NEWS CENTER - Kariane Westrheim, stating that the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers granting Turkey additional time for Abdullah Öcalan’s “right to hope” will undermine its authority, said, “His freedom and participation are essential not only for justice but for lasting peace, democracy, and stability.”

 

The recognition of the “right to hope” for Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, accepted as the chief negotiator for the progression of the Peace and Democratic Society Process, and the provision of his physical freedom remains a key demand. 

 

The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decision that Öcalan’s “right to hope” has been violated and must be implemented has not yet been carried out. Most recently, in September 2025, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers convened and granted Turkey until June to implement the decision.

 

Prof. Dr. Kariane Westrheim, member of the University of Bergen in Norway and Chair of the European Union Civil Commission for Turkey (EUTCC), who has participated in various campaigns for the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan and has made appeals to international figures and institutions, provided an evaluation to our agency regarding the “right to hope.”

 

'THE INITIATIVE FACES THE RISK OF BEING MERELY SYMBOLIC'

 

Evaluating the historic February 27 call as a cautious opening, Kariane Westrheim stated, “The call revived expectations for de-escalation and political dialogue in Turkey, particularly by emphasizing democratic reform, legal guarantees, and a shift from security-centered policies to political solutions.” Kariane Westrheim noted that subsequently there have been limited discussions in the public about legal developments and institutional regulations, and due to the process lacking a transparent roadmap, official negotiation mechanisms, and confidence-building measures, it is fragile.

 

Kariane Westrheim said: “Without concrete measures—such as improvements in legal safeguards, broader political participation, and clarity on conflict-related issues, the initiative risks remaining symbolic, with its sustainability dependent on whether both state institutions and political actors translate the initial call into structured and verifiable reforms.”

 

PARLIAMENT REPORT

 

Noting that the parliamentary commission's report was very limited, Kariane Westrheim said: “Its main results were facilitating dialogue among political parties, gathering testimonies from civil society and experts, and outlining general recommendations on democratisation, rights, and disarmament. It also maintained the general rhetoric around the PKK and a terror-free Turkey. In this sense, it reinforced a destructive rhetoric rather than establishing a conciliatory, welcoming tone. The Commission also did not generate binding decisions, a clear roadmap for negotiations, or enforceable legal reforms, and its work remained advisory at best. As a result, its impact on de-escalation and institutional change was very modest, and the process did not develop into a lasting parliamentary-led peace framework that would result in a roadmap for future negotiations.”

 

THE AUTHORITIES APPROACHES TO THE CONTACTS

 

Kariane Westrheim stated that Abdullah Öcalan has limited meetings and messages due to the conditions he is in, and that this indicates that the state's isolation policy has not undergone a structural change. “The authorities in Turkey appear to be managing contact in a controlled and instrumental way, allowing communication when it serves the needs of the broader political process, while maintaining the underlying restrictions. This indicates that the state is treating their engagement as a tactical tool rather than adopting a principled shift toward regularised access, transparency, and legally grounded communication,” she said. 

 

Kariane Westrheim noted that continuing isolation through selective meetings without an official change provides flexibility to the state but creates uncertainty regarding the seriousness and sustainability of the process.

 

‘ÖCALAN'S FREEDOM ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY AND STABILITY' 

 

Recalling the letter sent to the EC by the Left Party in the European Parliament, Kariane Westrheim recalled the "right to hope" in the letter and stated that Abdullah Öcalan is the chief negotiator for peace and democratic self-government in the region. Kariane Westrheem continued: "The party continue to say that Mr. Öcalan is a principal negotiator for peace and democratic self-governance in the region. His freedom and participation are essential not only for justice but for lasting peace, democracy, and stability. Despite Mr. Öcalan’s move to another building on the island, there is little indication of more structural changes. Mr. Öcalan should be given full access to his lawyers, he should also be able to receive international visitors he wants to talk to and of course his family must be able to visit him regularly. This has not happened yet and there is therefore little indication that the authorities will follow up on the decision of the ECHR and the Right to Hope. This has direct consequences for the already fragile peace process, if you can call it that."

 

‘TOLERANCEFOR NON-IMPLEMENTATION’

 

Noting that giving Turkey additional time by the Council of Europe could undermine its authority, Kariane Westrheim said, "Granting additional time can be justified to encourage compliance through dialogue, but when deadlines are repeatedly missed without consequences, it signals tolerance for non-implementation. Turkey’s continued failure to act despite these extensions reinforces the perception that political considerations are outweighing enforcement, weakening both the credibility of the Council’s supervisory mechanisms and the deterrent effect of its decisions. The question then is what the CoE will do if the deadline is not met. In the past, it has been responded by granting a new deadline. If it repeats this, the Kurds and all those people around the globe who believe in justice and respect for the rule of law, and who trust the Council, will lose faith that the CoE wants to act on this matter at all.”

 

'THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SANCTIONS DEPENDS ON POLITICAL WILL'

 

Kariane Westrheim stated that the CoE is reluctant to invest in Turkey and added: “There is also concern that sanctions could harden positions and reduce cooperation. Whether they will be applied if Turkey fails to act by June depends on political will among member states; the legal tools exist, but their use will hinge on whether governments conclude that continued non-compliance poses a greater risk to the system’s credibility than the diplomatic costs of enforcement.”

 

RESPONSES TO THE LETTERS

 

Kariane Westrheim, noting that the responses to letters sent to international institutions and individuals requesting the physical freedom of Abdullah Öcalan were quite limited, said the following regarding the responses received: “We have received only two reply letters to the appeals of the 88 Nobel laureates - one from the CPT in October 2025 which states that they are still following the case of Mr. Öcalan closely and the other prisoners on Imrali. No concrete promises are given in accordance with the Right to Hope. There was also a written reply to the same letter from the Swiss State secretariat, Peace and Human Rights Division (20.08.25) which stated that ‘Switzerland considers that the implementation of the Court's judgments in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey is part of this effort. These judgments go beyond prison conditions and pertain to fundamental rights such as the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial. Switzerland will continue to promote respect for human rights and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment – in Türkiye and across the globe.’ In reality, neither of these letters provides any answers or refers to concrete measures to get Turkey to respect the ECHR rulings. These general responses offer little hope for change. I think that several recipients of the letter will probably agree that Turkey is not fulfilling its obligations as a member state of the CoE or as a state seeking membership in the EU, but the decision to take concrete action or impose sanctions is a long way from being made by the various EU bodies.”

 

INTERNATIONAL ATTITUDE

 

Kariane Westrheim, noting that the stages of the international community's approach to the “right to hope” and solitary confinement in Turkey are shaped by pressure, legal oversight, and political caution, stated that institutions are clear that life sentences and solitary confinement would violate fundamental human rights, but in practice, the process remains slow and limited to dialogue. Kariane Westrheim noted that this passive stance towards Turkey is a trend seen among all political actors who interact with officials in Turkey, stating that Europe’s approach reflects a balance between protecting principled human rights and geopolitical concerns.

 

Looking at the overall situation, Kariane Westrheim stated that a process characterized by cautious signals rather than structural change is being felt, noting that although decisions and Abdullah Öcalan’s calls created a field of debate, they did not lead to political reforms and institutional guarantees by Turkey. Westrheim also said that the cautious approach of the CoE and other European actors, even with diplomatic channels open, was not of decisive importance, and she noted that the commission established in the Parliament remained more of a cautious advisory body rather than transformative. 

 

 

'WE SENSE A FRAGILE AND REVERSIBLE PROCESS'

 

Kariane Westrheim concluded: “We sense a fragile and reversible process shaped by political caution on all sides to such an extent that nothing of significance happens. Limited contacts and periodic dialogue may have prevented complete stagnation, but the absence of a transparent plan, enforceable commitments, confidence-building measures, and, not least, eventually a third party, has limited progress in the process. Without institutionalization through legal and political reforms, regularized communication, and a clearly defined negotiating framework – these initiatives risk remaining symbolic, making peaceful and democratic normalization uncertain and dependent on shifting political calculations rather than lasting change.”

 

MA / Hivda Celebi