Rengin Ergül, lawyer and member MAF-DAD , discusses the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ decision on “right to hope” in Turkey
Following its quarterly meeting on human rights from September 15 to 17, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, which had given Turkey one year to implement the “Right to Hope” in the case of Abdullah Öcalan, Hayati Kaytan, Emin Gurban, and Civan Boltan, gave Turkey another deadline and requested information by the end of June 2026.
The Committee’s provisional decision regarding Turkey has sparked reactions in legal circles.
Lawyer Rengin Ergül, a member of the Association for Democracy and International Law (MAF-DAD), described both the language and the messages contained in the decision as a “weak and evasive” approach.
No condemnation, no threat of sanctions
Rengin Ergül stated that the language used by the Committee would not create any pressure on Turkey, saying: “The Committee does not use harsh language. There is no condemnation, no threat of sanctions. It only expresses regret and makes a call. However, for the calls to be effective, it should have been clearly stated that sanctions would be imposed if they were not complied with.”
‘The Committee had delegated its own responsibility to the Commission’
Criticizing the Committee’s suggestion to make use of the “terror-free Turkey” initiative and the recently established “National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission”, Ergül stated that the Committee had delegated its own responsibility to another party, saying:
“The emphasis on the Commission is certainly important; pressure can be exerted through this channel henceforth. However, since the Committee failed to fulfill its own duty and referred the matter to the Commission, this situation is seen as ‘throwing the ball out of bounds’. If the Committee had taken a stronger stance, this emphasis would have been more meaningful.”
‘The phrase “terror-free Turkey” is problematic’
Rengin Ergül noted that the phrase “terror-free Turkey” in the Committee’s provisional decision was striking, calling this rhetoric problematic: “This concept is disturbing. Although it was chosen to underscore the current process, it stands on shaky ground. This approach would not facilitate Turkey’s fulfillment of its obligations; on the contrary, it would obscure the process.”
‘Waiting until 2026 means the violations will continue’
Ergül strongly criticized the Committee for giving Turkey until June 2026 to implement its Action Plan, stating that this period was unreasonably long:
“Waiting until 2026 means the violations will continue. The Committee should have clearly stated the date when the Gurban Group case would be revisited. If this case is not revisited even by 2026, we will lose our influence significantly. Therefore, more pressure needs to be exerted on both the Committee and Turkey.”