Dilan Kunt Ayan, a MP for Urfa (Riha) from the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and a member of the Justice Commission, stated that the government’s announcements of further legal reforms in September and October reflect an attempt to prolong the process. She emphasized the urgent need to revise the shortcomings without delay.

The 10th Judicial Package was submitted to the parliament without addressing public expectations or the demands of the DEM Party. The package is currently being discussed in the Justice Commission.

DEM Party MP and Justice Commission member Dilan Kunt Ayan spoke to ANF. She stated that they are working intensively to fulfill the role assigned to them by the call issued on 27 February.

Dilan Kunt Ayan highlighted the importance of the closing line in the statement issued by Abdullah Öcalan, which reads, “Undoubtedly, the laying down of arms will only be meaningful if legal arrangements are made.” She explained: “This clearly points to the need for immediate changes to the anti-democratic laws in Turkey and for the implementation of laws that are democratic and based on equality. One of the major legal obstacles to a democratic solution to the Kurdish question is the unequal and unjust sentencing law. However, the proposed package does not include the level of reform we were hoping for in regard to an equal and fair execution of sentences.”

Violates the principle of equality and the spirit of the process

Dilan Kunt Ayan pointed out that even the provisions concerning seriously ill prisoners, an issue they have raised for years, remain inadequate in the proposed package and stated: “Those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment are being treated separately. This violates both the principle of equality and the spirit of the process. Treating those with aggravated life sentences differently means they will not be eligible for release to receive medical treatment outside prison. We see this as discriminatory, and we have submitted a proposal to change it. We demand that house arrest be made available to all seriously ill prisoners, including those serving aggravated life sentences. Even in cases of aggravated sentences, this should be considered a preventive measure, one that allows the person to undergo treatment in proper hospital conditions. Another issue is that those with aggravated sentences are also subject to an additional condition: a judgment that ‘the person does not pose a threat to society.’ This is a vague and abstract criterion. Where will this assessment come from? The Ministry of the Interior will write to the police, asking, ‘Does this person pose a threat to society?’ Naturally, the police will respond based on the nature of the offense and the situation, offering personal, vague, and subjective opinions. Moreover, this condition is left to the discretion of the judge. The decision will be made by the sentence enforcement judge, who will also be granted broad and abstract discretionary power. We do not find this approach equal or fair either and we have made it clear that this, too, must be amended.”

Inequality in the COVID law must be addressed

Dilan Kunt Ayan also reminded that the COVID law previously enacted is not even included in the current judicial package. She continued: “This was a law they passed during the COVID pandemic. The eligibility criteria were based on the date when a person's sentence became final. They also imposed a cut-off date: those whose sentences were finalized by 31 July 2023 could be placed under five years of supervised release. But those whose sentences were finalized on or after 1 August 2023 were excluded. This clearly illustrates the unequal nature of the policy. Execution laws are never based on the date of final sentencing, they are based on the date the offense was committed. That’s the principle that should have guided this regulation as well, but unfortunately, it was not followed.

Even when the COVID law was enacted at the time, they excluded political prisoners. In this proposal, we had demanded equal treatment for both ordinary and political prisoners under the COVID law. We demanded equality in the execution regime, but once again, that demand was ignored.

We will continue the struggle in the commission

There is also a provision in this draft concerning repeat offenses. Of course, the part related to ordinary prisoners should be acknowledged as positive in terms of equalizing the execution law. But again, they did not address the requirement under Article 17 of the Anti-Terror Law (TMK-17), which mandates that those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment must serve the full sentence. They only regulated it for ordinary offenses. Yet what needed to happen was the complete removal of Article 17, because it imposes an unequal execution regime. We have made all of these evaluations, and we will voice them in the commission, both through amendment proposals and by demanding their inclusion.”

Steps must be taken without delay

In response to statements from the government suggesting that new legal reforms would be introduced gradually in September and October, Dilan Kunt Ayan stated: “The government side has said that these laws will be passed gradually in the coming period, but we do not agree with spreading out the reforms to the execution law over time. The spirit of the process calls for urgency. People want to see concrete steps. Yes, there is a step concerning ill prisoners right now, but why isn’t it being accelerated? Why are these steps being taken with exclusions? We are witnessing a process being deliberately drawn out. If this package had included steps that covered all political prisoners, it would have been a powerful sign to strengthen and socialize the public’s engagement with the process. That’s why we believe a step must be taken without delay, without stretching it out any further.”