Türk and Tuğluk testify after removal of their immunity

The Ankara 11th High Criminal Court on Tuesday ordered security forces to apprehend pro-Kurdish politicians Türk, Tuğluk, Selahattin Demirtaş and Emine Ayna and bring them to court to give testimony in cases filed against them.

The court cases against the deputies have been under way for years, and the decision was just the latest chapter in the court's quest to force deputies and party officials to testify before the court despite their parliamentary immunity.

According to the Constitution, if a deputy is charged with a crime “against the indivisibility of the state,” the trial may proceed despite their immunity. But the law is not explicit as to which crimes are against the indivisibility of the state.

The pro-Kurdish deputies had declared that as long as they had immunity they would not go to court to give their testimony. But after the removal of their immunity, Tuğluk and Türk went to court and testified. Meanwhile, in the opinion on the closure of the DTP, the Constitutional Court stated, “No democratic system would tolerate actions and discourses that try to justify and prepare the ground for acts of terror.”

After the publication of the opinion, Tuğluk, Türk and 35 others Kurdish politicians have been banned from politics for five years. They will not be allowed to join any political party during this time.

One of the people banned from politics is Leyla Zana, a former deputy and recipient of several human rights awards, including one from the European Parliament. The Constitutional Court stated that Zana and Hilmi Aydoğdu from the executive committee of the Diyarbakır branch of the DTP were not allowed to join political parties but became members of the DTP despite the warnings of the Supreme Court of Appeals, leaving only when the closure case was launched against the party.

The decision regarding Zana was controversial because DTP officials said she was banned from politics despite not being a member of the DTP and that her actions were considered as evidence in the closure case. DTP officials said the situation with Zana is a good example of the prejudgment of the Constitutional Court.

The opinion published on Thursday stated that in several meetings of the party, acts took place promoting the terror organization, but party officials did nothing to prevent these acts. “This is evidence that the party is connected to the terror organization,” the opinion stated. The court also underlined that it examined the statements of party officials, which showed their political affiliation with the terrorist PKK.

For example, Türk, during a press conference on Jan. 28, 2006, praised the role of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, in the Kurdish problem and Turkey’s membership talks with the European Union. In the same speech, he described the prison conditions of the terrorist leader as “isolation.”

According to Constitutional Court, these actions are evidence of the political affiliation of the party with the leader of the terror organization.

According to Constitutional Court, the refusal of DTP officials, including Türk, to denounce terror is further evidence showing this link.

In a similar move, Tuğluk said during a meeting on May 16, 2006 that some segments of society perceive members of the PKK as heroes, so DTP officials cannot label them terrorists.

In another statement, Tuğluk called members of the terrorist organization “brothers” and stated that the PKK is fighting for the freedom of the Kurdish people, their honor and their culture, which was considered by the Constitutional Court as evidence of ties to the terror organization. The court also stated that Zana mentioned in a meeting that Öcalan is the leader of Kurds and said his capture abroad is a regrettable event, describing this discourse as promotion of the terrorist cause and its leader. The opinion also stated that it is not acceptable to exploit democratic rights and freedoms in order to endanger the indivisibility of the state and the nation.

“In this case, preventing the abuse of rights and freedoms is the main duty and reason d’être of the state. The continuation of a political party that gives and receives support from terror is not acceptable in accordance with the Constitution,” the court stated.

It also argued that although political parties are indispensible parts of democracy, they should also act responsibly.

The Constitutional Court stated that while it is giving its opinion it took into account rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and international standards as well as the positions of the Venice Commission, which regulates political parties, and according these norms, political parties should not employ and should not justify violence, and if they do, it is reasonable to close them.

The Constitutional Court also mentioned the decision of the European court on Batasuna, the ETA’s political arm, which was banned in Spain in accordance with the 2002 Political Parties Law, and the decision was approved by the European court.

Türk after giving his testimony on Thursday said he would apply to the European court regarding the closure of the DTP.