Lawyer and human rights defender Eren Keskin described recent developments in the Gulistan Doku case, after six years without progress, as a “belated unraveling,” while also pointing to the role of the state in the case.
Keskin said the killing and the concealment of evidence cannot be explained through a single individual or governor, arguing that what stands before the public is a systematic structure extending from the Interior Ministry to the local bureaucracy.
Keskin pointed to the policy of impunity in the region through examples from sexual violence and unsolved killings cases in the 1990s, stressing that the Gulistan Doku case is part of that broader pattern. She also criticized current Justice Minister Akın Gürlek over past judicial rulings and the role he played in the process, saying the case cannot be fully illuminated without concrete evidence being uncovered and Gulistan Doku’s body being found.
Crime would not have surfaced without conflict among power centers
Eren Keskin said the Gulistan Doku case cannot be viewed separately from the region’s history of systematic violence, describing the process as a belated but rapidly unfolding unraveling. Stressing that women in conflict zones across the world are subjected to systematic violence, she said: “What we are seeing is not a rapid unraveling, but a delayed one. Yet the fact that it began suddenly and moved forward so quickly is, of course, striking. The Gulistan Doku case is one of many similar cases seen in the region, or rather one of the cases in which women in conflict zones across the world are systematically subjected to violence by the opposing side. For this reason, since 1997 we have had a law office providing free legal representation to women subjected to sexual torture by state forces.
In the 1990s, this was a widely used method. To give one example, in the early 1990s in the Mardin region, during the period of Musa Çitil, many women were subjected to sexual assault in custody. Only one case was opened in relation to these crimes, while the files were generally all closed. Somehow, as the public will remember, 405 soldiers, including Musa Çitil, were put on trial, but that too ended in acquittal. And what happened afterward? Musa Çitil was promoted, and later we saw him again during the Sur and Cizre events, serving as a commander, this time with a higher rank.”
Recalling that similar cases have occurred before, Keskin argued developments in the Gulistan Doku case stem from conflict between power centers within the state. Referring to Batman in the 1990s, she continued: “Many similar incidents took place, which is why the Gulistan Doku case is by no means an isolated one. In the 1990s, we knew Batman as the ‘city of suicides.’ Many women died by suicide because this method was widely used there as well. People affiliated with state power, especially soldiers, formed relationships with young women and drove them to death through exploitation in every sense. This was widely discussed for a period. It was, in fact, a policy.
I believe the reason the Gulistan Doku case began unraveling like a dropped stitch after six years is this: whichever force concealed this case, another force within the state decided to expose it. This emerged as a result of a conflict among power centers. Otherwise, there was no way a crime hidden for six years could have surfaced.”
The case cannot be explained by Tuncay Sonel alone
Eren Keskin said responsibility in the Gulistan Doku case cannot be reduced to individuals and that the state mechanism as a whole was involved in the process, stressing that the matter was driven by a systematic structure. She said evidence concealment was carried out through state power and continued: “I also object to this: what we face is not merely a ‘Tuncay Sonel criminal network.’ Tuncay Sonel was the representative of the state there. What we face is the state itself, the state’s governor. The governor, the police chief, the hospital chief physician, everyone took part in one side of this system and carried out this process together. They did this using state power and concealed evidence. That is why what stands before us is again a structure within the state. If we discuss this structure without discussing Süleyman Soylu, we discuss it incompletely. There has always been lawlessness in this geography; the judiciary was never independent, there was a dependent judiciary. But the person who for the first time severed the judiciary so deeply from written law and made the process this anti-democratic was Süleyman Soylu.”
Keskin said the torture-defending approach of then Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu laid the groundwork for practices at the local level. Keskin said this structure has been rewarded with impunity from the 1990s to the present and continued: “Süleyman Soylu, as interior minister, openly defended torture. For example, he said, ‘I gave the order that if you catch them, tear them to pieces.’ This was said by the interior minister of a state that has signed the European Convention on Human Rights and banned torture in its domestic law. At that time, Tuncay Sonel could never have carried out all these evidence concealment operations without the knowledge of the interior minister; a governor does not have such power. That is why this must be assessed together with Süleyman Soylu and the era of Mehmet Ağar.
For my part, I can say this structure existed in the 1990s as well. It was rewarded with impunity. Neither enforced disappearances, nor unsolved killings, nor torture… They were punished for none of the crimes they committed, and they are still in a position to operate. This is how the Gulistan Doku case must be viewed.
In other words, a structure within the state openly concealed this case, destroyed evidence and continued committing this crime for six years. Today, the case has emerged again as a result of conflict within their own ranks or a different perspective. But the same mistake is still being made; it is spoken of as if one person committed this. That is not true. We cannot explain this situation only through Tuncay Sonel without discussing the state.”
Outcome in Gulistan Doku case confirms what we have long said
Eren Keskin spoke about the past judicial record of Justice Minister Akın Gürlek and argued the current picture may partly be an effort to lend legitimacy to the minister, but is fundamentally a reflection of conflict within the state. She said: “Before becoming justice minister, Akın Gürlek, as a judge, was a figure who signed some of the worst rulings in this geography, particularly in the field of freedom of expression. By failing to act in line with international conventions binding on Turkey concerning freedom of expression and organization, he issued very poor rulings. We all know the outcomes in processes such as Osman Kavala, Can Atalay and the Gezi Park protests cases. Likewise, during his time as Istanbul chief prosecutor, there has not been another period in which detention was imposed so recklessly and easily. It was a very harsh prosecutorial period, and then he became minister. Now, yes, in one sense an effort may be underway to provide legitimacy to the minister, but they would not portray a group within the state this negatively for that alone. That suggests there is also a conflict with Süleyman Soylu’s camp. While that conflict continues on one hand, there may also be an effort to legitimize him through a perception such as, ‘Look how good the minister is, he will solve all unsolved killings.’”
Keskin stressed that regardless of the reason, the emergence of the truth matters, adding that developments in the Gulistan Doku case confirm the state systematicity human rights defenders have pointed to for years.
Keskin said: “In the end, whatever the reason, the resolution of a problem is important for us, because it confirms that we have been right. We are not only seeking justice for Gulistan Doku; today with the Saturday Mothers we stand in that square searching for the bodies of their children, and the state is behind all of those disappearances as well.
We have been saying this for years, and just as in the Gulistan Doku case, the truth is coming out. They conceal evidence, protect their own people within the system and ensure impunity. If a geography has this many unsolved killings, this many enforced disappearances in custody and this many killings of women, it is impossible to discuss this independently from the state. The outcome reached today in the Gulistan Doku killing is also a concrete indication that we have been right.”
Gulistan’s body and concrete evidence must be uncovered
Keskin said no concrete evidence has yet been shared publicly in the investigation and stressed that, because evidence has been obscured, the process currently rests only on statements.
She said: “To date, they have not disclosed a single piece of concrete evidence, because the evidence has already been concealed. Right now, we are witnessing a process built on the statements of certain secret witnesses, while even Gulistan’s body has still not been found. If all these truths are genuinely brought to light, that would of course be a positive development.
We support every positive step taken. I do not mean to say we are opposed to this process from the outset. Of course, if a positive step is being taken, we will stand behind it. But as far as we know so far, concrete evidence has been concealed and the process is moving forward only through statements. Concrete evidence must be uncovered and, above all, Gulistan’s body must be found.”
Leave a Reply