PO Box 287 London` NW6 5QU England Tel +44 (0)20 7482 2496 Fax +44 (0)20 7209 4761
PO
Box 11795, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, US Tel: 001 215
848 1120 Fax 001 215 848 1130
Margaret Beckett, 30 May 2007 Dear Margaret Beckett, Re: Turkish conscientious objector’s case at the next meeting of the Council of Europe We write to you in your capacity as representative of the United Kingdom in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. We understand that the agenda of the next Deputies’ meeting on 5-6 June contains the case of Osman Murat Ülke (39437/98), a Turkish conscientious objector who won his case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). On 24 January 2006 the ECHR in a unanimous ruling found Turkey in violation of Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment). Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Ülke 10,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, urging Turkey to introduce new legislation on the question of conscientious objection. We bring to your attention some passages of the ECHR’s ruling http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/Jan/Chamberjudgment%C3%9ClkevTurkey240106.htm highlighting Mr Ülke’s plight:
“[Mr
Ülke] was called up in August 1995, but refused to do his
military service on the ground that he had firm pacifist
convictions, and he burned his call-up papers in public at a
press conference. On 28 January 1997 the court of the general
staff in Ankara sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and a
fine. Noting in addition that Mr Ülke was a deserter, the court
ordered the military prosecutor attached to the general staff
court to enlist him.
“The clandestine life amounting almost to ’civil death’ which the applicant had been compelled to adopt [is] incompatible with the punishment regime of a democratic society.
“He had to live the rest of his life with the risk of being sent to prison if he persisted in refusing to perform compulsory military service.” Turkey is not complying with the ECHR’s ruling However, the most recent Deputies’ meeting (992nd DH meeting - 4 April 2007, Section 4.2) remarked: “The Deputies, “1. deplored anew that no individual measure has yet been taken by the Turkish authorities to put an end to the violation found by the Court as the applicant is still wanted by the security forces with a view to his arrest and the execution of his sentence; “2. regretted that no information had been provided on general measures taken or envisaged in order to bring the legal framework governing the situation of those who refuse to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds into conformity with the requirements of the Convention;
“3.
decided to resume the consideration of this item at their 997th
meeting (5-6 June 2007) (DH), and instructed the Secretariat to
prepare an Interim Resolution in time for this meeting.” Mr Ülke’s case is not unique
That Turkey complies with the Europen Convention on Human Rights, of which she is a signatory, is crucial for other conscientious objectors’ individual cases and for the general situation of conscientious objection in Turkey and also in European countries.
In 2005-2006 Mehmet Tarhan, a Kurdish gay conscientious objector, was put on trial and sentenced twice for the same “crime” amounting to a total of four years in a military prison, where he was repeatedly beaten, tortured, threatened with forced anal examination. After 11 months in prison he was released in March 2006, when Turkey bowed to combined international pressure of activists and Members of the European Parliament. The trial against his aggressors is still pending, but Mr. Tarhan could be arrested any time as a deserter. Meanwhile the same condition of “civil death” applies to him as applied to Mr Ülke.
Halil Savda, another Kurdish conscientious objector, is now in jail in Turkey. Mr Savda was tried on 7 December 2006, detained until 25 January 2007, then released from custody, then taken back to barracks where he was arrested again and charged with “insistent insubordination” for refusing orders. On 15 March 2007, the military court in Corlu sentenced him to 15 months and 15 days imprisonment on charges of desertion and disobeying orders. On 12 April the same court sentenced him to a further six months imprisonment, bringing his total prison time up to 21 months and 15 days.
This cycle of arrest, detention, trial, “release”, new arrest, is against any notion of natural justice and Turkey must not be allowed to become a benchmark for the violation of human rights in other countries in Europe.Greece
Greece treats several conscientious objectors in much the same way and makes them live constantly under the threat of arrest – very much the same “civil death” as the ECHR so effectively defined the conscientious objectors’ life in Turkey.
Although Greece does have an alternative service, it is punitive (23month vs 12month military service) and not purely civilian (the Minister of Defence decides on the applications and supervises the alternative service). What is more, the applications of most of the non-religious conscientious objectors are rejected and they are called up to military service. In general in Greece, conscientious objectors who either don’t apply for the punitive alternative service or apply but are rejected are usually regularly called up to military service, and every time they refuse to serve in the army a new prosecution is brought against them. This violates Article 14 Paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." In addition, the right to conscientious objection is not recognized for conscripts-soldiers or professional soldiers.
Here are some indicative cases:
· Kyriakos Kapidis had his application to perform alternative civilian service rejected on 5 April 2004. He appealed to the State Council in May 2004 against the rejection of his application and he is awaiting the decision.
·
Lazaros Petromelidis who refused
to do the punitive alternative service has regularly received
call-up papers to serve in the military and has been repeatedly
charged with insubordination. He was imprisoned in May 1998,
April 1999 and September 2002. · Dimitris Sotiropoulos had his passport seized in September 1993, and two attempts to arrest him were made in June and August 1994. Also during 2006 the police have attempted to arrest him several times (10 March, 11 April and 15 September) and once again just recently on 30 May 2007.
· Giorgos Monastiriotis, who had joined the Greek Navy on a five-year contract, refused to follow his unit when the frigate on which he was serving was sent to the Persian Gulf in May 2003. He cited conscientious reasons and declared his resignation from the Navy. In September 2004 he was arrested and sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment for desertion by the Naval Court of Piraeus. He was taken immediately to prison and remained imprisoned for 22 days until his temporary release pending an appeal hearing. In January 2005 he was convicted again by the Naval Court of Piraeus to five months’ suspended imprisonment for desertion which was suspended pending appeal. On 31 October 2006 the Appeal Military Court of Athens sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment for desertion suspended for three years.
What we urge you to do
We ask that you take the opportunity of the 5-6 June meeting to:
We are ready to meet with you or any member of your staff to clarify any point you may want to discuss.
We all now know that conscientious objectors represent the tip of an immense international anti-militaristic iceberg: in Turkey 500,000 people avoid the draft, in Russia, only 11% of men eligible for service actually enroll. No one knows how many men (and women) in the countries of the South are refusing to serve. Many end up as asylum seekers in the UK and the rest of Europe.
We believe that it is the duty of elected politicians, in fact of all human beings, to affirm the elementary right not to kill, maim, torture and rape for armies around the world. Refusing to kill is not a crime.
Yours sincerely,
Giorgio Riva for Payday
|