The trial of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), began on 31 May 1999 and concluded on 29 June with a death sentence for treason and separatism.
After his conviction, Öcalan appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which ruled he did not have a fair trial and demanded a retrial.
[1] Öcalan was the leader of the PKK at the time, which had led an uprising against the Turkish Government demanding more political rights for the Kurdish population in Turkey.
[11] The German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, as well as the Minister of the Interior Otto Schily, preferred Öcalan to be tried by an unspecified "European Court".
[16] Italian officials didn't want Öcalan to remain in the country, pulling several diplomatic strings to compel him to leave.
[24] A delegation of three Dutch lawyers who intended to defend him, were not allowed to meet with their client, detained for questioning at the airport on grounds they acted as "PKK militants" and sent back to the Netherlands.
[26][27] On 21 February, the State Security Court of Ankara gained access to Abdullah Öcalan[28] and its prosecutor began to interrogate him.
[29] On the 22 February he acknowledged of being the a founder and leader of the PKK which initially attempted to found an independent state but later focused on achieving better political and cultural rights for Turks and Kurds.
[36] On the 18 March his lawyers released a statement of their client in which he reasoned he would base his defense on the several cease-fires the PKK declared since the cease fire in 1993.
[39] On the 30 April the prosecutor issued a separate indictment which included all charges regarding the armed warfare of the PKK demanding a capital punishment for separatism and the court ordered the trial to begin on 31 May 1999.
[41] Ahmet Zeki Okcukoğlu, the head of Öcalan defense team demanded observers for protection, else they would quit.
[42] In the two hearings on the 24 March and the 30 April in Ankara, Öcalan did not take part in,[43] with the Turkish Government arguing it was for security reasons.
[44] The trial on İmralı island was held between the 31 May 1999 and the 29 June 1999[30][25] and judges from the State Security Court of Ankara were chosen to hear the case.
[55] Relatives of Turkish soldiers and victims of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict were permitted to be plaintiffs in the trial and take part in its hearings represented by lawyers.
It argued that there was no Turkish-Kurdish enmity as Öcalan claimed, nor that Turkey oppressed or denied the Kurds, except in the case of Kurdish rebellions which were subdued successfully.
[70] Öcalan himself did not focus much on a legal defense but on a political one,[71] assumed responsibility for his actions and demanded his inclusion in an eventual peace process for the Kurdish-Turkish conflict.
[73] In his final statement, Öcalan encouraged Turkey to take a more constructive approach to the conflict like allowing broadcasts and education in Kurdish language.
[76] His personal belongings of which he was dispossessed, namely a Rayban sunglasses, a Zenith watch, a tie and a leather belt were ordered to be returned.
[41][83] Also in June 1999, Human Rights Watch (HRW) questioned the fact that witnesses brought by the defense were not heard in trial[84] while Asma Jahangir the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, stated that the verdict of a death sentence after a trial in which the fair standards were not respected violated the rights of life.
[85] In early July 1999, the Turkish Parliament discussed a so-called Repentance Bill which would commute Öcalans death sentence to a 20-year imprisonment and allow PKK militants to surrender with a limited amnesty, but it didn't pass due to resistance from the far-right around the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
[79] Several protests in support of the death sentence were organized during which puppets of Öcalan were hung in front of cameras and on one occasion, a disabled veteran hurled a prosthetic leg towards the prime minister.
[87] In an attempt to reach a more favorable verdict, Öcalan appealed to the ECHR at Strasbourg, which accepted the case in November 2000.
[95] He also didn't accept to be seen as a terrorist, that his extradition a lawful cooperation between two states in their fight against terrorism[95] nor that the way he was brought to Turkey was in accordance to Art.
[97] The Turkish Government alleged that the Council of Europes deputy ministers agreed upon that Turkey had sufficiently satisfied the demands of the ECHR ruling.