Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 23927/94

by Kamil Tekin SUREK

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

2 September 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 25 February 1994

by Mr. Kamil Tekin Sürek against Turkey and registered on 20 April 1994

under file No. 23927/94;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 20 February 1995 to communicate the

application ;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 15

September 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 24 October 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Turkish citizen, born in 1957 and resident in

Istanbul, is a lawyer.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

Application Nos. 24122/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94 have been

brought by the same applicant, who was the owner of a periodical.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may

be summarised as follows:

At the material time, the applicant was the major shareholder in

the Deniz Basin Yayin Sanayi ve Ticaret Organizasyon A.S., a Turkish

company which owns a weekly review entitled "Haberde Yorumda Gerçek"

(The Truth of News and Comments) and published in Istanbul.

In its 31 May 1992 and 7 June 1992 editions, the review published

an interview with a PKK leader and a joint declaration by four

socialist organisations.

On 1 June 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the

seizure of the tenth edition of the review because it allegedly

contained a declaration by terrorist organisations and disseminated

separatist propaganda.

In an indictment dated 16 June 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the

Istanbul State Security Court, on account of an interview with a PKK

leader published in the seized edition, charged the applicant, as the

owner of the review, with disseminating propaganda in the interview

against the indivisibility of the State. The applicant was also charged

with publishing a declaration by four socialist organisations. The

charges were brought respectively under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-

Terror Law.

In another indictment dated 30 June 1992, the applicant was

charged with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the

State in a further interview, which was published in the eleventh issue

of the review. The charges were brought under Article 8 of the Anti-

Terror Law.

On 4 February 1993 the criminal proceedings were joined as the

offending articles consisted of a single interview published in two

parts.

In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the

applicant denied the charges. He pleaded that the interview was

published with the aim of giving information to the public within the

scope of journalism. As regards his freedom of expression, he referred

to the Convention and the case-law of the Commission and the Court. He

stated that pluralism of opinions is essential in a democratic society

including those opinions which shock or offend. He argued that the

provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law restrict freedom

of expression in contravention of the Turkish Constitution and the

criteria laid down in the case-law of the Commission and the Court.

In a judgment dated 27 May 1993 the State Security Court found

the applicant guilty of offences under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-

Terror Law. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of 300,000,000

Turkish lira. The Court held that the interview was published in the

form of a news commentary. It further held that the interviewee had

referred to a certain part of Turkish territory as "Kurdistan", he had

asserted that certain Turkish citizens who are of Kurdish race form a

separate society and that the Republic of Turkey expels the Kurdish

people from their villages and massacres them. It further considered

that the interviewee had praised Kurdish terrorist activities and had

claimed that the Kurds should form a separate state. On these grounds,

the Court found that the interview, as a whole, disseminated propaganda

against the indivisibility of the State. The Court further held that

another page of the review contained a declaration by terrorist

organisations and thus constituted a separate offence under Article 6

of the Anti-Terror Law.

The applicant appealed. His legal representative stated that in

a democratic society opinions must be freely expressed and argued. She

maintained that there had been no prosecutions for the publication of

other interviews with the leaders of the PKK in other newspapers or

magazines. She alleged that the applicant had not been convicted of

publishing such an interview but of publishing a marxist review. She

reiterated the defence which the applicant had made before the State

Security Court.

On 4 November 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's assessment of the

evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicant's defence.

After the amendments made by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to

the Anti-Terror Law, the Istanbul State Security Court re-examined the

applicant's case and sentenced him to the same fine.

B. Relevant domestic law:

The relevant domestic law in the present case is contained in

Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and Article 7 of the Press Law.

The text of these Articles is set out below:

Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991

"Those who announce that a crime will be committed by terrorist

organisations against certain persons either expressly or without

mentioning their names, or who disseminate or disclose to the

public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism,

or who render such officials targets, shall be subject to a fine

of between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.

Those who print or publish the leaflets of terrorist

organisations shall be subject to a fine of between 5 and 10

million Turkish lira.

Those who, contrary to Article 14 of this Law, disclose or

publish the identity of informants shall be subject to a fine of

between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.

If one of the crimes defined above is committed by means of

periodicals, as defined in Article 3 of the Press Law, the owners

of such periodicals shall be punished by a fine to be determined

in accordance with the following provisions:

- For periodicals published at less than monthly intervals,

the fine shall be ninety per cent of the average real sales

of the previous month;

- for periodicals published monthly or at more than monthly

intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the average

real sales of the previous issue;

- [for printed works that are not periodicals or for

periodicals which had recently started business, the fine

shall be ninety per cent of the monthly sales of the

highest circulating daily periodical.]

In any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish

lira.

Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be given half the

sentences of the publishers."

Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991

(before the amendments of 27 October 1995)

"No one shall, by any means or with any intention or idea, make

written and oral propaganda or hold assemblies, demonstrations

or manifestations against the indivisible integrity of the State

of the Turkish Republic with its land and nation. Those carrying

out such an activity shall be sentenced to imprisonment between

two and five years and to a fine of between 50 and 100 million

Turkish lira.

If the offence of propaganda referred to in the preceding

paragraph is committed by means of periodicals, as defined in

Article 3 of the Press Law No. 5680, the owners of such

periodicals shall also be punished by a fine, to be determined

in accordance with the following provisions:

- For periodicals published at less than monthly

intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the

average real sales of the previous month;

- [for printed works that are not periodicals or for

periodicals which have recently started business, the fine

shall be ninety per cent of the average monthly sales of

the highest circulating daily periodical.]

In any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish

lira.

Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be sentenced to

between six months and two years' imprisonment and to half of the

fine determined in accordance with the foregoing provisions."

In a judgment dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found

the clauses in brackets in the text of Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-

Terror Law above to be contrary to the Constitution and annulled them.

The Constitutional Court held that the annulled text would cease to

have effect six months after the date of publication of the annulment

decision in the Official Gazette. The decision was published on 27

January 1993 and therefore these clauses ceased to have effect as of

27 July 1993.

Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended by Law

No. 4126 of 27 October 1995

"No one shall make written and oral propaganda or hold

assemblies, demonstrations and manifestations against the

indivisible integrity of the State of the Turkish Republic with

its land and nation. Those carrying out such an activity shall

be sentenced to imprisonment between one and three years and a

fine of between 100 and 300 million Turkish lira. In case of re-

occurrence of this offence, sentences shall not be commuted to

fines."

The Press Law (Law No. 5680)

Under Article 7 of the Press Law, in cases where a periodical is

owned by a company, the major shareholder in that company is considered

to be the owner of the periodical.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of violations of Articles 10 and 6 of the

Convention.

As to Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that

his conviction as the owner of a periodical in which an interview with

a PKK leader was published as well as a joint declaration by four

socialist organisations, constituted an unjustified interference with

his freedom of expression, and in particular with his right to receive

and impart information and ideas.

As to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains

that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.

He asserts in this regard that one of the three members of the State

Security Court is a military judge answerable to his military superiors

whose presence prejudices the independence of the Court.

The applicant also complains that the length of the criminal

proceedings against him exceeded the reasonable time requirement of

Article 6 para. 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 20 February 1994 and registered

on 20 April 1994.

On 20 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application, under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 para. 1

(lack of impartiality and independence) of the Convention, to the

respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of

Procedure. The Government's observations were submitted on 15 September

1995. The applicant replied on 24 October 1995.

On 4 December 1995 the Government submitted information

concerning the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 and the

developments in the cases of persons convicted and sentenced under

Article 8 of the said law. The applicant submitted his comments in

reply on 18 June 1996.

THE LAW

1. The applicant first complains that his conviction as the owner

of a periodical constitutes an unjustified interference with his

freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart

ideas and information under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention

which provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This

right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and

impart information and ideas without interference by public

authority and regardless of frontiers...

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

the judiciary."

The Government maintain that in this case the interference with

the applicant's rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention was

prescribed by law i.e. by Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. They

state that the applicant, in his review, published an interview in

which the person being interviewed had referred to a certain part of

the Turkish territory as "Kurdistan" and had asserted that certain

Turkish citizens who are of Kurdish race form a separate society and

that the Republic of Turkey expels the Kurdish people from their

villages and massacres them. The respondent Government assert that

according to Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law these forms of

expression constitute propaganda against the indivisible integrity of

the State. They consider that the domestic courts therefore interpreted

the law reasonably.

The Government also maintain that the purpose of the conviction

of the applicant was linked to the control of terrorism carried out by

illegal organisations and consequently served to protect territorial

integrity and national security.

As to the necessity of the measure in a democratic society, the

respondent Government state that the threat posed to Turkey by the PKK

and its affiliations is internationally recognised, as is the need to

react firmly to it. Terrorism strikes at the heart of democracy, the

fundamental rights which that concept enshrines and the judicial and

political systems. They assert that the interview in question is based

on the glorification of the activities of the PKK being an illegal

terrorist organisation for the establishment of an independent Kurdish

State against the Turkish State. They submit that it is generally

accepted in comparative and international law on terrorism, that

restrictions on Convention rights will be deemed necessary in a

democratic society threatened by terrorist violence, as being

proportionate to the aim of protecting public order.

In this respect the Government assert that the decisions of the

Istanbul State Security Court and the Court of Cassation did not exceed

the margin of appreciation conferred on States by the Convention.

The applicant contests all these arguments. He maintains that the

interview was published with the aim of giving information to the

public within the scope of journalism. He contends that, in the

circumstances of the present case, there was no social need for his

conviction.

The applicant also maintains that his conviction cannot be

justified under the Convention. He considers that it was completely out

of proportion to rely on such reasons, particularly in view of the

limited circulation of the review.

Furthermore the applicant maintains that the penal sanctions

inflicted upon him were not necessary in a democratic society. He notes

that there had been no prosecution for the publication of interviews

with the leaders of the PKK in other newspapers or magazines.

With regard to the amendments made by Law No. 4126 to Article 8

of the Anti-Terror Law, the applicant states that the fine remains

enforceable against him. He emphasises that in these circumstances his

status has not changed following the amendments to the said Law.

The Commission has conducted a preliminary examination of the

parties' arguments. It considers that the application raises complex

factual and legal issues which cannot be resolved at this stage of the

examination of the application, but require an examination of the

merits. Consequently, the application cannot be declared manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been

established.

2. The applicant further complains that his case was not heard by

an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision

reads as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to

a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."

The Government maintain that State Security Courts, which are

special courts set up to deal with offences against the existence and

continuity of the State, are ordinary courts, given that they have been

established in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the

Constitution. As they are independent judicial organs, no public

authority or agent could give instructions to such courts. State

Security Courts are composed of three members, one of whom is a

military judge. A civil judge acts as president and all the judges have

attained the first grade in the career scale. The presence of a

military judge in the court does not prejudice its independence, this

judge being a judge by career and not belonging to the military. The

judges of State Security Courts evaluate the evidence and take their

decisions in accordance with the law and their own conscientious

conviction as required by Article 138 of the Turkish Constitution. The

verdicts of such courts are subject to review by the Court of

Cassation.

Accordingly the Government submit that the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

The applicant claims that the State Security Courts are

extraordinary courts dealing with political offences. He contends that:

- the members of the State Security Court are appointed by the High

Council of Judges and Prosecutors,

- the president of this Council is the Minister of Justice and two

other members also hold office in the Ministry of Justice,

- one of the three members of the State Security Court is a military

judge answerable to his military superiors.

The Commission has conducted a preliminary examination of the

parties' arguments. It considers that this part of the application

raises complex factual and legal issues which cannot be resolved at

this stage of the examination of the application, but require an

examination of the merits. Consequently, this complaint cannot be

declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.

2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it

inadmissible have been established.

3. The applicant lastly complains that the criminal proceedings

brought against him were not dealt with within a "reasonable time" as

required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the period to be considered began on

1 June 1992 when the domestic court ordered the seizure of all copies

of the tenth edition of the review and ended on 4 November 1993 when

the Court of Cassation delivered its judgment. It therefore amounted

to about one year and five months.

The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of

proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular

circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down

in the established case-law, in particular the complexity of the case

and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (Eur.

Court HR, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series

A no. 319, p. 20, para. 59).

In the instant case, the Commission observes that the total

period at issue was not unreasonably long. Moreover, the applicant has

not shown any substantial periods of inactivity attributable to the

judicial authorities.

It follows that this part of this application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

applicant's complaints relating to the alleged interference with

his freedom of expression and the alleged lack of impartiality

and independence of the tribunal which convicted him.

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

ANNEX TO THE DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY

OF APPLICATION NO. 23927/94 v. TURKEY

EXTRACTS FROM THE IMPUGNED TEXTS CONSTITUTING THE GROUNDS FOR THE

DOMESTIC COURT RULINGS

"Gerçek" interviews Cemil Bay*k, the PKK second-in-command (Part 1)

..........

What do you mean when you say [the elections present] dangers?

- The US is saying, "The Kurds are oppressed. Saddam is

slaughtering them. We are protecting the Kurds against Saddam's

massacres. We are taking their assets into safekeeping." But it is

quite obvious that that's a big swindle. If they were really

protecting the Kurds against massacre as they claim, they ought to be

developing the same protection against the Turkish State. For the

massacre that the Turkish State is waging against our people in the

north isn't much better than Saddam's. In fact there are practices

which are much more extreme than Saddam's. So the US ought to be doing

the same thing against Turkey. The double standards are clear for all

to see. It takes action against Saddam, but it supports Turkey's abuse

of the Kurdish people in both north and south. This is seen in several

ways, and our people are aware of it. They want to make the Kurds an

instrument for gaining their own ends. The aim in the elections is

both to contain the positive developments in the south through the

organisations they want to promote and to block the fight for

independence and freedom which is developing in Kurdistan in general.

They want to bring all of the Kurdish movements under the control of

those two organisations. And those two organisations are already

controlled by them [the US]. So that's why they all present a danger

for the Kurdish people. ...

...

- It is a well-known fact that Turkey and/or imperialism wants

to divert our people from its national identity and from its struggle.

But we want to achieve our identity as a nation and we want to achieve

our fatherland. That's what we're fighting for. They want to uproot

us and drive us out of our territory; they want to annihilate us or

force a metamorphosis on us. But we are fighting to live in freedom

on our own territory. If either the US or Turkey or any other power

which claims to be acting in the name of Kurdish identity attempts to

force us out of any part of our country we will fight in order to stay

where we are. That's what we are fighting for right now. The entire

Turkish State wants to oust us from our territory. It's driving people

out of their villages. It wants Kurdistan to become a totally

uninhabited area. But we're resisting. No one can tell us to get out.

No one can require us to go. We're not on anyone else's territory;

we're on our own territory. No one can tell us to leave our own

territory. We make no difference between North and South; we're in

Kurdistan. We're amongst our own people. If they want us to leave our

territory they must know that we will never agree to it. We are a

people who have lost everything we had and who are fighting to regain

what we have lost. That's the purpose of our action. We've got

nothing to lose. We shrink from nobody and are afraid of no one. All

we can lose is our slavery. That's why we act without fear...

...

It is said that broadcasting programmes in Kurdish on Turkish

State television would be interpreted as making a concession to the

PKK. Could that be true? It is also rumoured that the PKK is going

to set up a TV station. Is that right?

- It isn't true that the PKK is going to broadcast on

television. There's no way that we have the facilities for doing that.

Television broadcasting either by satellite or through any other

channel is not a problem which has been raised by the PKK. It was

Turgut Özal who brought up the issue of Kurdish TV in Turkey when he

went to the US. That's what's being debated. A very small fraction

of people say that Özal was right, but a very large proportion are

against it. Those who are suggesting Kurdish TV are doing so

deliberately. The aim is supposedly to influence and win over the

masses; and thus to isolate the PKK. That's what the idea is. But

even if Kurdish TV became a reality it would do them no service.

That's why they're against it. The purpose of those who want to create

Kurdish TV is to isolate the PKK. For there's no mention of any

argument such as "Here is a people who have their own language and we

must broadcast in their language. There is need for respect for that

people. It is wrong to ban a people's language; that also harms the

Turkish people." Far from it. The debate has revealed the real

intentions: "How can we wipe out the influence of the PKK? How can we

isolate the PKK? How can we pull the wool over the Kurdish people's

eyes?" It's a tactical approach. It's a trick. But no matter what

steps they take they will have effects to the advantage of the PKK

nevertheless. The Turkish State has now lost Kurdistan. That is a

fact. Any move the State makes in Kurdistan after this will turn out

to the advantage of the PKK and to the disadvantage of the Turkish

State...

...

Different tactics were followed as a result in the Uludere

attack. Attacks were previously always carried out at night. But this

time the attack was carried out during the day, and the clashes

continued throughout the day. It is said that this entails more risk

for the guerillas. What was the reason for it?

- What they say is right. Our combat has reached a certain

level. Tactics have to be developed which match that level, because

it's a mistake to wage war with less developed tactics. Progress can

be achieved in the war by using tactics in keeping with the level of

warfare which has now been reached. That's why an action of that

nature was planned. The idea was to attack in the morning and hold our

ground, continuing the clashes throughout the day - and it was

successful in the end. It was an experiment. From our point of view

there are conclusions to be drawn from it. We are studying the matter.

We shall benefit from that in the actions we carry out in the future.

"Gerçek" interviews Cemil Bay*k, the PKK second-in-command - Part 2

"We are forced to wage war"

We are publishing the last part of our interview with ARGK

commander Cemil Bay*k:

What do you think about the assassinations of unknown perpetrator

in Kurdistan and the actions described as Hizbi-contra?

It is true that there is an organisation known as Hizbullah. But

it's a weak organisation. It's not that organisation which is carrying

out the massacres as is being said. Since the organisation is weak the

Republic of Turkey has captured its members in many places. Many

massacres are carried out in the name of that organisation, but it is

actually the Turkish State itself which is doing the killing. We say

this to the members of Hizbullah: "You are really Muslims. The Islamic

faith is against pressure and injustice and advocates what is right and

just." It is a well-known fact that the Turkish State is exerting

pressure and carrying out massacres and inhuman actions. They must

respect those who oppose these acts. If they want to wage war they

must join forces with them. That's what we are asking of them. We

warn them as friends that they must throw out the contraguerillas who

infiltrate their ranks. For unless they do that they will come to

grief. We have not as yet acted more seriously; we have always just

warned them. We say that that phenomenon has served the Turkish State,

and we have received a favourable response from certain quarters. They

have said that Hizbullah people or Muslims have not in fact been

involved in that sort of action and that the acts have not been carried

out by Hizbullah people. That is favourable for us. But it [the

State] is still carrying out massacres in some places in Hizbullah's

name. ...

...

On what lines will the struggle be carried out from now on?

- The climate does affect a war, although the effects are not

very decisive. The 1991-92 winter was very hard, and that affected

movement ability and the capacity for combat and caused several

difficulties - both for us and for the Turkish State. But they have

the advantage of using technology, and they used that advantage to the

full. To no avail, however. They intended to deal us murderous blows

last winter. They thought they would have overthrown us and ousted us

by the spring. But they didn't achieve what they wanted. Our capacity

for movement was reduced by the hard winter conditions and, as a

result, steps were taken late compared to previous years. The season

is gradually becoming more suitable, however. There is still snow on

the ground in many places, but it is presenting less and less of an

obstacle. 1992 will be more different compared to other years, but we

never say, "Let's develop our armed combat, let's expand it further."

If we develop the war, we do so because we have to. Because there is

no possibility of achieving a different life and developing. All roads

have been blocked on us. We are waging war because we are forced to.

Any further expansion of the war will depend on the attitude of the

Turkish State. The State is intensifying the war. So we have to

extend the war to that degree. The war will escalate. Before the PKK

there was a one-sided war being waged in Kurdistan. In the last few

years that war has begun to be a two-sided war. In the old days, the

Turkish State used to achieve the ends it intended to achieve in the

war it was waging, and the Kurdish people was being rapidly wiped out

as a result. But the Kurdish people have begun to say "Stop!" They

have begun to resist in order to avoid annihilation. It was the State

which started the war, and the ending of the war will also depend on

the Turkish State. It wasn't us who started the war. We developed a

war to defend ourselves against the war of annihilation that was being

waged on us. This war will continue as long as the Turkish State

refuses to accept the will of the people of Kurdistan: there will be

not one single step backwards. The war will go on until there is only

one single individual left on our side.

.

. .

Joint Declaration by four socialist organisations published in

"Gerçek":

Call "to unite forces"

TDKP, TKEP, TKKKÖ and TKP-ML Hareketi issue joint statement

The Central Committees of the Progressive Communist Party of

Turkey (TDKP), the Communist Labour Party of Turkey (TKEP), the Turkish

Organisation for the Liberation of Northern Kurdistan (TKKKÖ) and the

Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist Movement of Turkey (TKP/ML Hareketi)

have called on all progressives and democrats to unite forces.

"Let us unite against State terrorism, against the pressurising

and oppression of the Kurdish people, against the massacres, the street

killings, the sackings and unemployment; let us unite and step up our

efforts for freedom, democracy and socialism!" Such is the heading of

the appeal in which it is stated that the only means of action for the

ruling classes is that of force and violence. And the

"democratisation" initiatives of the DYP and SHP government are

described as a manoeuvre, purely a means of concealing their attacks.

And the appeal goes on to state the following views:

"Workers, proletarians and young people of the Kurdish and

Turkish nation!

It is possible and perfectly feasible for us to drive back the

attacks levelled on us by imperialism and the collaborating ruling

classes and to obtain our economic and political rights and freedoms.

To do so we must rally our forces around our common demands and join

battle. Aware of its historic revolutionary role, the working class

must take action, must lead that action, must call the bluff of the

trade union bosses of every camp and smash the barriers they have put

up to curb our movement and must develop the fight and action.

- The Turkish army must withdraw from Kurdistan. Action must

be taken to put an end to the double standards in the legal system, and

all Kurdish prisoners must be released.

- The Turkish parliament must end its authority over Kurdistan.

The Kurdish people must be free to determine its own destiny, including

the establishment of a separate State.

- The State terrorism and street executions which are being

carried out through agents of the MiT [State Intelligence

Organisation], contraguerillas and special squads must stop immediately

and they must be called to account for the massacres and murders.

- The servicing of external debts to imperialists must be

stopped, and those resources must be used for the benefit of the

proletariat.

- The sackings must stop and sacked workers must be given their

jobs back. All of the obstacles which have been placed in the way of

trade union organisation must be removed, and the right to organise

without restriction must be granted.

- Measures must be taken to prevent the State Economic

Enterprises, which are the resources of the country and of the people,

from being sold for a song to imperialists. Labour sub-contracting,

which is a means of eliminating trade union coverage, must be stopped

immediately.

- The strike bans must be lifted, and lockout must be

prohibited. The right to hold general strikes, political strikes,

strikes to obtain rights and sympathetic strikes must be recognised.

And all of the bans on freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate and

freedom of opinion and of the press must be ended.

- Act no. 657 pertaining to public servants must be repealed,

and all working people must be granted the right to join a trade union

with the right to strike and to conclude collective agreements.

- All working people must have insurance coverage; all workers

must be granted unemployment insurance, and the facilities must be

provided for free health services and health care for everyone.

- The discrimination based on sex which prevails in working and

social life and the pressure exerted on working women must be ended.

- The YÖK [High Council for Education] must be done away with,

and young people in higher education must be allowed to have a say and

to participate in decision-making in university administration. All

of the obstacles that have been placed on the organisation of young

people must be removed, and education and training must be free of

charge at every level.

- Education boards must be given full autonomy; textbooks must

meet contemporary requirements and must be re-written with democratic

content.

- All of the debts owed to the State by the peasantry must be

cancelled, and the rural population must be allowed to set the minimum

prices of products.

Menu

SUREK v. TURKEY

SUREK v. TURKEY

LEXI