In a report on the Rojava protests released on February 3, the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD) said that hundreds of people were detained during peaceful actions held across Turkey, 118 people were arrested, and allegations of ill-treatment and torture were recorded during detention processes. The report stressed that most of the interventions targeted actions carried out within the scope of press statements as well as meetings and demonstration marches.
Arrests continued until last week, ÖHD Co-Chair and lawyer Serhat Çakmak said, adding that the developments cannot be addressed solely as a security practice. Çakmak said the reaction shown by Kurds to the developments in Rojava is rooted in the demand for equal citizenship, and that the response given by the state in this process is incompatible with the principles of democratic politics and the rule of law.
Çakmak said the responses to the protests prevented the exercise of constitutional rights and led to social fractures. He added that the practices implemented in the process have created serious legal and political obstacles to the exercise of democratic rights, particularly press statements and marches.
Serhat Çakmak said the developments since the attacks on the Kurdish neighborhoods of Aleppo on January 6 have once again demonstrated how fragile the process being pursued is. He said the institution had previously warned of possible sabotage and risks, and added: “In our previous statements as an institution, we had pointed out possible sabotage and risks regarding the process. Indeed, the developments in Turkey on and after January 6 displayed a practice that confirms this. Unfortunately, the fact that the process that has begun does not have legal protection and that no overarching law has been enacted has brought us to a point where we are constantly being pushed backward.
What does this regression mean? There is a process being conducted between the state and an organization, and within this process there is an expectation that steps toward democratization and legal measures will be taken. If, at a point where the process becomes constricted, anti-democratic practices, unlawful and extra-legal practices, and human rights violations occur, this does not constitute a step in line with the spirit of the process. This, as a matter of principle, obstructs the path toward the state’s gradual democratization and movement toward becoming a state governed by the rule of law. In this respect, it can be said that the process that has unfolded since January 6, even if a threshold has been crossed at this stage, has not been a good test.”
You are told you cannot exercise your rights granted by law
Çakmak said Kurds have waged a rights struggle for decades through different methods, and that the struggle carried out on the ground of democratic politics has been directly affected by periods of conflict. Çakmak said: “Kurds have been waging a rights struggle in this country for a century and have used various methods. Some conduct work and struggle on the grounds of democratic politics, within civil society and political parties. As you know, there is also a struggle waged by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Whether one finds this method right or not is a personal matter. However, from the standpoint we take, we assess and prioritize the struggle waged by democratic institutions on the ground of democratic politics. The greatest impact of every war and every period of conflict the state has entered into with the PKK has been on the ground of democratic politics. Civil citizens who carry out work on the grounds of democratic politics have become targets. This is one example of that.”
Çakmak said the deadlocks in the process have led to the de facto obstruction of constitutional rights and that the detentions and arrests carried out lack a legal basis. He added: “In practice, people are being told that they cannot exercise their constitutional rights arising from the law. What happens when you do it? A pretext is found and you are arrested. Do hundreds of arrests and more than a thousand detentions really have a legal basis? No, they do not. Is there any definable reality of torture and ill-treatment? No, there is no.
We look at the grounds for arrest: violation of the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations, resisting the police. For these two types of offenses, arrest should not be ordered in the first place; in line with the principle of proportionality and necessity arising from the law, these measures should not be resorted to. People were arrested on charges of aiding an organization that has dissolved itself and of membership in an organization. This is the paradox of the process. People are told that they can carry out all kinds of work on the grounds of democratic politics, yet in practice even the exercise of basic rights that do not require any change in the law is being obstructed. This is not acceptable.”
This test was a measure of the state’s sincerity
Serhat Çakmak said the reactions to the developments in Rojava amounted to a test of the state’s stance. He said the process once again made visible an imposition of submission that Kurds cannot accept and added: “This is one of the reasons why Kurds have reacted so strongly to the developments in Rojava. Because this test was also measuring the state’s sincerity. This is something Kurds do not accept. It is clear that this imposition of submission is unacceptable. This people are saying: ‘I want a form of citizenship based on equal citizenship; I do not accept a definition of citizenship shaped by the fascistic codes of a hundred years ago, as you propose.’
What is the response to this? In practice on the ground, you are not seen as an equal citizen while making a press statement and are subjected to all kinds of treatment: arrest, detention, ill-treatment, and torture. This is something that must be overcome. A serious fracture has occurred for Kurds, and one of the reasons for this fracture was becoming the target of these practices once again. Because the state said, ‘I will no longer subject my citizens to this treatment; I will make legal changes to this effect.’ Was this test met? No.”
Leave a Reply