CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 septembre 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 23927/94                       by Kamil Tekin SUREK                       against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 September 1996, the following members being present:                Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 25 February 1994 by Mr. Kamil Tekin Sürek against Turkey and registered on 20 April 1994 under file No. 23927/94;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the Commission's decision of 20 February 1995 to communicate the      application ;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 15      September 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 24 October 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, a Turkish citizen, born in 1957 and resident in Istanbul, is a lawyer.   A.    Particular circumstances of the case        Application Nos. 24122/94, 24735/94 and 24762/94 have been brought by the same applicant, who was the owner of a periodical.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:        At the material time, the applicant was the major shareholder in the Deniz Basin Yayin Sanayi ve Ticaret Organizasyon A.S., a Turkish company which owns a weekly review entitled "Haberde Yorumda Gerçek" (The Truth of News and Comments) and published in Istanbul.        In its 31 May 1992 and 7 June 1992 editions, the review published an interview with a PKK leader and a joint declaration by four socialist organisations.        On 1 June 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the seizure of the tenth edition of the review because it allegedly contained a declaration by terrorist organisations and disseminated separatist propaganda.        In an indictment dated 16 June 1992, the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, on account of an interview with a PKK leader published in the seized edition, charged the applicant, as the owner of the review, with disseminating propaganda in the interview against the indivisibility of the State. The applicant was also charged with publishing a declaration by four socialist organisations. The charges were brought respectively under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti- Terror Law.        In another indictment dated 30 June 1992, the applicant was charged with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State in a further interview, which was published in the eleventh issue of the review. The charges were brought under Article 8 of the Anti- Terror Law.        On 4 February 1993 the criminal proceedings were joined as the offending articles consisted of a single interview published in two parts.        In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant denied the charges. He pleaded that the interview was published with the aim of giving information to the public within the scope of journalism. As regards his freedom of expression, he referred to the Convention and the case-law of the Commission and the Court. He stated that pluralism of opinions is essential in a democratic society including those opinions which shock or offend. He argued that the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law restrict freedom of expression in contravention of the Turkish Constitution and the criteria laid down in the case-law of the Commission and the Court.        In a judgment dated 27 May 1993 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty of offences under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti- Terror Law. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of 300,000,000 Turkish lira. The Court held that the interview was published in the form of a news commentary. It further held that the interviewee had referred to a certain part of Turkish territory as "Kurdistan", he had asserted that certain Turkish citizens who are of Kurdish race form a separate society and that the Republic of Turkey expels the Kurdish people from their villages and massacres them. It further considered that the interviewee had praised Kurdish terrorist activities and had claimed that the Kurds should form a separate state. On these grounds, the Court found that the interview, as a whole, disseminated propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The Court further held that another page of the review contained a declaration by terrorist organisations and thus constituted a separate offence under Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law.        The applicant appealed. His legal representative stated that in a democratic society opinions must be freely expressed and argued. She maintained that there had been no prosecutions for the publication of other interviews with the leaders of the PKK in other newspapers or magazines. She alleged that the applicant had not been convicted of publishing such an interview but of publishing a marxist review. She reiterated the defence which the applicant had made before the State Security Court.        On 4 November 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the cogency of the State Security Court's assessment of the evidence and its reasoning in rejecting the applicant's defence.        After the amendments made by Law No. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to the Anti-Terror Law, the Istanbul State Security Court re-examined the applicant's case and sentenced him to the same fine.   B.    Relevant domestic law:        The relevant domestic law in the present case is contained in Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and Article 7 of the Press Law. The text of these Articles is set out below:        Article 6 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991        <Translation>        "Those who announce that a crime will be committed by terrorist      organisations against certain persons either expressly or without      mentioning their names, or who disseminate or disclose to the      public the identity of officials appointed to fight terrorism,      or who render such officials targets, shall be subject to a fine      of between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.        Those who print or publish the leaflets of terrorist      organisations shall be subject to a fine of between 5 and 10      million Turkish lira.        Those who, contrary to Article 14 of this Law, disclose or      publish the identity of informants shall be subject to a fine of      between 5 and 10 million Turkish lira.        If one of the crimes defined above is committed by means of      periodicals, as defined in Article 3 of the Press Law, the owners      of such periodicals shall be punished by a fine to be determined      in accordance with the following provisions:        -      For periodicals published at less than monthly intervals,            the fine shall be ninety per cent of the average real sales            of the previous month;        -      for periodicals published monthly or at more than monthly            intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the average            real sales of the previous issue;        -      [for printed works that are not periodicals or for            periodicals which had recently started business, the fine            shall be ninety per cent of the monthly sales of the            highest circulating daily periodical.]        In any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish      lira.        Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be given half the      sentences of the publishers."        Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991      (before the amendments of 27 October 1995)        <Translation>        "No one shall, by any means or with any intention or idea, make      written and oral propaganda or hold assemblies, demonstrations      or manifestations against the indivisible integrity of the State      of the Turkish Republic with its land and nation. Those carrying      out such an activity shall be sentenced to imprisonment between      two and five years and to a fine of between 50 and 100 million      Turkish lira.        If the offence of propaganda referred to in the preceding      paragraph is committed by means of periodicals, as defined in      Article 3 of the Press Law No. 5680, the owners of such      periodicals shall also be punished by a fine, to be determined      in accordance with the following provisions:        -      For periodicals published at less than monthly            intervals, the fine shall be ninety per cent of the            average real sales of the previous month;        -      [for printed works that are not periodicals or for            periodicals which have recently started business, the fine            shall be ninety per cent of the average monthly sales of            the highest circulating daily periodical.]        In any case, the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish      lira.        Responsible editors of these periodicals shall be sentenced to      between six months and two years' imprisonment and to half of the      fine determined in accordance with the foregoing provisions."        In a judgment dated 31 March 1992, the Constitutional Court found the clauses in brackets in the text of Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti- Terror Law above to be contrary to the Constitution and annulled them. The Constitutional Court held that the annulled text would cease to have effect six months after the date of publication of the annulment decision in the Official Gazette. The decision was published on 27 January 1993 and therefore these clauses ceased to have effect as of 27 July 1993.        Article 8 paragraph 1 of the Anti-Terror Law as amended by Law      No. 4126 of 27 October 1995        <Translation>        "No one shall make written and oral propaganda or hold      assemblies, demonstrations and manifestations against the      indivisible integrity of the State of the Turkish Republic with      its land and nation. Those carrying out such an activity shall      be sentenced to imprisonment between one and three years and a      fine of between 100 and 300 million Turkish lira. In case of re-      occurrence of this offence, sentences shall not be commuted to      fines."        The Press Law (Law No. 5680)        Under Article 7 of the Press Law, in cases where a periodical is owned by a company, the major shareholder in that company is considered to be the owner of the periodical.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains of violations of Articles 10 and 6 of the Convention.        As to Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction as the owner of a periodical in which an interview with a PKK leader was published as well as a joint declaration by four socialist organisations, constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, and in particular with his right to receive and impart information and ideas.        As to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. He asserts in this regard that one of the three members of the State Security Court is a military judge answerable to his military superiors whose presence prejudices the independence of the Court.        The applicant also complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 para. 1.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 20 February 1994 and registered on 20 April 1994.        On 20 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application, under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 para. 1 (lack of impartiality and independence) of the Convention, to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Government's observations were submitted on 15 September 1995. The applicant replied on 24 October 1995.        On 4 December 1995 the Government submitted information concerning the amendments made to the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 and the developments in the cases of persons convicted and sentenced under Article 8 of the said law. The applicant submitted his comments in reply on 18 June 1996.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant first complains that his conviction as the owner of a periodical constitutes an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart ideas and information under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention which provides as follows:        "1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This      right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and      impart information and ideas without interference by public      authority and regardless of frontiers...        2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it      duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,      conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law      and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of      national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for      the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health      or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of      others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in      confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of      the judiciary."        The Government maintain that in this case the interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention was prescribed by law i.e. by Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. They state that the applicant, in his review, published an interview in which the person being interviewed had referred to a certain part of the Turkish territory as "Kurdistan" and had asserted that certain Turkish citizens who are of Kurdish race form a separate society and that the Republic of Turkey expels the Kurdish people from their villages and massacres them. The respondent Government assert that according to Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law these forms of expression constitute propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State. They consider that the domestic courts therefore interpreted the law reasonably.        The Government also maintain that the purpose of the conviction of the applicant was linked to the control of terrorism carried out by illegal organisations and consequently served to protect territorial integrity and national security.        As to the necessity of the measure in a democratic society, the respondent Government state that the threat posed to Turkey by the PKK and its affiliations is internationally recognised, as is the need to react firmly to it. Terrorism strikes at the heart of democracy, the fundamental rights which that concept enshrines and the judicial and political systems. They assert that the interview in question is based on the glorification of the activities of the PKK being an illegal terrorist organisation for the establishment of an independent Kurdish State against the Turkish State. They submit that it is generally accepted in comparative and international law on terrorism, that restrictions on Convention rights will be deemed necessary in a democratic society threatened by terrorist violence, as being proportionate to the aim of protecting public order.        In this respect the Government assert that the decisions of the Istanbul State Security Court and the Court of Cassation did not exceed the margin of appreciation conferred on States by the Convention.        The applicant contests all these arguments. He maintains that the interview was published with the aim of giving information to the public within the scope of journalism. He contends that, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no social need for his conviction.        The applicant also maintains that his conviction cannot be justified under the Convention. He considers that it was completely out of proportion to rely on such reasons, particularly in view of the limited circulation of the review.        Furthermore the applicant maintains that the penal sanctions inflicted upon him were not necessary in a democratic society. He notes that there had been no prosecution for the publication of interviews with the leaders of the PKK in other newspapers or magazines.        With regard to the amendments made by Law No. 4126 to Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, the applicant states that the fine remains enforceable against him. He emphasises that in these circumstances his status has not changed following the amendments to the said Law.        The Commission has conducted a preliminary examination of the parties' arguments. It considers that the application raises complex factual and legal issues which cannot be resolved at this stage of the examination of the application, but require an examination of the merits. Consequently, the application cannot be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.   2.    The applicant further complains that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:        "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or      of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to      a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."        The Government maintain that State Security Courts, which are special courts set up to deal with offences against the existence and continuity of the State, are ordinary courts, given that they have been established in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the Constitution. As they are independent judicial organs, no public authority or agent could give instructions to such courts. State Security Courts are composed of three members, one of whom is a military judge. A civil judge acts as president and all the judges have attained the first grade in the career scale. The presence of a military judge in the court does not prejudice its independence, this judge being a judge by career and not belonging to the military. The judges of State Security Courts evaluate the evidence and take their decisions in accordance with the law and their own conscientious conviction as required by Article 138 of the Turkish Constitution. The verdicts of such courts are subject to review by the Court of Cassation.        Accordingly the Government submit that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        The applicant claims that the State Security Courts are extraordinary courts dealing with political offences. He contends that:   - the members of the State Security Court are appointed by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors,   - the president of this Council is the Minister of Justice and two other members also hold office in the Ministry of Justice,   - one of the three members of the State Security Court is a military judge answerable to his military superiors.        The Commission has conducted a preliminary examination of the parties' arguments. It considers that this part of the application raises complex factual and legal issues which cannot be resolved at this stage of the examination of the application, but require an examination of the merits. Consequently, this complaint cannot be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.   3.    The applicant lastly complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not dealt with within a "reasonable time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        The Commission notes that the period to be considered began on 1 June 1992 when the domestic court ordered the seizure of all copies of the tenth edition of the review and ended on 4 November 1993 when the Court of Cassation delivered its judgment. It therefore amounted to about one year and five months.        The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the established case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (Eur. Court HR, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319, p. 20, para. 59).        In the instant case, the Commission observes that the total period at issue was not unreasonably long. Moreover, the applicant has not shown any substantial periods of inactivity attributable to the judicial authorities.        It follows that this part of this application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the      applicant's complaints relating to the alleged interference with      his freedom of expression and the alleged lack of impartiality      and independence of the tribunal which convicted him.        DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President      to the Commission                     of the Commission     ANNEX TO THE DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION NO. 23927/94 v. TURKEY       EXTRACTS FROM THE IMPUGNED TEXTS CONSTITUTING THE GROUNDS FOR THE DOMESTIC COURT RULINGS       "Gerçek" interviews Cemil Bay*k, the PKK second-in-command (Part 1)   ..........        What do you mean when you say [the elections present] dangers?        -   The US is saying, "The Kurds are oppressed.   Saddam is slaughtering them.   We are protecting the Kurds against Saddam's massacres.   We are taking their assets into safekeeping."   But it is quite obvious that that's a big swindle.   If they were really protecting the Kurds against massacre as they claim, they ought to be developing the same protection against the Turkish State.   For the massacre that the Turkish State is waging against our people in the north isn't much better than Saddam's.   In fact there are practices which are much more extreme than Saddam's.   So the US ought to be doing the same thing against Turkey.   The double standards are clear for all to see.   It takes action against Saddam, but it supports Turkey's abuse of the Kurdish people in both north and south.   This is seen in several ways, and our people are aware of it.   They want to make the Kurds an instrument for gaining their own ends.   The aim in the elections is both to contain the positive developments in the south through the organisations they want to promote and to block the fight for independence and freedom which is developing in Kurdistan in general.   They want to bring all of the Kurdish movements under the control of those two organisations.   And those two organisations are already controlled by them [the US].   So that's why they all present a danger for the Kurdish people.   ...   ...        -   It is a well-known fact that Turkey and/or imperialism wants to divert our people from its national identity and from its struggle. But we want to achieve our identity as a nation and we want to achieve our fatherland.   That's what we're fighting for.   They want to uproot us and drive us out of our territory;   they want to annihilate us or force a metamorphosis on us.   But we are fighting to live in freedom on our own territory.   If either the US or Turkey or any other power which claims to be acting in the name of Kurdish identity attempts to force us out of any part of our country we will fight in order to stay where we are.   That's what we are fighting for right now.   The entire Turkish State wants to oust us from our territory.   It's driving people out of their villages.   It wants Kurdistan to become a totally uninhabited area.   But we're resisting.   No one can tell us to get out. No one can require us to go.   We're not on anyone else's territory; we're on our own territory.   No one can tell us to leave our own territory.   We make no difference between North and South;   we're in Kurdistan.   We're amongst our own people.   If they want us to leave our territory they must know that we will never agree to it.   We are a people who have lost everything we had and who are fighting to regain what we have lost.   That's the purpose of our action.   We've got nothing to lose.   We shrink from nobody and are afraid of no one.   All we can lose is our slavery.   That's why we act without fear...   ...        It is said that broadcasting programmes in Kurdish on Turkish State television would be interpreted as making a concession to the PKK.   Could that be true?   It is also rumoured that the PKK is going to set up a TV station.   Is that right?        -   It isn't true that the PKK is going to broadcast on television.   There's no way that we have the facilities for doing that. Television broadcasting either by satellite or through any other channel is not a problem which has been raised by the PKK.   It was Turgut Özal who brought up the issue of Kurdish TV in Turkey when he went to the US.   That's what's being debated.   A very small fraction of people say that Özal was right, but a very large proportion are against it.   Those who are suggesting Kurdish TV are doing so deliberately.   The aim is supposedly to influence and win over the masses;   and thus to isolate the PKK.   That's what the idea is.   But even if Kurdish TV became a reality it would do them no service. That's why they're against it.   The purpose of those who want to create Kurdish TV is to isolate the PKK.   For there's no mention of any argument such as "Here is a people who have their own language and we must broadcast in their language.   There is need for respect for that people.   It is wrong to ban a people's language;   that also harms the Turkish people."   Far from it.   The debate has revealed the real intentions: "How can we wipe out the influence of the PKK?   How can we isolate the PKK?   How can we pull the wool over the Kurdish people's eyes?"   It's a tactical approach.   It's a trick.   But no matter what steps they take they will have effects to the advantage of the PKK nevertheless.   The Turkish State has now lost Kurdistan.   That is a fact.   Any move the State makes in Kurdistan after this will turn out to the advantage of the PKK and to the disadvantage of the Turkish State...   ...        Different tactics were followed as a result in the Uludere attack.   Attacks were previously always carried out at night.   But this time the attack was carried out during the day, and the clashes continued throughout the day. It is said that this entails more risk for the guerillas.   What was the reason for it?        -   What they say is right.   Our combat has reached a certain level.   Tactics have to be developed which match that level, because it's a mistake to wage war with less developed tactics.   Progress can be achieved in the war by using tactics in keeping with the level of warfare which has now been reached.   That's why an action of that nature was planned.   The idea was to attack in the morning and hold our ground, continuing the clashes throughout the day - and it was successful in the end.   It was an experiment.   From our point of view there are conclusions to be drawn from it.   We are studying the matter. We shall benefit from that in the actions we carry out in the future.     "Gerçek" interviews Cemil Bay*k, the PKK second-in-command   -   Part 2   "We are forced to wage war"        We are publishing the last part of our interview with ARGK commander Cemil Bay*k:        What do you think about the assassinations of unknown perpetrator in Kurdistan and the actions described as Hizbi-contra?        It is true that there is an organisation known as Hizbullah.   But it's a weak organisation.   It's not that organisation which is carrying out the massacres as is being said.   Since the organisation is weak the Republic of Turkey has captured its members in many places. Many massacres are carried out in the name of that organisation, but it is actually the Turkish State itself which is doing the killing.   We say this to the members of Hizbullah: "You are really Muslims.   The Islamic faith is against pressure and injustice and advocates what is right and just."   It is a well-known fact that the Turkish State is exerting pressure and carrying out massacres and inhuman actions.   They must respect those who oppose these acts.   If they want to wage war they must join forces with them.   That's what we are asking of them.   We warn them as friends that they must throw out the contraguerillas who infiltrate their ranks.   For unless they do that they will come to grief.   We have not as yet acted more seriously;   we have always just warned them.   We say that that phenomenon has served the Turkish State, and we have received a favourable response from certain quarters.   They have said that Hizbullah people or Muslims have not in fact been involved in that sort of action and that the acts have not been carried out by Hizbullah people.   That is favourable for us.   But it [the State] is still carrying out massacres in some places in Hizbullah's name. ...   ...        On what lines will the struggle be carried out from now on?        - The climate does affect a war, although the effects are not very decisive.   The 1991-92 winter was very hard, and that affected movement ability and the capacity for combat and caused several difficulties - both for us and for the Turkish State.   But they have the advantage of using technology, and they used that advantage to the full.   To no avail, however.   They intended to deal us murderous blows last winter.   They thought they would have overthrown us and ousted us by the spring.   But they didn't achieve what they wanted.   Our capacity for movement was reduced by the hard winter conditions and, as a result, steps were taken late compared to previous years.   The season is gradually becoming more suitable, however.   There is still snow on the ground in many places, but it is presenting less and less of an obstacle.   1992 will be more different compared to other years, but we never say, "Let's develop our armed combat, let's expand it further." If we develop the war, we do so because we have to.   Because there is no possibility of achieving a different life and developing.   All roads have been blocked on us.   We are waging war because we are forced to. Any further expansion of the war will depend on the attitude of the Turkish State.   The State is intensifying the war.   So we have to extend the war to that degree.   The war will escalate.   Before the PKK there was a one-sided war being waged in Kurdistan.   In the last few years that war has begun to be a two-sided war.   In the old days, the Turkish State used to achieve the ends it intended to achieve in the war it was waging, and the Kurdish people was being rapidly wiped out as a result.   But the Kurdish people have begun to say "Stop!"   They have begun to resist in order to avoid annihilation.   It was the State which started the war, and the ending of the war will also depend on the Turkish State.   It wasn't us who started the war.   We developed a war to defend ourselves against the war of annihilation that was being waged on us.   This war will continue as long as the Turkish State refuses to accept the will of the people of Kurdistan:   there will be not one single step backwards.   The war will go on until there is only one single individual left on our side.                                    .                                 .      .   Joint Declaration by four socialist organisations published in "Gerçek":   Call "to unite forces"   TDKP, TKEP, TKKKÖ and TKP-ML Hareketi issue joint statement        The Central Committees of the Progressive Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP), the Communist Labour Party of Turkey (TKEP), the Turkish Organisation for the Liberation of Northern Kurdistan (TKKKÖ) and the Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist Movement of Turkey (TKP/ML Hareketi) have called on all progressives and democrats to unite forces.        "Let us unite against State terrorism, against the pressurising and oppression of the Kurdish people, against the massacres, the street killings, the sackings and unemployment;   let us unite and step up our efforts for freedom, democracy and socialism!"   Such is the heading of the appeal in which it is stated that the only means of action for the ruling classes is that of force and violence.   And the "democratisation" initiatives of the DYP and SHP government are described as a manoeuvre, purely a means of concealing their attacks.        And the appeal goes on to state the following views:        "Workers, proletarians and young people of the Kurdish and Turkish   nation!        It is possible and perfectly feasible for us to drive back the attacks levelled on us by imperialism and the collaborating ruling classes and to obtain our economic and political rights and freedoms. To do so we must rally our forces around our common demands and join battle.   Aware of its historic revolutionary role, the working class must take action, must lead that action, must call the bluff of the trade union bosses of every camp and smash the barriers they have put up to curb our movement and must develop the fight and action.        -   The Turkish army must withdraw from Kurdistan.   Action must be taken to put an end to the double standards in the legal system, and all Kurdish prisoners must be released.        -   The Turkish parliament must end its authority over Kurdistan. The Kurdish people must be free to determine its own destiny, including the establishment of a separate State.        -   The State terrorism and street executions which are being carried out through agents of the MiT [State Intelligence Organisation], contraguerillas and special squads must stop immediately and they must be called to account for the massacres and murders.        -   The servicing of external debts to imperialists must be stopped, and those resources must be used for the benefit of the proletariat.        -   The sackings must stop and sacked workers must be given their jobs back.   All of the obstacles which have been placed in the way of trade union organisation must be removed, and the right to organise without restriction must be granted.        -   Measures must be taken to prevent the State Economic Enterprises, which are the resources of the country and of the people, from being sold for a song to imperialists.   Labour sub-contracting, which is a means of eliminating trade union coverage, must be stopped immediately.        -   The strike bans must be lifted, and lockout must be prohibited.   The right to hold general strikes, political strikes, strikes to obtain rights and sympathetic strikes must be recognised. And all of the bans on freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate and freedom of opinion and of the press must be ended.        -   Act no. 657 pertaining to public servants must be repealed, and all working people must be granted the right to join a trade union with the right to strike and to conclude collective agreements.        -   All working people must have insurance coverage;   all workers must be granted unemployment insurance, and the facilities must be provided for free health services and health care for everyone.        -   The discrimination based on sex which prevails in working and social life and the pressure exerted on working women must be ended.        -   The YÖK [High Council for Education] must be done away with, and young people in higher education must be allowed to have a say and to participate in decision-making in university administration.   All of the obstacles that have been placed on the organisation of young people must be removed, and education and training must be free of charge at every level.        -   Education boards must be given full autonomy;   textbooks must meet contemporary requirements and must be re-written with democratic content.        -   All of the debts owed to the State by the peasantry must be cancelled, and the rural population must be allowed to set the minimum prices of products.