Stone thrown in a well

And he swore that what he said was not real. Then, one of the academics from Eastern Mediterranean University said, "I knew him. During the operation, he was peeling potatoes in the kitchen."

Turkey did the right thing this time. The prosecutor’s office launched an inquiry into Olgaç on the grounds of war crime. Which one is real among Olgaç’s statements will be understood after the end of an inquiry or a trial if needed. The problem has two legal aspects: results of Olgaç statements in relation to the law of war and the law on human rights.

In terms of the law of war, murder of a war captive is an explicit war crime. The third article of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is related to the treatment against prisoners of war.

According to the third article of the convention, states in war are liable to treat the prisoners of war humanely. The same article bans violence against prisoners of war, which may threaten their lives. Those who disregard the ban are war criminals.

Like genocide or crimes against humanity, war crimes are also considered as crimes committed against the basic values of humanity and the whole international society. Thus, states do not have a right whether or not to accept war crimes as a crime.

He must be heard in Turkey

All states have liabilities in relation to such crimes. In line with modern international criminal law, states have universal judicial power on these crimes.

In other words, a state can try a war criminal if it catches him, regardless of whether the criminal is its own citizen or whether the crime was committed in its own territory. If the inquiry about Olgaç requires his trial, he will be heard in Turkey. Military law has some articles that will form the basis of the trial.

War crimes are under the authority of International Criminal Court established in the Hague. However, Olgaç’s being heard there is difficult. Turkey is not a party to the Rome Convention, which established the international criminal court.

Even if it becomes a party, the court’s authority is restricted to events that occur after the country becomes a party to the convention. Moreover, the authority of the court is complementary to the authority of international judiciaries.

Inquiry must be in full force

If the other nine people, whom Olgaç claimed that he killed, are not soldiers but civilians, then another war crime in relation to these people will come into the agenda. In terms of law on human rights, there is a right to file a suit against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR. This can be a suit filed against Turkey by Greek Cypriot Administration or a suit filed by the families of the murdered people.

But according to a verdict delivered in May 2001 by the ECHR concerning the fourth application made by the Greek Cypriot administration about 1485 missing persons, Turkey has not sufficiently investigated the case and violated the Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the case, which will be filed now, has the same characteristic with the former case, it will be rejected by the ECHR. On the other hand, families of the murder victims can make individual applications. Turkey is responsible for the acts of Turkish soldiers.

Because the events in both of the cases occurred before 1987, however, the date when Turkey accepted the right for individual application, ECHR rejects the complaint that Turkey is responsible for the deaths. It only investigates whether Turkey conducts an effective inquiry or not.

Thus, the inquiry launched by the prosecutor’s office is important. It should be carefully carried out in full force to prevent any criticism that it is ineffective. Olgaç threw a stone inside the well and the extraction of this stone will take so much time and need so much effort.


Mr. Rıza Türmen is the columnist for daily Milliyet in which this piece appeared on Friday. It was translated into English by the H rriyet Daily News & Economic Review.