## Facts

- Since 1985, south‑east Turkey had been the scene of armed clashes between state security forces and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), with thousands of deaths among civilians and security personnel; in 1987, emergency rule was imposed in most provinces in the region.
- Mehdi Zana, a Turkish national and former mayor of Diyarbakır, was held in a military prison in Diyarbakır.
- In August 1987, while imprisoned, Zana gave an interview to journalists in which he said: “I support the national liberation movement of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); but, on the other hand, I am not in favour of massacres. Everyone can make mistakes, and the PKK kill women and children by mistake.”
- The interview was published in the national daily newspaper *Cumhuriyet* on 30 August 1987, at a time when the PKK had carried out deadly attacks on civilians in the region.
- Following publication, prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings. The case moved between authorities and courts due to jurisdictional questions before ending up before the Diyarbakır National Security Court.
- On 26 March 1991, the Diyarbakır National Security Court convicted Zana under provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code (including Articles 168 and 312 as cited in the Strasbourg proceedings) for endangering public security by defending or supporting unlawful acts associated with an armed group, and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment (with part to be served in custody and the remainder suspended).
- Zana was not brought before the National Security Court to attend and defend himself in person; the domestic court proceeded under procedural rules that allowed the trial to continue in the accused’s absence (Article 226 § 4 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, as then in force).
- The Court of Cassation upheld the conviction on 19 June 1991.
- Zana applied to the European Commission of Human Rights and then the European Court of Human Rights, complaining mainly of violations of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (fair trial, including personal participation and length of proceedings). The case was decided by the ECtHR (Grand Chamber) on 25 November 1997.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the complaint given that the impugned interview and parts of the domestic proceedings occurred before Turkey’s relevant acceptance date, but the conviction occurred later.
2. Whether Zana’s conviction and sentence for the published interview violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or was justified under Article 10 § 2 as prescribed by law, pursuing legitimate aims (national security/public safety), and necessary in a democratic society.
3. Whether Article 6 was violated because (a) Zana could not appear in person before the National Security Court and (b) the criminal proceedings were not completed within a reasonable time.

## Decision

- The Court rejected the Government’s preliminary objection on jurisdiction ratione temporis, holding that the “principal fact” for Article 10 purposes was the 26 March 1991 conviction, which post‑dated the relevant acceptance date.
- The Court also rejected the Government’s non‑exhaustion objection, because it had not been raised at the admissibility stage before the Convention organs.
- Article 10: The Court held that the conviction and sentence were an interference with freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law (based on the cited Criminal Code provisions), and that it pursued legitimate aims (national security and public safety).
- Article 10 (merits): By a majority, the Court found no violation. It treated the statement’s support for the PKK as having special significance in the setting of serious violence, and considered the domestic response capable of answering a pressing social need given the timing, the applicant’s public position, and the wide dissemination in a major national newspaper.
- Article 6: The Court found a violation of Article 6 concerning the fairness of the trial because the applicant was unable to appear before the National Security Court and defend himself in person.
- Article 6 (reasonable time): The Court also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to excessive length of the criminal proceedings, including periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal conviction and sentence for statements to the press constitutes an “interference” with freedom of expression under Article 10 and must satisfy the requirements of Article 10 § 2 (lawfulness, legitimate aim, and necessity in a democratic society).
- In assessing “necessity,” the Court examines the words used together with their setting, including the level of violence and disorder at the time, the likely effects of the statement, the speaker’s status, and the size and nature of the audience reached.
- Where statements are seen as supporting an armed group during a period of deadly attacks, national authorities may be afforded a margin of appreciation in concluding that punishment is needed to protect national security and public safety, provided the reasons given are sufficient and the sanction is proportionate.
- Article 6 requires that an accused be able to participate effectively in a criminal trial. Proceeding in the accused’s absence can breach fairness where the person’s own account and intent are central to evaluating the alleged offence.
- Article 6 § 1 also requires that criminal proceedings be completed within a reasonable time; unjustified delays and periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities can amount to a violation.

## Conclusion

In *Case of Zana v. Turkey*, the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkey did not violate Article 10 by convicting and sentencing a former mayor for publicly stated support for the PKK in an interview published during a period of severe violence, but it did violate Article 6 because the applicant could not appear in person before the trial court and because the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time.


Case of Zana v. Turkey, 69/1996/688/880 (1997)