Lawyer and human rights defender Eren Keskin stated that Turkey’s presentation of the “right to hope” regulation as a favor is inconsistent with legal reality.
Speaking to ANF, Eren Keskin said that Turkey, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, accepts the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights as binding. She pointed out that the process was shaped by external pressures rather than internal dynamics, and that the political will remained silent on the matter.
Keskin emphasized that the regulation of the right to hope is a legal obligation for Turkey, stating: “First and foremost, it must be said that the regulation of the right to hope is not a favor that Turkey will grant; it is an obligation for the Republic of Turkey, which is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and has accepted the binding nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has also called on member states to regulate the right to hope. Turkey is a state that has been convicted in applications made on this issue, primarily in the Öcalan case, but also in other cases.
Therefore, Turkey is already obliged to implement this regulation under the treaties it has signed and in light of the fact that international law takes precedence over domestic law, as stipulated in Article 90 of the Constitution.
Therefore, it is absurd that the debate is developing around whether it should be done or not. Turkey has to do this, and not only Mr. Öcalan, but many prisoners will already benefit from the right to hope. The European Court of Human Rights considers the idea that a person cannot leave prison until they die to be a form of torture. That is the right to hope.
An arrangement could be made, whether for release, house arrest or supervised release; anything is possible. Turkey is obliged to make an arrangement on the right to hope. That is why I think the debate is being conducted from the wrong perspective.
Furthermore, it is extremely disappointing to see international institutions being used as political tools. What the European Parliament and the Council of Europe should be doing is to tell Turkey, “You must implement this regulation immediately,” but instead, they are constantly giving Turkey deadlines and pointing to the process ongoing in Turkey.
I don’t think this is related to the process. In other words, regardless of whether this process takes place or not, the Republic of Turkey must regulate the right to hope. That’s why I honestly believe the discussion should be focused in this direction.”
Eren Keskin drew attention to the political will’s silence on the right to hope, stressing that the law is a responsibility above politics:
“Although it is a mandatory regulation for Turkey, I have not heard a clear statement regarding the right to hope—except for Bahçeli’s statement—either in the Justice Minister’s speeches or in the language of politics in general. But as I said, the law is not something that should be shaped according to the public’s political views or thoughts on politics. If you are a party to an international mechanism, you have to explain this to the public: ‘We have to do this.’”
That is why this must be done. The regulation on the right to hope is a very simple one. It could be done in a single sentence. It is very easy; they could pass it with the judicial package. But I have not heard of this happening to date.
It should also be noted that, unfortunately, the process carried out by the state is actually necessitated by external dynamics. In other words, there is no loud demand for this from internal dynamics. Apart from the Kurds, the Kurdish movement, some socialist groups, the women’s movement, and some trade union movements, there is no political opposition loudly demanding peace. That is the problem here.
So the process began not because of internal dynamics, but because of external pressure. The reality of Rojava is particularly important. All of these factors must be considered together. The Republic of Turkey is trying to prevent the Kurds from becoming a force in Rojava. This process began with the idea “Make a deal with us, let Israel and America step aside, and we’ll take care of it.” When this is the case, you will have to fulfill its requirements.
As I mentioned, the right to hope is not something that should be granted as a favor; it is a necessity. In order to ensure public confidence in the process, not only this regulation but also steps such as repealing the “Anti-Terrorism Law,” immediately implementing the decisions of the European Human Rights Court and releasing all political prisoners and sick prisoners, bringing the principle of equality to the agenda in the law on the execution of sentences, and returning to the Istanbul Convention must be taken.
There is so much to be done. But all of these things must be evaluated together. This may require a process, but in my opinion, there is no process addressing the right to hope. Turkey is already a convicted state in these cases and is obliged to do this.”
Eren Keskin concluded by stating that if the political will fails to take practical steps, the rhetoric will lose its meaning, saying:
“They call him the government’s junior partner, or part of the alliance. Call him what you will, but I believe Bahçeli is the state itself. So when Bahçeli says something, it means the state is saying it.
Bahçeli mentions this issue from time to time, he voices it, but if they really want a regulation on the right to hope, they will do it. As I said, it’s very simple. So it’s not that Bahçeli keeps saying it; they need to do it with a one-hour regulation. Therefore, it’s not about words; I think practice is important. In practice, this step needs to be taken immediately.”