In the second part of this interview, Dilan Kunt Ayan, Member of Parliament for Urfa from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and a member of the Justice Commission, told ANF that "the issue of impunity is often misunderstood in Turkey."

The first part of this interview can be read here.

The package is said to include efforts to eliminate the perception of impunity in cases where sentences are under two years. Yet these kinds of sentences are frequently handed to dissidents. Could this lead to further targeting of the opposition?

The issue of impunity is often misunderstood in Turkey. We do not believe it should be approached solely in terms of sentence lengths or how long someone stays in prison. Impunity frequently manifests long before sentencing. It takes the form of crimes not being investigated, not going to trial, or ending in acquittal. If you look at the news on any given day, you will come across at least one case of torture. As you know, torture is a crime that falls under the category of absolute prohibition. This is a universal principle. Yet in a country where there are so many torture cases, the number of public officials who are prosecuted, let alone convicted, is negligible. This clearly shows that there is a state and judicial policy of impunity when it comes to the crime of torture. The same applies to femicide cases. Although the prescribed sentence for such crimes is aggravated life imprisonment, reductions due to so-called good conduct or unjust provocation are applied during trial, leading to lighter sentences. In this sense, impunity stems from the mentality and assumptions of the judiciary and the political power directing it.

As for the sentence increases proposed in the package, we must say that most of the penalties in current law are already sufficient, provided the trials are fair and effective. Compared to international legal systems, the sentence lengths are relatively similar. The real problem lies in the execution of sentences. Before anything else, we need a legal perspective and a coherent criminal justice policy. We must address questions like: What crimes should be tackled and how? According to what principles should sentences be executed? What additional measures and alternative solutions are possible? Simply saying "increase the punishment so they serve more time" is not a real answer.

Take detention orders, for example. This is one of the most serious issues in the law. In the new package, changes have been proposed to allow pre-trial detention in certain crimes that currently fall below the two-year threshold and are not supposed to result in detention. However, detention is not a punishment; it is a precautionary measure. This fundamental principle is being ignored, and a legal framework is being built to expand the scope of detention. The result is that this expansion does not serve justice in crimes that truly offend public conscience. Instead, it is used to silence and suppress dissidents.

In democratic legal systems, the scope of pre-trial detention is being narrowed. This package, on the other hand, attempts to broaden it. This is not a strategy to combat impunity but rather a step that serves anti-democratic and politically charged judicial practices.

For a long time now, especially in recent cases, we have seen how the judiciary has been used as a tool of political repression. Even under Law No. 2911, which governs demonstrations and public meetings, students have been arrested, and legal norms have been interpreted to favor the government. This only confirms how justified our concerns have been.

Does the new judicial package offer any solutions to urgent issues such as the postponement of sentences for prisoners who have served over 30 years, the situation of ill prisoners, or the severe overcrowding in Turkish prisons?

The situation and problems within Turkey’s prison system have long surpassed the boundaries of incarceration and become a deep-rooted social issue. With more than 400,000 inmates, Turkey ranks among the highest in Europe. At the same time, the number of prisoners far exceeds the official capacity of prisons, transforming them into places unfit for human dignity.

The new Execution Law introduced in April 2020, allegedly in response to the global pandemic, institutionalized numerous forms of discrimination and inequality. While expanding conditional release and supervised freedom for inmates convicted of non-political crimes, the law created mechanisms that continue to block political prisoners from regaining their freedom for extended periods. This inequality has also affected some non-political inmates. The law known as the 31 July Law has caused significant injustice both in its scope and in its legal structure.

When it comes to ill prisoners, this situation amounts to a return to the death penalty in practice. In 2024 alone, 50 individuals lost their lives in prison, 27 of whom were seriously ill. According to data from the Human Rights Association (IHD), the number of seriously ill prisoners has reached 1,583 and continues to rise. Many of these individuals are denied access to adequate treatment, medicine, and healthcare personnel, living every day on the brink of death. Prisons have effectively become funeral homes. The Forensic Medicine Institute (ATK), which fails to act as an independent institution, delays or prevents releases until prisoners are on their deathbeds, effectively allowing their deaths.

Administrative and Monitoring Boards are systematically used to block the release of political prisoners and deny them access to their legal rights. Forced statements of remorse, arbitrary disciplinary punishments, and baseless decisions resulting in negative conduct reports have become one of the most pressing problems within the prison system. These mechanisms have already victimized hundreds and continue to do so.

Unfortunately, the current judicial package includes no effective, comprehensive, or concrete measures to address these serious issues. Amendments to the Law on the Execution of Sentences are minimal. Even the limited improvements proposed exclude political prisoners, thus deepening the existing discrimination and inequality.

As it stands, the amendments to the execution law within this package are extremely narrow and inadequate. Discriminatory practices remain firmly in place. The Law on the Execution of Sentences, which affects millions of people, must be urgently addressed as a matter of priority. It must be restructured as a comprehensive legal framework based on equality, human dignity, the prohibition of torture, and the protection of prisoners' rights in any democratic state governed by the rule of law.

The new package is frequently discussed in public as a general or partial amnesty. The minister denied this, stating that some changes have been made in the execution of sentences. You also mentioned that there are very few changes in this area. Still, given how often amendments are made to the Law on the Execution of Sentences, does this frequent interference carry any legal meaning?

The Law on the Execution of Sentences is one of the most frequently amended laws in the country, both due to its structure and the scope it regulates. Almost all of these changes have been made to serve the political interests of the ruling power and its aim of controlling society and the opposition. As a result, these laws are severely lacking in legal value and legislative quality. Moreover, since they are prepared with an undemocratic and discriminatory mindset, they have plunged the legal system into chaos.

The current penal execution system is effectively built on a dual structure. The government draws a sharp line between inmates convicted of criminal offenses and those imprisoned for political reasons. While it may seem like there is a single law, the reality is that political prisoners are treated differently under dozens of provisions. This truth is no longer denied.

It is not just the laws themselves. Even prison administrations shamelessly issue internal directives instructing staff to treat political prisoners differently. The decisions made by Administrative and Observation Boards are the most prominent examples of this. Over the past five years, a comparison of the number of political and non-political inmates granted release by these boards reveals a clear disparity. These boards systematically reject political prisoners, effectively acting as a second court to extend sentences for years.

Even in matters where there should be no room for discrimination, such as the case of ill prisoners, the Forensic Medicine Institute does not act as a medical institution. Instead, it examines the inmate’s file and the type of offense before issuing a decision. If you look at the cases where the Presidency has used its power to grant release, you will see that, apart from a single symbolic case, political prisoners are not released even when they are on the verge of death.

All of these issues could be resolved through the creation and proper implementation of a law that is based on the rule of law, human dignity, and the principle of equality, and that adheres to international standards on the rights of prisoners. Such a law must be drafted by an independent and impartial commission made up of legal experts, civil society organizations, academics, and representatives from political parties.

As for the issue of amnesty, the state of Turkey’s prison system has become so chaotic, unjust, and overwhelmed by rights violations that many see amnesty as the only possible solution. Given the erosion of trust in the legal system, this demand is understandable. When prisoners are sleeping on the floor, packed on top of one another, going hungry, and unable to afford basic hygiene items like soap, the calls from their families must be heard.

However, the real solution is not a temporary or politically motivated amnesty. What is needed is a comprehensive, lasting reform. A fair and equal law must be introduced that addresses structural problems and provides enduring solutions. Previous so-called partial amnesties were in fact changes to the Law on the Execution of Sentences. Similarly, we, as a party, have prepared a draft proposal for a new Law on the Execution of Sentences that would ease the pressure on prisons, resolve existing problems, and prevent new ones from arising.

In this political context, where calls for peace and a democratic society are being made, we continue to present our proposals to all relevant actors. These proposals not only address the injustices faced by Kurds and political prisoners but also aim to restore society’s faith in democracy and justice through permanent, concrete, and lasting steps. We are committed to this, and we truly believe in it.