(CN) - Turkey's decades-old fight with Kurdish militants took a turn on Tuesday, as Europe's top rights court faulted Ankara for jailing a former Kurdistan Workers' Party fighter based on a confession he gave without a lawyer present.

The European Court of Human Rights said there was no compelling justification for denying the PKK fighter access to an attorney, and that relying on a confession taken without one irretrievably undermined the fairness of the entire trial.

The judges also pointed out that prosecutors leaned on witness statements from people Ayhan Aykac never had a chance to confront in court, a flaw they said deepened the injustice of the case.

Aykac was arrested in 2000 on suspicion that he was a member of the PKK, the banned Kurdish militant group that waged a long insurgency against the Turkish state. He told police he had rejoined PKK after a stint in prison in the 1980s, trained at camps in northern Iraq, and later took on a command role in operations in Turkey's southeast. 

But every word of that account was given before he saw a lawyer, at a time when Turkish law still barred terrorism suspects from legal access during initial police questioning.

He later recanted his confession, saying it was made under pressure. Still, a regional criminal court in Malatya found him guilty in 2007 of plotting against the unity and territorial integrity of the state, relying heavily on his police statements and written testimonies from other PKK members gathered through judicial requests. 

A year later, Turkey's top appeals court upheld the verdict, and in 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed Aykac's bid for review, leaving his life sentence in place.

When Aykac finally brought his case to the Strasbourg court in 2009, he argued that he had been denied a lawyer and never given the chance to challenge key witnesses. 

Almost a decade later, in 2018, the Turkish government admitted fault and offered him compensation in a unilateral declaration. The European court then closed the case the following year - a move that, under Turkey's own rules, should have cleared the way for Aykac to ask for a retrial back home.

Instead, domestic judges refused to reopen the proceedings, saying his request didn't meet the technical requirements for a retrial. The Strasbourg panel said that decision left Ankara's earlier promises hollow and denied Aykac any genuine chance at justice, noting that the Constitutional Court had done nothing to fix the problem.

The chamber also faulted Turkey for building its case on paper instead of with live testimony. Judges said the trial court had relied on statements from witnesses who never appeared, with no clear reason for their absence. 

The court added that "no consideration was given to alternative measures which could have limited the restriction of the rights of the defense to what was strictly necessary." Without those witnesses taking the stand, the judges said, the fairness of the trial was irretrievably undermined.

For the violations, the court awarded Aykac 1,500 euros (about $1,740) in non-pecuniary damages. But more than the money, the judges said "the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial" if he chooses to seek one.

The ruling closes a procedural loop that began a quarter-century ago, underscoring both Turkey's systemic fair-trial failures and the limits of its compliance with Strasbourg court rulings.

The lawyer for Aykac and Turkey's Ministry of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.

Philip Leach, professor of human rights law at Middlesex University in London, said the ruling sends a clear message about what happens when governments fail to act on their own promises. 

"This case shows that where governments make concessions in Strasbourg proceedings, which are then reflected in unilateral declarations, these must be followed through, otherwise cases will be reopened by the European court," he said.

He added that the decision carries broader weight for Europe's human rights system, as "it demonstrates that there will be consequences where national courts fail to respond as they should to clear directions from Strasbourg."

The PKK, listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the EU and the U.S., launched its armed campaign in 1984 calling for greater Kurdish autonomy. After more than four decades of fighting, the group formally announced in May that it was disbanding and laying down its weapons. But the war it waged has already claimed over 40,000 lives and left a lasting rift between Turkey's Kurdish population and the central government.

Although Ankara lifted the legal ban on early-stage access to lawyers in 2003 and abolished its state-security courts in 2004, the European bench has continued to find violations in similar cases. 

After peace talks with the PKK collapsed in 2015, Turkish prosecutors again expanded the use of terrorism laws, detaining thousands of politicians, activists and journalists.

Turkey now has three months to ask the European court's Grand Chamber to review the case, though such referrals are rarely granted. If Ankara doesn't appeal, the judgment will become final and binding - requiring the government to pay damages and open the door for a possible retrial.

Aykac, now in his 60s and still serving a life term, won't walk free because of the ruling. But it stands as formal recognition that his trial was unfair and adds fresh pressure on Turkey to bring its justice system in line with European human rights standards.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.

Source: Courthouse News Service