Sakine Cansız (Sara), one of the founders of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Fidan Doğan (Rojbîn), the Paris representative of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), and Leyla Şaylemez (Ronahî), a member of the Kurdish Youth Movement, were shot in the head and killed on 9 January 2013 at the Kurdish Information Bureau in central Paris. The massacre, which deeply shocked not only Kurds but also France and the international community, was followed by an investigation that quickly focused on the political background of the killings.
Documents uncovered during the investigation and audio recordings that were later leaked strengthened allegations that the murder was linked to the Turkish intelligence service, MIT. After Ömer Güney, who was expected to stand trial as the perpetrator of the killings, died under suspicious circumstances in prison before the case began, the French judiciary closed the file. However, new findings that emerged in cases opened in Belgium concerning assassination attempts against Kurdish politicians created grounds for the Paris massacre file to be reopened.
Despite this, the progress of the case has been halted by the French authorities’ refusal to grant access to critical information on the grounds of “state secrecy.” Jean-Louis Malterre, one of the family lawyers of the three murdered Kurdish women politicians, spoke to ANF about the current stage of the Paris massacre case, which has been ongoing for 12 years.
Prosecutor and judge clearly pointed to MIT
Paris Bar lawyer Jean-Louis Malterre said the investigation had stalled due to the stance of the French authorities and summarized the process and its current stage as follows: “There was an initial case file opened after the killings, and that file came to an end with the death of the suspect, Ömer Güney. As a result, the case was closed.
However, as stated by both the investigating judge and the public prosecutor, that file had already established that the instigator of the crime was Turkey and that the act had been carried out through Turkey’s secret services.
After the suspect died while in custody, we believed the investigations had to continue. For this reason, we filed a new criminal complaint immediately after his death, and this led to the opening of a new investigation in 2019. Since 2019, a new investigating judge has been conducting the inquiry to determine whether there were accomplices, who was involved as a co-perpetrator, and how the instigators entered the process.”
All signs pointed to Turkey
Malterre said: “This is where the case stands today. Considering a series of developments in Europe, particularly in Germany and Belgium, we believed this file could be revived. In those countries, Kurdish politicians were monitored and threatened, and it became clearly evident that commando-style operations against them were planned and could be carried out.
We believed a link could be established between these different actions and what happened in France in 2013. Indeed, the investigation reached the inquiry launched in Belgium following criminal complaints filed by Remzi Kartal and Zübeyir Aydar. In that case, three people were tried; two were convicted and the third died.
As part of the Belgian investigation, it was revealed that the two convicted individuals had extremely close and concrete contacts with the Turkish authorities, particularly through the Turkish Embassy in Paris. One of those convicted in Belgium also held both French and Turkish citizenship.”
State secrecy barrier
Jean-Louis Malterre said they believed several elements made it possible for the case to continue but stressed that the process was now blocked by the stance of the French authorities. He said the French authorities had invoked “state secrecy” both in the initial case file and in the ongoing investigation, preventing members of the judiciary from accessing sources that could help identify individuals potentially linked to the three murders or map their networks. Malterre said, “This is where the case stands today. Unfortunately, this invocation of ‘state secrecy’ prevents the case from moving forward. The political authorities are not very willing to open their files to us.”
Turkey does not respond
Despite the position of the French authorities, Jean-Louis Malterre said they would continue their legal struggle to uncover the real perpetrators of the massacre. He also said: “Our hope is that justice will be done. However, the investigations that were supposed to be carried out in Turkey clearly led nowhere, because the Turkish authorities never responded.
Considering the current and emerging political situation, I also doubt that this will change,” he added. “At the same time, the French services do not want to inform us about their relations with the Turkish services. Under these conditions, frankly, we find ourselves in a somewhat hopeless position.”
Malterre underlined that the case had, in a sense, been sacrificed to Franco-Turkish relations and said: “France has strong relations with Turkey. Economic and strategic interests are at play, and these are likely pushing the French political authorities to protect and accommodate Turkey.”
Invoking state secrecy is a political decision
Asked whether the French authorities’ invocation of “state secrecy” was a legal necessity or a political choice, Jean-Louis Malterre said it was difficult to answer without knowing what was being concealed but stressed that it was clearly a political decision. He said decisions on state secrecy were taken by political authorities, adding that while there was a legal safeguard allowing the matter to be referred to a special commission composed of judges to decide whether state secrecy should be maintained, the commission’s opinion was merely advisory. He said: “In other words, regardless of what that commission concludes, there is nothing preventing the political authorities from disclosing the information they hold in this case.”
The emergence of Franco-Turkish cooperation is not wanted
Malterre said France’s reluctance to investigate whether the massacre was linked to MIT stemmed from cooperation between French and Turkish intelligence and police services. He said he believed that for many years the French services, indeed even the French police, had cooperated with Turkish services and the Turkish police. He added that investigations and trials targeting Kurdish militants over a period of nearly a decade had created a framework of cooperation between the Turkish and French police. He said: “In this context, it is not possible to believe that the French authorities are unaware of what the Turkish services have been doing on French soil. The Turkish authorities carried out certain activities on French territory, and that these activities were tolerated by the French police, the French political authorities, and the French services. That is precisely what state secrecy is trying to conceal and what it is preventing us from learning.”
French political authorities blocked the judiciary
Malterre said that Kurds’ continued demand for justice, despite the time that has passed since the massacre, was entirely legitimate and justified. He said the demand for justice was unquestionable but added that one point needed to be clearly understood.
Malterre said, “The functioning of the judiciary was fully satisfactory. In the initial case file, the investigating judge conducted a comprehensive and serious investigation within a relatively short period of time.
As you know, the suspect who later died in prison had been referred to the Paris Criminal Court on terrorism charges. In their opinions, both the investigating judge and the public prosecutor clearly stated that the instigator of the triple murder was Turkey and its special services, namely MIT. In that sense, the French judges did their job. However, both the first investigating judge and the judge who followed him met with the silence of the political authorities.
That is precisely what blocked the progress of the case. Justice did function. As lawyers, my colleagues and I observed that the judiciary was diligent and fulfilled its duties, but once the political authorities refused to open their files, the process came to a halt.”
The second Paris massacre was not an isolated act
Malterre also said France bore serious responsibility in the Second Paris Massacre. He said, “In my view, the recent killings were clearly acts of terrorism. However, the French prosecution did not want to classify them as terrorist acts. The aim of these actions was clearly to instill fear within the Kurdish community. A cultural and symbolic location in Paris was targeted, and the victims were not ordinary individuals. This was clearly a terrorist act. Despite this, the investigation was unable to determine who instigated these actions. We do not believe this was an isolated act at all. At the same time, as in other assassinations, there is also no concrete evidence proving the existence of an external intervention.”