!á½p These days, whenever we are faced with a distressing or provocative incident, we hear from certain circles the argument, 'Let us remain calm.' These circles maintain that, without any objections, we must promptly comply with each and every demand originating from abroad.

  These days, whenever we are faced with a distressing or provocative incident, we hear from certain circles the argument, “Let us remain calm.” These circles maintain that, without any objections, we must promptly comply with each and every demand originating from abroad. First they said we should “calmly” accept the Armenian genocide claims. Now they are saying that Ocalan should be given a retrial in line with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recent decision. For them, raising objections would amount to losing calm and sliding into nationalistic fervor.

  Meanwhile, interesting commentaries have appeared in the foreign press regarding the decision. All these commentaries link the decision to our European Union membership process and conclude that serious pressure is being put on Turkey.

  The Turkish press, meanwhile, quotes Ocalan as saying that his retrial could create a chance for a resolution of the Kurdish problem.

  This brings to mind the Loizidou case. In that case the ECHR made a politically motivated decision and, afterwards, the EU stipulated Turkish compliance with that decision to agree to the initiation of the EU membership process. After resisting for some time, Turkey had to pay compensation required by the court decision.

  Following the EU's Dec. 17, 2004 conclusion [to formally start EU accession talks in October] it was stated that a Revised Accession Partnership Document would be issued in April 2005. That document will most probably envisage the granting of minority status to the Kurds (and maybe to the Alawis as well). By now the issuance of that document has been postponed to October 2005, when a new progress report on Turkey is to appear. The new document will set forth as a political condition the implementation of the ECHR's decision on Ocalan.

  Meanwhile, if Ocalan is retried, a new process will be initiated for the “resolution” of the Kurdish problem through the resurgence of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorist activities and acts of civil disobedience to be perpetrated by ethnic Kurdish nationalists. That seems to be the plan.

  The ECHR argument that Ocalan was not given a fair trial is hardly serious. There is nothing to be done about the “violation” arising from the fact that he was kept in detention for seven days rather than for four days before being brought before a court. Besides, the ECHR should not have the authority to determine the maximum detention period when an internal conflict is the issue at hand. This issue should concern humanitarian law that is outside the scope of the European Human Rights Convention.

  Since Ocalan's lawyers did not object to the presence of a military judge during the trial, how can they possibly complain about this to the ECHR later?

  It is no secret that the 17,000-page indictment consists mostly of supplementary documents and that it includes only two files that pertain to the substance of the case. It is obvious that the lawyers who defended Ocalan (there were 12 of them, if I am not mistaken) were given enough time to examine these files.

  If the defendant had been adversely affected so much by the fact that Turkey had not yet abolished the death penalty at that time, why did he confess his crimes when doing so would gain him nothing under Turkish law?

  The ECHR decision has not touched on the essence of the Turkish court's ruling. Under the circumstances, it is not easy to understand why it took that decision on the basis of such insignificant and invalid formal factors when it is quite obvious that a retrial would not lead to a different ruling.

  In general, the international judiciary would not make a decision that would not bring about a change in the original ruling, refraining from taking the responsibility for the destabilization that would ensue in the country concerned. Why has the ECHR deviated from this customary path?

  Those Turkish legal experts that advocate a retrial seem to be ignoring the opinion expressed by Riza Turmen, a Turkish judge at the ECHR. As one of the judges who has taken part in that case, Turmen probably knows certain things better than all of us. Indeed, one has to read the final paragraph of the ECHR decision very carefully. That paragraph is of a political and diplomatic nature rather than a legal one and entirely relative to the second and third penultimate paragraphs that pertain to the retrial or reopening of the file.

  No matter how much its powers have been curtailed, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers will have the final word on this issue. There, the EU member countries are in the majority. If the committee insists on retrial, we will know who exactly is trying to destabilize Turkey and attempting to halt our EU membership process.

  If we opt for a retrial, then the right thing to do would be to put Ocalan on trial not only for crimes against the state but also for crimes against humanity due to the murder of Kurdish civilians, especially family members of village guards. From the legal standpoint that is possible. That would automatically and effectively eliminate a potential pardon in the future.