APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION IN LONG-STANDING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 002246

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE


E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2008
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU OSCE
SUBJECT: APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION IN LONG-STANDING
MANISA TORTURE CASE

REF: A. 02 ANKARA 7467

B. 02 ANKARA 6189


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



1. (C) Summary: An appeals court upheld the torture
convictions of 10 police officers in the high-profile 1996
Manisa case; the ruling is final. The officers are expected
to serve jail terms ranging from two years to more than four
years. Human rights observers and European diplomats
welcomed the ruling, but said it does not necessarily
indicate a broader trend toward eroding the climate of
impunity for police who commit torture. End Summary.


--------------
Ruling Ends Long, High-Profile Trial
--------------



2. (U) The Turkish Court of Appeals 8th Department April 4
unanimously upheld the October 16 ruling by the Manisa Penal
Court convicting 10 police officers of torture and sentencing
them to prison terms ranging from five to 11 years (reftel
A). The officers were sentenced to 10 months imprisonment
for each detainee they tortured. According to the
Prosecution Law, under which convicts serve a portion of
their sentences, the officers' actual time behind bars is
expected to range from two years to four years, four months.
The defense cannot appeal the ruling.



3. (C) The decision ended a seven-and-a-half-year trial
plagued by repeated reversals and procedural delays. The
ruling came less than three months before the statute of
limitations in the case was set to expire, which would have
ended the case with no verdict. An Embassy contact told us
that Interior Ministry officials had complicated efforts by
the court to contact the defendants in an attempt to delay
the case long enough to avoid a verdict (reftel B),a common
practice in police torture cases.


-------------- -
Observers Welcome Ruling, But Remain Skeptical
-------------- -



4. (U) Justice Minister Cicek publicly praised the ruling,
saying that police will now "think nine more times" before
committing torture. Pelin Erda, one of the victims'
attorneys, told us the ruling is important because police
charged with torture in Turkey rarely do jail time. She
averred that the ruling will discourage police from torturing
detainees and encourage victims to press charges. Still, she
noted that the court sentenced the defendants to the shortest
jail terms permitted for torture. Husnu Ondul, president of
the Human Rights Association, said the significance of one,
high-profile conviction should not be overstated. Noting
that defendants in other recent torture cases have been
acquitted or given light sentences, he argued that the GOT
needs to launch a broad anti-torture campaign.



5. (C) The case drew close international attention due to the
large number of defendants and the possibility that the
accused would go unpunished because of a lapse of time. The
EU used the case as a test of the GOT's human rights reforms,
tracking the proceedings in its progress reports on Turkey's
EU candidacy. German and Danish diplomats told us the Manisa
case was at the top of the agenda for the EU's Turkey
watchers. They said a decision to overturn the conviction
would have been disastrous, as EU observers were expecting
the October ruling to be upheld. Both diplomats agreed this
ruling alone will not dramatically improve Turkey's image in
EU capitals; Europeans will wait and see whether a trend
emerges.


--------------
Comment
--------------



6. (C) The Turkish judicial system's general inability to put
law-breaking police behind bars has contributed greatly to
the climate of impunity for torture. For that reason, this
ruling is significant. But the skeptics have it right -- one
high-profile case does not necessarily indicate a sea change.
In the area of human rights reform, the GOT has a tendency
to highlight individual successes while delaying fundamental
change. It is worth noting that the defendants in this case
remained on the streets during their trial, while defendants
charged with speech crimes and other lesser offenses are
routinely held until a verdict is reached.






PEARSON