Rejecting Third-Party Mediation in Negotiations Is a Mistake 2026-01-19 09:31:34 Melike Aydın    ISTANBUL - EUTCC Chair Kariane Westrheim stated that the freedom of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan is critical for peace, democratization, and recognition of the Kurdish people’s collective rights. She added, “Turkey’s refusal to accept third-party mediation in negotiations with Öcalan and the Kurdish people is a serious mistake.”   Kariane Westrheim emphasized that the isolation regime imposed on Öcalan at Imralı Prison for nearly 27 years violates international human rights law. She added, "This is not an exceptional security measure, but a continuous and structural violation."   Emphasizing that Abdullah Öcalan’s freedom is not merely a matter of individual rights, Kariane Westrheim reiterated: “Turkey’s rejection of third-party mediation in negotiations with Öcalan and the Kurdish people is a grave error.”   Despite not being a specialist in human rights law or the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Westrheim responded to our questions regarding the Kurdish issue.   *Abdullah Öcalan has been subjected to a long-standing and severe isolation regime in İmralı Prison. How do you assess this practice in light of international human rights law and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? In your view, which fundamental rights are being violated?   The almost 27 years of solitary confinement regime imposed on Abdullah Öcalan in İmralı Prison represents a serious and extreme deviation from international human rights standards.   Prolonged solitary confinement and solitary confinement are widely recognized under international law and by experts and researchers in the fields of psychology, psychiatry and health as practices that may constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, and in certain circumstances even torture. This usually has long-term consequences for the prisoner. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8, establish clear guarantees against such treatment. But in the case of Turkey these are not complied with.   The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is particularly relevant. In Öcalan v. Turkey and subsequent cases, the Court has emphasised that prison conditions must respect human dignity and that life imprisonment without realistic prospects of release, as the right to hope, violates Article 3. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has repeatedly criticized the solitary confinement regime in Imralı, stressing that the systematic denial of family visits, access to a lawyer and meaningful human contact cannot be justified solely on security grounds. However, CPT has not given sufficient weight to its findings, and the mere presentation of its findings has not helped Öcalan to a better form of imprisonment.   The fundamental rights which are violated in Öcalan’s case include the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3), the right to liberty and security (Article 5), the right to a fair trial and effective legal assistance (Articles 6 and 13), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and not to forget - the principle of the “right to hope”. Taking together, these violations do not indicate an exceptional security measure, but a structural and ongoing violation of international human rights law with serious long-term consequences for the person concerned.   Considering the above, Öcalan’s treatment during his imprisonment is worse than the worst and most of the rights enshrined in the ECHR and Human Rights Law have been seriously violated. This is despite repeated international protests and campaigns.   *Is it possible to understand Abdullah Öcalan’s freedom not merely as an individual issue, but as a critical threshold for peace, democratization, and collective rights? As both an academic and a member of the EUTCC, how do you evaluate this question?   It is important to emphasize that Abdullah Öcalan's situation in isolation must not only be understood and interpreted as an individual legal matter. His freedom has a much broader political, social and symbolic significance, especially in relation to the Kurdish question, the situation of women and not least in these times when Öcalan has initiated a process with prospects for peace in Turkey and the wider region. He is the central interlocutor in a possible upcoming peace process and ceasefire initiatives. His strong influence extends far beyond his person to millions of Kurds who see him as a political leader and representative in a possible upcoming negotiation process.   From an academic perspective, peace processes in deeply divided societies often depend on the inclusion of central political actors, i.e. a third party, who have social legitimacy. Exclusion and isolation tend to intensify conflict dynamics, while recognition and dialogue open paths to democratization and collective rights. Turkey rejects the possibility of involving a third party as a mediator in the negotiations with Öcalan and the Kurds. This is, in my opinion, a big mistake, it is of crucial importance that a person or an organisation that is not part of the conflict can mediate between the conflicting parties and that in the long term a form of agreement can be achieved.   As chair of the EUTCC, I would argue that Öcalan's freedom represents a critical threshold: he is central to the coming process, but not because peace depends on one individual alone, but because Öcalan's continued isolation symbolizes the denial of the Kurds, political pluralism, collective identity and democratic participation.   Öcalan's freedom must be understood as part of a broader transition towards conflict transformation, constitutional democracy and recognition of Kurdish collective rights within a peaceful and inclusive political framework.   *What impact could the ending of Mr. Öcalan’s isolation and the recognition of his right to freedom have on the resolution of the Kurdish question and the democratization process in Turkey? What might be the regional and global repercussions of such a development?   Ending Abdullah Öcalan’s isolation and recognising his right to freedom would have a transformative impact on the resolution of the Kurdish question. It would reopen channels for political dialogue, de-escalate conflict and hopefully open for serious negotiations, which have been systematically blocked since the collapse of previous peace talks. Such a much-needed step could restore trust, reduce violence and create conditions for addressing core issues such as political and cultural rights, language rights, local democracy and constitutional equality.   For Turkey’s democratization process, this would signal a shift away from authoritarian security policies that run counter to core principles of the rule of law, judicial independence and compliance with international obligations. It would also strengthen Turkey’s position in the Council of Europe and its relationship with the EU. Unfortunately, Turkey seems reluctant to go this route, despite having previously opened for a possible peace process. Instead, it has tightened its grip and, not least, is showing its true face in the current attacks on the Kurds in Aleppo.   Regional consequences could be significant. Given the transnational nature of the Kurdish issue in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, a democratic and peaceful approach in Turkey could positively influence the regional conflict dynamics. Globally, it would reinforce the principle that sustainable peace is achieved through dialogue and rights-based solutions rather than armed conflict and permanent oppression, as is the case now.   *The concept of the “right to hope” is increasingly discussed in international law, particularly in relation to aggravated life sentences. In the case of Abdullah Öcalan, how could the recognition of this right contribute to the advancement of human rights standards in Turkey, the Middle East, and internationally?   The “right to hope” has become a central principle in international human rights law, particularly in the context of harsher life sentences. The ECHR has clearly established that life imprisonment without realistic prospect of release or review violates human dignity and Article 3 of the ECHR. This principle recognizes that no one should forever be deprived of the opportunity for rehabilitation and social reintegration.   The Committee of Ministers (CoM) has given Turkey a new deadline to the end of June 2026 (previous deadline was September 2025) to report to the Committee of Ministers on:   What progress has been made regarding legal reforms to allow for the review of harsher life sentences; practical steps taken to implement the ECHR judgments on the “right to hope”; and any legislative proposals or actions by parliament or the executive.   Failure by Turkey to show sufficient progress by this deadline could lead to further formal action by the Committee, including (hopefully) stronger resolutions or enhanced monitoring within the Council of Europe (CoE) system.   But here lies a serious problem, the CoM is issuing deadline after deadline without any follow-up with clear injunctions or sanctions. Turkey is a member of the CoE, and the CoM should therefore be able to put force behind the demands in Turkey to comply with the injunctions. If they do not, there is little hope that the principle of the Right to Hope will be respected.   In the case of Abdullah Öcalan, recognition of the right to hope would represent a milestone step forward in human rights standards. It would require a real review of his sentence and prison conditions, based on objective and humane criteria. Beyond the individual case, such recognition would set an important precedent for Turkey, the Middle East and the international community, where harsh sentencing regimes and political imprisonment are still widespread.   More generally, it would confirm that even in cases involving political violence or security concerns, human dignity remains non-negotiable and universal.   *We know that you publicly supported Abdullah Öcalan’s call of 27 February 2025, which emphasized peace and the end of conflict. Despite this call, severe attacks and massacres — amounting to genocidal practices — have continued in Syria and Iran, particularly targeting the Kurdish people and civilians. How do you assess this contradiction, and what does it reveal about the responsibility of the international community and the current state of the peace perspective?   Yes, I supported Abdullah Öcalan’s call of 27 February 2025 for peace and an end to the conflict. I still do so wholeheartedly. I am convinced that this is the only viable path forward, even if one may disagree with the direction and content of it.   Abdullah Öcalan’s call, which emphasizes peace and an end to the conflict, unfortunately stands in stark contrast to the continued serious attacks and massacres targeting Kurdish civilians in Syria, and especially now in Aleppo, and in Iran. This contradiction highlights a fundamental crisis in the current peace perspective. When Turkey opened the window just a crack, the Kurds eagerly seized this opportunity, while Turkey again closed this window of opportunity. While Öcalan and Kurdish political actors repeatedly express commitments to dialogue, even negotiations, and coexistence, state and non-state actors continue to use rhetoric that instead of negotiations and peace speaks of a “terror-free Turkey” and a militarized and genocidal policy. Turkey talks about “fraternization”, but at the same time kills its Kurdish “brothers” in Syria and Iran.   The hope that was awakened by Öcalan’s call created broad optimism. Although his call attracted some attention internationally, it was not enough to properly engage major institutions such as the EU and the UN, or for that matter other nation-states, to support or push for the process to accelerate. This situation reveals the profound failure of the international community to uphold its responsibility to protect civilians and support genuine peace initiatives. The silence or selective engagement of global powers suggests that geopolitical interests still outweigh human rights and international law. It also shows that peace cannot be sustained when key voices for dialogue are isolated, criminalized or ignored, as we see both key Kurdish official and civilian spokespersons and representatives being.   This contradiction ultimately underlines that peace does not just require declarations and half-hearted action, but lasting peace, on the other hand, requires active action, it requires concrete international guarantees, accountability mechanisms and, not least, political courage, which is clearly lacking in the international political arena.   *Finally, what concrete steps should international institutions, civil society, and democratic forces take at the global level to more effectively address the ongoing isolation of Abdullah Öcalan and the related human rights violations?   If we are serious about effectively addressing Abdullah Öcalan’s isolation and the associated human rights violations, coordinated and concrete action is required at the global level. At the same time, international institutions such as the Council of Europe must intensify their infringement proceedings and ensure full implementation of the ECHR judgments, which is not being done sufficiently at present. The CPT must be given unconditional access to Imralı Prison. All recommendations from the CoE and CPT must be binding and transparent. Otherwise, we will end up in the same situation as we are now, where visits are made, observations are made and recommendations are made, but when Turkey does not comply with the orders, nothing happens and there are no consequences and can continue its business as usual without hindrance.   The same applies to the UN, especially the Special Rapporteurs on torture, arbitrary detention and the independence of judges and lawyers. They must engage more proactively, including through country visits and public reporting. The EU should link respect for human rights, including prison conditions and judicial reform, to its political and economic relations with Turkey. But there is a problem that the initiatives mentioned above are often too vague. They may be clear in language or rhetoric, but too weak in follow-up, not least when it comes to consequences for violations and lack of enforcement of orders.   Civil society and democratic forces play can play an important role. Transnational interest networks, legal initiatives, academic platforms, unions, and parliamentary diplomacy should continue to raise awareness, challenge the normalization of isolation and frame Öcalan’s cause within universal human rights principles rather than narrow security narratives. This happens largely through the global campaign Freedom for Öcalan: a political solution to the Kurdish question, which has brought together unions, social movements, political parties, elected officials, artists, intellectuals, activists, and millions of Kurds and their supporters with an aim to end the isolation of Öcalan and ultimately secure his freedom.   Ultimately, addressing Öcalan’s extreme isolation is not charity or political concession; it is simply a legal and moral obligation rooted in international law, and a necessary step towards peace, democracy and justice – precisely what the Kurds are currently seeking through the peace process initiated by Öcalan and for which, despite many stumbling blocks along the way, great hope is still attached.