Conditions in İmralı Prison

From B-Ob8ungen
Jump to: navigation, search

This report my lead to a broader study on the conditions of prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment under the Law to Fight Terrorism. Quotes are kept in original language, because the results may be presented in various languages.

CPT on prison conditions of Abdullah Öcalan

Am 6. März 2008 wurde der Bericht eines Besuches vom 19.-22. Mai 2007 publiziert.[1] Dies war der 4. Besuch auf der Insel Imralı, wo Abdullah Öcalan, der Führer der Kurdischen Arbeiterpartei PKK als einziger Gefangener gehalten wird.

Some passages read (own highlighting):

B. Material conditions and regime

11. Abdullah Öcalan's material conditions of detention had changed very little, if at all, by comparison with the CPT's previous visit four years earlier. ...the prisoner had a small exercise yard (approximately 45 m²), which was completely bare and to which he had access for one hour a day (divided into two 30-minute periods, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon). Apart from his hour of daily exercise, the prisoner remained alone, confined to his cell...

13. The regime had likewise changed only very little. The entry into force of the new Law on Execution of Sentences (LES, which the CPT had already referred to in its report on the December 2005 visit; see CPT/Inf (2006) 30) was reflected in the "Internal Regulations" of İmralı High-Security Closed Prison. In respect of the prisoner in question, the implementation of these regulations could be said, by and large, to amount to a series of prohibitions and restrictions.

The prisoner admittedly had three books (from the prison library) in his cell, as well as three newspapers (which were given to him several days or even weeks late) and a radio (which could receive only one station, however). That being said, there had been no favourable response from the Turkish authorities to the various recommendations made by the CPT as early as 1999, and subsequently expanded on, to alleviate the harmful effects of his detention alone in Imralı High-Security Closed Prison...

More fundamentally, the solution outlined by the CPT in 1999, involving the transfer of several other prisoners to the island, had not been implemented.

C. Contact with the outside world

21. The CPT has also recommended, as early as 2001, that the prisoner should have access to a telephone... To date, the Administrative Commission has systematically refused to allow Abdullah Öcalan access to a telephone. Thus, no action has been taken on this recommendation...

D. Discipline
E. Medical aspects

28. The results of the psychiatric examination of Abdullah Öcalan showed a distinct deterioration of his mental state since 2001 and 2003. This deterioration is connected with a situation of chronic stress and prolonged social and emotional isolation, coupled with a feeling of abandonment and disappointment. It should also be noted that some of these symptoms are linked to the ENT (ear-nose-throat) ailment mentioned above.

The reversal of the process now underway can only be durably achieved through a fundamental change in the prisoner's human environment and the ending of his social and emotional isolation. In particular, he should be placed under a detention regime in which he has regular and sustained contact with other persons with whom he can communicate and share recreational and social activities.

F. Conclusions and recommendations

31. Abdullah Öcalan has now been imprisoned, as the sole inmate of the High-Security Closed Prison of Imralı - an island which is difficult to reach - for almost eight and a half years. Although the situation of indisputable isolation to which the prisoner has been subjected since 16 February 1999 has had adverse effects over the years, the CPT's previous visits had not revealed significant harmful consequences for his physical and psychological condition. This assessment must now be revised, in the light of the evolution of Abdullah Öcalan's physical and mental condition.

Development after March 2008

From the German Wikipedia:

Ende 2008 veröffentlichte die türkische Regierung Pläne, einige andere Gefangene in einem Neubau unterzubringen. Laut dem Justizminister ist das Gefängnis auf der Insel ein Typ-F-Gefängnis. Justizminister Sadullah Ergin sagte im August 2009, dass der Umbau des Gefängnisses İmralı zu einer geschlossenen Hochsicherheitsstrafvollzugsanstalt vollendet sei. Die Kapazität sei auf neun Gefangene erhöht worden, so dass acht weitere Gefangene zu Abdullah Öcalan verlegt würden. Welche Gefangene dies seien, werde im Rahmen des Strafvollzugsgesetzes bestimmt.[2] Seit dem 15. November 2009 befindet sich Öcalan nicht mehr in Einzelhaft, sondern ist mit fünf weiteren Häftlingen inhaftiert.[3]

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited İmralı Prison again from 26 to 27 January 2010. The report was published on 9 July 2010.[4]

Passages of the report read (own highlighting):

Ever since 2001, the CPT has been expressing concern about the treatment of Abdullah Öcalan and, in particular, has repeatedly emphasised the potentially harmful effects of the prisoner’s detention as the sole inmate of Imralı Prison.

4. On 12 June 2008, the Turkish authorities informed the Committee of their intention to construct a new detention facility on the premises of Imralı Prison and to transfer as soon as possible a limited number of prisoners to the island. This issue was discussed at length with the then Minister of Justice during the high-level talks which representatives of the CPT held with the Turkish authorities in October 2008.

The construction of the new detention facility was completed in summer 2009 and, on 17 November 2009, five prisoners serving aggravated life sentences were transferred from two other F-type prisons in Turkey (Bolu and Kırıkkale) to Imralı Prison. At the same time, Abdullah Öcalan was transferred to the new detention facility of the prison.


B. Conditions of detention
In total, there were nine identical individual cells, of which six opened onto an individual yard (measuring some 24 m²) and the other three had a common exercise area (measuring some 75 m²). All of the cells were of the same design and were very similar to the cells previously seen by the CPT in other F-type prisons; they were of a reasonable size (9.8 m², not counting the adjacent sanitary annexe of 2 m²) and well-equipped (bed, small table, two chairs, metal cupboard, small kitchenette with a sink).

10. The new detention facility suffered from one major structural deficiency, namely poor access to natural light in all the cells...

The problem described above is in large part caused by the fact that the outdoor exercise yard in front of every cell is surrounded by a high wall (some 7 m). Another consequence of this design is that (at least during winter months) prisoners are not able to see the sun and expose themselves to sunshine; this, in the long run, may have a detrimental effect on the prisoners’ health.

11. In all other respects, material conditions in the new detention facility were generally of a high standard...

2. Regime
13. The general criteria for the regime applied to prisoners serving an aggravated life sentence are set out in Section 25 of the Law on the Execution of Sentences.[5] On the basis of that provision, the precise activities offered to prisoners held at Imralı Prison were determined by the establishment’s Board of Administration and Observation. It is also noteworthy that shortly before the visit, an educator and a social worker had been recruited by the prison administration.

14. In practice, by the time of the visit, the regime offered to prisoners comprised the following out-of-cell activities:

  • All prisoners benefited from two hours of outdoor exercise per day (seven days a week; taken alone in the yard attached to the cell), each prisoner could spend one hour per week alone in the “hobby room” (where no activities were offered) and two hours per month alone in the establishment’s library. In terms of communal activities, all prisoners could gather once a week for one “conversation hour” in the open visits room (in the presence of several prison officers).
  • In addition, by the time of the visit, three prisoners had on two occasions (including in each case Abdullah Öcalan) been allowed to play table tennis for one hour.

16. As regards the other prisoners at Imralı Prison, it is a matter of serious concern that, compared to the regime previously applied to them, the above-mentioned arrangements constituted a regime which was much more restricted than that provided at Bolu and Kırıkkale F-type Prisons.

  • The prisoners previously held at Bolu F-type Prison indicated that, prior to their transfer to Imralı Prison, they had been offered four hours of outdoor exercise every day, without direct supervision, together with two other prisoners in a common exercise yard. In addition, they had apparently been offered three hours of out-of-cell activities per week with up to ten prisoners (conversation, sport and library).
  • The situation was even more favourable at Kırıkkale F-type Prison, which had been visited by the CPT during the last periodic visit to Turkey in 2009. Thus, the Committee could itself verify that, in that establishment, prisoners of the same category (i.e. those serving an aggravated life sentence) were usually allowed to associate freely and without direct supervision with two other prisoners during outdoor exercise for twelve hours a day in summer and for nine hours a day in winter. In addition, the prisoners concerned were offered between three and seven hours of association per week with other prisoners (including sports and conversation), usually in groups of up to ten prisoners. To sum up, the prisoners could spend up to ninety hours per week out of their cells together with other prisoners.

18. By letter of 24 February 2010, the Turkish authorities provided the following information on modifications introduced with effect from 4 February 2010 to the regime applied to prisoners at Imralı Prison:

  • a. Previously, inmates were allowed to access open air for a period of two hours per day. Open air time is now extended to four hours per day by the decision of the Board of Administration and Observation as of 4 February 2010. Please take note that convict Öcalan is currently excluded from this practice because of the two solitary confinement punishments he has received, which are yet to be executed. However, convict Öcalan will also be able to benefit from prolonged open air time once the Board of Administration and Observation is convinced of his good conduct in the future.
  • b. Inmates used to receive only once a week the daily newspapers accumulated during the week. As of 4 February 2010, access to daily newspapers is now possible twice a week, every Tuesday and Friday.
  • c. The duration of conversation meetings i.e. an hour per week is increased to three hours per week in accordance with the decision of the Board of Administration and Observation. The convicts may now attend to the conversation meetings every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 08:00 to 09:00, as of 4 February 2010.
  • d. The inmates are now offered the below-mentioned activities that they may benefit from collectively, in compliance with the Circular on “Training and Rehabilitation of Young and Adult Convicts and Detainees” and within the context of “leisure time, sports and rehabilitation activities”: painting and handcraft activities, table tennis, games of chess and checkers, volleyball and basketball for an hour per week.

Further, in the annexe to the above-mentioned letter, the Turkish authorities indicated that, as from 4 February 2010, all prisoners were granted “access to the prison library collectively with other inmates for an hour every second and third week of the month”.

19. The CPT notes the above-mentioned developments, which have significantly increased the possibilities for communal activities and enhanced the range of activities. The total amount of time prisoners can now spend out of their cells is (on average) 36 ½ hours per week, of which 8 ½ are association hours, and two additional hours per week of communal activities for all inmates are planned in the near future.

21. The CPT also wishes to raise once again the issue of access to television for Abdullah Öcalan. Whereas all other prisoners at Imralı Prison had a television set in their cells, Abdullah Öcalan was still not allowed to rent or purchase a television set, despite the specific recommendation repeatedly made by the Committee in the past. The Committee would like to receive the Turkish authorities’ comments on this matter.

32. In the course of the visit, the delegation reviewed the state of health of Abdullah Öcalan. Overall, the prisoner’s health had improved since the 2007 visit. He still had recurrent nasal and other allergic symptoms but these were intermittent and did not seem to cause major health problems. Further, his mental state has also improved since 2007 and can now be described as satisfactory, without any psychiatric disorder, although an underlying vulnerability persists, as was shown by the delegation’s findings during the 2007 visit.

36. On the basis of the delegation’s findings and the additional information provided by the Turkish authorities in their letter of 24 February 2010, the CPT has reached the conclusion that the conditions of detention of Abdullah Öcalan have improved as compared to the situation found during the 2007 visit. The prisoner’s integration “into a setting where contacts with other inmates and a wider range of activities are possible” is now under way (cf. paragraph 3). In addition, the Committee noted that there had been a marked improvement with regard to access to Imralı island for Abdullah Öcalan’s lawyers and family members.

Note: There was a response of the lawyers of Abdullah Öcalan to the reporting on this report that mainly consists of translated passages of the report.

Fellow prisoners

The CPT report carried no information on the identity of the five prisoners that were transferred to Imrali Prison. The following information was compiled from the Turkish press.

17.11.2009 tarihli Radikal gazetesi şunları yazdı: "PKK lideri Abdullah Öcalan'ın yalnız kaldığı cezaevine bu sabah dördü PKK ve biri Türkiye İşçi Köylü Kurtuluş Ordusu (TİKKO) üyeliğinden mahkum, toplam beş kişi gönderildi. 1999'da yakalanmasından bu yana İmralı adasındaki cezaevinde tek başına kalan Öcalan'ın yanına gönderilen mahkumların isimleri Şeyhmuz Poyraz, Cumali Karsu, Hakkı Alkan, Hasbi Aydemir ve Bayram Kaymaz."

Aynı tarihte Stratejik Boyut'ta bu bilgiler yer aldı: Kenya'da yakalandıktan sonra getirildiği İmralı Adası'nda hükümlü bulunan bölücübaşı Abdullah Öcalan'ın yeni 5 arkadaşının da PKK hükümlüsü olduğu öğrenildi. Yasa dışı terör örgütü PKK'lı oldukları belirtilen Şeyhmuz Poyraz, Bayram Kaymaz, Cumali Karsu, Hakkı Alkan ve Hasbi Aydemir İmralı Adası'nda yeni yaptırılan cezaevinde kalacaklar.

Bayram Kaymaz'ın belden aşağısının felçli olduğu ve İzmir Kırıklar F Tipi Cezaevi'nden geldiği öğrenildi. Cumali Karasu'nun ise 12 Şubat 1994 tarihinde Tuzla tren istasyonuna düzenlenen saldırı hükümlülerinden olduğu belirtildi. Şeyhmuz Poyraz'ın da Bolu F Tipi Cezaevi'nde idi. 'İmam Hüyesin' kod adlı PKK'lı Hasbi Aydemir'in babasının askeri operasyonda öldürüldüğü öğrenildi. Abdullah Öcalan'ın yeni koğuş arkadaşlarından olan Hakkı Alkan'ın da PKK'lı olduğu açıklandı.

18.11.2009 tarihli Sabah gazetesi böyle yazdı: Avrupa İşkenceyi Önleme Komitesi'nin eleştirileri üzerine terör örgütü lideri Abdullah Öcalan'ın kaldığı İmralı'ya 5 mahkûm sevk edildi. Ağırlaştırılmış müebbet mahkûmun 5 hükümlüden 4'ü PKK'lı, biri ise TİKKO'nun yönetim kadrosundan. Adaya, PKK hükümlüleri Şeyhmuz Poyraz, Bayram Kaymaz, Cumali Karasu ve Hasbi Aydemir ile TİKKO'lu Hakkı Alkan sevk edildi. Hepsi de tıpkı Öcalan gibi, "Anayasal düzeni zorla değiştirmeye kalkışmak" suçundan önce idama mahkûm edilen ve uyum yasalarına göre cezaları ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hapse dönüştürülen mahkûmların, Öcalan'ın aktif destekleyicileri olması dikkat çekiyor.

'F' şeklinde dizayn edilen tek katlı cezaevinde 35 metrekarelik, zemini halıfleks olan 9 koğuş, bir görüşme odası, bir hobi odası bulunuyor. Koğuşlarda tek kişilik yatak, 1 metre genişliğinde, 2,5 metre yüksekliğinde bir kitaplık, elbise dolabı ve perdeli klozet var. Bütün koğuşlarda hopörlerle TRT FM'den belli saatlerde haber yayını yapılıyor. Her koğuşta kamera var ve 24 saat kayıt yapıyor. Yan yana olan 3 koğuşun havalandırması ortak, aynı avluya açılıyor. Diğer koğuşlar ise avluya açılmıyor ancak balkonları var. Koğuşları ayıran koridorun sonunda hobi odası bulunuyor. Hobi odasında televizyon ve kütüphane var.

18.11.2009 tarihli HaberTürk sitesinde şunlar yazılı idi: Saat 03.00 sıralarında getirilen mahkûmlar Şeyhmuz Poyraz, Cumali Karsu, Bayram Kaymaz, Hasbi Aydemir ve Hakkı Alpan İmralı’da Yüksek Güvenlikli F Tipi Cezaevi’nde kalacak. Adaya giden Hakkı Alpan TİKKO, diğer 4 kişi ise PKK terör örgütü üyesi... Öcalan, haftada bir kez telefon etme hakkını kullanabilecek. İmralı’da kalacak diğer mahkûmlar da haftada bir telefon etme, televizyon izleme, spor yapma gibi imkânlarına sahip olacak. 4’ü PKK’lı biri TİKKO üyesi olarak yansıyan mahkûmların hepsinin ağırlaştırılmış müebbet hükümlüsü olduklarını dile getirdi. Yeni tesislerde Öcalan ve diğer mahkûmların avukatlarıyla açık görüşmesi, aileleriyle cam bölüm arasında konuşması için oda da bulunuyor. 6-8 metre yüksekliğinde duvarları olan cezaevinin 5 milyon dolara mal olduğu iddia edilmiş, yapılan açıklamalarda bu rakamın yüksek olmadığı belirtilmişti.

İşte Apo’nun 5 arkadaşı:

BAYRAM KAYMAZ: Apo yakalanınca kendini yaktı

Mardin Savur doğumlu 38 yaşındaki Bayram Kaymaz'ın, "ajanlık yaptıkları" gerekçesiyle örgüt üyeleri Abdülaziz Çoban, Abdullah Çoban ve Ahmo Özdemir'in İzmir'de öldürülmesi ile ilgili tutuklandığı, 2002'de idam cezasına çarptırıldığı, cezanın ağırlaştırılmış müebbete dönüştürüldüğü belirtildi. Kaymaz’ın, Öcalan’ın Türkiye’ye getirilişi sırasında da kendini yaktığı öğrenildi. 2006’da yakınları, Kaymaz’ın cezaevi revirindeki doktor tarafından yapılan yanlış iğne sonucu belden aşağısının felç olduğunu ve buna rağmen tek başına hücrede tutulduğunu öne sürmüştü. Kaymaz, 1994’te Tuzla Tren İstasyonu’ndaki bir çöp bidonuna bomba bırakarak 3 er ile 2 yedek subayın şehit düşmesine sebep olmuştu.

ŞEYHMUZ POYRAZ: ‘Tamil’ sempatizanı PKK’lı

Şeyhmuz Poyraz da Bayram Kaymaz gibi Öcalan’ın yargılandığı dosyada ismi bulunan diğer bir PKK mensubu (22.5.2001 tarihinde idam mahkûmu olarak dosyası TBMM’ye gönderildi). Poyraz, F Tipi cezaevlerini ve tecridi protesto için İzmir Kırıklar F Tipi Hapishanesi’nde iken açlık grevi yaptı. Bolu F Tipi Cezaevi’nde kaldığı sırada ise Sri Lanka topraklarında yaşayan Tamillere yönelik baskıları protesto etmek için 30 Mayıs-5 Haziran 2009 tarihleri arasında açlık grevi yaptı. Bu eylemi nedeniyle cezaevi yönetimi kendisine 17 Haziran 2009’da “üç ay etkinliklerden alıkoyma cezası” verdi.

CUMALİ KARSU: Tren istasyonu bombacısı

PKK mensubu Karsu, 1994 yılında Tuzla’daki tren istasyonuna yapılan ve 3 er, 2 yedek subayın şehit olduğu bombalı saldırının da faili. (18.1.2001 tarihinde idam mahkûmu olarak dosyası TBMM’ye gönderildi.)

HASBİ AYDEMİR: Kod adı ‘İmam Hüseyin’

Tekirdağ ve Kırıkkale F tipi cezaevlerinde yattı. PKK’nın yayın organlarında yazı yazıyor. Kod adı “İmam Hüseyin”di. Babasının köy boşaltmaları sırasında öldürüldüğü öne sürüldü. 2009 yılında “Sayın Öcalan” diye Tekirdağ 2 Nolu F Tipi Cezaevi’nde DTP’lilere destek için dilekçe verdi. Bununla ilgili de yargılanması sürüyor.

HAKKI ALPAN: TİKKO’nun komutanlarından!

Hakkı Alpan, yasadışı TKP/MLTİKKO örgütü üyesi. Tunceli doğumlu olan Alpan, “Mazlum” kod adıyla biliniyor. 1999’da Avrupa’dan Türkiye’ye kaçak yollardan giriş yapmaya çalışırken Edirne’de yakalan Alpan’ın örgüt içinde sözde ‘komutan’ rütbesinde olduğu ve silahlı faaliyetlere katıldığı belirtildi.

28 Mart 2011 tarihli Milliyet gazetesi yapılan ziyaretle ilgili haberde ayrıca şunları da yazdı: İmralı’daki düzenleme ile Abdullah Öcalan’ın avukatlarıyla her hafta çarşamba günleri Öcalan ve 5 mahkum 1’inci derecedeki yakınlarıyla her ayın 2 ve 4’üncü pazartesi günleri cam bölme arasında 45’er dakika görüşebiliyor. Yüksek Güvenlikli F Tipi Cezaevi’nin 2009 yılı Kasım ayında yapımı tamamlanmasından sonra diğer cezaevlerinden kendi istekleri ile PKK’lı mahkumlar Şeyhmuz Poyraz, Cumali Karsu, Hasbi Aydemir, Bayram Kaymaz ile TİKKO üyesi Hakkı Alpan da İmralı Adası’na getirilmişti.

The visit in June 2009

The report on the above cited visit in June 2009 was published on 31 March 2011.[6]. The interesting passage on Kırıkkale F-type Prison reads:

112. Among the prisoner population, there were 62 prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. Under Section 25, paragraph 1, of the Law on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (LESSM), such prisoners are subjected to a very restrictive regime.[7]

The CPT is pleased to note that efforts were clearly being made, by exploiting the possibilities provided for in the legislation, to attenuate the regime for this category of prisoner. Most of the prisoners concerned were able to share an outdoor exercise yard with other inmates of the same category (where they could converse throughout the day) and/or could associate together, in groups of five to ten, during weekly sports sessions. Further, several of them were authorised, by decision of the establishment’s management board, to take part in vocational courses and to attend a workshop and the library.

This is a welcome development and clearly a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, the CPT maintains its reservations about the isolation-type regime generally applied to prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. As a matter of principle, the imposition of such a regime should lie with the prison authorities and always be based on an individual risk assessment, not the automatic result of the type of sentence imposed. The CPT wishes to stress that life-sentenced prisoners (as indeed all prisoners) are sent to prison as punishment and not to be punished within the prison. The Committee also wishes to draw the Turkish authorities’ attention to Section 7 of Recommendation Rec (2003) 23 on the Management by Prison Administrations of Life-Sentenced and Other Long-Term Prisoners (adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 9 October 2003), which emphasises that life-sentenced prisoners should not be segregated from other prisoners on the sole ground of their sentence.[8]

Additional information on fellow prisoners

Some of the information can be found in the annual and daily reports of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT).

Bayram Kaymaz was among 110 persons sentenced to death in 1997. Izmir State security court convicted him as PKK member (annual report 1997). The annual report of 1999 stated, "In protest at not granting Abdullah Öcalan asylum, his abduction and transfer to Turkey and sentencing him to death several people set themselves on fire. Bayram Kaymaz did so on 16 February 1999. Bayram Kaymaz was being held at Nazilli E Type Prison. In the annual report of 2001 Bayram Kaymaz is listed as one of 29 persons whose files had been forwarded to the Grand National Assembly for a vote on their execution. On 3 July 2006 the daily report included this item: Bayram Kaymaz, political prisoner incarcerated in Kiriklar F-type Prison, is kept in single-cell although he was paralysed. HRA Aegean Region Representative Necla Sengül announced that they applied to prison administration and Public Prosecutor and Kaymaz was hospitalised after their application. But he was taken back to the single-cell.
The list of prisoners waiting for a decision of parliament on their execution as of 3 July 2002 can also be found on the Internet. The file of Bayram Kaymaz came to the Justice Commission on 29 December 1999. In that trial Hüseyin Güçlü and Fikri Demir had been sentenced to death as well.
Cezaevinden yazdığı ilk (çok duygusal mektubundan alıntılar bu sayfada
Şeyhmus Poyraz dosyası 29.05.2001 tarihinde meclise geldi. In the annual report of the HRFT for 2001 Şeyhmuz Poyraz is listed as one of 29 persons whose files had been forwarded to the Grand National Assembly for a vote on their execution. Şeyhmus Poyraz was among 110 persons sentenced to death in 1997. The daily bulletin of 3 July 1994 carried the following item: The trial, launched against 5 persons on charges of "being members of the PKK and having carried out certain bomb attacks in İstanbul", started yesterday at İstanbul SSC. The indictment read in the hearing, recommended the death penalty against defendants Cumali Karasu, Enver Özer, Hediye Aybek and Şerif Mercan, and sought imprisonment term between 3 to 5 years for Musa Aydemir. Şerif Mercan, one of the defendants demanded to be sentenced to death, had committed suicide in Bursa Special Type Prison a while ago. (Milliyet)
Cumali Karasu and Enver Özer are named as two persons sentenced to death, whose file had been forwarded to the Grand National Assembly on 23 January 2001.
Hasbi Aydemir'in adı İHD İstanbul şubesinin Nisan 2006 raporunda var: 10 Nisan 2006 - İstanbul Tutuklu Aileleri Derneği tarafından yapılan açıklamada, Tekirdağ 2 No’lu F Tipi Cezaevi’nde 21 Mart akşamı Newroz’u kutlayan mahkumların asker ve gardiyanlar tarafından dövüldüğü bildirildi. Saldırıda yaralanan birçok tutuklunun hücreye konulduğu ve iyileşene kadar revire çıkarılmadığı kaydedilen açıklamada, yaralılardan Sami Dündar, Bekir Kılıçarslan, Cengiz Oğurtan, Kenan Avcı, Hasbi Aydemir, Muhammet İnal, Şenol Akyaz, Muhammet Fatih Bingöl, Ağa Sağlık, Mustafa Erkan ve Yunus Akbal’ın adının öğrenildiği bildirildi. The HRFT presented the information in English: stanbul Prisoners’ Relatives Association announced that the prisoners in Tekirdag F-type Prison were beaten during Newroz celebrations on the night of 21 March. The attacked prisoners were wounded and put in cells. They were reportedly not allowed to see a physician until they recovered. Some of the wounded prisoners are Sami Dündar, Bekir Kiliçarslan, Cengiz Ogurtan, Kenan Avci, Hasbi Aydemir, Muhammet Inal, Senol Akyaz, Muhammet Fatih Bingöl, Aga Saglik, Mustafa Erkan And Yunus Akbal.
13.01.2005 tarihli Rocajiwan portalında şunlar yazılı: Kulp-Lice’den gelen Yavuz Ertürk komutasındaki askerler, Hani’nin hemen kuzeyindeki Apê Musa Bölgesi’nde yakma, yıkma, toplama kamplarını kurma biçiminde faaliyetlerini sürdürdüler. Yukarıdan Genç İlçesi ile Sivan kasabasından gelenler de dehşet verici uygulamalarla faaliyetlerine devam ediyorlardı. Temmuz ayı sonlarında girdikleri Gorton Köyü’nde, her yerde olduğu gibi burada da, köylüler toplanıp ilk önce korucu olmaları için kısa bir konuşma yapıldı. Burada da köylülerin korucu olmayı kabul etmemeleri sonucu evler ateşe verildi. Bunun üzerine İmam Hüseyin kod adlı gerilla Hasbi Aydemir ile halen Türkiye’de tutuklu bulunan Ziya Aydemir’in Babası öldürüldü. Bu cinayet, Aydemir’in eşi ve çocuklarının gözleri önünde, evinden sökülen koca taşlarla gerçekleştirildi. Buradan Adana’ya taşınan Aydemir ailesi, Adana’da başta İnsan Hakları Derneği’ne yaptıkları başvurularda olayı anlattılar. Babalarının, gözlerinin önünde deşhet verici bir tarzda öldürüldüğünü söylediler. Aydemir ailesi de diğer aileler gibi Adana Cumhuriyet Savcılığı’na, suç duyurusunda bulundular. Ancak onların başvuruları da diğer ailelerin yaptığı başvuruların kaderine benzedi ve sonuçsuz kaldı.

İlginç bir haber de İzmir'de Yaşam adlı sitede yayınlandı. Sevk sonrası ilk sohbet hakkında notlarda şunlar yazılı idi: Bir saatlik ilk buluşma, Öcalan'ın mahkûmlara 'Kadın sorunu' ve 'açılım' konusunda ne düşündüklerini sorması oldu. 5 mahkûmdan birinin lakabı 'Stalinist Şeyhmus', diğeri 'Tikkocu Hakkı'. F-tipi cezaevlerinden dilekçe verenler arasından seçilen bu isimler, Öcalan'la ortak mekânda ancak haftada bir saat buluşabiliyor. Şu zamana kadar tek bir görüşme oldu. TİKKO'lu Hakkı Alkan, disiplin cezası nedeniyle görüşmeye katılmayınca, mahkûmlardan 4'ünün katıldığı ilk görüşmede Öcalan karşısındaki 4 PKK'lı mahkûma önce isimlerini, nereli olduklarını ve ne kadar zamandır hapiste olduklarını sormuş. ('Stalinist Şeyhmus' lakaplı Şeyhmus Poyraz, Cumali Karsu, Hakkı Alkan, Hasbi Aydemir ve Bayram Kaymaz).

Ek bilgiler de 17.11.2009 tarihli netteyim sitesinde mevcut. "Terör örgütü elebaşının Türkiye'ye getirilmesi sırasında cezaevinde kendini yakma girişiminde bulunduğu belirtilen Kaymaz'ın, belden aşağısının felçli olduğu belirtildi. Kaymaz'ın, Türkiye aleyhine, adil yargılanmadığı iddiasıyla AİHM'e başvurduğu kaydedildi. İmralı'ya gönderilen mahkumlardan Şeyhmuz Poyraz'ın da bir süre İzmir Kırıklar F Tipi Cezaevi'nde yattığı, daha sonra Bolu F Tipi Cezaevi'ne naklinin yapıldığı öğrenildi."

The case at the European Court of Human Rights was decided in 2004. The jugdment is available only in French (application number 57758/00). It states:

6. Les requérants, MM. Bayram Kaymaz et Kazım Yüksel, et Mme Zeynep Yüksel, sont nés respectivement en 1971, 1948 et 1955. Le premier est détenu à la maison d’arrêt de Nazilli/Aydın et les autres résident à Izmir.
7. Le 2 juin 1995, les requérants furent arrêtés par des policiers rattachés au bureau chargé de la lutte contre le terrorisme de la direction de la sûreté d’Izmir. Il était reproché à Bayram Kaymaz d’appartenir à une organisation illégale (PKK), et à M. et Mme Yüksel de porter aide et soutien à cette organisation.
8. Lors de la garde à vue, M. Kaymaz fut interrogé sur sa prétendue appartenance à l’organisation incriminée et sur l’homicide d’une personne. Il passa aux aveux. M. et Mme Yüksel avouèrent également avoir logé des membres de l’organisation illégale dans leur résidence.
9. Le 14 juin 1995, les requérants furent entendus par le procureur de la République. Devant lui, M. Kaymaz reconnut partiellement ses aveux. Il donna des renseignements sur ses activités au sein de l’organisation en question. Quant au chef d’homicide, il soutint qu’il avait pour mission de surveiller les lieux de l’incident mais qu’il n’était pas l’auteur principal de cet acte. M. Yüksel confirma partiellement ses dépositions recueillies par la police. Quant à Mme Yüksel, elle réfuta toutes les accusations portées contre elle.
10. Le même jour, les requérants furent traduits devant le juge assesseur près la cour de sûreté de l’Etat d’Izmir, qui ordonna leur détention provisoire. Les requérants réitérèrent leurs dépositions faites devant le procureur de la République.
11. Les requérants ne bénéficièrent pas de l’assistance d’un conseil juridique durant leur garde à vue, ni devant le procureur de la République ni devant le juge assesseur ayant recueilli leurs dépositions.
12. Dans la procédure devant la cour de sûreté de l’Etat, M. et Mme Yüksel réfutèrent tous les chefs d’accusation. M. Kaymaz soutint qu’il n’avait pas l’honneur d’être membre du PKK et qu’il avait fait de son mieux pour devenir un militant de cette organisation.
13. Le 22 juillet 1997, en application de l’article 125 du code pénal, la cour de sûreté de l’Etat, composée de deux juges civils et d’un juge militaire, condamna M. Kaymaz à la peine capitale du chef d’appartenance à une organisation illégale et armée tendant à détruire l’intégrité territoriale du pays. En vertu des articles 169 du code pénal et 5 de la loi no 3713 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme, M. et Mme Yüksel furent condamnés à une peine d’emprisonnement de trois ans et neuf mois pour aide et soutien à cette organisation illégale.
14. Afin d’établir la culpabilité de M. Kaymaz, la cour tint compte de ses déclarations recueillies aux différents stades de la procédure pénale, des déclarations des plaignants et des témoins, des procès-verbaux d’autopsie, des rapports d’expertise, des procès-verbaux de reconstitution des faits et de l’ensemble du dossier. Quant à M. et Mme Yüksel, elle fonda son constat de culpabilité sur leurs propres dépositions recueillies à différents stades de la procédure et sur les aveux des autres coaccusés.
15. Le 7 juillet 1998, la Cour de cassation infirma l’arrêt du 22 juillet 1997 pour vice de procédure.
16. Par un arrêt du 3 décembre 1998, se conformant à l’arrêt de la Cour de cassation, la cour de sûreté de l’Etat rectifia le procès et condamna les requérants aux peines précitées (paragraphe 13 ci-dessus).
17. Le 18 octobre 1999, se fondant sur l’avis du procureur général qui ne fut pas communiqué aux requérants, la Cour de cassation confirma l’arrêt du 3 décembre 1998.
18. Le 18 novembre 1999, l’arrêt de la Cour de cassation fut versé au dossier se trouvant à la cour de sûreté de l’Etat.

Translated by Google into English the main information of the case is:
On June 2, 1995, the applicants were arrested. Bayram Kaymaz was accused of belonging to an illegal organization (PKK), and Mr. and Mrs. Yüksel with support to this organization. In police custody, Mr Kaymaz was questioned about membership and homicide of a person. He made a confession. Mr. and Mrs. Yüksel also confessed to have housed members of the organization illegal in their home. On June 14, 1995, the applicants were interviewed by the prosecutor. Mr. Kaymaz partially recognized his confession. On the homicide, he maintained that he had to oversee the scene of the incident but he was not the executionor. The applicants did not benefit from the assistance of legal counsel during police custody, either before the prosecutor or before a judge who heard their testimony. In proceedings before the Court of State Security, Mr. and Mrs. Yüksel refuted all charges. Mr. Kaymaz claimed that he had not the honor of being a member of the PKK and that he had done his best to become an activist organization. On July 22, 1997, pursuant to section 125 of the Penal Code, the Court of State Security, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, sentenced Mr Kaymaz to death. Under sections 169 of the Penal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 on the fight against terrorism, Mr and Mrs Yüksel were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and nine months to help and support for this illegal organization.
To establish the guilt of Mr. Kaymaz, the court took into account his statements collected at different stages of criminal proceedings, statements of complainants and witnesses, autopsy records, expert reports, the minutes to reconstruct events and the entire record. As for Mr. and Ms. Yüksel, she founded its finding of guilt on their own evidence given at different stages of the proceedings and the confessions of other co-defendants. On July 7, 1998, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of 22 July 1997 on procedural grounds. By a decree of December 3, 1998, complying with the ruling of the Court of Cassation, the Court of State Security corrected the trial and ordered the applicants to the penalties mentioned above. On October 18, 1999, relying on the advice of the Attorney General that was not communicated to the applicants, the Court of Cassation upheld the ruling of 3 December 1998. On 18 November 1999, the Court of Cassation confirmed the verdict of the state security court.


  1. zum kompletten Bericht in englischer Sprache
  2. Siehe eine Nachricht in der Tageszeitung Radikal vom 18. August 2009; aufgerufen am 20. August 2009
  3. Der Standard vom 17. November 2009, abgerufen am 4. September 2010
  4. Full text at
  5. Section 25 reads as follows: “(a) The convict shall be kept in a single room. (b) The convict shall have the right to access to outdoor exercise for one hour per day. (c) Depending on individual efforts and good conduct the convict displays concerning risk and security requirements as well as in rehabilitation and training activities, the duration of outdoor exercise may be extended and he/she may be allowed within limits to have contact with the convicts staying in the same unit. (d) The convict can perform artistic or professional activities as deemed appropriate by the board of administration of the institution, provided that the conditions of the place where he/she is kept permit. (…)”
  6. Full report at
  7. Under Section 25(1)(a) of the Law on Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment shall be held in an “individual room”. Under subparagraph c), prisoners serving aggravated life imprisonment may have their daily one-hour outdoor exercise and sports period extended and may be allowed to engage in limited contact with prisoners accommodated in the same unit, depending on the risk factors, security requirements and the efforts and good behaviour they demonstrate in rehabilitation and educational activities. Under subparagraph d), such prisoners may engage in a trade or occupational activity considered suitable by the administrative board, if conditions in the place where they are held so permit.
  8. The Explanatory Report of the afore-mentioned recommendation further states that:
    • “41. [t]he special segregation of life-sentenced or long-term prisoners cannot be justified by an unexamined characterisation of such prisoners as dangerous. As a general rule, the experience of many prison administrations is that many such prisoners present no risks to themselves or others. And if they do present such risks, they may only do so for relatively limited periods or in particular situations. In consequence, while it is fully recognised that time and resources are needed to implement this principle; these prisoners should only be segregated if, and for as long as, clear and present risks exist.
    • 42. Life-sentenced and long-term prisoners are thought in some countries to pose serious safety and security problems in the prison. The violence and dangerousness manifested in the criminal act is considered to carry over to their lives in prison. Offenders who, for example, have committed murder are among those most likely to receive life or long sentences. This does not necessarily mean that they are violent or dangerous prisoners. Indeed, prison authorities can refer to individual murderers with a life or long sentence as “good prisoners”. They exhibit stable and reliable behaviour and are unlikely to repeat their offence. The likelihood of an offender engaging in violent or dangerous behaviour frequently depends not only on personality characteristics but also on the typical situations that permit or provoke the emergence of such behaviour.
    • 43. Descriptions in terms of violence and dangerousness should, therefore, always be considered in relation to the specific environments or situations in which these characteristics may – or may not – be exhibited. In the management of long-term and life prisoners, a clear distinction should be drawn between safety and security risks arising within the prison and those that may arise with escape into the community. The classification and allocation of long-term and life-sentenced prisoners should take account of these differing kinds of risks (…)”.