Even though Burak was guilty of sex trafficking, his testimony was crucial in busting up the Black Dawn sex trafficking syndicate, and in conjunction with the favorable testimony on Peter Anderson’s part he only had to serve one year in prison. Though it must be said that one year in a Turkish prison was like two or three years in any other prison. Because Burak was a wanted man, he was guarded quite heavily. The time was hard on him because besises the heavy security, in order to insure his safety he had to stay in solitary confinement. At least he ws provided with books and other reading material. The lack of social interaction was particularly difficult.
Typical solitary cell for confinement in Turkey
The Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement
The following is an excerpt from an official Turkish document relating to solitary confinement
Recent years have seen an increase in the use of strict and often prolonged solitary confinement practices in prison systems in various jurisdictions across the world. This may take the form of a disproportionate disciplinary measure, or increasingly, the creation of whole prisons based upon a model of strict isolation of prisoners.1 While acknowledging that in exceptional cases the use of solitary confinement may be necessary, we consider this a very problematic and worrying development. We therefore consider it timely to address this issue with an expert statement on the use and effects of solitary confinement
Solitary confinement is the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day. In many jurisdictions, prisoners are allowed out of their cells for one hour of solitary exercise. Meaningful contact with other people is typically reduced to a minimum. The reduction in stimuli is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The available stimuli and the occasional social contacts are seldom freely chosen, are generally monotonous, and are often not empathetic.
Common practices of solitary confinement
Solitary confinement is applied in broadly four circumstances in various criminal justice systems around the world; as either a disciplinary punishment for sentenced prisoners; for the isolation of individuals during an ongoing criminal investigation; increasingly as an administrative tool for managing specific groups of prisoners; and as a judicial sentencing. In many jurisdictions, solitary confinement is also used as a substitute for proper medical or psychiatric care for mentally disordered individuals. Additionally, solitary confinement is increasingly used as a part of coercive interrogation and is often an integral part of enforced disappearance or incommunicado detention.
The effects of solitary confinement
It has been convincingly documented on numerous occasions that solitary confinement may cause serious psychological and sometimes physiological ill effects.3 Research suggests that between one third and as many as 90 per cent of prisoners experience adverse symptoms in solitary confinement.
A long list of symptoms ranging from insomnia and confusion to hallucinations and psychosis has been documented. Negative health effects can occur after only a few days in solitary confinement, and the health risks rise with each additional day spent in such conditions.
Individuals may react to solitary confinement differently. Still, a significant number of individuals will experience serious health problems regardless of the specific conditions, regardless of time and place, and regardless of pre-existing personal factors. The central harmful feature of solitary confinement is that it reduces meaningful social contact to a level of social and psychological stimulus that many will experience as insufficient to sustain health and well-being.
The use of solitary confinement in remand prisons carries with it another harmful dimension since the detrimental effects will often create a de facto situation of psychological pressure, which can influence the pre-trial detainplead guilty.
When the element of psychological pressure is used on purpose as part of isolation regimes, such practices become coercive and can amount to torture.
Finally, solitary confinement places individuals very far out of sight of justice. This can cause problems even in societies traditionally based on the rule of law. The history of solitary confinement is rich in examples of abusive practices evolving in such settings. Safeguarding prisoner rights therefore becomes especially challenging and extraordinarily important where solitary confinement regimes exist.
Human rights and solitary confinement
The use of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolutely prohibited under international law (Article 7 of the UN convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN convention against Torture (CAT), for example). The UN Human Rights Committee has stipulated that use of prolonged solitary confinement may amount to a breach of Article 7 of the ICCPR (General comment 20/44, 3. April 1992). The UN Committee against Torture has made similar statements, with particular reference to the use of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention. The UN committee on the Rights of the Child has furthermore recommended that solitary confinement should not be used against children.4 Principle 7 of the UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners states that ‘Efforts addressed to the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment, or to the restriction of its use, should be undertaken and encouraged’. Jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee has previously found a specific isolation regime to violate both article 7 and article 10 of the ICCPR.
On a regional level, the European Court and former Commission on Human Rights, as well as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), have made it clear that the use of solitary confinement can amount to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (i.e. constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), depending on the specific circumstances of the case, and the conditions and duration of detention. It has been recognised that “…complete sensory isolation coupled with total isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason”. The CPT has also stated that solitary confinement “can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment” and has on several occasions criticized such practices and recommended reform – i.e. either abandoning specific regimes, limiting the use of solitary confinement to exceptional circumstances, and/or securing inmates a higher level of social contact.6 The importance of developing communal activities for prisoners subjected to various forms of isolation regimes has for example been stressed (CPT, visit report Turkey, 2006, para. 43). Furthermore, the revised European Prison Rules of 2006 have clearly stated that solitary confinement should be an exceptional measure and, when used, should be for as short a time as possible.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also stated that prolonged solitary confinement constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited under Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights
Policy implications
Solitary confinement harms prisoners who are not previously mentally ill and tends to worsen the mental health of those who are. The use of solitary confinement in prisons should, therefore, be kept to a minimum. In all prison systems, there is some use of solitary confinement – in special units or prisons for those seen as threats to security and prison order. But regardless of the specific circumstances, and whether solitary confinement is used in connection with disciplinary or administrative segregation or to prevent collusion in remand prisons, effort is required to raise the level of meaningful social contacts for prisoners. This can be done in a number of ways, such as raising the level of prison staff-prisoner contact, allowing access to social activities with other prisoners, allowing more visits, and allowing and arranging in-depth talks with psychologists,
psychiatrists, religious prison personnel, and volunteers from the local community. Especially important are the possibilities for both maintaining and developing relations with the outside world, including spouses, partners, children, other family, and friends. It is also very important to provide prisoners in solitary confinement with meaningful in cell and out of cell activities.
Even though Burak was in prison, just one, it did have an effect on his related to the harshness. While Burak himself did not comment on his experiences. I was able to come across some testimonials of prisoners who experienced isolation in Turkish prisons. Therefore, we can infer from these testimonials that Burak most assuredly had similar experiences.
Turkish high-security prisons are designed to maintain prisoners in absolute isolation, creating severe health and psychological impacts on inmates, according to a detailed account from Kurdish political prisoner Aziz Aktaş Sincan High Security Prison.
“Almost all rooms are single-cell units where each prisoner spends their entire life. Most of these cells receive no sunlight for 8-9 months of the year, with some never seeing sunlight at all,” Aktaş wrote. “The windows have both iron bars and fine mesh, making the rooms resemble cages.”
Prisoners spend 22.5 hours daily in these confined cells, with only 90 minutes allowed for outdoor exercise. Social activities are severely restricted, with inmates permitted to interact with only five other prisoners from their module.
“Prison administrations view their institutions as countries and themselves as presidents, using the Administration and Observation Board as a judicial cudgel, with an approach that is entirely arbitrary and ideological.”
Health issues are widespread, with 80-90 weekly hospital referrals from the 350-400 person facility. “Even basic health and hygiene items like washing-up gloves and vacuum flasks are denied, despite medical documentation confirming they are a necessity.”
Zeki Bayhan, a political prisoner who has been incarcerated for 27 years in Turkey, has penned a powerful and deeply personal letter discussing the profound psychological and emotional impact of solitary confinement.
Below, we publish Zeki Bayhan’s letter in its entirety, unabridged, to bring to light his thoughts on the dehumanising effects of isolation, the importance of resistance, and the urgent need for solidarity with political prisoners enduring such conditions.
Zeki Bayhan’s Letter on Solitary Confinement
Hello,
I send my love and respect to you all, and I commend your sensitivity in addressing a social issue as hidden and isolated as solitary confinement under the oppressive political regime that has turned the country into a vast prison. I know that you, too, are not free, and I fear that if your awareness continues, your isolation might deepen. After all, in today’s world, anyone who isn’t in favor of the ruling powers could find themselves in prison at any moment. A young friend who was arrested a few years ago, after chanting slogans with dozens of others, said, “Oh, I feel freer here. If I had chanted these slogans outside, I’d have been arrested.”
I’m curious about the associations that the concept of solitary confinement creates in the minds of people outside. When I was asked to write something about it, my first thought was: What could I say? Not because there’s nothing to say, but on the contrary, there’s so much, and it’s so devastating. There’s so much that it’s hard to know where to begin or how to explain. And, of course, the doubt always lingers: how much will be understood? Because, when you think deeply about solitary confinement and its practices, it’s so inhumane that it falls outside the scope of normal human experience and perception. That’s why it’s not easy to comprehend.
Thus, I feel as though I’m speaking to you from a distant window. In reality, solitary confinement is to be without windows. In solitary confinement, all windows face inward. Into the self… It’s a kind of enforced self-destruction. It’s a terrifying form of torture that forces a person to only see, hear, and feel themselves everywhere they look. One feels like they are being pulled into a whirlpool, spinning and sinking, collapsing in on themselves.
Yes, solitary confinement has no window to the outside world, but a person who resists can find ways to create small holes in the walls of confinement. You know, when someone places their face against a tiny hole, that hole expands, and it becomes a window. I will try to open a few windows through which you can see the inside, the essence of solitary confinement. I know it’s hard to see the darkness inside from the light outside, but if you press your eyes close to these windows, maybe, just maybe, you’ll catch a glimpse… Now, let’s move to the windows…
Window 1: Solitary confinement is the physical isolation of a person within four walls. It’s usually analysed and critiqued within this framework. However, this is just the factual aspect of solitary confinement. The space, the architecture, is merely the area where solitary confinement is enacted; it is not the essence of it.
In reality, solitary confinement is not limited to locking someone between four walls. The real aim of solitary confinement is to imprison the mind within the body. This is the truly destructive part. Physical isolation, along with the control, surveillance technologies, and practices of the prison regime, all aim to achieve this. In solitary confinement, the prisoner’s entire focus, sensitivity, anxieties, and fears are directed towards themselves and their body. Once the prisoner falls into this trap, they begin to hollow themselves out, consuming themselves. Solitary confinement is the politics of pushing a person towards their own destruction by their own hand. Physical, ideological-political, psychological, but always destructive.
Window 2: From the most extreme to the relatively milder forms, the goal of solitary confinement is the same: to break a person psychologically, emotionally, and mentally.
Of course, it makes a difference whether a person is alone or with one or two others. Hearing a voice other than your own is comforting. However, in prolonged solitary conditions, even the people you share the space with lose their vitality and distinctiveness for one another, step by step. Constant proximity in a few square meters leads people to memorise each other’s every behavior and reflex. And to the extent that those together lose their individuality for each other, they become parts of the solitary confinement system. Solitary confinement for one can become solitary confinement for three. Sometimes, solitary confinement for three can become even more challenging.
Window 3: Solitary confinement is a system of destruction that punishes a person with both isolation and the presence of others. Solitary confinement for one punishes a person with isolation. You yearn to hear a different voice. On the other hand, in confinement for three or five, you are punished by the presence of others. Can you imagine how terrible it is not to have a single moment to yourself for years and years?
When you’re upset, you can’t leave, when you’re overwhelmed by the people around you, you can’t retreat to a room and shut the door, and when you’re wracked with headaches, you can’t find a quiet corner to rest in. That’s what I’m talking about.
Window 4: Life in solitary confinement is based on endless repetition. Every day is the same as the last. Imagine living the same day for ten, twenty, or thirty years. You feel like you’re suspended in time, sensing that your perception of time has been erased.
A small social experiment: ask someone who has served a year in the military or attended university for a year about their memories. They’ll tell you long stories. Now ask someone who’s spent twenty or thirty years in prison… They’ll be more silent. Because, for twenty or thirty years, they’ve been living the same day.
Window 5: A life based on endless repetition gradually replaces thought with habit. Living the same day repeatedly makes it unnecessary for people to reconsider their actions. Habit arises from thought. But once the mind has thought about something and coded how it will be, what follows is endless repetition.
In solitary confinement, habits mechanise life to such a degree that, most of the time, actions are performed without thinking. Sometimes, a thought crosses the mind: “Did I do this?” You turn and look, and yes, you did it—without thinking.
People in prison seem like they think a lot. But this isn’t usually real, analytical thinking. It’s more like drifting between fragmented pieces of melancholy.
As I mentioned, solitary confinement imprisons the mind within the body. The network that imprisons the mind is habits.
Window 6: It’s misleading to think about solitary confinement only in terms of individual practices. Solitary confinement is a system, a set of practices. Individual practices gain meaning within this context. Therefore, the perception of these practices by prisoners may not match the perception of outsiders. Often, it doesn’t.
For instance, roll call is conducted twice a day. Prisoners are counted. The state says, “I have to count them for security reasons.” An outsider might say, “That’s understandable, it’s harmless.”
But for the prisoner, roll call is a reminder twice a day that they are nothing more than inventory, an exercise that keeps the awareness of nothingness alive.
Let’s think: is the outsider’s perception of this practice closer to that of the state or to that of the confined?
I also bring to your attention how necessary it is for security to physically count prisoners who are already under constant surveillance by every technological means for 24 hours a day.
Window 7: Solitary confinement also damages the psychology of the guards. It’s impossible for the enforcers of inhumane practices to remain normal. People gradually become “guard-like.”
The system knows this, too. That’s why the guards who deal with lawyers and families coming from outside are generally different from those who deal with prisoners inside. A prison has an inside-facing and an outside-facing side.
These windows aren’t ones that bring light; rather, they are windows that carry darkness outside. That’s why it may have felt overwhelming. I was only just beginning, but I’ll stop here.
I’d like to end by saying a few things about the other side of the coin. Yes, solitary confinement is deep darkness. It encircles a person with countless nets. Slowly but surely, an endless sense of nothingness captures the mind and emotions. Yet, despite all this, it is possible to resist.
Resisting solitary confinement is difficult; you have to catch the light in the darkness and nurture it. Political prisoners succeed in this. Resistance takes many forms. For example, a political prisoner who has been in solitary confinement for ten or twenty years writing a current, publishable political article is an immense feat. Of course, the intellectual content of the writing is important, but even more significant and valuable is that, despite having been in solitary confinement for years, they remain engaged with the struggle of the people and can still speak about current politics. This is an example of resistance, showing that solitary confinement can be overcome with human willpower.
Political prisoners, even in prison or solitary confinement, are political subjects who continue to fight. The point at which the political prisoner shifts from being a political subject to being a victim because of their imprisonment or solitary confinement is where destruction begins. This is a trap. It’s been set deliberately. Unfortunately, some of us fall into this trap. When political prisoners are cut off from their political identity and struggle, what remains is the victim. And that is the aim of the solitary confinement regime.
The prison and solitary confinement regime can only be changed with a change in the political system. This is a long struggle and will take time. That means solitary confinement won’t be abolished immediately. In the meantime, small touches, small contributions to the lives, and resistance of political prisoners in solitary confinement could be considered. It must not be forgotten that a person in solitary confinement needs human contact the most, and it’s not a matter of material support.
Here are a couple of small examples or suggestions:
Those who experience the harshest form of solitary confinement are political prisoners serving aggravated life sentences. In my prison, there are nine of us; in the three prisons on this campus, there are around twenty. If each patriotic, revolutionary, and democratic lawyer took on the power of attorney for one of these friends and held just a one-hour meeting every three months, it could give them a breath of fresh air.
Similarly, if any concerned individuals who are not lawyers could become pen pals with one of these friends, or send a couple of books every few months, it would offer some relief.
Are such gestures really so difficult? I leave it to your judgment. I’ve made my suggestions.
We must begin the struggle from the darkest part of solitary confinement. Let’s not forget it!
Solitary confinement may be cold, but the spirit of resistance is warm. I greet you all with warmth, love, and respect drawn from the warmth of those who resist…
Even though Burak spent most of his year in prison in solitary confinement, he still had access to “scuttlebutt.” So he was aware that Popovic was back in business and that he was doing his best to get retribution on those who were responsible for his downfall. Of course, he was one of those individuals, Peter was the other person on Popovic’s short list. Also, Popovic was not exactly keeping it quiet that he had been responsible for killing several members of the Anderson Family in Arizona. Therefore, Burak knew that Peter was in danger. From his interactions Peter he knew him to be a very loyal individual and he knew that if Peter knew about the death of his family members, nothing would keep him from attending their funeral even if he was in hiding. Popovic would also know this as well. In their brief interaction, Burak had taken quite a liking for Peter. Besides, he owed him one. Besides, Peter was not the only one believed in paying his dues. Therefore, he knew what his first move was going to be, and that was to go to the funeral and warn Peter.
Burak knew that Popovic was highly intelligent and was a student of Russian chess, so he would be plotting out several steps. He had to know that Burak was going to be getting out of prison soon, so this hit had to be timed in part with that in mind. Even though Burak had been a low-level member of the Black Dawn syndicate, Popovic kept extensive files on all of its members, so he had to know that he would try and warn Peter. The Anderson Funeral would, therefore, be an ideal time to hot both Peter and Burak. So Burak had to be incredibly careful. So, the first thing he needed to do when he was released from prison was to get a new identity. He already had a name for his new identity, and that was Varga Bardhi.
Within two weeks of Burak’s finding out about the Anderson Slaughter, he was released from prison. Part of the reason that Burak only had to serve one year in prison was that he was sentenced to an additional five years of parole.
On April 14, 2020, the Parliament of Turkey passed Law No. 7242 amending Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penal and Security Measures. The amendments include both provisions that are aimed at lowering the prison population generally and, in response to COVID-19, a temporary release provision for convicts that are serving or have the right to serve time in a minimum security institution and those under supervised release. The temporary release provision is set to expire on May 31, 2020, but may be lengthened by the Ministry of Justice for a maximum of six months upon the suggestion of the Ministry of Health.
Law No. 7242 amends the supervised freedom and parole provisions of Law No. 5275 by lowering the amount of time a convict must serve in a correctional institution before being considered for supervised freedom or parole. Supervised freedom is a sentence execution regime whereby a convict in a minimum security prison may be allowed to serve his or her sentence outside of the correctional institution starting one year prior to the date of parole for the purpose of facilitating rehabilitation. During the period of supervised freedom, the convict may be employed in public service without pay, placed under supervision in a certain geographical location or residence, banned from entering certain places, and required to attend specified programs. Convicts who serve a designated portion of their sentences in good standing eventually become eligible for parole.
Persons convicted of certain crimes are excluded from these changes. The reduction in the “time left to parole” criterion under the supervised freedom regime does not apply to those convicted of intentional killing; intentional injury against lineal kin, spouse, sibling, or those who are not physically or mentally capable of defending themselves; torture and torment; crimes against sexual inviolability (sexual assault, child molestation, sexual intercourse with minors, and sexual harassment); crimes against privacy and confidentiality; production and trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances; and crimes against national security, the constitutional order, national defense, state secrets, and espionage.
Likewise, the reduction in the parole eligibility requirement does not apply to those convicted of intentional killing, intentional injury aggravated by permanent damage to the face, torture and torment, non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual intercourse with minors, sexual harassment, crimes against privacy and confidentiality, production and trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances, crimes against state secrets and espionage, establishing or leading and organization for the purpose of committing a crime, crimes committed in the context of the activities of a criminal organization, or crimes included in the Anti-Terrorism Law or the Law on State Intelligence Services and the National Intelligence Organization (Law No. 2937). The crimes of penetrative sexual assault, child molestation, sexual intercourse with minors committed by close relatives or persons to whom the minor was entrusted, and production and trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances, which have a longer requirement period of three-fourths of the total sentence, are also excluded from the reduction.