Rojda Aydın

 

ŞIRNAK - Five years have passed since the curfew and massacre declared in Cizre. However, many files regarding the massacre were declared "legal" and resulted in a verdict of non-prosecution. There has been no progress for five years about 'unknown perpetrators' .

 

The curfew declared by the Governorship of Şırnak in Cizre district on December 14, 2015 lasted 79 days. Nearly 300 people were killed in the blockade and attacks that ended on March 2, 2016. During the curfew, 177 people, some of them  were seriously injured and took shelter in the basements, were burned by the police and soldiers. 92 people were buried in the cemetery of the nameless without revealing their identity information.

 

During the blockade; no journalists, politicians, institutions or organizations were allowed to enter Cizre. In the blockade of Cizre, people were forced to migrate with bomb fires and psychological oppression methods against civilian settlements. The people of Cizre, known for their history of resistance, did not leave their homes and lands in the face of pressures.

 

Judicial process

 

Many applications were made to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) about the massacre and violations of rights in 2015 and 2016. In these applications, the Constitutional Court and the ECHR were asked to make interim measures to prevent violations of rights. The ECHR decided that these applications should be handled with priority in accordance with the 41st article of its rules of procedure. On December 15, 2016 the Court asked Turkey for defense  for the context of the curfew on 34 applications made on behalf of more than 160 people and the hearing was on November 13, 2018. The ECHR found the applications regarding the Cizre curfew and deaths as "unacceptable" in its decision announced on February 7. 

 

Court's perspective on violations

 

ECHR announced in July that it decided to hold a hearing on the merits and admissibility of the applications. However, instead of holding a hearing for all cases, the court chose two files of them and decided to apply the discussions on the procedures and principles in these two files for all the remaining files. The court announced that they evaluate the legality of the curfew through the Ömer Elçi file. And they announced that they evaluate the nature of the operation carried out in Cizre and the legal discussion of the deaths through the Orhan Tunç file. Many organizations representatives and lawyers from Europe and Turkey joined to the hearing held on admissibility and merits. The state-made massacre in Cizre was discussed for the first time in an international court. For the first time, the state had to make a defense regarding the massacres in Cizre. Turkey tryed to exonerate itself on the declared prohibited in public areas and Cizre basement massacres with a report.

 

14 missing funerals

 

The investigation files on the civilians who lost their lives during the curfew are closed one by one. Untill today, 42 files were found out of 121 files that the lawyers of the Lawyers Association for Freedom (ÖHD) looked at  the Constitutional Court, and a decision of "no prosecution" was given for 83 files. “Decision of non-prosecution and non-jurisdiction” was given for 66 files and “permanent search decision” for 4 files. In most of the decisions made with the claim of "membership of the organization", the deaths were accepted as "legal".

 

Lost funerals

 

Despite the DNA samples given by the families, there are 14 people whose bodies have not been found. The names of these people are as follows:  Feride Yıldız, Sakine Durmuş, Mardin Çelebi, Hacer Arslan, Osman Gökhan, Hüseyin Derviş, Servet Aslan, İdris Susin, Ali Aslan, Cemal Pürlek, Emrah Aşkan, Osman Esmeray,  Mustafa Keçanlu ve Emrah Aşkın.

 

Decision is expected to be made in 2021

 

Lawyers who are members of the Lawyers Association for Freedom (ÖHD), who looked at the files, said the following about the files: “The state has no legal, moral or conscientious responsibility such as revealing the reality of the deaths experienced during this curfew period. Even if there are some differences in all the files, the files are aimed to be closed  by criminalizing and terrorizing the people who lost their lives with anonymous witnesses, witnesses and archive investigation reports but this is not true. We see this approach in all the files closed so far, and this approach is not only the approach of the prosecution offices in the local sense, but also the same approach and attitude are in the administrative courts, which we can call higher courts, or other criminal judgeships of peace. It is not yet clear how many years will be given in the files we bring to Constitutional Court. At least we can guess that the decision will be made in 2021. This decision is important in the following respect: While the curfew was ongoing, the ECHR ruled 'inadmissibility' and decided to examine the files by Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will show us from this aspect how right or how wrong it makea its decision. We continue to follow the ongoing files. We see similar situations not only for Cizre but also in Nusaybin, İdil, Silopi, and Şırnak as a judicial reflex and approach. "

 

"Every file is a file that has been planned to be an unknown perpetrator"

 

Emphasizing that there is no scope of finding the perpetrator in any of the investigation files, the lawyers from ÖHD said, "There is no file that the prosecutor's office has done serious research and turned it into an indictment so far. Efforts are made to cover the files, not to judge the perpetrators. These are not reasons that we can accept legally. We continue to make our objections on the basis of the accountability of this legally. We will continue to follow this process. In fact, every file is a file that has been planned to be an unknown perpetrator. Because, while these files were opened for the death of a person, to enlighten the death that occurred, the investigation turned into a network of lawlessness that suddenly accused the person and turned into a debate about whether the person was an "organization member". In our view, no perpetrator of any file has been revealed so far. Since no search has been made to reveal the perpetrators of the state, each file is a file whose perpetrator has been left to unknown ”.