The case of conscientious objector Mehmet Tarhan, pending trial at the Military Court, sparks debate about the legality of refusing the mandatory military service. While Tarhan’s lawyer argues that conscientious objection is legal under the Turkish legal system, supporters stage peaceful demonstrations for his cause.

Tarhan was taken under custody in the Western coastal town of Izmir last Friday and was shipped to his military unit in the Central Anatolian town of Tokat. He is transferred to another Central Anatolian town, Sivas today, to be tried at the Military Court for his rejection to serve his mandatory military service.

All male Turkish citizen’s older than 20 are obliged to join the army for 15 months military service. Conscientious objection is not recognized as a right while objectors rarely come out in the open as those who refuse to complete the mandatory military service are punished by Military Courts.

Tarhan’s case is unique as he is readying to demand the recognition of the legality of conscientious objectivity. Tarhan is currently solitarily confined pending trial at military court. Tarhan’s lawyer Abdullah Öztürk is expected to apply for launching legal procedures say Anti-War Association officials.

Mehmet* loves peace!

Two peaceful demonstrations were staged in Izmir and Istanbul in the weekend to support Tarhan’s case, A civic initiative, “Initiative for Solidarity with Mehmet Tarhan”, also advocates his stance for conscientious objection in a campaign named “Mehmet loves Peace”.

The most common male name in Turkish Menhmet is also used to denote ordinary private.

They will be launching a long standing international campaign to protest against his imprisonment, say the initiative activists.

During the demonstration in Izmir, Tarhan’s lawyer Öztürk stated that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Union Citizenship established by the Maastricht Treaty, and the Copenhagen Criteria, which the European Union have put before its candidates demanding certain reforms to be made prior to integration, deems conscientious rejection possible.

Öztürk affirmed that “Turkey has adopted all these international documents and agreements. When the 10th Article of the Turkish Constitution (which states that everybody is equal before the law regardless of their political thoughts and philosophical beliefs) is viewed under the light of these international legal documents, conscientious objection should be recognized as legal. Enforcing military service in spite of the will of individuals is a violation of human rights norms’.

The recent amendments made as part of the adaptation of the European Union legal norms in the 1982 Constitution of Turkey have established the supremacy of the international legal documents over the Turkish legal code. Nonetheless, the 72nd Article of the Constitution, adopted after the military coup of 1980 rules that military service is a part of the mandatory civil duties of the citizens of Turkey. (SÖ/EK/YE)