Newroz Uysal, MP for Şırnak (Şirnex) from the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), and one of Abdullah Öcalan's lawyers, spoke to ANF about the Turkish government’s continued exclusion of Abdullah Öcalan from the “right to hope” in its newly submitted “action plan” to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning aggravated life sentences. She said: “If the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe does not stretch this issue over time, and if it does not settle for these kinds of procedural updates but instead takes responsibility for acknowledging this as a structural problem, then a real change is possible.”

On 18 March 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Abdullah Öcalan’s sentencing to aggravated life imprisonment without any possibility of conditional release violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a principle referred to as the “right to hope.” The court called on Turkey to make legal amendments accordingly. In subsequent decisions, the ECHR ruled similarly in the cases of prisoners Hayati Kaytan, Emin Gurban, and Civan Boltan. However, despite the passing of 11 years, Turkey has failed to take any steps to comply with the ruling. On 9 August 2022, the Asrin Law Office, the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), the Human Rights Association (IHD), the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TİHV), and the Foundation for Society and Legal Studies (TOHAV) submitted a joint application to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe demanding implementation of the ECHR decision. In its response to the Committee, the Turkish government claimed that “inmates sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment may be eligible for conditional release; however, certain crimes are exceptionally excluded from this possibility.” During its session held on 17–19 September 2024, the Committee of Ministers placed the ECHR’s violation rulings back on its agenda for the first time in three years and urged the Turkish government to take the necessary measures without further delay. The Committee also warned that if no progress is made, it will prepare an interim resolution at its session in September 2025.

Turkish government reiterates its justifications

As the Committee’s September session approached, leaving only two months, the Turkish government submitted a new “action plan.” In the document dated 27 June, the ongoing isolation imposed on Abdullah Öcalan was completely ignored, and it was asserted that “no further individual measures are necessary.” Under the section titled “Conditional Release,” the plan described aggravated life imprisonment as “exceptional” and claimed that those sentenced under this provision are not eligible for conditional release. In doing so, Turkey indicated that it does not intend to amend its legislation concerning the right to hope. The justification presented in the action plan included the following statement: “According to Article 107/16 of Law No. 5275, only the following individuals are excluded from conditional release: those convicted of crimes against state security, constitutional order, and national defense as defined in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of Part Four, Book Two of the Turkish Penal Code; and those who have committed such crimes within the structure of a terrorist organization. As a result, the authorities of the Republic of Turkey argue that, in general, conditional release is possible for those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment, and that this possibility is excluded only for a very limited number of serious crimes.”

A plan that says nothing at all

Newroz Uysal said: “A five-page action plan has been submitted. There is not a single concrete statement indicating that any preparation is underway to change the nature of the aggravated life sentence from one that lasts until death, no proposed legislation, no scheduling, no timeline. The entire content is filled with technical justifications stating that aggravated life imprisonment in Turkey does not necessarily mean life to death for everyone, and that there are exceptions for certain crimes. They mention the Constitutional Court, but there is no ruling from the court on aggravated life imprisonment, nor do they provide any relevant information. They simply say, ‘We translated the ruling, and sent it to the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court, the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (TİHEK), and the ombudsman, so that appropriate decisions may be made in domestic law.’ But to this day, hundreds of people have continued to receive aggravated life sentences. If they had truly forwarded it to the Court of Cassation with the instruction to act accordingly, then all of those rulings should have been overturned.”

A superficial procedural formality

In the end, the government claims it will continue to provide updates, stating that it is preparing a new judicial reform strategy document and a human rights action plan. However, it has written nothing in either document regarding what it proposes about aggravated life imprisonment or how it intends to address it through human rights reforms. This is a plan that says nothing, one that fails to fulfill any commitments regarding aggravated life sentences, does not answer the questions posed by the Ministry, and simply performs a procedural formality without addressing the substance of the issue in any meaningful way.

Technical jargon masking shallow content

Lawyer Uysal pointed out that while the government claims to use aggravated life imprisonment as a deterrent, it has not provided a single piece of information in response to the court’s questions regarding any mechanism for change. She continued: “For example, when will it change the law? What path will it follow in doing so? As members of the DEM Party, we have submitted multiple legislative proposals. Where are those proposals now? Additionally, human rights institutions in Turkey submitted a statement known as the ‘9-to-2’ report. In April 2025, Civan Boltan’s lawyer also submitted an individual ‘9-to-1’ declaration. These include rulings from the Constitutional Court, legislative packages pending in parliament, and many factual realities showing that Turkey continues to impose aggravated life sentences. Yet none of this has been addressed. Instead, the government has submitted an action plan that is evasive, shallow, overloaded with technicalities, and entirely avoids responsibility and legal obligation.”

Not an issue open to negotiation

Uysal emphasized that the “right to hope” is not something Turkey can escape or treat as a matter of negotiation. She stated: “First of all, in response to this action plan, it is necessary to present detailed information regarding the four rulings we refer to as Gurban, Kaytan, Boltan, and Öcalan, and to push for an interim resolution to be issued at the Committee’s meeting in September. In September 2024, the Committee stated, ‘If Turkey fails to take the expected steps or make concrete progress on this matter by September 2025, we will begin preparations for a draft interim resolution.’

Now we are approaching that deadline. Although an action plan has been submitted, there is no concrete proposal or plan for change. Therefore, in its September 2025 session, the Committee must prepare a draft interim resolution concerning the Öcalan ruling and use its full diplomatic and legal capacity to push for genuine reform. The ‘right to hope’ is not an issue that Turkey can evade or turn into a bargaining chip. If the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe does not delay action and goes beyond these procedural updates by acknowledging the issue as a structural problem, real change becomes entirely possible. We are already working toward this in Parliament. After all, Turkey’s compliance with its international obligations is both a legal necessity and a requirement for the continuity of this process.”