Kurdistan Communities Union
The Kurdistan Communities Union (Kurdish: Koma Civakên Kurdistanê, KCK) is a Kurdish political organization committed to implementing Abdullah Öcalan's ideology of democratic confederalism.[1] The KCK also serves as an umbrella group for several confederalist political parties of Kurdistan, including the Kurdish militant political organization and armed guerrilla movement Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Democratic Union Party (PYD), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), and Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (PÇDK). Finland and Sweden's alleged support for the KCK, is one of the points which caused Turkey to oppose Finland and Sweden's NATO accession bid.[2][3]
Kurdistan Communities Union
Koma Civakên Kurdistanê (KCK)
Peoples protections centre[edit]
This centre is responsible for grant training to the armed forces in order to provide security to the citizens of the KCK.[18]
Some of the armed forces within the KCK are the People's Defense Forces (HPG), the Free Women's Units (YJA) and the Civil Protections Units(YPS)[18] the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the Women's Protections Units (YPJ).[19]
Criticism of the judicial procedures[edit]
The trials raised a series of fair trial concerns common to cases involving terrorism charges, including prolonged pre-trial detention and limitations on access by defendants and their lawyers to the evidence against them.[42] Frequent use of arrests instead of judicial supervision, limited access to files, failure to give detailed grounds for detention decisions and revisions of such decisions highlight the need to bring the Turkish criminal justice system into line with international standards and to amend the anti-terror legislation. The detention of elected representatives is a challenge to local government and hampers dialogue on the Kurdish issue.[43] The evidence against the defendants is largely based on wiretaps, surveillance of an office some of the accused frequented, intercepted email correspondence, and testimony from secret witnesses. However, there is scant evidence to suggest the defendants engaged in any acts that could be defined as terrorism as it is understood in international law.[44] Prosecutions brought under anti-terrorism legislation have frequently been based on secret witness testimony that cannot be examined by defense lawyers.[45] On 15 April 2011 the Joint Platform for Human Rights (formed by the Human Rights Association (HRA), the Association of Helsinki Citizens and the Turkish section of Amnesty International) issued a report on the trial in Diyarbakir.[46] It concluded that the defense of human rights is under threat of criminal investigations, that the accused could not use their native language. and that the privacy of communication was under threat.[46]