Military Court Defies EHCR Rulings
The Turkish daily Milliyet newspaper reported that the military court detailed verdict says European Court of Human Rights decisions on conscientious objection are not abiding for any individual country and homosexuality itself must be regarded as a psychological disorder.
Tarhan, 27, first voiced his conscientious objection to military service in October 2001.
"I think that wars caused by power-mongering states are first and foremost a violation of the right to life," he said at a press conference in Ankara. "The violation of the right to life is a crime against humanity... I therefore declare that I won't be an agent of such crime under any circumstances. I will not serve any military apparatus," he said.
Since then he has been detained twice, first on 8 April 2005 for two months and again upon his release in June. On both occasions he was held in Sivas for refusing military service. Tried on 10 August last year, he was given a prison sentence of two years for each charge of insubordination, totalling to four years.
"I... refuse to be transformed into a murder machine by taking a course in dying and killing," Tarhan told a court in his defence in August 2004.
The Military Court detailed verdict on Tarhan rules, however, that no matter his views, he will have to accept serving the military, for him a 15 month compulsory recruitment period.
Last November the Appeals Court had overturned Tarhan's prison sentence on grounds that it was disproportionately high and therefore unfair, but its final written recommendation that his homosexuality should be identified by "proper physical examination procedures" was never realised.
In its detailed final decision, the Court of Appeals referred to Tarhan refusing to undergo physical examination to establish his homosexuality and said that under these circumstances, the correct course of action would not be a forced examination, but recruiting him into military service.
The Milliyet report also said the verdict used the term "advanced stage of psychological disorder" in describing homosexuality.
The decision argued that where Tarhan was not serving in the military his commander could not know whether he was a homosexual and "because of these reasons, Tarhan cannot be held exempt from military service".
Tarhan's case
Mehmet Tarhan made a press statement and announced that he is a conscientious objector on October 27, 2001. He said he would not kill, he would not die and thus would not become anyone's soldier. Tarhan is a homosexual and views the medical certificate deeming him "disabled" as evidence that in fact the state itself is disabled.
Because Turkey doesn't recognize the status of "conscientious objector," Mehmet was legally seen as a deserter. But Turkey's policy of "ignoring" some 70 people, who have announced being conscientious objectors, changed on April 8, 2005.
In the 15-year-old history of conscientious objection in Turkey, three people have been charged with this offence. All three of them were released at different stages of different trial procedures. Although their addresses were known, none of the conscientious objectors were recalled to the army. This issue is Turkey's weakness. The state would never dare to let the conscientious objectors trigger a debate about the military or military service, which are both taboos in Turkey.
On April 8, when Mehmet refused to sign any documents at the Izmir Military Recruitment Office, the deadlocked bureaucracy let the incoherent legal system solve the problem. Mehmet was first transferred to the military corps in Tokat, then to the Sivas Military Jail. The course of his life sentence was thus drawn out.
Although Mehmet repeated on a number of occasions that he is a conscientious objector, he was charged with "insisting on disobeying orders in front of assembled recruits." He was attacked by prisoners who were provoked by the prison administration, he was blackmailed and threatened. Although he openly stated he is a homosexual, he was forced to undergo physical examinations.
Ten soldiers kicked and stamped him, and cut his hair and beard. He was locked into a solitary confinement cell. He began self-mutilation and a hunger strike to protest against discrimination and bad treatment. He also demanded that his conditions be improved.
He stood the third hearing of his trial on June 9. He was released pending the outcome. Because he was persistently referred to as a "soldier" he was sent again to the Military Recruitment Office, then to the corps, and then to prison. He ended his hunger strike after 28 days when some of his demands were met. But a day before his hearing on July 12, his hair and beard was forcibly cut again. (II