Habibe Eren

 

ISTANBUL - IHD Istanbul branch chair Gülseren Yoleri stated that the crime of disappearance in custody came back to the agenda with the state of emergency, said: “It is important that we prevent this crime from being committed. This is about social struggle. Just like in 1995. The social struggle at that time prevented this crime from being committed, once again we need this same social power and sensitivity.”

 

May 17-31, the International Week of the Enforced Disappeared started. The crime defined as enforced disappearance/disappearance in the international arena is generally used as "missing" or "missing under custody" in Turkey. The "policy of disappearance", which has been systematically implemented in Turkey since the 1990s, came back to the agenda with the state of emergency (OHAL) declared after the coup attempt in 2016. Although it is not clear according to the reports prepared by the Human Rights Association (İHD), non-governmental organizations and parliamentarians, 32 people were subjected to disappearance attempts during the state of emergency. In addition, in 2020, Gülistan Doku disappeared in Dersim on January 5, Hürmüz Diril and Şimoni Diril in Kovankaya village of Beytüşşebap district of Şırnak on January 11, and Mehmet Bal in İstanbul on January 24. While the funeral of Şimoni Diril is located by the stream near the village, the fate of Hürmüz and other names is still uncertain.

 

Enforced disappearance policy in Turkey started with the disappearance of 234 Armenian opinion leaders on April 24, 1915. During the Republic period, the state continued its policy of enforced disappearance, the most well-known being Sabahattin Ali. This practice, which started just before the September 12 military coup and continued until 1990, increased in Kurdish provinces in 2000. According to the data of the Memory Center, 33 in 1980-1990, 17 in 1991, 27 in 1992, 108 in 1993, 532 in 1994, 235 in 1995, 166 in 1996, 87 in 1998, 53 in 1999, 52 in 1999, 28 in 2000 and thereafter were forcibly disappeared. It is not clear when 14 people were disappeared. Of the 500 people that the Memory Center confirmed were missing, 28 were under the age of 18.

On the other hand, Saturday Mothers/People, who have been asking about the fate of their relatives who were forcibly disappeared in Galatasaray Square since May 27, 1995, and continuing their search for truth and justice, made a big voice in the national and international arena against the disappearance policies. The struggle of the Saturday Mothers, who have not withdrawn from the struggle for years, was wanted to be prevented at their 700th meeting dated August 25, 2018. While Galatasaray Square was banned for the mothers, many of them were battered and detained.

İHD İstanbul branch chair Gülseren Yoleri spoke about the policy of disappearance and the struggle against this policy.

 

‘We will remind the state officials of their responsibilities’

 

Stating that they will try to increase social awareness and attract the attention of the authorities within the scope of Disappearances Week in Custody, Gülseren said: “As it is known, the crime of disappearance under custody is committed by state officials. It is in question that people are taken into custody and no news is heard after this detention. The role of the state in committing this crime is clear. Again, the state has an obligation to prevent crime. This is defined in the Constitution and International Conventions. They have serious obligations both in terms of the prohibition of torture, the provision of freedom of person and of course the protection of the right to life. "We will once again call on state officials to remind them of their responsibilities this week.”

Emphasizing that the systematic struggle initiated by the Saturday Mothers in 1995 had an important and positive effect on the prevention of this crime, Gülseren also stated that they will continue to ask the question of ‘what happened’ to the disappeared in terms of confronting the state and society with this crime, ending the policies of impunity, punishing the perpetrators, and revealing the truth. 

 

‘New law should be made on the crime of disappearance’

 

Emphasizing that the definition of "crime against humanity" is made in Turkey’s domestic law, but the crime of "disappearance in custody" is not included in the Criminal Code, Gülseren emphasized that the crime of disappearance in custody should be regulated in the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Pointing out that the authorities should carry out a new law at this point, Gülseren continued her words as follows: “One of the most important points of the policy of impunity is that it ensures that the crime is not repeated. With the declaration of state of emergency in 2016, this crime came up again. Allegations of detention, abduction and disappearance have increased since 2016. Today, there are two people who are reportedly detained and still not heard from. The fate of these people has not been come out yet, considering the data of our association, the reports and the parliamentary questions of the MPs, there are 32 allegations of disappearance in custody, which, although not clear, are reflected in the public opinion. It is seen that 25 of them appeared, but the place where they were held, the way they were kidnapped, and the cases of torture resembled the stories from the 90s.”

 

‘It is not possible to punish the perpetrators in domestic law’

 

Pointing out that it is not possible to punish the perpetrators in domestic law, Gülseren added that it is not possible to make some judicial decisions preventing this crime. She stated that in ECtHR decisions, there are generally both “violation of the right to life” and “no effective investigation” for Turkey. Gülseren said: “While the ECtHR found Turkey guilty and sentenced Turkey for the same events, the files in domestic law were closed with a statute of limitation or acquittal decision due to this incident. As with the Gendarmerie Intelligence and Anti-terror Unit (JİTEM) files. Therefore, we are struggling to make both national and international mechanisms more functional. This means that; We cannot reach a satisfactory result with the legal struggle in domestic law. However, if we do not struggle in domestic law, we will not be able to carry the issues to international law, so we have to pursue an effective litigation or investigation in domestic law. In this sense, applications need to be followed up carefully and in a qualified manner.”

 

‘It can be discussed as the problem of social struggle’

 

Stating that everyone is likely to be subjected to the practice of disappearance, Gülseren said: “I am not trying to say that everyone is disappeared here, but a lost may be your relative, or you can avoid expressing yourself because someone is disappeared. For example; we may not be able to put forward opposing opinions. So, you can prevent yourself from realizing yourself. Therefore, even if you are not directly exposed to this crime, you encounter the effects of it. Today, many of these core issues are struggling with first-degree relatives. Not because we see it right, but it is reality. For example, the fight against disappeared persons in detention is perhaps one of the luckiest struggles. There are not only the relatives of the disappeared but also the solidarity mass that we do not know as the Saturday People. We are talking about a struggle that can be considered lucky today in terms of solidarity and support. For example, relatives of those who lost their lives in workplace homicides, massacre of Suruç, October 10 massacre are more lonely. Now, if you think about all these, unfortunately, there are scenes in which the relatives of the victims are left alone. This can be discussed as a problem of social struggle. But the support given to the struggle for the disappeared under custody is very important and valuable. But it is also essential that this is an even greater support.”

 

Gülseren ended her words as follows: “The emergence of these cases poses a great threat to society and the opposition. It is important that we prevent this crime from being committed, and this is about social struggle. Just like in 1995. The social struggle at that time prevented this crime from being committed, once again we need a social power and sensitivity that can prevent this crime from being committed.”