahçeli. This, unfortunately, stems from not understanding the Kurdish issue. It is about not grasping its seriousness. 

 

What do you attribute this attitude of the opposition to? Because there is also a lack of trust in the process. Do you think this is a determining factor in the opposition's attitude or do you think that the dominant perspective on the Kurdish issue is also effective in the opposition?

 

Actually, the approach of the left in Turkey is very issueatic. There is a lack of understanding of the Kurdish issue. There is a failure to understand and comprehend the shaping of the construction process of the Turkish state. It is necessary to say this clearly; we are talking about formations that were shaped under the serious domination of the state, from the labour institution to the Communist Party, from the faith institution -I mean the religious institution- to other formations and intellectual individuals, and we are even talking about formations that were exposed by the state. In other words, it cannot be denied that they were influenced by the uniformist paradigm of the republic in both their establishment and their emergence. But in the same way, there is a situation of not understanding the Kurdish issue. 

 

For example, Mr Öcalan focuses enormously on socialism. This is his agenda in every meeting. There are analyses and evaluations of Marxism. In his own time, in the 1800s, Marx constantly came up with different ideas, whether it was the Irish issue - I mean national issues - the Indian issue or the situation in Russia. However, these ideas never descended into dogmatism. Whenever he saw a stirring, whenever there was a different shaping, he always tried to catch a revolutionary potential against them. The same Marx mobilised with the international during Ireland's war of independence. He wrote enormous texts. He campaigned for the freedom of their imprisonment. Unfortunately, we do not see anything like this in the Turkish left, especially in the person of Mr Öcalan.

 

 What is the measure of seriousness and sincerity towards the process?

 

First of all, everything starts with language. Mr Öcalan also stated in the text that "the language of the peace and democratic society process must be in line with this reality". It is necessary to construct a language that corresponds to the seriousness of this process for Mr Öcalan, other political components and other interlocutors. In this respect, it is necessary to create a respectful approach. At the same time, minimum democratic conditions need to be created. Mr Öcalan says "democratic reconciliation". With whom will you carry out this process by liquidating half of the society through the judiciary and law enforcement? The DEM Party, CHP and the opposition make up half of the society. Such a process requires the contribution of the majority of society. The society needs to be convinced. And it is the main opposition party that will do this, if the government and its partner have the intention to do so.

 

A correct definition is necessary for a correct solution. Do you think that the Kurdish issue is defined correctly?

 

There is no correct definition of the issue. There is no correct definition of a solution either. Mr Öcalan offered a tremendous ground. He offered a tremendous ground and opportunity to everyone who wants to organise themselves, who wants to realise their own claims, who wants to build democracy, peace, freedom and alternative life. What the left in Turkey needs to do now is to organise peace rallies. The unresolved Kurdish issue is the cause of the misery of the people of Turkey. What deprives the people of Turkey of democracy is the denial of the Kurdish people. It needs to be explained to the peoples and oppressed people of Turkey. And this is basically the field of organisation of the left in Turkey. In other words, by not organising itself, by not revealing such a situation, it actually contributes to the growth of chauvinism, regardless of intentions. If racists like the Zafer Party and Mansur Yavaş are able to manipulate the anti-government opposition, this is unfortunately related to the failure of the Turkish left, socialists, real democrats and intellectuals to fulfil their responsibilities. I can concretely say that this is because they have not sufficiently embraced this call and have not fulfilled its necessity.

 

If you respect the will of the Kurdish people, if you respect the Kurdish people's recognition of their own destiny - and I say this regardless of how the content of this will be determined - then you will respect the will of the Kurdish people. If the Kurdish people demand the freedom of Mr Öcalan, if they demand the abolition of the İmralı system, you will demand the same. Let there be no misunderstanding, what needs to be done is not solidarity with the Kurdish people. I mean exactly a common struggle, and this is what Mr Öcalan's call points to. Because not only Kurds are excluded, not only Kurds are oppressed. All rights, identities, beliefs, genders, all sectarian groups in Turkish society are excluded. They are deprived of democracy. The latest developments in Istanbul have also shown this.

 

What is the connection between the investigation against the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, the targeting of the "Urban Consensus", and the orientation towards the CHP with the process?

 

The Kurdish issue has a character that transcends Kurds and their demands. Unfortunately, it acts as a lever between the government and the opposition. It serves to discipline and liquidate each other. This is not just for now, it has been like this since the foundation of the republic.

 

The founders of the Progressive Republican Party were the pashas of the War of Independence. They claim to play the role of an opposition party in the foundation of the Republic. They aspire to power, they have a serious base. However, these four pashas were liquidated on the grounds of the Şêx Seîd (Sheikh Said) Rebellion. This party was closed down. Even their trials took place together with the Independence Courts that were organised in conjunction with this rebellion. The Kurdish issue directly played such a role. When we look at the AKP government without going back too far, this is a general concept. There is either a situation of liquidating the interlocutors by confronting them with the Kurds and weakening them. Or there is a process of liquidating other opponents by entering into a negotiation or a peace process with the Kurdish people. This is the case for both the opposition and the government. If you pay attention, the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer files were realised in this way. The situation in which the Gülen sect overthrew the government through legal means, the situation we call the coup d'état of 7 February, was formed precisely in the light of the talks held in İmralı. Today, the 2013-15 process created a ground for the liquidation of the Gülen sect and the Gülen sect was liquidated. Unfortunately, we see signs of this in the situation we are in today.

 

 What does the government aim for?

 

We are talking about 23 years of power. Power constantly accumulates itself, it constantly wants to spread. That is why I do not agree with "one man" evaluations. Power also produces its derivatives. In other words, power is also political domination, social domination, economic domination. It is rent, and closing it to discussion and scrutiny. An objective analysis of a 23-year rule, independent of the AKP's intention to find a solution, requires this. However, the situation we are experiencing today, for the first time, has a very different and serious dimension. Because the Gülen sect, Ergenekon, Sledgehammer files... these were described as certain foci of tutelage clustered within the state and bureaucracy. And today, there is a direct targeting of the main opposition party.

 

We are talking about a party that has a social base and enters the elections. We are talking about a party that is a candidate for power. Since 2019, the Kurdish political movement and the opposition have been fighting side by side against AKP authoritarianism. This was the case in 2023 and 2024. There is a situation of trying to separate this unity. What we call the "Urban Consensus" was something that the Kurdish political movement and the CHP carried out in 2024 on the basis of a joint electoral alliance on a legal and legitimate basis. It took all the local resources away from the government. It unleashed such a power. 

 

As serious as this process is, as much as it is developing under the imposition of regional conditions, as much as it has created a lack of solution in Turkey, and as much as the state mind wants to resolve this, the 23-year-old government also aims to maximise its benefits by taking advantage of it. In other words, all the data we have reveals this. We can also say that this attack was not against the CHP, İmamoğlu or Istanbul, but against all democracy forces and democracy movements in Turkey. It is an intervention against those who demand democracy, peace and freedom. In this respect, the attack on Şişli Municipality is not different from the attacks in Mardin and Batman. What was done in Şişli is also an attack on the will of Kurdish voters in Istanbul. 

 

 What can be done to realise Mr Öcalan's call? 

 

I can say very clearly that apart from Mr Öcalan, it has become clear that no one from the government to the opposition is prepared. It is Mr Öcalan who is the most prepared, who knows what he is doing and what he wants, and who is taking the initiative in this regard. In this process, we must organise our democratic demands and voice them in the loudest way possible. We must also force the government to change and transform in a positive sense, we must force it to take steps. We must also force the opposition to change and transform in the same way.

 

 How can the way for a democratic political solution be paved? 

 

The process should be publicised. However, can we talk about the transparency of the process while the current İmralı experience continues? It is not possible to talk about such a thing. We need to consult and meet with Mr Öcalan in order to be able to discuss and carry out this legal process - whether on the floor of the Parliament or on other grounds - and to present our proposals to the relevant institutions.

 

There were DEM Party Co-Chairs in the delegation. They assumed a certain responsibility by making that statement. They made a certain promise to the society. They said "We embrace this process and we will carry it out". They had intensive consultations with Mr Öcalan before this statement. They took responsibility to convey this to the society. The co-chairs should have been able to go to İmralı very easily and meet Mr Öcalan. However, none of this was realised. There needs to be legal changes regarding the "right to hope" and the Parliament needs to be convinced on this issue. The parties in the parliament need to convince their own bases. The main opposition party and other parties have an obligation to force the government or the interlocutors of this process (the mind within the state) to change and transform, to be transparent.

 

Will you have any political initiatives, for example, do you plan to contact parties?

 

We are obliged to represent the interests of our client - and don't misunderstand me when I say interests, this is the social interest in the person of Mr Öcalan, his freedom, his legal position, the conditions in which he is held. This is not just about submitting a petition. It is our primary duty to carry out the necessary consultations and negotiations with all parties and institutions. This is our fundamental responsibility, not only as Mr Öcalan's lawyers, but also as members and components of this society. We have an agenda to discuss with all institutions, organisations and political parties the future claim, alternative life imagination and possible solution proposals. We will also do this. It is also our basic obligation to fulfil the call. We will force all initiatives to fulfil this obligation.

 

What kind of legal initiatives will you take? Do you have a road map regarding the "right to hope"?

 

Our routine legal initiatives are already underway. However, the fundamental issue is the "right to hope". This is a work we have been carrying out for a long time. It is a requirement of an 11-year legal judgement. In this sense, our existing work continues. We have a certain infrastructure for this. The file is open before the Committee of Ministers, and we will make new applications in this regard. We have initiatives and preparations to get public support for the success of this process and how vital the "right to hope" is.

 

According to the figures given by the Minister of Justice to the United Nations Committee against Torture in the summer of 2024, there are over 4,000 aggravated life sentenced prisoners today. In other words, there are over 4 thousand convicts who should benefit from the "right to hope". If the "right to hope" is realised, all penal laws and execution laws in Turkey will be reviewed. It will cover many people. This will inevitably lead to a new legislation in criminal law and law of execution in accordance with certain democratic values and universal law.

 

All democratic public opinion, civil society and conscientious jurists need to look at the situation from a bigger picture. In this respect, they need to play an active role. This is what we are actually aiming for in line with our own work. We have some plans to mobilise and realise this aspect. We will realise this in a short time.

 

MA / Diren Yurtsever