Diyarbakır Prison

After the military coup of 12 September 1980, the generals abolished parliament, suspended the Constitution and banned all political parties and trade unions, and most other organizations.[8] Until the return of a democratic government in 1984,[9] visits of civilians to prisoners, by family members as well as lawyers of the defense was prohibited.[10] Tens of thousands of men and women were taken into custody. More than 30,000 were jailed in the first four months after the coup. During the following years, Amnesty International received thousands of allegations of torture including reports of over 100 deaths as a result of torture.[8] Diyarbakır Prison became one of the most lasting symbols of the coup due to the reports of hundreds of prisoners being subjected to torture and execution.[11] At the time, it was not allowed to speak in another language than Turkish, a rule, which was also upheld during visits, and Kurds were thought to be turkified.[12] Inmates were obliged to memorize the Turkish national anthem and other Turkish nationalist songs.[12]

Among Diyarbakır's better-known inmates are Democratic Society Party (DTP) leader Ahmet Turk; former DTP deputies Nurettin Yılmaz,[13] Celal Paydaş, and Mustafa Çakmak; former mayor Mehdi Zana; Kurdish writer and intellectual Orhan Miroğlu; and Kurdish poet Yılmaz Odabaşı. Bedii Tan,[14] the father of Kurdish writer Altan Tan lost his life in this prison as a result of torture.[15]

On 24 September 1996 special team members, gendarmes and prison warders stormed Diyarbakır Prison killing 10 inmates and wounding 46 prisoners[31] The prisoners Erhan Hakan Perişan, Cemal Çam, Hakkı Tekin, Ahmet Çelik, Edip Derikçe, Mehmet Nimet Çakmak, Rıdvan Bulut, Mehmet Kadri Gümüş, Kadri Demir and Mehmet Aslan were killed.[31] There are conflicting reports as to what really happened on that day in Diyarbakır Prison. The press accounts have produced scenarios that accord with the government's version of events. Some say that there was an uprising in the prison. Others note that the inmates wanted to visit the women's section of the jail.[32] The delegation concluded "that the authorities in the government had prior knowledge of this incident and in fact some of them took part in its implementation."[32]

According to the Secretary of the Diyarbakır Medical Association, Dr. Necdet İpekyüz, the followings happened:[32]

"Of the 33 victims, 10 were dead. Ten injured ones were treated in Diyarbakır State Hospital and 13 injured inmates were transferred to Gaziantep State Hospital. All killings were the result of head injuries. On the day of the incident, two prison guards visited the hospital at about 10 am. They had very light bruises. The doctors on duty did not know why these guards were sent to the hospital for such minor things. Just before the attack on the inmates, the hospital staff received a call from the district attorney's office. The staff was told to be ready for an emergency to receive a large group of injured inmates."[32]

The incident was investigated by different groups and the public prosecutor. The Parliamentary Human Rights Commission stressed that "30 soldiers and 38 police officers, who exceeded the limits of their authority, had caused deaths."[31] An investigation was launched against the prisoners who were attacked, beaten and wounded in Diyarbakır Prison. In the investigation launched against 23 prisoners, who were wounded in the attack, upon the instruction by Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor İbrahim Akbaş, the prisoners were accused of "damaging the state property and mutiny."[31] In the investigation against the soldiers and police officers on duty the prosecution office gave a decision of non-prosecution under the Law on Prosecution of Civil Servants. The prosecution office alleged that "the soldiers and police officers tried not to inflict suffering on the prisoners."[31]

The Parliamentary Human Rights Commission, stating that the prisoners were beaten to death, applied to the Prime Ministry and Ministries of Justice and Interior, demanding that 29 soldiers and 38 police officers be prosecuted. Upon this, Diyarbakır Provincial administrative Board decided on the prosecution of the security officers. Diyarbakır Public Prosecution Office, in January 1997, launched a trial against 65 people, 35 of whom are police officers and 30 soldiers.[31]

The number of defendants increased to 72 defendants, but did not conclude until 2006. After the case had been transferred to Diyarbakır Criminal Court No. 2 a verdict was reached in the 59th hearing in February 2006. The Court sentenced 62 defendants first to 18 years' imprisonment for responsibility into more than one death. For various reasons the sentences were reduced to six years' imprisonment and for good conduct to five years and three months' imprisonment. The other defendants were acquitted or dropped because of the statute of limitation.[33]

The verdict was quashed by the Court of Cassation ruling that the defendants had to be given the opportunity to plead, on changed charges[34] and had to be heard again. On 30 September 2009 Diyarbakır Heavy Penal Court No. 3 went on hearing the case again.[35]

On 20 May 2010 the European Court of Human Rights passed its verdict in the case of Perisan and Others v. Turkey (application no. 12336/03)[36] The incident is described as:

The applicants and the Government presented differing accounts of the events. According to the applicants, following scuffles between two prisoners and the chief warder during a long wait by a group of prisoners to enter the visiting room, police officers and gendarmes armed with truncheons and batons had beaten the offending prisoners and their fellow inmates, in some cases to death. According to the Government, a riot had taken place that morning and prisoners armed with a variety of metal objects (taps, radiator pipes, lead piping, etc.) had attacked the warders.

The operation left 33 prisoners injured and 27 gendarmes with minor injuries. In December 1996, criminal proceedings were started against various members of the prison staff and against 65 gendarmes and police officers.[36]

The Court ruled:

The Government's contention that the force used had been in response to an attack by prisoners armed with dangerous implements (taps, radiator pipes, lead piping, etc.) was undermined by the fact that the injuries sustained by the gendarmes had been localised and minor. It further considered that the force used against the prisoners, which had led to the deaths of eight of them, had not been "absolutely necessary" within the meaning of Article 2. There had therefore been a breach of that Article in respect of the prisoners who died.[36]