The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on 18 March 2014 that sentencing Abdullah Öcalan to aggravated life imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR stated that such sentences infringe upon the “right to hope.”
According to the Court, even a life sentence must not be entirely irreducible and beyond review, as this contradicts human dignity. Following the ruling, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe called on Turkey to make legal amendments. However, Turkey has not taken any steps in this regard.
Due to the lack of review of aggravated life sentences and the denial of the “right to hope,” the Committee has since 2021 called on Turkey to submit an action plan, but Turkey has ignored these calls.
At its meetings in 2024 and 2025, the Committee warned that an infringement procedure could be launched against Turkey. The Council is expected to hold another session this month.
Lawyer Rezan Gezer of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), speaking ahead of the upcoming session, answered ANF’s questions regarding Turkey’s stance on the “right to hope” and the Committee’s position.
What is the legal meaning of Turkey’s inaction during the peace and solution process?
The ‘right to hope’ is a right based on the protection of human dignity, ensuring that individuals sentenced to life imprisonment retain the possibility of release one day. Until the statements of Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chairperson Devlet Bahçeli, Turkey did not even dare to speak this right aloud; in the courts, it was treated as a matter of crime. During this process, Turkey has gone no further than voicing it without any concrete steps.
For the sincerity and progress of the process, the ‘right to hope’ must be applied to all prisoners. However, in many prisons, the release of dozens of prisoners is being postponed. In order for the process to advance and to receive support from all segments of society, there must be meaningful progress regarding the ‘right to hope.’
Do you expect an interim decision at the end of the one-year period granted to Turkey by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe?
The Committee of Ministers granted Turkey time in relation to the ‘Gurban group’ file, which also includes Mr. Öcalan. In 2014, the ECtHR ruled that the aggravated life sentence handed down to Mr. Öcalan violated Article 3 of the ECHR, namely the prohibition of torture. According to the jurisprudence previously established by the ECtHR in similar cases, ‘No one can be held in life imprisonment without the prospect of release.’ The opposite constitutes a violation of the ‘right to hope.’
Accordingly, a life sentence must be subject to review after a certain stage (at most after 25 years). This review must be carried out by an independent mechanism, and the individual’s situation must be evaluated according to objective criteria in order to determine eligibility for conditional release.
This applies to Mr. Öcalan and the other three people included in this group file. They were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release, meaning the ‘right to hope’. The prospect of one day being freed was denied to them.
At this point, the Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for supervising the implementation of ECtHR rulings, has demanded that Turkey, despite the 11 years that have passed, introduce changes to the legislation that abolishes the possibility of conditional release, and establish an appropriate review mechanism by September. Otherwise, it announced that it would issue an interim resolution, essentially determining what kind of sanction would be applied. This sanction may even be economic in nature.
Turkey has taken no steps up to this stage. It appears that, given Turkey’s passivity, an interim decision must be issued. No necessary legal amendments have been made by Turkey; the law still prescribes aggravated life imprisonment until death, and no change has been introduced to create the possibility of conditional release. Up to this stage, it is not possible to predict what the Committee of Ministers, which has acted politically on this issue and has failed to pursue an effective policy regarding what it itself calls ‘torture’, will do. But the current process points to this reality.
What possible scenarios could arise from Turkey’s stance in terms of the sanctioning powers of the Council of ECtHR?
We think that Turkey’s failure to take concrete steps, and the absence of any indication that it will, creates a negative impression. Turkey’s silence regarding the ‘right to hope’ reminds us of the Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ rulings. In both cases, although Turkey failed to implement the decisions, no sanctions were imposed, and Turkey was not compelled to backtrack on its stance.
At this stage, it is expected that any interim resolution should be implemented strictly as a sanction, so that the seriousness of the Council of Europe and the ECtHR is not called into question.
Why is the recognition of the ‘right to hope’ important?
It carries great significance for thousands of political prisoners and those still on trial. If the ‘right to hope’ is recognized, there may be releases from prisons, and we believe that sentences in ongoing trials would also be adjusted in light of this right.
This is essentially why we attach importance to the ‘right to hope,’ and many of our efforts focus on this matter. According to the jurisprudence established by the ECtHR, the gravity of the crime committed does not matter when it comes to the ‘right to hope.’ What matters is the individual’s inherent quality of being human.
Therefore, the ‘right to hope’ fundamentally seeks to protect a person’s human values and provides the opportunity to make amends for mistakes in the future. Its non-recognition and denial overturn all values and also affect the process recently launched.