The parliamentary commission established to resolve the Kurdish question continues its work as reports emerge from Ankara’s political circles about a possible new sentence execution law. It is said to be similar to the Covid-19 law but even broader in scope, although no official statement has yet been made.
At the same time, many prisoners are facing postponed releases due to the decisions of Administrative and Observation Boards. Most of those who have already served 30 years remain imprisoned as a result of the boards’ arbitrary rulings.
Newroz Uysal Aslan, Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) MP for Şırnak (Şirnex), spoke to ANF and said that the problems in prisons must be seen as part of the Kurdish question, stressing that the steps to be taken for its resolution must also include addressing these postponed releases.
She added that since 2021, through changes in laws and regulations, the freedom of political prisoners has been usurped by the Administrative and Observation Boards, which have arbitrarily extended their sentences.
Newroz Uysal Aslan said that, before 2021, the Administrative and Observation Boards were only authorized on matters such as cell changes in prisons, prisoners’ requests, and disciplinary penalties related to release, but with the legal change introduced that year, the boards were both structurally transformed and given the authority to make “remorse” assessments regarding political prisoners: “The procedure we call the burning or extension of sentences, what we also describe as the political usurpation of freedoms through the Administrative and Observation Boards, has been in force since the law and regulation changes introduced in 2021.
Previously, the Administrative and Observation Boards only dealt with cell changes in prisons, certain requests of prisoners, disciplinary penalties related to release, and current issues, if any. But with the amendment made in 2021, both the structure of these boards was changed, and they were given the authority, under the name of ‘remorse,’ to make an assessment related to the offense especially for political prisoners. In addition, the arbitrary processes we call the burning of sentences, conducted under the chairmanship of the prosecutor, were put on the agenda.
Since then, there has been no uniformity, no unity of practice, no unity of approach, and no legal oversight by the ministry of the mechanism, nor any effort toward equal implementation.
On the contrary, the Administrative and Observation Boards seem to operate as if they were introduced specifically for political prisoners. After political prisoners have already served their unfair sentences, they are confronted with additional procedures of burning sentences, extending by two years, three years, and for some prisoners even exceeding six years, through probation and so-called good conduct.”
359 political prisoners victimized by this practice
Newroz Uysal recalled that, according to the most recent report released on June 29 by the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD) and the Solidarity Association for Prisoner Families (TUHAY-DER), the sentences of 359 political prisoners have been extended for varying periods, noting that these extensions have spread to nearly all prisons, including Bolu, Sincan Women’s, Aksaray Type-T, Erzincan, and Bakırköy.
She especially emphasized that in Bolu, the sentences of 34 prisoners are being withheld and continued: “In the latest report prepared by ÖHD and TUHAY-DER on June 29, 2025, it was identified that the sentences of 359 political prisoners had been extended once, twice, three times, or even longer, and this situation has spread to many prisons.
In the early period, some prisons allowed release, evaluating the matter only in relation to disciplinary penalties or the behavior of the individual. Now, with its widespread application, in almost all prisons, a person’s sentence is extended on the basis of questions such as: ‘Do you accept remorse? Do you sign the certificate of sincerity?’
Prisons that systematically implement this include Bolu, Sincan Women’s Prison, Aksaray Type-T, and Erzincan Women’s Prison, while recently a similar situation occurred in Bakırköy as well.
In Bolu Prison in particular, those whose sentences are withheld are 30-year prisoners, many of them with chronic illnesses, people who should not even be kept in prison. Because of this, there is a rising outcry from families, human rights defenders, and lawyers working in this field.
This practice is actually a reflection of the state’s policies of deadlock and discrimination against Kurds. While many issues such as isolation, segregation, and denial of access to healthcare systematically threaten the lives of prisoners, through these boards the assault has now reached the level of targeting their freedom and their very existence.
For example, in Bolu, 34 prisoners’ sentences are being withheld in this way. In Aksaray, there are similar practices for 12 prisoners, including some who have been imprisoned for 30 years and others suffering from serious conditions such as COPD and heart disease. In fact, even though some friends suffer from cancer, disability, or other illnesses, such decisions are still being imposed.”
We demand the complete abolition of the Administrative and Observation Boards
Newroz Uysal said that they have submitted motions to parliament to abolish these arbitrary decisions, requested investigations from the Human Rights Inquiry Commission, and proposed amendments to the relevant legal provisions.
Uysal also emphasized that appeals to the Execution Judge and the High Criminal Court do not constitute a genuine legal remedy and remain ineffective, stating that they demand the complete abolition of the Administrative and Observation Boards: “The decisions of the Administrative and Observation Boards are so arbitrary that, for example, even though the prison administration itself determines the placement of prisoners in cells, it still asks questions about whether they are in ‘organized’ or ‘unorganized’ wards, raising political questions, provoking, insulting, or asking degrading questions that aim to undermine a person’s conscience, will, and beliefs.”
She added that prisoners are being confronted with abstract and irrelevant questions: “For instance, questions such as, ‘Do you consider the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) a terrorist organization? If the PKK dissolved itself and a new organization was formed, would you join it?’ are being asked, abstract, baseless, and irrelevant questions. To overcome this, we have repeatedly submitted motions in parliament, demanded investigations through the Human Rights Inquiry Commission, and introduced bills to amend this law, particularly Article 89 and related regulations. Yet unfortunately, none of these have been put on the agenda.”
Uysal further noted that the Ministry of Justice legitimizes the boards by comparing them to international examples: “On the contrary, what we face is a Ministry of Justice that claims these boards are similar to examples elsewhere in the world. In reality, however, this is not reflected in practice. These boards are discriminatory, sometimes even placing themselves in the role of a court, asking questions that even judges would not ask prisoners, disregarding impartiality and independence, and issuing arbitrary and speculative decisions.”
Finally, Uysal stressed that the boards cannot simply be improved but must be abolished: “That is why we do not see this issue as one of improving the boards. Nor do we see appeals to execution judges or high criminal courts as having any real effect. These boards cannot be considered a genuine legal remedy, and therefore we have demanded their abolition. We have long been voicing this demand. Unfortunately, there is currently no change regarding these issues.”
The commission must also address these issues
Newroz Uysal Aslan said that the problems in prisons must be seen as part of the Kurdish question, stressing that the steps taken to resolve the Kurdish question must also cover the extensions of sentences.
She also noted that the ongoing parliamentary commission is discussing issues such as advancing the process through a general amnesty or legal changes but added that these discussions should not be limited only to the legal status of guerrillas who laid down arms. Instead, she said, they must be carried out within a broad framework that addresses all legal obstacles to resolving the Kurdish question: “With the beginning of the peace and democratic society process, there was a very rightful and legitimate expectation that the decisions of these boards and the politically discriminatory practices would come to an end. Because what has been implemented is unlawful. The demand was not to change an existing law, but to end this political practice. Yet we have not seen any real change in this regard.”
Uysal continued by saying that the commission’s meetings are still ongoing: “In these meetings, issues such as moving forward through a general amnesty or changes in law are being discussed. But the reality is this: the Kurdish question is also an issue that brings with it the prison problem. If a roadmap for peace and brotherhood is truly to be created in relation to resolving the Kurdish question, then the isolation system, along with the sentence-burning practices spreading from other prisons, must also be changed.”
She added that this situation has deeply hurt social conscience: “Especially for 30-year prisoners, this practice undermines trust in the process and wounds social conscience. Because some prisoners are being kept inside for an additional three months, six months, or even more than a year. For example, in Erzincan, Ardıl Çeşme’s sentence was extended for a second time by six months. In Aksaray, Tamer Yeşilbaş was released only after two and a half years.”
Uysal emphasized that the scope of the commission must be broadened: “We want the commission’s methods of work, its debates, and the draft laws it will produce not to be limited or narrow, focused only on guerrillas who destroyed their weapons or surrendered after dissolution. On the contrary, we want them to be conducted in such a way that all legal obstacles to resolving the Kurdish question can be overcome, and that during the removal of these legal obstacles, a social persuasion and acceptance will also emerge. As a party, our stance and position in the commission proceed in this way. But the current approach prioritizes certain issues, so at present the legal status of the guerrillas who laid down arms is being discussed more.”
She further said that removing discriminatory laws must be central: “Of course, this legal situation means abolishing the misuse of laws under the mask of ‘terror,’ which has been incorporated into all state laws today. It also means abolishing the monstrosity that is the Anti-Terror Law, as well as amending the Penal Code and the execution law, which currently eliminate freedom of expression and freedom of association in a discriminatory way.
Such changes would pave the way for the release of thousands of prisoners currently in prison. This is the legal reality we face. It means changing the character of Turkey’s legal framework, which has surpassed exceptions and created an unlawful state of law.”
Uysal also highlighted the need for democratization of the law: “We state that the law must be democratized and cleansed of this discrimination. When that happens, issues such as sentence burnings, the state of prisons, the stance of the Forensic Medicine Institute, legal obstacles, the discriminatory execution system, and execution justice must all be addressed and changed. We know that the commission is working on this process and that it is being discussed.
Which of the formulas on the table will actually be realized? Of course, it is not possible to predict in advance. But considering Turkey’s current situation, the character of the political parties, and the character of society in this process, it is clear that a specific and special law will be needed.”
Finally, she added that temporary measures will not be enough: “Will a special law solve this issue by simply introducing a temporary article like the Covid-19 law? This will certainly be debated by the commission. But the truth is that this matter requires not just a temporary article but a more specific, broader framework law that encompasses other issues as well.
Because when this commission began, we saw in the speeches of Speaker of Parliament Numan Kurtulmuş and other political parties that they also agreed this issue must be resolved through a framework law. That is why we want not the so-called ‘shortcut peace’ approach put forward in some reports, interviews, or social media accounts, but a deeply rooted, historical, and genuine mechanism, one that will democratize and cleanse Turkey’s legal system.”