The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which convened on 15–17 September due to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling that Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” had been violated and left unimplemented for 12 years, once again granted Turkey time, requesting that the necessary legal amendments be made by June 2026. The Committee of Ministers called for immediate steps to ensure the implementation of the right to hope, which concerns 4,000 prisoners, and pointed to the National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission established in the parliament.
This postponement has been met with reactions from all quarters, and the slow pace of the commission highlighted in the process has not gone unnoticed. In this context, Keskin Bayındır, Co-Chair of the Democratic Regions Party (DBP), responded to our questions, evaluating both the Committee’s decision and the current stage of the process.
Keskin Bayındır said, “The stance of the Committee is one that obscures the process and avoids responsibility.” Bayındır also drew attention to the positive impact of the right to hope on the process and added: “It must not be forgotten that Mr. Öcalan is not merely one party to this process, but the architect of the solution, the initiator of dialogue, and the guarantor of peace.”
How do you evaluate the Committee of Ministers granting Turkey time until June in such a fundamental legal matter that directly affects Abdullah Öcalan and around 4,000 prisoners? We also see that the Committee has taken no effective step or sanction on this issue for nearly 12 years.
The decision of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to grant Turkey time until June in this fundamental legal matter, which directly concerns Abdullah Öcalan and thousands of political prisoners, raises serious questions both legally and socially. This issue is not merely a prison practice or an individual rights violation; it is directly connected to democratization in Turkey, the resolution of the Kurdish question, and the future of social peace. Mr. Öcalan is not only a political figure for the Kurdish people but also one of the main actors for a solution and peace processes, holding a historic role. Despite his captivity since 1999 and the severe isolation imposed, he has pursued a dialogue- and solution-oriented approach for the shared future of the peoples of Turkey. However, the special regime imposed in Imralı must be understood not only as an individual rights violation but also as the systematic suppression of a people’s will. From the perspective of national and international law, the practices in Imralı clearly violate constitutional guarantees, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and universal human rights norms. Despite the rulings of the ECtHR, the state of absolute incommunicado has been maintained for years, amounting to a violation of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as defined under Article 3 of the Court. The fact that the Committee has failed for nearly 12 years to apply effective sanctions in the face of these flagrant violations is concrete proof of how international institutions push human rights principles into the background when confronted with political interests.
This has led to a serious erosion of trust not only among the Kurdish people but also in the eyes of European public opinion. Because what is being isolated here is not only one person, but also a ground for solution, a hope for a democratic future, and a perspective of peace. The isolation policy in Imralı lies at the heart of the authoritarian governance model and politics of deadlock in Turkey. This special regime aims both to restrict Mr. Öcalan’s social influence and to criminalize the Kurdish people’s democratic demands by narrowing the space for political struggle. Therefore, this is not limited to prisons but is part of a broader mechanism of repression that extends to the media, freedom of expression, the right to organize, education in the mother tongue, and local administrations. In this context, Mr. Öcalan’s freedom and his direct communication with the public have vital importance for Turkey’s democratic future. Human rights and the rule of law cannot be sacrificed to political calculations. Any approach that normalizes isolation becomes part of authoritarianism and deadlock. At this point, responsibility lies not only with international institutions but also with the peoples and democratic public opinion. In the face of states’ interest-driven and double-standard attitudes, only an organized popular can bring about real change. Today, the struggle against isolation is at the same time a struggle for democracy, justice, and a free future.
What does it mean that the Committee of Ministers referred to the commission established in the Turkish parliament, and how do you evaluate this?
The decision of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to refer the process to a commission established in the Turkish parliament means that legal responsibility is being concealed through a political maneuver. Yet the situation is crystal clear: the rulings of the ECtHR have been systematically violated by Turkey for years. The most striking of these violations is the aggravated isolation regime imposed on Mr. Öcalan. This is not only the denial of the rights of one individual, but also the usurpation of the will of millions, of the hope for democratic solution, and of the right to dialogue. By pointing to a parliamentary commission in the face of this blatant illegality, the Committee of Ministers has adopted an approach that obscures the process and evades responsibility. It must be emphasized that the rulings of the ECtHR are not merely recommendations; they are binding and must be implemented. As a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey is obliged to fulfill these responsibilities. However, the Committee has failed to show serious determination for more than 12 years and has not activated sanction mechanisms. In doing so, it has effectively given ground to Turkey’s unlawful practices and damaged the universality of human rights law. Today, the illegality ignored in the case of Mr. Öcalan can tomorrow be legitimized against other communities. This means the erosion not only of one person’s rights, but of the entire human rights regime.
As was revealed during the solution process between 2013 and 2015, Mr. Öcalan’s determination in favor of peace, dialogue, and democratic solution provided significant breathing space for the peoples of Turkey and Kurdistan. Yet instead of being supported, this determination was suppressed, isolation was deepened, and policies of social conflict were reintroduced.
If the commission established in parliament today is to produce a real solution to this structural illegality, such an effort would at the same time be a form of self-criticism. After all, the same parliament has for years remained silent while Mr. Öcalan’s right to meet with his family and lawyers was denied. Without changing the mindset that has turned isolation into a special legal regime, no commission or legislative initiative can carry legitimacy.
At its core, the issue is the physical freedom of the Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan and his active participation in democratic solution processes. The isolation in Imralı is not an individual measure, but a tool of oppression that blocks social peace, coexistence, and pluralistic politics. It is the most concrete example of the lawlessness and authoritarianism prevailing in Turkey. As the DBP, we advocate for the end of these unlawful practices and for the opening of paths to dialogue.
This demand is not only vital for the Kurdish people, but also for the future of all the peoples of Turkey. Our call to international institutions is clear: end double standards, stalling tactics, and political calculations. Law cannot be bent and twisted according to circumstances.
The process that has begun is being supported by all segments of society. This is frequently raised in international institutions and forums as well. What kind of steps or sanctions should the Committee take regarding the right to hope, especially while calling for urgency?
Today, the growing demand for the “right to hope” in Turkey and internationally is not only a legal issue but also an ethical, political, and humanitarian responsibility. While it is positive that the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has called for urgency on this matter, such calls must now be backed by concrete steps. Words alone deepen legal violations, weaken social hope, and gradually exhaust the possibilities for a solution. It is undeniable that Mr. Öcalan has been held under aggravated isolation for nearly a quarter of a century, left in a state of absolute incommunicado. This situation constitutes a serious violation not only in terms of Turkey’s domestic law but also under the ECHR and United Nations conventions prohibiting torture. Despite the ECtHR ruling in 2014 defining the “right to hope,” Turkey has neither made the necessary legal arrangements nor ended this severe practice. The contradictory and ineffective stance of Council of Europe bodies has played a significant role in allowing this violation to continue for years. The Committee cannot remain content with monitoring alone; it is obliged to implement effective oversight and binding sanctions. Referring the process merely to a parliamentary commission means nothing more than postponing legal responsibility under a political guise. The course of action is clear: as long as ECtHR rulings are not implemented and the isolation in Imralı is not lifted, the Council’s sanction mechanisms must be activated, particularly under the Istanbul Protocol framework, including supervision and the suspension of membership rights. Such measures would protect not only the rule of law but also the institutional credibility of the Council of Europe.
At this stage, Mr. Öcalan has become a bearer of the perspective of solution, peace, and democratic transformation not only for the Kurdish people but for Turkish society as a whole. The closed regime imposed in Imralı is therefore not merely a penal enforcement measure, but part of a structural authoritarianism that suppresses democratic spaces in Turkey. For this reason, the “right to hope” is not only Mr. Öcalan’s right, but the right of all of Turkish society. In a country where hope is systematically crushed, neither peace nor democracy can be built. International institutions so far have contented themselves with being observers, and with their double-standard approaches they have paved the way for the continuation of isolation. These institutions must now become intervening and responsible actors. Otherwise, the rhetoric of “human rights” loses credibility and becomes an empty political tool. The support rising from different segments of society shows that a strong ground for solution has emerged. International bodies must listen to this will and take steps that correspond to it. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers must now initiate a binding and effective intervention process and activate all mechanisms, including political sanctions against Turkey.
Stalling policies are darkening Turkey’s future
Considering the process in Turkey, the chief negotiator, Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, should be able to live and work in free conditions. Although this is voiced by all circles, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) continues to play deaf and blind. The Turkish state, and particularly the AKP government, has a delaying approach that avoids practical steps. What do you think about this? How does the slow progress of this process, which the AKP approaches for its own interests, harm the state?
The most fundamental condition for the resolution process to evolve into lasting, just, and social peace is that Mr. Abdullah Öcalan, as the chief negotiator, lives in free, healthy, and safe conditions and can engage in political activity. His perspective on resolution provides a unique experience for social reconciliation, coexistence, and non-violent solutions. This reality is now voiced not only by Kurdish society but also by many political and civil circles in Turkey. However, the political power ignores this common demand and, by “playing the three monkeys,” drags out the process, spreads it over time, and weakens hopes for resolution without taking any structural steps. This attitude undermines not only the hopes for peace of the Kurdish people but also those of Turkish society as a whole, eroding trust in the future and destabilizing social stability. The line of deadlock maintained through isolation policies and absolute incommunicado is not compatible with national or international law and openly violates the rulings of the ECtHR. The AKP government has turned the inconsistent and sanction-free stance of international institutions into an opportunity, attempting to shape the process according to its own political calculations. The previous resolution process is a concrete example: despite Mr. Öcalan’s strong will for a peaceful solution, the process was instrumentalized by the government for electoral gain, and afterwards the path to resolution was entirely closed.
This opportunistic and short-sighted political style not only causes deadlock in the Kurdish question but also seriously damages democratization, the functioning of the legal system, and international legitimacy. Such an approach deepens political polarization and entrenches economic crises, security threats, and social mistrust. It must be remembered that Mr. Öcalan is not only one side of this process but the architect of the solution, the founder of dialogue, and the guarantor of peace. Despite being held under severe isolation for more than twenty-five years, he has consistently called for non-violence, democratic politics, and social reconciliation. When his voice is silenced, it is in fact the common future of peoples, the will for political solution, and the hope for peace that are silenced. Therefore, the Imralı regime in force today is not merely a matter of penal enforcement, but a direct political tool of repression. The isolation imposed on him reflects the state’s systematic response to the democratic demands of broad segments of society. Isolation must thus be addressed not as an individual violation but as a structural problem that deepens Turkey’s political crisis.The AKP’s treatment of this process as a stalling tactic to consolidate its own power may help it survive the day, but it darkens Turkey’s future. Peace is only possible with justice. Resolution can only be built through mutual recognition and dialogue. And freedom can only become permanent on the basis of equality. Both Turkey and the Middle East need these principles more than ever. Any process conducted without recognizing Mr. Öcalan’s role will be incomplete, and every search for a solution will remain half-finished.
The struggle against isolation is a struggle for Turkey to reunite with law and justice
Finally, the unlawfulness on this issue has been met with reactions from all circles. There are many sick prisoners in jails who cannot sustain their lives. The right to hope affects not only Imralı but thousands of others as well. In this context, what responsibilities fall on the Kurdish people, the forces of democracy, and social movements?
The human rights violations in Turkish prisons have long ceased to be isolated incidents and have turned into a comprehensive and systematic state practice. The most striking example of this is the absolute isolation policy in Imralı. The situation in prisons, especially in Imralı, shows that Turkey has effectively suspended both its own constitution and the international human rights conventions it is party to.
Despite the “right to hope” being affirmed in the ECtHR rulings of 2014, the isolation regime continues. This is not confined to Imralı alone but directly affects the living conditions of thousands of political prisoners. The neglectful and deliberate treatment of hundreds of sick prisoners who cannot survive on their own has created a silent execution regime inside prisons. Unfortunately, the political power ignores this reality, while the Forensic Medicine Institute and other relevant institutions sign off on practices that disregard the right to life. This points to not only a legal crisis but also a moral one. For this reason, we insist that the right to hope is not merely a technical arrangement of penal enforcement, but the indispensable foundation of a dignified, humane, and lawful life. Its usurpation erodes the faith in justice not only of prisoners but also of their families, society, and future generations.
As you, the press workers, have reflected to the public, the isolation policies centered in Imralı have also provided a framework for legitimizing the neglect of sick prisoners. Institutions such as the Council of Europe, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and the ECtHR have for years refrained from taking concrete and deterrent steps against these grave human rights violations, limiting themselves to reports and warnings. This stance has not only emboldened the unlawful practices of the government in Turkey but has also seriously undermined the credibility of the international human rights regime. Under these conditions, what becomes decisive is the common will of social forces, peoples, and democratic opposition. The Kurdish people, women’s movements, youth organizations, human rights defenders, and forces of labor and democracy all play a historic role in this process. The struggle against isolation, arbitrary detention, and neglect of sick prisoners is also the struggle for Turkey to reunite with law, justice, and peace.
This struggle must be seen not only within a legal framework but also as an ethical and political responsibility. The oppression in prisons is a reflection of the oppression directed at democratic demands in society outside. Every reaction, every campaign carried out, contributes to creating a democratic ground that gives breathing space not only to prisoners but to the entire society. Mr. Öcalan’s peaceful and solution-oriented approach, which he has upheld for decades, still stands today as the most realistic model of resolution for Turkey and the Middle East. When his voice is silenced, the channels of dialogue, negotiation, and coexistence are closed. When his ideas are isolated, the politics of war prevail. Therefore, defending Mr. Öcalan’s freedom and ensuring the conditions in which he can play his social role means defending not only the rights of one individual but also our common future. Our call is clear: neither the isolation in Imralı, nor the silent death policies applied to sick prisoners, nor the usurpation of the right to hope can be accepted. Remaining silent in the face of these unlawful practices means being complicit in crime. For this reason, we call on all democratic forces and everyone who wants peace to unite in a more organized, determined, and collective line of struggle. Because this struggle is not only for the prisoners, but for all who desire a free and just future.