The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in March 2014 that Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” had been violated, finding that life sentences without parole breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. Similar rulings followed for political prisoners Hayati Kaytan, Emin Gurban, and Civan Boltan.

 

Despite these rulings, Turkey has taken no steps to comply. The Committee of Ministers, responsible for overseeing the implementation of ECHR judgements, reviewed the case several times, first in 2015, then in 2021, and repeatedly urged Turkey to make legislative reforms. The Committee most recently discussed the “Gurban Group” cases in September 2025, granting Turkey yet another deadline until June 2026, while warning that failure to act could result in interim measures. 

 

However, critics argue that the Committee’s leniency reflects political double standards, especially when compared to its firm stance toward Azerbaijan in the Ilgar Mammadov case.

 

THE CASE OF ILGAR MAMMADOV

 

 

In 2014, the ECHR ruled that the imprisonment of Azerbaijani opposition leader Ilgar Mammadov was politically motivated and violated his right to liberty. After years of non-compliance, the Committee of Ministers initiated an “infringement procedure” — the first of its kind — forcing Baku to act. Mammadov was conditionally released in 2018 and fully cleared in 2020. When Azerbaijan continued to violate other human rights obligations, its PACE delegation was suspended in 2024.

 

‘TURKEY COULD FACE THE SAME MEASURES’

 

Co-spokesperson for Foreign Relations of the Peoples' Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) member Berdan Öztürk, who raised the “right to hope” issue during the Council’s last plenary session, said the Committee president avoided addressing Öcalan’s situation directly. He said: “I reminded them that the Council was founded on three principles, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. I asked how they could justify ignoring a ruling that’s been pending for 11 years. The response was evasive. They spoke in generalities but avoided the real issue.”

 

 

Comparing Turkey’s case with Azerbaijan’s, Öztürk argued: “They could easily apply the same sanctions to Turkey, even suspend its membership if necessary. But they choose not to, because of Turkey’s economic and political ties with Europe and its strategic role in NATO.”

 

‘MUTUAL INTERESTS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS’

 

Öztürk said the Committee’s reluctance undermines its credibility: “Their unwillingness to act turns the Council into an institution of double standards. Turkey remains under ‘monitoring,’ yet no effective measure is taken. If the 2014 ruling had been implemented, many political prisoners, including Demirtaş, Yüksekdağ, and Kavala, might not be in prison today.”

 

He added that the Committee’s approach reflects “mutual interests” rather than principles: “They don’t want to upset Turkey but also can’t deny the violations, so they try to find a middle ground. But this weakens the Council’s moral and legal authority.”

 

‘NO EXCUSE LEFT AFTER PKK’S DISSOLUTION’

 

Linking the issue to the ongoing Peace and Democratic Society Process, Öztürk said: “At first, some Council members thought the AKP government had an agreement with the PKK. We explained that it was actually the state acting, and that Öcalan’s influence is undeniable, as seen in the PKK’s decision to dissolve and burn its weapons. This is a historic moment.”

 

He concluded: “Until now, Turkey used the PKK’s existence as an excuse not to act. That excuse no longer exists. The Council now bears full responsibility for ensuring Öcalan’s ‘right to hope’ and physical freedom. If they truly care about democracy and human rights, they must act. We will keep this issue on the international agenda.”

 

MA / Diren Yurtsever