COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF TURKEY
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined initial, second and third periodic report of Turkey on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Hasan Gogus, Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said that, since 2001, Turkey had been pursuing a comprehensive and active reform process aimed at improving the protection and promotion of human rights at the national level. The Constitution had been amended on three occasions since 2001, and eight reform packages had been adopted in less than three years. The new Turkish Penal Code, which entered into force in 2005, contained several provisions penalizing acts of discrimination based, inter alia, on the basis of race – in particular criminalizing the act of genocide and crimes against humanity, and regulating the limits of freedom of expression with a view to preventing incitement to social, racial, religious or regional enmity or hatred. In addition, the establishment of associations advocating supremacy of a certain race was prohibited by the Law of Associations (2004). In terms of human rights complaints, in the first half of 2008, a total of 2,356 people applied to the Human Rights Presidency complaining about 2,767 violations, of which 45 were claims of discrimination. In none of those applications had there been any claims of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, religion or political opinion.
In preliminary concluding observations, Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, agreed on the importance of the entry of Turkey to the European Union, which would be a wonderful signal and a refutation of those who took an exclusive view of Europe. In that sense, the many legislative amendments made in connection with the European Union accession process were welcomed. The scope of racial discrimination measures and questions of institutional design would figure in the concluding observations, in particular as regarded the institution of a national ombudsman and a national human rights institution. Other areas of concern that would figure in the Committee's observations included data questions; situations of de facto discrimination; the issue of free speech; and the dissemination of the Convention and the Committee's concluding observations in all the languages that might be read in the country.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, a lack of teachers and textbooks in minority languages; a lack of property protections for non-Muslim ethnic minorities; reports that Kurdish politicians had been subject to harassment and that Kurdish political parties had been closed; reports of harassment of Roma exercising their freedom of expression; reports of refoulement of persons found to be refugees under UNHCR guidelines or of asylum seekers; and Turkey's position that it had no jurisdiction and no reporting requirements over the northern territory of Cyprus, where Turkish forces were currently stationed. A criticism levied by Experts was that Turkey continued to rely on the 1923 Lausanne Treaty – which had long been superseded by other instruments and events – to define its situation with regard to minorities. Several Experts recommended that Turkey look closely at defining ethnic minorities and protections and special measures targeted at achieving equality for them.
The delegation of Turkey also included other representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, as well as representatives from the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the initial to third periodic reports of Turkey, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 6 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined eleventh and twelfth periodic reports of Suriname (CERD/C/SUR/12).
Report of Turkey
According to the combined initial, second and third periodic report of Turkey (CERD/C/TUR/3), Turkish citizens belonging to non-Muslim minorities have 196 places of worship, 42 primary and secondary schools, 138 foundations, 5 hospitals and 9 newspapers. There has been major progress in improving the legislation concerning citizens belonging to non-Muslim minorities, and a new governmental body, the Minority Issues Assessment Board, has been in operation since 2004 with a view to addressing and resolving difficulties which citizens belonging to non-Muslim minorities may encounter in their daily lives. The situation of those Turkish citizens considered disadvantaged is also given due consideration in the ongoing reform process in Turkey. In particular, although increasingly integrated within the communities they live in, in certain localities Turkish citizens of Roma origin face difficulties stemming from general problems such as poverty and unemployment. These difficulties are, in general, related to inadequate living conditions, low levels of education, early marriages and irregular temporary employment, none of which is specific to them. Difficulties experienced in access to services are mostly related to poverty and unemployment, as is the case for other disadvantaged groups. These difficulties are addressed within the general policy of the Government directed at alleviating poverty and social exclusion. They receive equal assistance in education and health, as well as food, and heating and fuel supplies from local and general solidarity funds. These citizens are not subject to discrimination due to their origin.
With regard to national human rights machinery, the Human Rights Presidency (established in April 2001) and 931 provincial and sub-provincial human rights boards carry out extensive supervision work on human rights, particularly at the local level. Human rights boards include almost 14,000 non-governmental members. Both the Human Rights Presidency and the human rights boards are entrusted with the task of receiving, examining and investigating allegations of human rights violations, including claims of racial discrimination, assessing the results of their examinations and investigations, referring the results to the offices of the public prosecutors or relevant administrative authorities and following up the results. The human rights boards have gone through an institutional restructuring process with the adoption of a new Regulation in November 2003. An important element introduced by the amendments is the new task for the Boards to “carry out necessary work to prevent all kinds of discrimination”. Accordingly, the human rights boards conduct information activities such as preparing training sessions, seminars, TV programmes and printing publications for relevant purposes including the fight against discrimination, including racism and xenophobia. In addition, “human rights information and application desks” have been set up within each board where applicants are provided with individual application forms for claims of human rights violations.
Presentation of Report
HASAN GOGUS, Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, began by noting that, since 2001, Turkey was pursuing a comprehensive and active reform process aimed at improving the protection and promotion of human rights at the national level. While the first phase of the reform process aimed to align the domestic legal framework with international principles and standards in the area of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the second phase endeavoured to put that new legal framework into practice. As part of the first phase a series of remarkable legal reforms had been carried out in a short span of time. The Constitution had been amended on three occasions since 2001 and eight reform packages had been adopted in less than three years. Following the 2004 amendment, today, international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms prevailed in case of conflict with the provisions of national law on the same matter, he highlighted.
As regards the second phase of the reform process, Mr. Gogus pointed to the numerous training programmes which had been initiated, aimed mostly at government officials charged with implementing those laws. Security forces composed of the police and gendarmerie and members of the judicial branch, notably judges, prosecutors and lawyers from all levels, had received training on human rights issues. With those training programmes, a silent revolution, in other words, a change of mentality within the State had been achieved.
Those training programmes had also been expanded to include students of all levels, civil society and the public at large, Mr. Gogus added.
As an important part of this sweeping reform process, Turkey acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2002. Here, Mr. Gogus noted that the report before the Committee therefore covered the period from the 1990s until 2007.
In line with the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination, every Turkish citizen was considered an integral part of the Turkish national identity and culture, Mr. Gogus said. The concept of citizenship was defined in the Constitution on the ground of legal bonds without any reference to ethnic, linguistic or religious origin. A citizen's racial or ethnic background was not taken into consideration, since the common identity of nationhood was defined on the basis of territory rather than blood ties. The Turkish nation was not a juxtaposition of communities or groups. It was composed of citizens who were equal before the law and whose fundamental rights and freedoms were guaranteed, enjoyed and exercised individually in accordance with the relevant law. In that context, no official censuses or data collection on ethnic or linguistic grounds were carried out.
Similarly, fundamental rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution did not lead to any distinction between Turkish citizens and foreigners; the fundamental rights and freedoms of foreigners could only be limited by law in accordance with international law. Basic social rights were also guaranteed in the Constitution without any reference to citizenship. Acts of discrimination were prohibited and penalized by law, and there was a sound legal framework in Turkey to prevent all forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination. Furthermore, remedies were available against violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, including acts of discrimination, Mr. Gogus noted.
In particular, Turkey recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights since 1990. Although Turkey came in first place vis-à-vis the highest number of judgements, no violation of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which regulated non-discrimination, had been fight by the European Court on complaints filed against Turkey on the grounds of racial discrimination, Mr. Gogus highlighted.
Mr. Gogus also drew attention to the fact that the new Turkish Penal Code, which had entered into force on 1 June 2005, contained several provisions penalizing acts of discrimination based, inter alia, on the basis of race. Articles 66 and 67 of that law criminalized the act of genocide and crimes against humanity in accordance with the related international instruments. The new Penal Code also regulated the limits of freedom of expression with a view to preventing incitement to social, racial, religious or regional enmity or hatred, aiming to strike a balance.
In addition, as any doctrine or practice of racial superiority was legally and morally unacceptable, the establishment of associations advocating supremacy of a certain race was prohibited by the Law of Associations – which had entered into force in November 2004, Mr. Gogus said.
Under the Turkish constitutional system, the word “minorities” encompassed only groups of persons defined and recognized as such on the basis of multilateral or bilateral instruments to which Turkey was a party. In that context, “minority rights” in Turkey were regulated in accordance with the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923. Turkish citizens belonging to non-Muslim minorities enjoyed and exercised the same rights and freedoms as the rest of the population. Additionally, they benefited from their minority status in accordance with the Lausanne Peace Treaty.
Turning to the issue of the various languages and dialects used in Turkey, Mr. Gogus noted that, under the Constitution, no language other than Turkish could be taught as the mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education. On the other hand, the Law on Foreign Language Education and Teaching and the Learning of Different Languages and Dialects by Turkish Citizens (amended in 2002) stipulated that the Council of Ministers would decide which foreign languages could be taught in Turkey. A 2003 amendment to that law allowed for private courses enabling the learning of different languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens. In that vein, private courses for teaching languages traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives were opened in a number of towns, including Batman, Adana, Istanbul and Mardin in 2004, but had since been closed owing to lack of interest and non-attendance.
In order to facilitate broadcasting in languages and dialects other than Turkish, the Law for the Radio and Television of Turkey had been amended in June 2008. As of 1 January 2009, a new multilingual State-run television channel (TRT-6) had started to broadcast in Kurdish. A Sorani dialect channel would follow and, in 2009, broadcasting in Arabic and Persian was planned. Preparations were also under way to amend the law to allow private television and radio companies to broadcast in languages other than Turkish, Mr. Gogus said.
Regarding migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, Mr. Gogus noted that Turkey was on a major migration route with ever-increasing numbers of illegal immigrants from its economically and politically unstable east trying to cross its territory towards Europe. Given the magnitude of the problem, the solutions were beyond the means of a single country, requiring international burden sharing. Nearly 700,000 illegal migrants had been apprehended in Turkey within the period 1995 to 2007. In 2008 alone, a total of 56,876 illegal immigrants had been apprehended. The majority of these were national of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine. As to the number of refugees in 2008, out of 9,045 asylum applications registered, 3,555 of them had been granted refugee status.
The children of refugees and asylum-seekers were entitled to the same rights as children of Turkish citizens with regard to compulsory primary education, Mr. Gogus said. The police teams dealing with foreigners, in cooperation with the Provincial National Education Directorates, contacted refugee and asylum-seeker parents in order to inform them that they were exempted from the residence permit duty in enrolling their children in public schools. The Ministry of the Interior issued special I.D. cards for those children to facilitate their administrative work.
As regarded the procedures related to foreigners awaiting expulsion, it was true that proceedings could not always be conducted within the prescribed time for a number of reasons, Mr. Gogus pointed out, including lack of valid travel or identity documents. As releasing of these foreigners might have adverse consequences for public order and well-being, illegal immigrants awaiting expulsion were provided with shelter in restitution centres, similar to the other European countries' practices. This did not constitute an act of detention but was merely an administrative procedure for foreigners whose deportation proceedings were under way.
The situation of Turkish citizens of Roma origin had improved within the framework of the reform process in Turkey, Mr. Gogus affirmed. In order to avoid discrimination, the Turkish citizens of Roma origin were considered as socially disadvantaged and were included as such in projects aimed at improving their social and economic situation. With a view to enhancing economic growth, social development and increase employment, the State Planning Organization was entrusted with the task of drawing up framework development plans. As such, development plans in Turkey were devised on a regional and sectoral basis and did not target any specific segment or group in the society. On an international level, Turkey was working on a joint Council of Europe-European Union project aimed at the same population group.
With regard to stereotyping of Turkish citizens of Roma origin, connotations which might have been perceived as discriminatory in the definition of the term "Gypsy" in dictionaries and in the Law of Settlement had been removed. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism also carried out various events such as exhibitions and festivals with a view to preserving and promoting the music, art and folklore of the Roma, Mr. Gogus added.
Turning to human rights education, Mr. Gogus observed that all public institutions were obliged to provide human rights training to all candidate civil servants, who were informed on the principle of equality and the prohibition against discrimination. As for the staff of the Ministry of Justice, within the framework of the Joint Initiative of the European Union and the Council of Europe, 8,500 judges and prosecutors were trained on the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court. Another 4,500 judges and prosecutors attended human rights training. As a demonstration of the increased awareness in the realm of human rights, the European Convention and the case law of the European Court had been cited in 750 judgments delivered by the judges and public prosecutors who had attended that human rights training. Military judges, prosecutors and legal consultants were also trained on human rights law and in particular on the European Human Rights Convention.
As for the police forces in Turkey, extensive human rights training programmes were carried out. More than 350,000 police officers and higher officials had participated in in-service training courses on human rights between 2000 and 2007. The curricula of the Police High Vocational Schools and High Gendarmerie Vocational Schools were also reviewed under the supervision of the Police Academy, in accordance with Council of Europe guidelines.
With regard to national monitoring mechanisms, Mr. Gogus noted that, in 2007, 1,171 people applied to the Human Rights Presidency and the Human Rights Boards complaining about 1,318 cases of violations. Of those, 42 related to claims of discrimination. In the first half of 2008, a total of 2,356 people applied to the Human Rights Presidency complaining about 2,767 violations, of which 45 were claims of discrimination. There had been no claims of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, religion or political opinion in any of those applications. Applications were claims of fraudulent or preferential treatment in public services and unequal pay in the workplace.
In addition, with a view to strengthening the national human rights mechanisms, efforts were under way for the establishment of a national human rights institution, in line with the Paris Principles, and an Ombudsman system, Mr. Gogus said. In that context, the National Assembly had enacted the Ombudsman Law in September 2006, but, following challenges in Parliament, the Constitution Court unanimously decided to abrogate the law in December 2008. The reasoning of the Court's decision had yet to be issued.
In conclusion, Mr. Gogus highlighted that, with its deep-rooted legacy of mutual understanding, multi-faith tolerance, dialogue and respect for other cultures and religions, Turkey, together with Spain, acted as co-Sponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, and announced that Turkey would host the Second Annual Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations on 6 and 7 April 2009 in Istanbul.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, noted that, with regard to the jurisdiction of Turkey in the north of Cyprus, the Committee based its position on the general trend in international law. He would not press this point, given the ongoing negotiations in Cyprus, but signalled that it might come up for mention, given Turkey's remaining reservations to the Convention.
Turkey's reservations to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and its 1967 protocol meant that Turkey only undertook to accept refugees coming from Europe and asylum-seekers coming from other regions were processed under a law on temporary stay dating from several decades back. What then were Turkey's plans to eliminate that distinction, Mr. Thornberry asked?
Turkey had not ratified the European Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, or the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages. In that context, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 loomed large in Turkish law. Problematically, however, the definition of non-Muslim minorities in the Treaty was not specific. Indeed, the problematic was twofold as it neither sufficiently set out which minority groups it encompassed nor which groups were excluded, Mr. Thornberry noted.
It was further problematic that Turkey did not record statistics on ethnicity or race, Mr. Thornberry observed. In that connection, the Committee welcomed other data, such as language usage, that would help to measure the situation on the ground. The language data that had been provided in the report appeared to be very old, dating from the 1960s. Turkey had proven it could make nuanced adjustments in its recent reforms. It would find that adjustment in the field of ethnicity was important and would yield results.
Other concerns voiced by Mr. Thornberry included the current impasse in enacting a law on a Human Rights Ombudsman; the lack of a single comprehensive provision criminalizing and defining racial discrimination in Turkish law; reports that article 216 of the new Penal Code, prohibiting racist speech, was being used to prosecute foreign journalists for "insulting Turkishness"; and whether legal aid was available for individuals bringing complaints of racial discrimination.
On the failure of programmes to teach traditional languages, Mr. Thornberry suggested that might have been owing to the fact that those courses were not offered free of charge. Also, while welcoming the information on the human rights education programmes for judicial and police officials, more targeted training on the Convention itself would have been appreciated.
Other Committee Experts then raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, a lack of teachers and textbooks in minority languages; a lack of property protections for non-Muslim ethnic minorities; reports that Kurdish politicians had been subject to harassment and that Kurdish political parties had been closed; reports of harassment of Roma exercising their freedom of expression; reports of refoulement of persons found to be refugees under UNHCR guidelines or of asylum seekers; and Turkey's position that it had no jurisdiction and no reporting requirements over the northern territory of Cyprus, where Turkish forces were currently stationed.
Other questions included whether there were any non-Muslim ethnic groups in Turkey above and beyond the Greeks, Jews and Kurds; a request for up-to-date statistics or estimates on the number of Roma in Turkey; and what was being done to change social mentalities with regard to honour killings.
Despite the Turkish delegation's statement that there had been no discrimination judgements by the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey, Experts cited a number of examples of ethnic discrimination rulings against Turkey by that court, including violations of freedom of association with regard to the Kurdish community and violations of property rights with regard to the Orthodox Christian community.
Another major critique levied by Experts was that Turkey continued to rely on the 1923 Lausanne Treaty – which had long been superseded by other instruments and events – to define its situation with regard to minorities. Several Experts recommended that Turkey look closely at defining ethnic minorities and protections and special measures aimed at achieving equality for them.
Echoing the Rapporteur's concern that Turkey limited the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention to European countries, an Expert complained that that skewed Turkey's asylum and refugee statistics, as the largest flows of migrants were coming from the East.
On the cultural identity of Turkey, an Expert asked if it would be possible for the State to spend more money promoting the minority cultures – not those defined as minorities under the Treaty of Lausanne, but all those who had a different mother tongue. In particular he was interested in subsidies for language-based programmes, including television and radio programmes.
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
Addressing questions put by Experts yesterday and today, the delegation was pleased to confirm that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had been officially gazetted on 3 December 2008 and now formed part of Turkish legislation.
The delegation was somewhat surprised that many of the Experts' questions had centred on Turkey's definition of minorities in accordance with the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 and urging that it be updated. They would have preferred to discuss the possible cases of racial discrimination in the country. There was no internationally agreed definition of minority in either international or regional human rights instruments – including the Council of Europe Framework Convention. It was also noted that Turkey was not alone in not ratifying the framework convention – three European States had not done so, and others had reservations to it. It was the State's sovereign right to decide which group of citizens would be designated as a minority or national minority.
The delegation reeled off a list of some dozen minority groups present in Turkey, noting that it was even believed that Kosovars and Abkhazians living in Turkey were more numerous than those living in their home region. If they accepted the principle of self-identification for minorities, they might end up with hundreds of minorities – if not thousands.
Turning to the issue of a definition of racial discrimination in Turkish legislation, the delegation noted that, following the recent reforms and amendments to Turkish legislation, international human rights instruments to which Turkey was a party formed part of the domestic legislation and had priority over other domestic legislation in cases of conflict. That meant that Turkey did have a definition of discrimination, as laid out in the Convention itself.
As for a comprehensive legal provision on racial discrimination, the delegation was of the opinion that provisions in Turkish legislation today were sufficient, including provisions on equality set out in the Constitution. It also specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin.
Regarding information on case law implementation of the Convention, the delegation cited a couple of current examples. In relation to article 216 of the Penal Code, in 2006 an association in Izmir had been charged with defaming the Kurdish population and a trial was currently under way. There had been no court case in which the Convention had been directly cited, although a case had been found in which it had been cited as the basis of an administrative judgment, the delegation noted.
As for ethnic data, there were historical reasons for which Turkey, like many other countries, had rejected the idea of distinguishing its citizens by different ethnic or racial considerations. While it was understood that the lack of such data made it difficult to create targeted measures to address any discrimination such groups might experience, there were some data that allowed Turkey to develop targeted programmes aimed at bettering the situation of those ethnic groups that might be lagging behind. Socio-economic disparities between regions in Turkey, for example, had allowed the Government to take a needs-based approach to formulating plans for the development of those regions.
On the ombudsman institution, the delegation said that the Government was determined to go ahead with setting up such an office, despite the recent setback, but had to wait to hear on what basis the Constitutional Court had rejected the latest bill on the subject. That decision was expected to be issued in the coming months. It was hypothesized that the objection was in relation to the separation of powers.
On questions relating to the Orthodox Greek Patriarchate, and the closure of the Greek Orthodox School, the delegation pointed out that the secular nature of the State meant that it did not fund any religious institutions. The Government had proposed two solutions to the dilemma, including the reopening of the school under the aegis of the State University in Istanbul, but they had not received a positive response to date. At the moment, they were still searching for ways to reopen the Greek Orthodox School.
As for the property seizure issues, those related to the seizure of property belonging to defunct associations. It was pointed out that only a small proportion of those defunct associations were Greek Orthodox. In addition a new law on associations had made the process more transparent.
As to criticisms that minority property ownership was in decline, the delegation noted that an additional 128 immovable properties were registered as minority properties over the past six months.
On the rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, the delegation assured the Committee that law abiding Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin faced no problems at the hands of the law at all. The delegation firmly reiterated that the European Court of Human Rights had not found any decision that the rights of those of Kurdish origin had been violated.
Regarding the geographical limitation to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the delegation said that, despite the huge flows of refugees and illegal immigrants coming through Turkey, the Turkish Government had expressed its willingness to lift the limitation on that treaty in 2005 in the context of the negotiations on European Union membership. The accession process was ongoing. No fixed date for the lifting of that limitation had yet been set.
With respect to honour killings, the rights of women had been a central focus of the reform of Government, and combating violence against women had been endorsed as a development region in the national development plan, 2009. Progress in addressing honour killings had also been noted with the adoption of the new Turkish Penal Code, Article 82 of which stipulated that killings in the name of custom were murders under aggravated circumstances and the perpetrators bore heavier penalties.
As of today, the Government was not in a position to withdraw any of its declarations or reservations made on its ratification of the Convention.
The delegation was dismayed with the way in which Experts had characterized the situation in Cyprus, comparing it with Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. The existence of Turkish forces in Northern Cyprus did not constitute occupation or effective control of those areas. In addition, they were present in accordance with a decades-old international legal settlement. Their purpose was to maintain peace and security for Turkish citizens facing threats. The Committee was urged not to get involved in highly political questions, particularly at this moment when talks on the Cyprus question were under way, and in view of the fact that the Cyprus question was being handled by other United Nations bodies.
On State promotion of minority languages, the delegation repeated information provided in the initial presentation on the establishment this year of a multilingual State-run television channel which broadcast in Kurdish, and plans for a Sorani dialect channel as well as broadcasting in Arabic and Persian.
Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts
An Expert reiterated his concern about the crime of "denigration of Turkishness", which appeared to cover the kind of criticism that any open democratic society had to bear.
An Expert disagreed that it would impinge on Turkey's national sovereignty to recognize national minorities. It was a completely separate question. Many countries opted to recognize national minorities. It was essential to have figures on ethnic minorities – whether those were official or estimates. Turkey needed them too if it was to effectively organize social life in the country. In the next report, demographic data, but also economic and social information on persons of different ethnicities would be appreciated.
Another Expert then expressed concern about the definition of racial discrimination in Turkish law. Under the Penal Code, incitement to racial hatred had to be directed against a group and had to involve an act against public order, by the law. He wondered if an individual victim was sufficiently protected under that law, in particular where the act of racial discrimination did not constitute "a serious threat to public order"?
Also, it had been said that there was a provision making racial discrimination an aggravating circumstance where it had been the motivation for a criminal act. Could the delegation specify where that provision was incorporated in the law?
The delegation said that the European Human Rights Court had not condemned Turkey on the basis of article 14 of the European Human Rights Convention, on discrimination, an Expert pointed out that article 14 was not an autonomous article. It was always applied in conjunction with other human rights violations, such as the violation of the right to life. Therefore, the judgments issued were not recorded as being under article 14. The European Court for Human Rights had expressed concern in particular over the situation of the Orthodox Greek population, which had been something like 130,000 in Turkey at the time of the Lausanne Treaty and had been reduced to something like 3,000 today.
An Expert suggested that Turkey might want to adopt an American approach to defining minorities, i.e. along strictly numerical lines.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to those questions and others, the delegation stressed that equality of opportunity fully existed in Turkey. In Parliament, the government, the Army and the diplomatic corps, minorities had reached the highest echelons.
Regarding article 14 of the European Court of Human Rights, the delegation agreed that that article was not a stand-alone article. But the delegation insisted that what they meant was that there were no judgments of the European Court specifically on cases involving grounds of discrimination, no matter what the article of the European Convention the judgment fell under.
In terms of the depletion of the Greek minority population in Turkey, the delegation noted that there had been an exchange of population. No minority persons had been forced to leave Turkey, they had done that of their own free will.
On mechanisms for monitoring discrimination, there were individual complaint mechanisms at the local level, the delegation said.
The delegation had cited over 10 examples of minority communities living in Turkey. The Turkish Government could not be bound to give education in their languages to all of those groups. Some 15 or 20 languages were simply too many to include in national curricula as languages of teaching.
The delegation agreed that security forces should not use aggressive force to combat peaceful demonstrations. That was the case in Turkey as well. That was true as well of the demonstrations following the Gaza violence. To protect against it, police all had to wear numbers on their caps so that anyone who wished to bring a complaint following a police action could identify the officer in question.
On the restrictions on foreign names, the delegation said that there was no restriction whatsoever on the names themselves. Only when they were officially registered, they were spelled with Turkish letters.
Regarding the crime of denigration, under articles 216 and 301 of the Penal Code, those did indeed require a delicate balance. Many European countries had similar provisions. To protect against abuse, there had been a very recent revision of article 301 and there were two control mechanisms: one was that the Ministry of Justice had to initiate the legal case, and the other was that the public prosecutor could close the case at his own initiative.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, said that all States were looking for a commitment to work through the present situation towards the situation as it might be ideally. The Committee hoped for a gradual drawing together of the position of the State party and the Committee over time. In that sense, the implementation of a number of laws and practices by Turkey to broaden human rights protections were welcomed.
Today Mr. Kemal had underlined Turkey's approach to European Union membership, and Mr. Thornberry agreed that the entry of Turkey to the European Union would be a wonderful signal and a refutation of those who took an exclusive view of Europe.
On legal developments in general, the many legislative amendments in connection with the European Union accession process were welcomed.
The scope of racial discrimination measures and questions of institutional design would figure in the concluding observations, Mr. Thornberry said. In that respect, particular interest was attached to the institution of a National Ombudsman and a national human rights institution.
Data questions had been referred to fairly consistently by the Committee. It was noted positively that there was no limitation on academic or scientific research in this area.
Many questions of de facto discrimination were present, Mr. Thornberry observed. The Committee looked beyond the formal fabric of the law to try and assess the situation on the ground.
The issue of free speech had been raised and Mr. Thornberry felt there were some discrepancies that bore further reflection. Public discourse should rise above basic levels of decency so that individuals could express their identity and freedoms in relative peace and security. That did not mean that hate speech should be allowed. Hate speech silenced the speech of others, and was therefore itself anti-free speech.
In conclusion, Mr. Thornberry said that the Committee was always anxious that the Convention and its concepts were widely disseminated, as well as the Committee's concluding observations, in all the languages that might be read in the country.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CERD09008E