HC Deb 15 July 2003 vol 409 cc51-7WH 3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

I was pleased to secure today's debate because it is two years since I saw Leyla Zana in prison in Ankara. She was waiting for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which was reviewing the sentence given to her nine years previously. I had arranged to see her beforehand, but there was a difficulty when I got to the prison because the staff did not expect me. There was a challenge at the main gate and it took some time to get into the prison. I sat in the prison governor's office for one and a half hours while he attempted to contact a Minister in the Turkish Government to obtain approval for my visit. The prison governor thought that Leyla Zana should not be in prison and that she should have been released.

I took Leyla Zana a birthday card because it was her birthday. The cards was in Welsh and was X-rayed before being handed over because the authorities did not understand the language and were afraid that it contained a subversive message. The only message it contained was to emphasise the point that it is possible for people in one country to live peacefully together despite differences in background and language.

The meeting with Leyla lasted about two and a half hours, and I was grateful to the prison authorities for allowing me that length of time. I had heard much about her and seen pictures of her. When she met me, prison officers escorted her. She is a young, attractive woman of great dignity. We sat down together and she said how grateful she was for the many letters that she had received from people in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. She said that although she did not speak English, the letters meant a great deal to her because they showed that people were thinking of her.

Bianca Jagger was to have accompanied me, but the Turkish authorities said that she could not come because they have strict regulations on who can gain access to someone in prison. Visitors must have a particular or family reason to see a prisoner. My reason was that I chair the all-party group on human rights. I am also a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Commission on Human Rights, where a committee with six members selected from all countries campaigns for the human rights of members of parliament, some of whom are unfortunately in prison, in detention or cannot carry out their mandates.

The prison was old and derelict, like most prisons in Turkey. Leyla told me that she was allowed access to television and could read books and newspapers. In the past few years, she had even been allowed her own small garden in the prison. She said that she had not received any visits from her husband for many years because it was too dangerous for him to come to the prison. When her son last visited her in the early 1990s, he was detained overnight, so she told him not to come again. I believe that both of her children now live outside Turkey. She said that she was expecting a decision from the European Court, which was taking a long time.

It was a great privilege to talk to Leyla because she is a woman of great determination and sincerity, and she has strong convictions. In the past, she was offered amnesty on the ground that she was sick, but she refused it because she believes that the other three Kurdish MPs who were detained at the same trial should also be freed. It takes a truly remarkable person to make that sort of decision. She is young, wants to express her strong political views and has a young family that she wants to see grow up; yet she is still in prison.

After taking part of their parliamentary oath at the swearing in ceremony in Turkish and in Kurdish, Leyla and three other Turkish/Kurdish MPs were sentenced in 1994 to 15 years in jail. In May 1984, I swore my oath in the House of Commons in English and Welsh. There was no problem here, but there still is in Turkey.

At Leyla Zana's trial, she was accused of taking her oath in Kurdish and of wearing a hairband in the Kurdish colours: green, red and yellow. At her trial, she said that she had taken her oath in Turkish and Kurdish, and that she had said in Kurdish that she was swearing the oath for the sake of fraternity between the Kurdish and the Turkish peoples. Furthermore, she said that she had worn the Kurdish colours in protest against a legal provision that prohibited their use in the south-eastern part of Turkey in the late 1980s.

Leyla Zana was also accused of attending the funeral of a member of the Kurdistan Workers Party—the PKK. She explained that she was present at that funeral because the person in question was her cousin. Naturally, she could not deny her blood relationship with him and thus condemn her own family. She had also attended the funerals of members of the Turkish military forces.

Zana was the first Kurdish woman to be elected to Turkey's Parliament. She is a former candidate for the Nobel peace prize, and a winner of the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, which is awarded by the European Parliament.

In July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the initial trial was unfair and called for her release or retrial. This January, the Turkish Government eventually passed legislation that required the retrial of any court cases that had successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The four MPs obtained a retrial under that legislation.

Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were put on trial in December 1994 for membership of an armed gang and were sentenced to 15 years in prison. In July 2001, the European Court concluded that they had not received a fair trial and that article 6 of the European convention on human rights was violated owing to the presence of a military judge, the fact that the defendants were unable to defend themselves against a new charge that was introduced at the last hearing of the original trial, and the fact that the defendants and their lawyers were not allowed to question prosecution witnesses. Even so, it took until January this year for the Turkish Government to act. That was when the criminal procedures law was amended to allow for retrials in such cases. Yusuf Alatas, the defence lawyer for Leyla Zana and the other defendants, immediately applied to Ankara state security court No. 1 for a retrial, which was granted. However, his request that the defendants immediately he released until the trial was denied.

As a European Union candidate, Turkey must meet the criteria for membership that were agreed at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993—the Copenhagen criteria—which deal with stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Turkey started working towards fulfilling the criteria in March 2001. The Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 stated that if Turkey met the Copenhagen criteria by the 2004 Council of Europe, it would recommend that accession negotiations commence. Therefore, current events in Turkey are particularly sensitive.

The first retrial was adjourned on 21 February 2003, the second on 28 March, the third on 25April 2003 and the fifth on 20 June 2003. The date of the next hearing is 18 July—this Friday. The defence lawyer's report concluded that: The re-trial of Leyla Zana, Orhan Dogan, Hatip Dicle and Selim Sadak is being conducted in a manner which violates both the principle of fair trial and the points determined in the decision of the European Human Rights Court, dated July 17, 2001. Until now, the practices of the Court have been far from being objective. In addition, Mr. Alatas stated that the practice and decisions of the court at the hearing on May 23. 2003, clearly indicated that the court was not objective, that the trial was being conducted totally along the lines of the wishes of the prosecution, that none of the requests of the defence would be accepted, that a real trial was not being conducted, and the court would persist with its verdict taken in 1994.

A report by Paul Richmond, a British barrister, on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers was published in June. It presents even more damning evidence of the Kafkaesque nature of the retrial. It says that certain aspects of the right to a fair trial were respected, but that there are profound concerns that the principle of equality of arms between the defence and the prosecution was not observed and that the tribunal was neither independent nor impartial".

Let me give some examples of that. The prosecution was allowed to present 26 witnesses, but the defence was not allowed to call even one witness. The defence was prevented from directly asking relevant questions of witnesses for the prosecution. The prosecution failed to disclose material evidence against the accused, a witness for the prosecution whose first language was Kurdish rather than Turkish was not provided with an interpreter in the courtroom and the defence was denied the possibility of having its questions of witnesses and submissions to the court entered directly into the court record. I could go on. If that is Turkish justice, I would not be very happy about being tried by a court in Turkey.

Such clearly unjust procedures are reminiscent not only of Kafka but of a play by Harold Pinter called "Mountain Language", which hon. Members may have seen at the National Theatre, in which the mother of a Kurdish prisoner in a Turkish prison was allowed to speak with her son only in Turkish—a language that she cannot speak.

Although Turkey's recent constitutional reforms have improved the situation on paper regarding the Kurdish language, I am afraid that the reality is very different. It is important to look not at the aspirations but at the reality. In its 2003 world report published this month, Human Rights Watch notes that the Turkish Parliament's August 2002 legislation lifted restrictions on minority language courses and broadcasting, including Kurdish, but the reforms were hedged with qualifications that could block effective implementation.

Most of us have been to Turkey on various occasions. I was at the Ilisu dam some years ago. I was driven there by a driver who had sold his only cow to buy a dish so that he could watch Kurdish language television. There are examples of such continuing attitudes to the Kurdish language.

Leyla Zana's lawyer has confirmed to us today that at the defence's formal request for a retrial the presiding judge refused and commented in open court that the deficiencies and mistakes identified by the European Court of Human Rights will not change the guilt of the accused". The same judge presided at the initial trial in 1994 and remains the presiding judge in the current retrial. Obviously, comments such as that must cast doubts on the judge's and the court's impartiality.

The International Commission of Jurists also has misgivings about the independence of the Turkish judiciary. Although normally independent, it often responds to directives about threats to the state issued by the Government and the national security council. The report of the European Parliament ad hoc delegation to the retrial in April this year stated that there was little evidence that things had changed substantially since 1994. In particular, those who compiled the report were unhappy that the defence lawyers were unable to put direct questions to the witnesses". That practice had also been prohibited at the original trial. Members noted that the trial gave Turkey an opportunity to show the world that it was determined to implement its reforms, but so far there is no evidence that this was the case.

I would like to end with a quotation from Leyla Zana, from her original trial in 1994. She said: My worst crime, in the view of the prosecution, seems to be a phrase I spoke in Kurdish on the brotherhood of Kurds and Turks and their coexistence in equality and democracy when I took the loyalty oath in Parliament. Even the colour of my clothes seems to have been a 'separatist crime'. Furthermore, simply by mentioning the existence of the Kurdish people and Kurdistan, by peaceably demanding recognition of Kurdish culture and identity in a democratic system and within existing borders, I have supposedly defended the aims of the Kurdistan Workers Party…But that party is engaged in an armed struggle, while all my activity is aimed at silencing the weapons and seeking a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem. That is what she said in her defence at her original trial in 1994. It is an absolute disgrace that four of our fellow parliamentarians languish in a prison in Turkey for doing little more than using their own language and displaying the colours of the minority of which they are members. I hope that while Turkey continues to keep these people in prison its route to accession will be obstructed by those who believe in human rights and democracy.

3.49 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her speech and I congratulate her on obtaining the debate and on her continued interest in the case of Leyla Zana. In a statement in the House this morning, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary paid tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to human rights and her work on Iraq. I wonder how many other Parliaments around the world have such a redoubtable champion of human rights. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law but, when it comes to human rights, it is only the individual who is the centre of our attention. The fact that my hon. Friend went and talked to Leyla Zana in prison means that she brings so much more to the debate than simply a factual report of the conditions of that sad case.

As my hon. Friend informed us, Leyla Zana and three other former Democratic party deputies, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak remain in prison in Turkey and are being retried by the Ankara state security court. That retrial is extremely important for the individuals concerned, and as a symbol of how Turkey is changing. The legislative reforms passed in August 2002 and February 2003 that made the retrial possible were a significant advance in the protection of human rights in Turkey.

Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green)

I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the changes that have taken place, but I believe the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) far more. I spoke at a rally of Kurdish people that took place at 3 o'clock last Sunday, and most of them said that change has taken place only on paper, not in reality. That is the point that my hon. Friend makes. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a decisive answer to the last question that she asked? Will he say whether Turkish accession negotiations should be allowed to begin before these sorts of human rights violations are brought to a full stop?

Mr. MacShane

I shall answer the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. Her Majesty's Government, the European Commission and the European Parliament have always taken a keen interest in this case. In 1995, Leyla Zana received the European Parliament's Sakharov prize—an annual human rights award. I am glad that my hon. Friend continues to ensure that the case maintains a high profile. Leyla Zana is also a journalist, and her writings have been translated into English and published in the United States. PEN's writers in prison committee have adopted her, and I pay tribute to the important work carried out by PEN on behalf of writers in prison. There are still too many books that remain banned in Turkey.

Article 11 of title II of the draft constitution—I stress that it is a draft constitution and that nothing has been finalised—for the European Union on freedom of expression and information states: 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. It continues: The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. I welcome, as I think the House will, the standards laid down in the draft constitution.

It would not be appropriate for me as a Minister to comment on the conduct of an ongoing trial. However, I can fully support my hon. Friend's previous assertion, that as Members of Parliament, we should be concerned about Members of Parliament in other countries who cannot fulfil their mandates, perhaps because they have been sent to prison unfairly."— [Official Report, 2 May 2002; Vol. 384, c.1098.] The Government have always maintained that the prosecution of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views is wrong. My hon. Friend has spoken for all Members and Ministers. I will make sure that a copy of Hansard containing her speech is sent to the Turkish embassy. I will also ensure that Leyla's lawyer and family know of the concern that the British Parliament has for her case.

Successive Governments have monitored this case closely since 1994. Following the lifting of their parliamentary immunity, Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were tried with four other Democratic party deputies for treason under article 125 of the Turkish penal code. They were found not guilty of treason, but were convicted of lesser charges under article 168.2 of the penal code, which refers to membership of an armed society or band committed, inter alia, to destroying the territorial integrity of the state. They were sentenced to 15 years in prison. They appealed to the Turkish appeal court and finally to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of breaches of their right to liberty, to a fair trial, to freedom of expression and to freedom from discrimination on political and ethnic grounds in the enjoyment of those rights.

On 17 July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found Turkey in violation of articles 6.3d and 6.1 of the European convention on human rights, and ruled that the deputies had been tried by a court that lacked independence and impartiality and that they had not enjoyed a fair trial.

Britain has played its part in the Council of Europe's Council of Ministers to help to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to implement this ruling. On 30 April 2002, for example, the Council urged the Turkish Government to comply with the Court's decision without further delay. We expect all member states of the Council of Europe to comply fully with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

We also raised the case of Leyla Zana and her codefendants with the Turkish authorities at various levels, and regularly raise it with Turkish officials in Ankara, and at more formal events and proceedings, such as in the continuing human rights dialogue between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its counterparts in Turkey. From those contacts, I can report that the current Turkish Government, who came to power long after the events in question began, are as convinced as we are that the retrial should be a fair and just process. We are both following the progress of the trial attentively, and will no doubt both have things to say about the outcome once the judicial process has run its course.

I can also report that we are monitoring the trial closely through the British embassy in Ankara and are co-ordinating with EU partners to ensure that all hearings are attended. For instance, a representative of the British embassy attended a hearing on 25 April, and we received a report of the most recent hearing on 20 June from representatives from the embassies of the previous and current EU presidencies of Greece and Italy respectively. British embassy representatives have also met Yusuf Alatas, Leyla Zana's lawyer.

The retrial is symbolic of a sea change in the protection of human rights in Turkey. Turkey has undergone significant reform since the far-reaching constitutional changes of October 2001. In part, that reform has been driven by Turkey's EU candidacy—a candidacy that the Government fully support. Human rights are a central element of the Copenhagen political criteria, which Turkey, like all EU candidates, must meet before it can begin accession negotiations. The criteria require that Turkey must achieve stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities". They therefore require Turkey to address many of the problems highlighted by the case of Leyla Zana and her co-defendants. In this way, Turkey's EU candidacy reinforces the Justice and Development Party—AKP—Government's own reform agenda, but they have made it clear that they see the reforms not as a means to EU accession but as an end in themselves for the benefit of the Turkish people.

In the past six months, Turkey has made considerable progress towards meeting these criteria. It has passed four legislative packages of reform, each of which contains clear evidence that Turkey's political leaders are determined to align the country with EU standards and have brought about far-reaching change. Implementation remains the most difficult challenge, as the AKP Government have acknowledged, but there has been significant progress. Examples include: abolishing the death penalty; introducing better training for the judiciary; improving pre-trial detention and prison facilities; lifting the state of emergency where it remained; ratifying the UN international covenants on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; and, of course, allowing for and carrying out retrials in line with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Paradoxically, the case of Leyla Zana and her fellow deputies highlights the progress that Turkey has made since the mid-1990s, in particular in respect of freedom of expression, the rights of minorities, and the professionalism of the Turkish judiciary.

Implementation of the reforms is crucial, as Turkey's EU candidacy will ultimately be judged on that. Problems still exist and should not be forgotten, but the attitude towards human rights in Turkey is fundamentally different from how it was in 1994.