ISTANBUL – The lawyers of Asrın Law Firm applied to Bursa Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and İmralı Prison Directorate to meet with their client Abdullah Öcalan, whom they had not heard from for 34 months.

 

The lawyers of PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is held under absolute isolation conditions in İmralı Type F High Security Prison and has not been heard from for 34 months, made a new application to Bursa Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and İmralı Penal Institution Directorate, demanding to meet with their client. The application was made by the lawyers of Asrın Law Firm, Raziye Öztürk, İbrahim  Bilmez,  Emran Emekçi,  Cengiz Yürek.

 

The lawyers also applied for their other clients in İmralı, Ömer Hayri Konar, Hamili Yıldırım and Veysi Aktaş.

 

THE MEETINGS ARE BEING OBSTACLED

 

Applications for family and lawyer visits for Abdullah Öcalan and the other three people held in İmralı are blocked, citing "disciplinary penalties". Between 2021 and 2023, Abdullah Öcalan and other prisoners were given at least 5 disciplinary penalties of 3 months each, and their right to family visits was taken away. The reasons for the disciplinary punishments and file numbers were not shared with the lawyers despite all applications and objections.

 

As a result of the applications made by the lawyers of Asrın Law Firm to the Bursa Execution Judgeship, it was revealed that disciplinary punishments of 3 months were given on 18 August 2021, 3 months on 3 February 2022, 3 months on 31 May 2022, and 3 months on 9 September 2022.

 

Responding to the application made by the lawyers on July 10, 2023, on July 19, the Judgeship announced that there was a 3-month disciplinary penalty, without specifying the date on which it was given. The last application of the lawyers was on October 10, 2023. Responding to the application made to the Bursa Execution Judgeship for demanding family visits, on October 13, the Judgeship stated that there was a new disciplinary punishment given against Abdullah Öcalan and other prisoners. 

 

The judge's office cited "its reflection in the press" as the reason for not sharing the file number subject to disciplinary punishment.