A large number of rights and legal organizations, along with 10 bar associations, submitted a notification to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE CM) ahead of its June 9, 10 and 11 meetings. The notification was made with the aim of ensuring the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) violation judgments in Öcalan (No. 2), Kaytan, Gurban and Boltan.

Referring to previous committee decisions, the notification stated that in September 2025, the Committee “requested that Türkiye provide a clear timetable and a workable mechanism for implementing concrete legislative reforms in line with the Court’s case-law, and formally recorded its serious concern regarding the continuing situation.”

 

‘TURKEY DEFENDS THE EXISTING SYSTEM’

 

The notification emphasized that Turkey has failed to comply with the ECHR’s violation judgments, stating: “The Government expressly acknowledges that certain categories of prisoners serving aggravated life sentences are excluded from eligibility for conditional release, yet nevertheless maintains that the existing system is adequate. Türkiye’s explicit acceptance of categorical exclusions from conditional release, which it characterises as ‘exceptional’ and ‘narrow,’ is plainly inconsistent with the findings of the ECtHR in Öcalan (No. 2). Moreover, the explanations provided do not demonstrate the existence of an accessible and operational review mechanism available to the applicants. While Türkiye describes the general conditional release system ‘in principle,’ it fails to address the absence of any review mechanism for prisoners falling within the relevant exceptions. A significant part of the Government’s submissions focuses not on sentence reducibility but rather on the legitimacy of high-security detention regimes and the nature of the offences concerned. The follow-up response contains no commitment to prepare draft legislation, no reform timetable, no work relating to review mechanisms, and no undertaking to implement the ECtHR judgments. On the contrary, it defends the existing system. This approach does not directly address the structural problem identified by UNCAT, the ECtHR and the Committee of Ministers.”

 

‘RIGHT TO HOPE’ IN THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION REPORT

 

The notification stated that the Parliamentary Commission established within the framework of the Peace and Democratic Society Process prepared a joint report, but that no concrete steps have been taken. It noted that the report listed various recommendations regarding compliance with ECHR and Constitutional Court rulings, the rule of law, human rights and democratization. However, “an examination of the relevant sections of the report reveals that it does not envisage any concrete mechanism capable of transforming the execution regime applicable to aggravated life imprisonment in line with the Court’s case-law.”

 

The notification continued: “In particular, the report contains no legislative provision, model or proposal corresponding to the principles that occupy a central place in the Court’s case-law, namely the review of a sentence after a certain period of time and the assessment of a prisoner’s prospects of release. The report’s references are limited to emphasising, in general terms, the need to comply with ECtHR judgments; it does not establish a clear or binding framework indicating through which legislative amendments such compliance would be achieved. This demonstrates that the structural problem underlying the violation has not been clearly identified at the level of the report and that no concrete legislative intention has been put forward to resolve it. Significantly, the report makes no direct reference to the concept of the ‘right to hope’ and proposes no model for an operational review mechanism applicable to prisoners serving aggravated life sentences. This suggests a deliberate avoidance of addressing the issue explicitly. The result is that the current discussions remain largely confined to the level of general principles and policy orientations, while a concrete normative framework capable of eliminating the legal and structural causes of the violation has yet to emerge. Indeed, statements made in connection with the Commission’s work indicate a preference not to disclose detailed assessments of the report’s contents and suggest that certain fundamental issues were not openly debated. This approach has, in particular, led to the failure to address explicitly the issue of sentence reviewability, which occupies a central place in the Court’s jurisprudence.”

 

‘THE VIOLATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONGOING’

 

The notification stressed that the legal framework remains unchanged, sentences remain irreducible, no review mechanism exists, and discussions have not translated into concrete reform. “ Accordingly, it is submitted that the violation continues to persist both at the individual and structural levels,” it said.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Finally, the notification listed the following recommendations:

 

“*The Committee conduct its supervision of the execution of the judgments in Öcalan (No. 2), Gurban, Kaytan and Boltan v. Türkiye in a more effective manner; 

 

*Taking into account that the first judgment in this group was delivered in March 2014, that the applicants have been deprived of the right to hope and have remained imprisoned for decades, and that hundreds of other prisoners continue to be affected by this Convention-incompatible execution regime, the Committee place this group of cases on the agenda of its regular Human Rights meetings; 

 

*The Chair of the Committee of Ministers or the Secretary General strengthen political dialogue with the relevant national interlocutors regarding the execution of the judgments within the framework of the Reykjavík Principles for Democracy and address a formal letter to the Turkish authorities; 

 

*The Committee request statistical information from the Turkish Government in respect of the entire group of cases, including: the total number of persons serving aggravated life sentences; the number sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment by year; the years in which the relevant convictions became final; the length of time such prisoners have spent in detention; the number of prisoners serving aggravated life sentences who have benefited from presidential pardons; and the number of prisoners serving aggravated life sentences who have been issued with medical reports certifying that they are unable to remain alone in a single cell; 

  

*The Committee call upon Türkiye, in accordance with the principles set out in the ECtHR’s judgments, to repeal all provisions establishing categorical exclusions from conditional release for particular offences without distinction, to amend the legislation giving rise to the violation, and to adopt the general measures necessary to remedy it, while ensuring that the Gurban group of cases v. Türkiye remains under enhanced supervision; 

  

*In order to ensure the full execution of the ECtHR judgments concerning the current execution regime, and given that both the provisions of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures and those of the Turkish Criminal Code (Law No. 5237) discussed above—as well as the legislative reforms currently being debated in Türkiye within the framework of the democratic negotiation process—directly concern human rights standards, the matter should be referred to the Venice Commission for examination, particularly in relation to the right to hope. Such referral is respectfully requested/recommended with a view to ensuring the democratic legitimacy of any proposed legislative amendments and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.”

 

ORGANIZATIONS SUBMITTING THE NOTIFICATION

 

The rights and legal organizations and bar associations that submitted the notification are as follows: “Association of Lawyers for Freedom (Özgürlük için Hukukçular Derneği), Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği), Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı), the Foundation for Society and Legal Studies (Toplum ve Hukuk Araştırmaları Vakfı), Progressive Lawyers’ Association (Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği) and Civil Society In The Penal System Association (Ceza İnfaz Sisteminde Sivil Toplum Derneği), Êlih (Batman) Bar Association, Amed (Diyarbakır) Bar Association, Colemêrg (Hakkari) Bar Association, Mêrdîn (Mardin) Bar Association, Mûş (Muş) Bar Association, Îdir (Iğdır) Bar Association, Sêrt (Siirt) Bar Association, Riha (Urfa) Bar Association, Şirnex (Şırnak) Bar Association and Wan (Van) Bar Association.”

 

MA / Omer Ibrahimoglu