LAWYERS GROUPS OPPOSE NEW PRISON-RELATED

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001503

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE


E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/10/2008
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU OSCE
SUBJECT: LAWYERS GROUPS OPPOSE NEW PRISON-RELATED
LEGISLATION


Classified by Polcouns John Kunstadter; reasons 1.5 b and d.



1. (C) Summary: Attorneys from the Ankara Bar Association
(ABA) and Contemporary Lawyers Association (CLA) argue that a
newly adopted package of prison-related laws holds attorneys
responsible for hunger strikes, places hunger striking
prisoners at risk, undermines the right of attorneys to
consult with jailed clients, and establishes draconian
penalties for damaging prison property. The ABA is planning
to challenge the laws as unconstitutional. End Summary.



2. (U) ABA and CLA officials told Poloff March 5 they
strongly oppose a set of Turkish Penal Code amendments passed
in Parliament February 5. ABA President Semih Guner said he
is lobbying for the support of the one-fifth of Parliament
(110 MPs) required to challenge a law in the Constitutional
Court. If he is not able to organize a challenge by the
April 10 deadline, he plans to appeal to the European Court
of Human Rights.



3. (U) The following is a summary of the controversial
elements of the amendments, followed by ABA/CLA analysis:





4. (C) Prisoner Nourishment: Anyone who prevents a prisoner
from taking nourishment, including by encouraging hunger
strikes or death fasts, is subject to a sentence of 10-20
years imprisonment if the prisoner dies as a result. If the
prisoner suffers bodily harm, the perpetrator is subject to
six months to 10 years imprisonment, depending on the nature
of the injury.


-- ABA/CLA Analysis: This law is aimed at attorneys, who
would be the most likely suspects to be accused of
encouraging hunger strikes. For the first time, attorneys
will be held legally responsible for prisoner hunger strikes.



5. (C) Interfering in Hunger Strikes: Prisoners who refuse
nourishment are to be warned of the physical consequences by
a prison doctor. Prison psychologists will try to dissuade
prisoners from continuing such behavior. If the behavior
continues and becomes life threatening, prison doctors are
authorized, without the consent of the prisoner, to conduct
medical examinations or feed the prisoner through an IV, or
transfer them to a hospital for such purpose. In case of
emergency, these measures can be carried out by non-medical
prison officials if no doctor is available.


-- ABA/CLA Analysis: Before this law, only qualified medical
experts generally interfered with hunger-striking prisoners.
Now this authority is awarded to unqualified prison doctors,
or even non-medical personnel in emergencies. This is
dangerous -- in Istanbul recently, a striking inmate died
after a prison doctor began feeding him with an IV.



6. (C) Lawyers' Files: Prison security officials are not to
examine documents and files that a defense lawyer has
declared in writing are legal papers related to a case.


-- ABA/CLA Analysis: This appears positive, but in practice
is harmful. A number of attorneys have complained that
prison officials are checking attorneys' declarations, then
examining their papers for any discrepancies. In some cases,
security officials with little understanding of legal issues
are unjustly accusing attorneys of filing false declarations.
Papers are being examined either when an attorney enters a
prison, or when a prisoner returns to his cell after meeting
his attorney.



7. (C) Prison Property: Prisoners who destroy prison property
are subject to a minimum of three years imprisonment.


-- ABA/CLA Analysis: Dramatically increases the penalty for
such behavior. Previously, most such cases resulted in fines
or administrative punishments, with the maximum penalty
limited to one year imprisonment. A CLA attorney said one of
his clients last year broke a window and was not allowed to
see visitors for two months; under this law, he could have
gotten three years imprisonment or more.


PEARSON