12 April 1994

Doc. 7067

REPORT

on the arrest and detention of six members

of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 2 and 3 March 1994

(Rapporteur: Mr JURGENS,

Netherlands, Socialist Group)

I. Draft Resolution

1.       The arrest of eight members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, on 2 and 3 March 1994 (two of whom were released on 4 March), immediately raised widespread and deep concern at various political levels in Europe, especially as the detained parliamentarians, in view of the charges brought against them and in accordance with article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, are liable to the death penalty.

2.       Grave concern was voiced by the President of the Assembly in letters which he addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and to the Chairmen of the national parliamentary delegations to the Council of Europe and to the leaders of the Assembly's political groups. His proposal to hold an urgent debate during the April 1994 part-session was taken up by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights at its meeting of 21 March 1994.

3.       The Assembly, once more, wants to express its abhorrence of any terrorist acts, and use of violence, irrespective of by whom it is perpetrated, and very much hopes that the dreadful and bloody conflict in South-eastern Turkey will very soon find a peaceful solution.

4.       However, by making their declarations, the six detained members of the parliament - all of Kurdish origin and members of the DEP Party - did not go beyond using their right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as in the Turkish Constitution.

5.       Thus, the Assembly cannot accept the lifting of the parliamentary immunity, the prosecution, the arrest and subsequent detention of six members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for charges solely based on public statements and written publications of these members claiming the recognition of the existence of a Kurdish identity and advocating forms of (cultural) autonomy for the region which has a population of predominantly Kurdish origin.

6.       In conclusion, the Assembly:

i.       impresses on its Turkish parliamentary delegation and on the Turkish authorities, that the arrest, detention and prosecution of members of the Grand National Assembly for the political views they voice because these views are - in the opinion of these authorities - of a criminal nature, is a possible threat to the very essence of parliamentary democracy, and that such a prosecution - if it is necessary - should be conducted with the greatest concern for parliamentary rights and civil liberties;

ii.       calls on the Turkish authorities to withdraw the existing charges before the State Security Court against the six members of Parliament based on political statements that are allegedly treasonable, as it cannot reasonably be treasonable to advocate constitutional change by parliamentary means;

iii.       calls on the Turkish authorities to withdraw their request before the Constitutional Court to "close" the DEP party on the grounds of treasonable aims (i.e. separatism), this request being solely based on one single document and on two statements which urge changes within the Turkish Constitution, and therefore seem to fall within the limits of free speech, certainly for a parliamentary party;

iv.       calls on the Turkish authorities to make use of the possibility of preparing its case for the prosecution against the six DEP deputies - if the authorities insist on pursuing the prosecution - without holding them in detention, as this makes their work as representatives of the people impossible;

v.       calls on the Turkish authorities to take initiatives for a peaceful and political solution to "the Kurdish question" within its frontiers, including the repeal of all legislation which makes normal political discourse and free speech about specific changes in the Constitution (in this case "the indivisibility of the state") a treasonable offence;

vi.       urges especially its Turkish parliamentary delegation to create a political middle-ground in the Turkish Parliament for a dialogue that recognizes the existence of "the Kurdish question" and seeks a peaceful political solution for it.

II. Explanatory memorandum

by Mr JURGENS

I.       Introduction

1.       At its meeting on 21 March 1994 the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights decided to propose that the matter of the arrest and detention of the six deputies from the DEP (Democratic Party) parliamentary group be brought before the April part-session of the Assembly. At that same meeting the Committee requested me to make a report, if necessary after visiting Ankara to collect information from the authorities and parties concerned in the matter, and from other sources. I beg clemency for any factual mistakes I may have made, due to the very short period I had to write this report and due to translation problems as regards information received in Turkish.

2.       I visited Ankara from 5 to 8 April 1994 and received oral and written information during meetings with:

5 April       - MM Hasip Kaplan, Nuri Özmen and Ismail Arslan, three of the lawyers defending the six deputies.

6 April       - MM Mumtaz Soysal (SHP) and Coskun Kirca (DYP), members of the mixed committee on the Constitution and of Justice of the Parliament.

- Mr Ergün Özbudun, professor of political science and constitutional law at Ankara University.

- MM Akin Birdal, Chairman and Hüsnü Öndül, General Secretary of the Human Rights Association (earlier, on 5 April, I spoke to Mr Abdullah Koç, chairman of the Diyarbakir branch of the Association).

- Mr Yavuz Önen, chairman, and Mr Mahmut Tali Öngören, media coordinator of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey.

7 April       - Mr Sedat Yurtdas, a DEP MP whose immunity has not been lifted although a request to do so has been lodged with the Parliament.

      - Mr Nusret Demiral, public prosecutor of the State Security Court.

- MM Yekta Güngör Özden, president, and Ihsan Peker, member of the Constitutional Court.

- Mr Erdal Inönü (SHP), former deputy prime minister in the present government and now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Parliament.

- Mr Ünsal Öztürk, publisher (YURT) (on his request).

3.       I had been informed by the Turkish Embassy in The Hague that I would not be allowed, on the basis of the Penal Procedure and Detention Law, to speak to any of the detained deputies. An informal request made on my behalf to the Minister of Justice when I was in Ankara made no change in this situation.

II.       DEP and its predecessor HEP

4.       Shortly after the elections of 20 October 1991, by letter of 27 November 1991, a request for lifting of immunity was lodged with parliament, on the initiative of the public prosecutor of the State Security Court, against 22 deputies, all on the basis of article 125 of the Penal Code (high treason, for which only the death sentence can be imposed; for the execution of a death sentence permission of parliament is necessary - no executions have taken place, however, since 1984).

5.       These deputies were members of the political party HEP, which had formed an electoral alliance with the SHP (Social Democratic Peoples Party) in 1991 and therefore belonged to the SHP parliamentary group. By March 1992 18 of these deputies had left the SHP and had returned to the HEP party. On 12 July 1993 a new party, DEP, was founded of which these deputies became members. The DEP can be regarded as a successor party to HEP, which party was forbidden ("closed", as art. 69 of the Constitution calls this measure) by the Constitutional Court on August 14 1993. The deputies in question have their basis mainly in the south-eastern provinces of Turkey that are under a state of emergency, and a large part of the population of which is of Kurdish origin.

6.       Between November 1991 and August 1993 no decision was taken on the request for lifting of immunities. It had been under consideration by the Mixed Committee of parliament, as part of the 190 cases which have been lodged with parliament since 1991 alleging diverse crimes, such as embezzlement, corruption etc. Until 2/3 March 1994 none of these cases did lead to the lifting of the immunity of deputies. But, in the case of the DEP deputies, two years after the charges had been laid before Parliament, the Mixed Committee did - after having heard the deputies in question as to the charges made against them - advise the plenary by majority vote to lift the immunity of seven of the deputies mentioned in the request of 27 November 1991. The procedure is based on the articles 108-111 of the internal rules of the Parliament. (Criteria for not lifting immunity are: the public interest, lack of evidence, lack of importance of the charge).

7.       The plenary meeting decided on 2 and 3 March - with subtle timing, it was three weeks before the municipal elections, in which the DEP had decided not to take part - by majority vote to lift the immunity of the DEP-deputies MM Alinak, Dicle, Dogan, Sadak, Sakik, Türk and Mrs Zana on the charge of high treason (art. 125 Penal Code), and that of the former RP (Islamic Party) member Mr Mezarci on the charge of "insulting Atatürk". On appeal to the Constitutional Court the immunity of deputy Sadak was restored. The other six DEP-members were arrested - some of them even just before parliament had lifted their immunity- and have been detained for interrogation by the public prosecutor of the State Security Court since then.

III.       Treasonable statements?

8.       In the letter of the public prosecutor of 27-11-1991 containing the charges of high treason by the six deputies one is struck by the fact that these charges are based solely on (newspaper reports of) public statements by and on written publications of these deputies, with one exception, that of Mr Dogan, where it is alleged that he has harboured a member of the "PKK terrorist organisation" at his parliamentary lodgings in Ankara. The incriminated public statements are of a political character, claiming - in diverse wordings - the recognition of the existence of a Kurdish identity and advocating forms of regional or cultural autonomy for the region which has a population of predominantly Kurdish origin. (I have been told that roughly fifty percent of the people with such an origin live in the rest of Turkey. In the Parliament there is a large number of members with such an origin who wish to be regarded in the first place as Turks).

9.       Reading the statements as an outside observer with some expertise in constitutional law and civil liberties it is difficult to understand why these political opinions can be regarded as treasonable, with the possible exception of one which could be construed as provocatively condoning a deed of terrorism. It has been explained to me that art. 125 Penal Code is meant to pose a severe sanction on undermining the general principles formulated in the articles 1 to 5 of the Constitution.

10.       Thus "propaganda" which could be construed to undermine "the indivisibility of the state" (art. 3) or "the secular basis of the state" (art. 2) is regarded as treasonable because the unity of the state is being endangered by (Kurdish) separatism and the secular basis of the state by islamic fundamentalism. The charges against the six deputies are that of separatism, defined in art. 125 Penal Code as "separating parts of Turkey from the state". I understand that the state regards advocating regional or cultural autonomy within the state as stimulating such separatism.

IV.       Other evidence

11.       The public prosecutor of the State Security Court claimed during his discussion with me that the statements and declarations are not the only evidence against the six deputies. Allegedly some of them have had contacts by telephone with the PKK-leader Abdullah Öcalan. Tapes allegedly exist of non-terrestrial telephone communications from the PKK-leader which have been tapped (taps of the telephone of the deputies themselves are only possible with the consent of a judge).

12.       Mr Demiral could not explain to me why this evidence was not put before the Parliament, although it was allowed to play a role in the immunity debates, these allegations having been made public. It is possible that the reason is that this evidence was collected after the request to lift immunity had been lodged with parliament (November 1991).

V.       Closure of DEP as a party

13.       Independent of the actions of the State Security Court, the prosecutor general of the Republic filed a petition before the Constitutional Court on 2.12.1993 for the "closure" of the DEP as a party, on similar grounds (advocating separatism) which led to the closure of HEP in August 1993. The basis for such a closure is to be found in articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution, and the law on political parties of 1983.

14.       The case is pending before the Constitutional Court and a decision is expected around 1 June 1994. If the case against the Party is proved, permanent closure is mandatory under art. 69. The consequence of "closure" is that the party ceases to exist in a legal sense, and that all its parliamentarians ipso iure lose their seats as deputies - and therefore also their immunities.

15.       The charge against DEP is, like those against the deputies, based only on public statements, in this case three: the "Declaration by the Democracy Party: Peace Now" (see Appendix) at its founding in august 1993 takes a central position, the other two being speeches made by the chairman of the party, Mr Yasar Kaya, in Bonn (Germany) on 29 May 1993 and in Erbil (Iraq) on 15 August 1993.

16.       In these declarations and speeches all mentions of a Kurdish question, of solving this question according to the CSCE process and the Paris Charter, of a Kurdish "nation" or people, of the right to cultural autonomy for the Kurdish language, are construed in the charges as being treasonably separatist. Speaking of "a war in Northern-Kurdistan" and demanding a ceasefire between the state and "the armed bandits named PKK" is also regarded as treasonable.

17.       It is of importance to note that the "closure" of the HEP in August 1993 was also based solely on statements and speeches, in this case by the HEP-secretary-general Mr Fehmi Işiklar, all claiming a Kurdish identity within Turkey.

18.       I would like to stress that it seems - from a point of view of parliamentary democracy - illogical to disband and forbid a party for wanting to bring about changes in the constitution by parliamentary means, in this case with a view to recognize the Turkish Kurds as a regional minority. A case for forbidding a party could be made when it can be shown that the party pursues these aims by criminal means. But such charges are not before the Constitutional Court. (Government sources, however, such as the chief of the general staff, Mr Güres, repeatedly allege that the DEP is "the political arm of the PKK". Such allegations have not been proved in a court of law. How dangerous such allegations can become for the deputies concerned is shown by a long list of harassments and assaults against these deputies and against DEP-members (reported, among many other sources, in the report of the Committee of Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the IPU, March 1994, CL/154/13a), culminating in the assassination of deputy Mr Mehmet Sincar in broad daylight in his constituency by unknown assailants, while his police escort had been inexplicably withdrawn.)

19.       I am not alone in this conclusion. The Committee on Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, after receiving information on the arrest of the DEP-deputies and after hearing the Turkish delegation to the 91st Inter-Parliamentary Conference (Paris, 21-26 March 1994) expresses itself in the same vein in its report in which it states, in paragraph 9, that it does not understand how the declarations of the members of parliament concerned may be considered as an attack on the integrity of the State and that it would like to have clarifications on this subject.

VI.       The public atmosphere in Turkey

20.       It is not reasonably possible to form an objective opinion on the facts that were put before me, and to weigh the opinions expressed to me, without taking into account the prevailing public atmosphere in Turkey as to "the Kurdish question".

21.       The political violence that started with terrorist acts for which the PKK admits or claims responsibility since 1984, and that has escalated due to the massive counter-measures by the army and by continuing terrorist acts, also outside of south-east Turkey (such as that at the Tuzla/Istanbul train station in February, and as recently as 4 April in the bazar of Istanbul), has poisoned the public atmosphere to an extent that it seems that political dialogue on this issue is hardly possible any more, as the necessary political middle-ground is not allowed to exist. This polarization leads to accusing any advocacy of regional autonomy by political, and therefore normal constitutional means, as forms of abetting terrorism or terrorist acts, only because the perpetrators of such acts claim to serve similar but more radical aims, though by means of acts of violence and intimidation that are quite dissimilar.

22.       It is quite clear that terrorism cannot be accepted. Systematic political intimidation by the use, or threat of the use, of violence is against basic principles of our civilization. History also shows (IRA in Britain, RAF in Germany, ETA in Spain, Red Brigades in Italy, etc) that acts of terrorism perpetrated within a democratic constitutional state tend to put the respect for the rule of law and of civil liberties under severe pressure.

23.       The reports, for example, of Amnesty International (Feb. 1994), of the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights (1993), of the Turkish Association for Human Rights (passim), of the U.S. Government to the U.S. Senate (on 1993) all show evidence of a "dirty war" between the state and the PKK in south-east Turkey, the thousands of victims of which are mainly to be found amongst innocent citizens caught between the two fires.

24.       It seems as if it has become impossible to halt this escalation by political means. As far as I have been able to ascertain, of the platforms of the major political parties (DYP, ANAP and SHP) only that of SHP - now in government coalition with DYP) expressly recognizes "the Kurdish question" and advocates a solution through political rather than military means, whilst of course supporting the prosecution of acts of terrorism. The DEP declaration (annex) gives the impression to wish the same. But a majority of politicians seems to expect a military solution for the terrorist problem, and is only willing to talk about political solutions afterwards, and even then these may not endanger the indivisibility of the state nor recognize other minorities than the non-Muslim religions accepted in the 1922 Treaty of Lausanne. The law on political parties expressly forbids parties advocating regionalism or racism and even forbids suggesting that there are ethnic minorities (articles 81 and 82). I have encountered strong, sometimes very emotional feelings on this subject.

VII.       The quality of the legal basis for the charges against DEP

25.       In this report I would like - with as much understanding as possible for the problems Turkey faces in its confrontation with terrorism - to concentrate on the quality of the laws and procedures applied to the matter of DEP and its six detained deputies. It is incumbent upon the Council of Europe to compare these laws with the standards of constitutional practice and of human rights recognized within our common democratic heritage.

      a)       The lifting of the immunities

26.       This is a decision of the Parliament, and therefore politically motivated within the rules governing the matter.

      - One can be surprised that, although art. 83 of the Constitution gives deputies - in addition to the freedom of expression art. 26 gives to all citizens - special immunity for statements made in and their repetition outside parliament, immunity has been lifted although the charges are, with one exception, matters of statement and therefore of free and immune speech.

      - One can be surprised that in no other of the 190 cases since 1991 - mostly not relating to free speech - immunity has been lifted.

      - One can be surprised that deputies can be prosecuted for crimes after the immunity has been lifted, which crimes appear not to have been part of the charges brought before the Parliament and are not really related to the crime for which the immunity has been lifted, as Turkish penal procedure specifies.

27.       But as long as the procedures that exist have been followed more or less faithfully, lifting of immunity remains a political decision.

      b)       The legal basis for the prosecution

28.       The question therefore is: are the laws on which the charges are based acceptable?

It is on this point that I have serious doubts, especially as to the articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution. Art.4 makes the preceding articles concerning the basic elements of the state unalterable, and art.14 opens broad possibilities for laws limiting the use of fundamental freedoms if these are used to try to change these elements.

29.       This leads, in the case in point, to the conclusion that to advocate - by parliamentary means, and therefore by the right of free association and free speech - a change in the constitution can become a serious felony, even though a more liberal interpretation of the tenet of indivisibility of the state would not have to lead to regarding forms of (cultural) autonomy for regional ethnic minorities - like many member states of the Council do so recognize - as destructive for that indivisibility.

30.       In Turkey the limitation of civil liberties, especially free speech, is much broader than the case of the DEP and its deputies. The amount of prosecutions against book publishers, newspapers, journalists and private citizens who express themselves about "the Kurdish question" - even in the most innocent way, like in scientific publications on Kurdish names for plants - is large and the punishments severe. For example, the Turkish Human Rights Foundation, and also his publisher, Mr Özturk, have given me a file on the writer Ismail Besikci, who has spent thirteen years in prison since 1971 for his publications. Another eighty trials against him are pending. Mr Özturk is also waiting for a definitive court decision in a prosecution against him as publisher. Some 68 writers and journalists are at this moment in jail for such offenses.

31.       These prosecutions give the impression of a veritable paranoia on the part of the state as to public pronouncements and publications on a matter that is officially deemed to be non-existent, but which all the same seems to be able to produce bridles on the freedom of speech and of the press that undermine Turkish democracy. What is happening to the DEP and its deputies seems to be only one part of a much broader suppression of civil liberties.

32.       It may be superfluous to say that my remarks do not apply to publications that clearly incite to violence, racism or other criminal acts, or that condone such acts.

33.       Of course it is the obligation of any government to defend the integrity of the state. But which democratic state, under the rule of law, needs to defend itself by making a normal political discussion of a constitutional issue practically impossible? Is it not for the voters to decide the result of such a discussion, if this leads to proposals, instead of the government stifling the discussion?

34.       Mr Marc Galle, the member of the European Parliament who made a report on the matter of the DEP deputies for the EP after visiting Ankara within a week after the detention of the deputies, writes about high civil servants, of whom he quotes public prosecutor Demiral as an impressive personality, who "watch with a morbid ambition over the application of a constitution ... that conserves anti-democratic elements..."

35.       The authorities have put to me that the legislation limiting fundamental freedoms to preserve the basic tenets of the constitution are "necessary in a democratic society", as Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention puts it. I fail to see how the factual suppression of political discussion on an element of the Constitution, i.e. the indivisibility and integrity of the state versus regional or cultural autonomy or the recognition of an ethnic minority, can reasonably be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. It is of great importance that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe finds means to open a dialogue on this subject with its Turkish colleagues and friends.

VIII.       Conclusions

36.       It is clear from my previous remarks that the case of the six detained DEP deputies must be seen against the background of a lack of legally permissible political discourse on 'the Kurdish question' because of the overbroad interpretation given to art. 125 of the Penal Code, art. 81 of the Law on political parties and the Anti-terrorism Law of 1991, greatly exacerbated since 1984 by growing acts of terrorism and by intensified counter-terrorist measures. This escalation has cost thousands of lives and caused misery for tens of thousands in the region and in the rest of Turkey, thereby poisoning the political atmosphere in the country.

37.       The charges against the Six will within months be brought before the State Security Court. If the Constitutional Court 'closes' the DEP by its decision (that is expected around 1 June 1994) the other DEP deputies will lose their seats and could very well also be prosecuted, having then all lost their immunity. No time must therefore be lost before intervening in this matter in the name of our common democratic heritage under the rule of law.

What can the Parliamentary Assembly do?

38.       It could express its grave concern about the matter , and specifically it could

a)       impress on its Turkish parliamentary delegation and on the Turkish authorities, that the arrest, detention and prosecution of members of the Grand National Assembly for the political views they voice because these views are - in the opinion of these authorities - of a criminal nature, is a possible threat to the very essence of parliamentary democracy, and that such a prosecution - if it is necessary - should be conducted with the greatest concern for parliamentary rights and civil liberties;

b)       call on the Turkish authorities to withdraw the existing charges before the State Security Court against the six members of Parliament based on political statements that are allegedly treasonable, as it cannot reasonably be treasonable to advocate constitutional change by parliamentary means;

c)       call on the Turkish authorities to withdraw their request before the Constitutional Court to "close" the DEP party on the grounds of treasonable aims (i.e. separatism), this request being solely based on one single document and on two statements which urge changes within the Turkish Constitution, and therefore seem to fall within the limits of free speech, certainly for a parliamentary party;

d)       call on the Turkish authorities to make use of the possibility of preparing its case for the prosecution against the six DEP deputies - if the authorities insist on pursuing the prosecution - without holding them in detention, as this makes their work as representatives of the people impossible;

e)       call on the Turkish authorities to take initiatives for a peaceful and political solution to "the Kurdish question" within its frontiers, including the repeal of all legislation which makes normal political discourse and free speech about specific changes in the Constitution (in this case "the indivisibility of the state") a treasonable offence;

f)       urge especially its Turkish parliamentary delegation to create a political middle-ground in the Turkish Parliament for a dialogue that recognizes the existence of "the Kurdish question" and seeks a peaceful political solution for it.

APPENDIX

Declaration by the Democracy Party: Peace Now!

      It is impossible to solve the problems of Turkey by anti-democratic measures. Today, we are undergoing a war which is not declared and named, in our country.

      Both the Kurdish and Turkish people have paid heavily the cost of this dirty war in which norms of international law are obviously violated.

      Everyday, 30 people are killed in the war. During the warfare, 17.700 people have been killed. 400 villages and hamlets are totally or partially burned and emptied. Forests and historical monuments are demolished. Millions of people have been forced to leave their native lands in mass migrations and exiles. A huge amount of money which is taken from our poor people has been spent for this dirty war.

      Workers, Human Rights and Peace Activists:

      The people who have been killed in both sides are our own brothers. Our poor people are forced to pay all the costs of this war.

      We should recognise that this dirty war and killing so many human beings would not solve the Kurdish question. The militarist policy has been carried out for 70 years. What have the state authorities achieved? Nothing. If it were possible to solve the Kurdish question by the policies of mass murders, exiles and rejection of the Kurdish identity, it would have been solved now.

      The question is not "a question of economic backwardness and terror". It is a political question; it is the kurdish question.

      Therefore: No more murders. No more bloodshed. The war costs human lives, economic destruction; it costs our democratic rights and liberties. Peace Now! It is time to debate political methods to solve the question.

      You are losing your rights and liberties, and this is legitimated by the discourses of "national consensus" and "the threat against the nation's integrity". You need not pay this unbearable cost. We should say "stop" together. It is a duty for humanity to take stance for peace. Against the total war, we should launch total peace. It is our very vital right to live in an atmosphere of peace, liberty and equality. We should defend our rights and liberties. We cannot simply surrender our bread, our liberties, brotherhood and our human rights to the partisans of war. They are but a few. We have the power to stop them. We can manage ending the bloodshed and our suffering. Our power lies in our unity; this power would make us able to solve our problems.

      For this aim, first guns must be made silent. The PKK and the state should pronounce cease-fire, and observe the conditions of the ceasefire. The ceasefire should be controlled and observed by a neutral arbiter.

      A radical and viable solution can be found in a peaceful and democratic ground. The basic principle is equality between the peoples. In a democratic atmosphere, in which the Kurdish identity with all its implications, in which the right to express opinion and to organise can be used without exception, we can be able to solve our questions together.

      In order to achieve the peace and make it viable:

      (1)       The state authorities should be ready to negotiate with the legitimate, elected representatives of the Kurdish people;

      (2)       In accordance with the sociological reality of Turkey, the Kurdish identity should be recognised with all implications, and be secured in the Constitution and legal framework;

      (3)       Turkey should withdraw its reservations she put forward in international treaties and conventions to which she is a party, and take the necessary steps forward to solve the Kurdish question in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter;

      (4)       The Kurdish people must be able to express itself in a modern sense, and be able to utilise and develop its national language, culture and arts;

      (5)       The right to education in native language, to broadcast and publish in Kurdish must be recognised;

      (6)       Democratic conditions under which the Kurdish question and all similar questions can be freely debated is an immediate necessity;

      (7)       The regime of the State of Emergency with its entire institutions and applications should be abandoned;

      (8)       Special War Teams should be withdrawn from the region;

      (9)       "Unsolved murders" should be solved; countergorilla teams and death squads should be deciphered and eliminated;

      (10)       The village guard system should be dissolved;

      (11)       The Anti-terror Act should be abandoned;

      (12)       A general amnesty law which would remove the consequences of the 12 September 1990 Coup d'Etat should be enacted;

      (13)       A fair electoral system should be established, and conditions for free organisation should be provided;

      (14)       The villages and hamlets which are emptied or destroyed should be restored, and the village peoples who suffered should be compensated;

      (15)       The necessary steps for improving the economic situation of the region should be taken;

      (16)       The original names of the villages, hamlets and towns should be restored.

      We invite the masses who have no interests in the war to support our call for peace. Peace first, and peace now! It is our vital interest to achieve a viable peace and democracy. We should defend our right to live in a humane way together.

      Unite:

      - for brotherhood of peoples!

      - Stop the guns, stop the bloodshed.

      - For a democratic solution to the Kurdish question, and against the military "solution"!

      Join our ranks!

      Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

      Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none

      Reference to committee: Orders 478 (1992) and 485 (1993)

      Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 12 April 1994 with 26 votes in favour, 1 against and 6 abstentions

      Members of the Committee: Lord Kirkhill (Chairman), MM Schwimmer, Jansson, (Vice-Chairmen), Amaral, Andriukaitis (Alternate: Bobelis), Arnalds, Bentkowski, Berti, Bindig, Borg, Bučar, Candal, Columberg, Croze, Deasy, Espersen, Fogaš (Alternate: Fico), Franck, Frunda, Fry, Fuhrmann, Galanos, Guenov, Guzzetti, Hagård, Mrs Haller, Mrs Holand, MM Hunault, Inönü, Mrs Jaani, MM Jaskiernia, Karas, Karcsay, Kempinaire, Mrs Lentz-Cornette (Alternate: Mrs Err), MM Loutfi (Alternate: Gotzev), van der Maelen, Maginas, Polli, Rathbone, Robles Fraga (Alternate: Lopez Henares), Rodotà, Rokofyllos, von Schmude, Severin, Mrs Soutendijk-van Appeldoorn (Alternate: Mr Jurgens), MM Soysal, Stoffelen, Tabajdi, Trojan, Vinçon, Vogel, Mrs Wohlwend, Mr Zapatero.

      N.B. The names of those members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.

      Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Coin and Ms Kleinsorge.