(Adapted from the statement of the Platform for Rights and Freedom)
HIKMET SAMI: "TO KEEP OPEN THREE DOORS WOULD MEAN TO RETURN TO THE DORMITORY
SYSTEM"
Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk said that there were legal obstacles to
the proposal by four Bar Associations' chairmen "to leave the door
locks in corridors with three rooms open during the daytime".
Hikmet Sami also stated that "Article 16 of the Anti-Terrorism Law permits
those imprisoned only to come together in the social areas".
Turk, who explained that it is the "possibility of coming together during
common beneficial activities" which is accepted within the law, further said
"The corridors aren't a common living area. The aim of the corridors is it
to provide access. Those are not places where prisoners can come
together".
January 9, / Milliyet
Is the comment by the Minister more important than human life?
The chairman of the Bar Association Yucel Sayman warned Minister Turk, who
had commented on the proposal "open three doors and three locks, the deaths
mustEnd" with "there's a legal obstacle".
Sayman stated: "People are dying, following this interpretation ».
BELMA AKCURA Istanbul
The fact that Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk sees Article 16 of the
Anti-Terrorism Law as an obstacle to the proposal of the four Bar
Associations' chairmen in order to end the death fasts in the F-type
prisons, was seen by the jurists as "a false interpretation
of the law". Turk, who doesn't welcome the proposal of the chairmen of the
Bar Associations of Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul and Antalya which would put an
end to the death fasts, declared «Article 16 of the Anti-Terrorism Law
just permits those in the F-type prisons to come together at the social
areas« . The jurists recalled that Article 16 has been changed in order to
guarantee humane living conditions in the prisons and to put an end to the
deathfasts and expressed the view: "Now, after removing a legal barrier, you
cannot defend the prisons that were established by you according to Article
16 of the law."
The chairman of the Istanbul Bar Association, Yucel Sayman, said that
a legal commentary which leads to the death of people cannot be made,
and stated: "As a government they are obliged to ensure that the death of
peopleis prevented. Even if the Minister were right in his commentary, even
if he
were the best jurist ever, people are dying as a result of such a
commentary. And in
our opinion the minister is making a false interpretation of the law."
Sayman further stated that
Article 16, which has been given as a reason by the minister in its previous
form didn't
permit people to come together, but that this would be possible with the
amendment
made to it.
Also, the lawyer Fikret Ilkiz made the following comment: "The minister says
'the proposal does not conform to Article 16'. But the basic aim of the
amendment to Article 16 was to put an end to the hunger strikes, to
create an atmosphere that guarantees life in humane conditions and to create
prison conditions which are in accordance with human rights and freedoms.
Now is it
possible to see a law which was made for this purpose as an obstacle to
continuing life in the prisons in the best possible way and to end the
death fasts?"
Support for 'Three Doors Three Locks'
==========================
January 8, 2002 / Yedinci Gündem
ADANA - Chairman of the Adana Branch of the Association of Contemporary
Jurists (CHD), Lawyer Siar Risvanoglu, declared that the state remains
indifferent to the proposal of "Three Doors, Three Locks", and said that the
Minister of Justice is not concerned about finding a solution.
Lawyer Siar Risvanoglu, who gave a press statement before the Adana Branch
of the CHD yesterday said that prison problems are increasing day by
day, and that the institutions concerned still haven't found a solution to
the question despite a long time elapsing. Risvanoglu expressed the view
thatthe proposal "Three Doors Three Locks" which has been developed by the
chairmen of four Bar Associations to solve the problems of the death fasts
and the F-type prisons, were wrongly interpreted by the Minister of Justice,
and said that this proposal for a solution has to be receive a response
