. “This is mean and vindictive”: Osman Kavala set to remain behind bars in Turkey | Ceasefire Magazine

Special Report | “This is mean and vindictive”: Osman Kavala set to remain behind bars in Turkey

Amnesty International's Milena Buyum reports on the latest from the trial of civil society figures in Turkey, including Osman Kavala.

New in Ceasefire, Special Reports - Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:31 - 0 Comments

By

Share

Osman Kavala has been in prison for almost two years for things that never happened.

The long drive from the centre of Istanbul to Silivri, the seaside town that is home to Europe’s largest high security prison, is spent talking about the case with the two Amnesty directors, from Spain and Sweden, who I am accompanying. It’s a rainy and cold morning and there is a lot of traffic. They have both been to Istanbul before, to observe the case in which eleven human rights defenders, including Amnesty’s own, are being prosecuted. On 9 October they will also attend the latest hearing in the Buyukada case.

We are here to observe the third hearing in the surreal prosecution of Osman Kavala and 15 others. Kavala turned 62 on 2 October, his second birthday behind bars, clocking 708 days on the day of the hearing.

The courtroom is as I left it in July, bar the large number of ring-binders piled up behind the three empty chairs where the panel of judges will take their seats. We learn and somehow are relieved that the piled binders are not related to the Gezi case, and that this isn’t the court telling the defendants: ‘look at the mountain of evidence we have against you!’

As we await the start of the hearing, we notice that Osman Kavala is already in the courtroom, surrounded, yet again, by around ten gendarmes standing and obscuring his and our view. He was brought in before any of us were inside the courtroom. A few people wave at him enthusiastically, and quietly. Before he has even arrived in the courtroom, we all know the new president of the panel of judges will not be lenient towards cheers and claps by the observers. He confirms this as soon as he takes his seat: ‘Anyone who claps or shouts during the hearing will be removed from the courtroom and face proceedings against them’, he states as he starts the hearing.

First up is a witness, joining via video link. We understand he is in a prison somewhere in an Anatolian province but we don’t know much more about him, and although someone behind me guesses that he might be a police officer, there is no clue as to what his knowledge of the defendants might be and why he is a witness. And we will not know, as the sound system isn’t working and we cannot hear him at all. After a short break, the testimony is abandoned and the judge moves onto the questioning of the defendants, starting with Osman Kavala himself.

Reading, one by one, from the transcripts of the taped conversations in the indictment, the judge asks Osman Kavala to explain them. These unlawfully wiretapped telephone conversations are varied: from whether he could bring pastries and medical masks to protect those peacefully occupying Gezi Park from tear gas (‘yes, of course’) to whether he would contribute to a collection to help with expenses such as food in the Park (‘sure, if an account is set up, I will’), through a conversation about the imminent visit by the new Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and whether he would like to meet him (‘yes, I would’).

The director of Amnesty Spain, for whom I am interpreting, appears to be puzzled by all this: ‘Sorry Milena, isn’t Osman Kavala accused of attempting to overthrow the government?’ ‘Yes’ I reply, ‘using coercion and violence, attempting to overthrow the government by organising, financing and expanding the 2013 Gezi Park protests. It is an absurd and unfounded accusation for which the only ‘evidence’ presented is these wiretapped phone conversations, all of which date from after the start of the Gezi Park protests.’

The contrast between the seriousness of the charges and the flimsiness of the ‘evidence’ presented in court is chilling. Osman Kavala patiently responds to each and every question, sometimes asking for clarification, but never dismissing them. In fact, he thanks the judge for asking him these questions about the content of the transcripts; this is the first time since he was detained, almost two years ago, that he has been asked about them. While he is speaking, the two giant screens on either side of the judges show images of destruction — overturned buses and police cars — accompanying the judge’s reference to ‘vandals and vandalism during Gezi attempt’.

Without disclosing the location or dates of when the photos were taken, the judge asks for written evidence from Osman Kavala — a tweet, a social media share condemning this violence. Kavala states calmly that he doesn’t condone violence, never has, and that he doesn’t use social media, a fact he has to repeat several times during his questioning.

We are startled by the next question: ‘Who are you that all these people from abroad want to meet with you and speak to you?’ The tone and the question are both aggressive and provocative, as well as strange. Why shouldn’t foreign representatives want to meet a prominent civil society figure such as Kavala, someone who is knowledgable and informed about Turkey not just of today but of the past, and can thus offer the long view with regards to developments in the country.

As Kavala reveals the suggested meeting never took place, the absurdity of the line of questioning becomes even more apparent. In fact, he is questioned about a documentary film project discussed with co-defendant film producer Çiğdem Mater but which was never made. He is then questioned about the opening of a bank account with another co-defendant, Mine Özerden, that was never opened, and about social media repudiations that could not be issued, by virtue of not using social media.

As the day progresses, the other defendants are also questioned about various wiretapped conversations they have had, either amongst themselves or with others, including jokes and gossip. We know this whole process may be a sham, but it is certainly not a joke. Without any reference to anything that he has heard during the questioning, the new prosecutor requests the continuation of Osman Kavala’s imprisonment. The 15 minutes recess feels unnecessary, all of us in the room have the feeling of the inevitable as we stand and talk about the interim decision about to be handed down.

Osman Kavala will remain behind bars. This time the decision is unanimous. The judges leave, the gendarmes surrounding Kavala stand up, once again shielding him from view. Despite protestations and objections, we are ushered out of the courtroom before he is taken away back to his cell. They will make him walk through the vast courtroom without any friendly faces to see him go.

Once again, we know this is not a court where justice is delivered; a young woman standing next to me says ‘this is mean and vindictive.’ The only saving grace is the news that the members of parliament in the courtroom have remained. Osman Kavala did have a few friendly faces to see, and we see him in our mind’s eye. Until freedom.

Share
Milena Buyum

Milena Buyum is Amnesty International’s Turkey campaigner.

Leave a Reply

Comment

More Ideas

More In Politics

More In Features

More In Profiles

More In Arts & Culture