"As a result of the disciplinary actions at Tekirdag F-type Prison No. 2, there's restriction of accepting visitors for the prisoners for periods up to years. The prisoners are not allowed to see their families and they face deprivation in deprivation"
Lawyer Oya Aslan told that her clients received successive disciplinary penalties and moreover they were exposed to physical violence.
"In all prisons in Turkey, political prisoners shout slogans, however only in this prison there're so much disciplinary penalties. At Tekirdag F-type Prison No.1, the prisoners are exposed to physical violence and the connection of the prisoners with the outside world is cut off at Tekirdag F-type Prison No.2 due to successive disciplinary penalties."
Osman Demirel was appointed to the prison as warden on July 14, 2009. Aslan changed the prison rules at the end of 2009 and told that "the acts like shouting slogans, whistling, singing marches are all 'subjects of penalty' "
The result of the slogan: Prison sentence for an extra 10 years
Prisoners Cem Kılıç and Fırat Özçelik lost their right to to release on probation, as they were not in "good conduct". As a result of the slogan penalties, Kılıç who already had the right to release will stay in prison for an extra 10 years; 14 months have already passed. Özçelik will stay in prison for extra 20 months.
Both remaining silent and shouting slogans are forbidden.
Law No 5275, The Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures Article 42/2 explains the acts that will end up with prohibition of communication as follows:
a) Participating in a mass action of refusing the meal provided by the administration, with the aim of making a protest.
b) Not doing the work considered appropriate by the workshop management committee of the administration.
c) Engaging in a mass silent resistance against the administration or with the aim of protesting against anything.
d) Stocking medicines or foodstuffs in rooms, annexes or other areas.
e) Singing a march or shouting slogans unnecessarily.
According to Article 48/2, a convict who again commits an act punishable by a disciplinary penalty within the period at the end of which a previous finalized disciplinary penalty may be lifted shall be liable to the next heavier penalty each time.
Different penalties for the same march
Lawyers give an example for the arbitrariness of the implementations: "They didn't open an investigation for the slogans at the commemoration activities on January 4, 2011; however the convicts were punished due to the same slogans on January 4, 2011. They were punished for the marches on January 22, 2011 as they were found 'unnecessary'; however the same marches that were sang on January 22, 2012 were 'legal'.
The penalties of the convicts were as follows since 2009: Nedim Öztürk 30 months visitor, 17 months communication , Mehmet Akdemir 28 months visitor, 16 months commnication, Kenan Gönyel 32 months visitor, 11 months communication, Özçelik 32 months visitor, 11 months communication, Kılıç 28 months visitor, 17 months communication.
The penalty of deprivation or restriction of access to communication means is completely or partly depriving the convict, of receiving and sending letters, fax messages and telegrams, watching television, listening to the radio, making telephone calls and using other communication means. The penalty of deprivation of accepting visitors is not allowing the convict to receive visits; so the convicts cannot see their families and friends.
"What's the meaning of 'Unnecessary Slogan'?"
On February 10, some of the convicts defended themselves as:
Cebrail Günebakan: " Shouting slogans is one of the forms of expression, it's my freedom of expression and I used my right"
Hüseyin Polat: " We are shouting slogans twice a day. They do not open an investigation for them; however they open an investigation for the slogans we shouted at the commemoration activities."
Muhammet Akyol: "The definition of 'unnecessary slogan' should be defined in concrete terms by law."(AS)
