# CE2004078EN.01038001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/380 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/380

---

(2004/C 78 E/0402)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   Trial of Leyla Zana

Subject:

Knowing that:

| — | I have attended the two sessions held so far of the retrial in Ankara of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, who have been in prison for some 10 years serving a sentence passed by a tribunal dismissed as unfair by both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Parliament. I attended the second session of the trial also in my capacity as a member of the ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

I have attended the two sessions held so far of the retrial in Ankara of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, who have been in prison for some 10 years serving a sentence passed by a tribunal dismissed as unfair by both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Parliament. I attended the second session of the trial also in my capacity as a member of the ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament;

| — | apart from the absence of a military judge, there is no difference between this trial and that of 1994; |
| --- | --- |

—

apart from the absence of a military judge, there is no difference between this trial and that of 1994;

| — | the rights of the defence continue to be flagrantly breached. The panel of judges has rejected the request by the defence to introduce new witnesses, i.e. witnesses for the defence, none of whom was allowed to testify in the 1994 trial. Moreover, the defence is not allowed to put questions directly to witnesses — all of whom appear for the prosecution — but must submit questions to the president of the panel of judges, who then puts them to the witnesses with modifications of his own; |
| --- | --- |

—

the rights of the defence continue to be flagrantly breached. The panel of judges has rejected the request by the defence to introduce new witnesses, i.e. witnesses for the defence, none of whom was allowed to testify in the 1994 trial. Moreover, the defence is not allowed to put questions directly to witnesses — all of whom appear for the prosecution — but must submit questions to the president of the panel of judges, who then puts them to the witnesses with modifications of his own;

| — | the president of the court has refused to allow witness statements made in 1994 to be read out in court; |
| --- | --- |

—

the president of the court has refused to allow witness statements made in 1994 to be read out in court;

| — | the panel of judges' meetings in camera take place in the presence of counsel for the prosecution; |
| --- | --- |

—

the panel of judges' meetings in camera take place in the presence of counsel for the prosecution;

| — | policemen armed with assault rifles stand facing the public and the accused in the courtroom, and there are policemen armed with pistols in the public gallery; |
| --- | --- |

—

policemen armed with assault rifles stand facing the public and the accused in the courtroom, and there are policemen armed with pistols in the public gallery;

| — | the trial is not open to the public, but admission is allowed or refused at the discretion of the officials in charge of the heavily manned police cordons posted at the entrances to the court. Finally, at the end of both the first and the second sessions, the court refused to allow the accused to be released, even though the fact that a new trial is being held constitutes an admission that the 1994 trial was unfair. |
| --- | --- |

—

the trial is not open to the public, but admission is allowed or refused at the discretion of the officials in charge of the heavily manned police cordons posted at the entrances to the court. Finally, at the end of both the first and the second sessions, the court refused to allow the accused to be released, even though the fact that a new trial is being held constitutes an admission that the 1994 trial was unfair.

In view of the foregoing would the Commission provide an assessment of these facts, which the Community institutions represented at the trial can corroborate? Does the Commission agree that it should draw the Turkish Government's attention very firmly to the fact that the conduct of this trial is inimical to any prospect of Turkey entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the proceedings in the retrial of the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case. Commission staff have attended the two sessions held so far in Ankara's State Security Court n.1.

The Commission takes note of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the procedures and alleged shortcomings of this case. The Commission is aware that a number of these concerns relate to aspects of judicial proceedings that appear to be common to all trials carried out under State Security Courts in Turkey.

In its recently revised Accession Partnership with Turkey, the European Union stressed the need for Turkey to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the judiciary and called for the alignment of the functioning of State Security Courts with European standards.

The Commission will continue to monitor this case in the light of the above mentioned requirements and will make its overall assessment of the proceedings in due time. The Commission will raise this case with the Turkish authorities in the context of its regular dialogue with Turkey.

---