ISTANBUL - Asrın Law Firm once again applied to Bursa Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and İmralı Prison Directorate to meet with their client, PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan, whom they had not heard from for 33 months.
Rezan Sarıca, Raziye Öztürk, Faik Özgür Erol and Mazlum Dinç, lawyers of Asrın Law Firm, came to Bursa Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and İmralı Penal Execution Center to meet with PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is held under severe isolation conditions in İmralı Type F High Security Prison and has not been heard from for 32 months, made a new application to the Institution Directorate.
Lawyers also applied to the prosecutor's office and prison directorate for Ömer Hayri Konar, Hamili Yıldırım and Veysi Aktaş, who are held in İmralı.
BANS TO MEETING WITH ABDULLAH ÖCALAN
Applications for family and lawyer meetings of Abdullah Öcalan and the other three people held in İmralı are blocked, citing "disciplinary penalties". Between 2021 and 2023, Abdullah Öcalan and the other prisoners were given at least 5 disciplinary punishments of 3 months each, and their right to visit their families was taken away. The reasons and file numbers of these disciplinary penalties were not shared with their 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, the judgeship stated that disciplinary penalties of 3 months were given on August 18, 2021, 3 months on February 3, 2022, 3 months on May 31, 2022, and 3 months on September 9, 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 requesting family views, 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.