COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERS REPORT OF TURKEY

The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Turkey on the measures taken to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

Presenting the report, Mehmet Ferden Çarikçi, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Government had adopted a “zero tolerance” policy towards torture back in 2003 and had taken continuous measures since then. The Human Rights Institution, established in 2012, could take measures to improve the conditions in places of detention and the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Special attention was paid to ensuring continuous training of law enforcement officers. Combatting violence against women and domestic violence was a priority for Turkey’s human rights agenda. Turkey had also been the first country to sign and ratify the Istanbul Convention, which had entered into force in 2014. Turkey, the biggest refugee-hosting nation in the world, had a multi-fold strategy to help those in need, while the principle of non-refoulement had a legal basis and was fully applied. Turkey had joined the Group of Friends of the Convention against Torture Initiative, whose goal was to provide technical advice, support and cooperation among States parties and promote the universal adoption of the Convention.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts wanted to hear about concrete measures taken to prosecute State officials responsible for acts of torture, as well as about the work of the National Human Rights Institution and the system of monitoring of prisons. They asked about the use of solitary confinement, the treatment of terrorist suspects, and the overcrowding prisons. Particular attention was paid to the excessive use of force by security forces performing “anti-terrorist operations” in parts of the country, as well as the use of force by the police when breaking up demonstrations. Experts asked for updates on a series of concrete cases. In the light of the European Union-Turkey agreement, the Experts wanted to know about the treatment of refugees, not only from Syria, but from other countries, guarantees for non-refoulement, and reported incidents along the Syrian-Turkish border. Other issues raised included the abuse of army conscripts, deaths in custody, shortage of medical staff in Turkish prisons, military justice, and rehabilitation provided for victims of torture.

Mr. Çarikçi, in concluding remarks, said that Turkey had been subjected to unfounded accusations by certain circles, which sometimes came close to outright lies. It was essential not to encourage or support violence under the pretext of promoting human rights. Turkey would keep on addressing challenges with courage and try to find solutions based on contemporary human rights rules and norms. All recommendations made in the concluding observations would be considered with due diligence.

The delegation of Turkey included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, the Ministry of National Defence, the Ministry of Health, and the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 28 April at 10 a.m. for a meeting with the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.

Report

The fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/4) can be read here.

Presentation of the Report

MEHMET FERDEN ÇARIKÇI, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Turkish Government had adopted a “zero tolerance” policy towards torture back in 2003 and had taken continuous measures since then. An ambitious reform process on human rights had been conducted in Turkey for the past 15 years in full transparency. Relevant legislation had been reviewed, while national remedies had been advanced and civil servants had been trained.

The independence and impartiality of the judiciary had been further strengthened, access to justice facilitated, and the scope of freedoms expanded. Investigations into offences of torture were now more effective, while the review of the detention at the investigation stage was made during a hearing, where the suspect or defence lawyer had to be present. The maximum period of detention had been reduced to five years. Turkey had ratified the Optional Protocol, which had entered into force in 2011, and bore the force of law in the country’s national legislation. A victim rights department had been established under the Ministry of Justice, with the view of providing assistance and guidance to victims and preventing their re-victimization. Anyone who thought that their constitutional rights had been infringed had the right to apply to the Constitutional Court after exhausting other domestic remedies. The Human Rights Institution, established in 2012, could take measures to improve the conditions in places of detention and the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, and submit recommendations to relevant authorities on existing or draft legislation. The Ombudsman also paid visits to places of detention, and reception and removal centres.

Special attention was paid to ensuring continuous training. Human rights were taught in a compulsory course in the Police Academy as well as gendarmerie schools. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior held in-service training for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials both at headquarters and at the regional level. Personnel of prisons and detention centres were given pre-service and in-service training on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Penitentiary institutions were inspected by administrative, judicial, civil sector, parliamentary and international inspection mechanisms. In addition, all those establishments were monitored by the Human Rights Inquiry Commission of the Parliament. Turkey had extended a standing invitation to the Special Procedures of the United Nations and was planning to host a number of them in 2016. Mr. Çarikçi stated that combatting violence against women and domestic violence was a priority for Turkey’s human rights agenda. Turkey had been the first country to sign and ratify the Istanbul Convention, which had entered into force in 2014. Turkey hosted a United Nations Women regional office in Istanbul. The law on the protection of the family and the elimination of violence against women had come into effect in 2012, while the national plan on combatting violence against women 2012-2015 had also been implemented, and a new one was being drafted.

Turkey had a strong tradition responding to affected peoples in need, and for the time being, Turkey hosted more than 2.7 million Syrians, in addition to around 300,000 Iraqis and other nationals. Turkey was thus the biggest refugee-hosting nation in the world. A multi-fold strategy was in place to help those people in need, in the absence of a meaningful international effort and assistance to that end. The principle of non-refoulement had a legal basis and was fully applied. Temporary protection measures to be provided in cases of massive influx had been codified for the first time. Turkey was continuing to draw attention to the need for developing global responses in addressing the massive challenges deriving from the Syrian crisis. Turkey would also host the first ever World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on 23 and 24 May, aimed at strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach in addressing numerous critical humanitarian challenges throughout the globe. Mr. Çarikçi informed that Turkey had joined the Group of Friends of the Convention against Torture Initiative, whose goal was to provide technical advice, support and cooperation among States parties and promote the universal adoption of the Convention.

Questions by Experts

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, asked whether the delegation could provide information on any new measures to prosecute and punish public officials responsible for acts of torture in unofficial places of detention, such as police cars and basements. Could the delegation comment on the fact that security officers were authorized to delay up to 48 hours persons involved in violence related to social events before notifying the Public Prosecutor?

The Expert asked for an update on the trial of the police officer charged with torture inflicted on Ahmet Koça. Updates on many similar cases, referred to in the State party’s report, would also be welcome, said Mr. Bruni.

To which closed-down prison was the State party’s report referring? The high security institution in Tekirdag was reported to still be in operation, with practices there including tough conditions of solitary confinement and arbitrary practices, such as cell raids at any hour of the day and illegal searches.

More information was requested on the activities of the National Human Rights Institution in its capacity as a national preventive mechanism, which had been recently replaced by the Human Rights Equality Institution/Board of Turkey. How was its independence assured and did it have a specific budget as a national preventive mechanism? How was its independence in monitoring places of detention guaranteed, and how often did such visits take place?

What was the maximum length of the penalty of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in military prisons? What was the maximum extension of the period of prolonged solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction?

The Expert wanted to know whether terrorist suspects were indeed under 24-hour surveillance, without being allowed a moment of privacy?

Raising the issue of overcrowding of prisons, Mr. Bruni inquired about the number of prisoners exceeding the reported capacity of prisons, which created hygiene problems, lack of bed space and adequate nutrition, etc. Could the delegation inform the Committee on the progress made to solve that problem? Particular updates were asked on the situation of overcrowding in the E-type and juvenile prisons in Gaziantep and Sanliurfa.

Had Turkey put in place a screening machinery with medical and psychological expertise to identify those who were most vulnerable among the refugees and asylum seekers? Which authority determined that an asylum seeker would be exposed to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his country of origin. Special measures of protection ought to be taken in Turkey, in particular for Syrian asylum seekers because they could not be returned to their country of origin which was still in the middle of an armed conflict. However, Amnesty International had reported that the Turkish authorities had recently begun detaining and deporting refugees and asylum seekers on a scale not previously seen. The delegation was asked to comment on that and other similar reports.

Information was also sought on asylum seekers coming to Turkey from other countries, like Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan. What protection measures were foreseen for them?

Were unaccompanied migrant children detained among adults and returned to their home countries unaccompanied?

FELICE GAER, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, expressed concern over reports that in the context of security operations, the State party’s law enforcement officers were using disproportionate force and torture against those taken in their custody. She provided several examples as reported by Human Rights Watch and other watchdogs. Had the State party investigated such incidents?

It was alleged that the authorities had imposed certain difficult living conditions on entire communities, including tough curfew measures. Such measures should not cause people exposed to them pain and suffering.

On extrajudicial killings, Ms. Gaer requested an update on the January 2014 ruling on the case when the use of force by security forces had caused the deaths of 34 civilians. Information on other extrajudicial killings would also be welcome. While Turkey’s right to protect itself from terrorism was acknowledged, reports of numerous civilians killed by the use of extrajudicial force in security operations were worrying. She wanted to know more about the current state of the case on the ªemdinli incident, which had been investigated for 10 years.

Human rights defenders were frequently accused of aiding the activities of illegal or terrorist organizations. There were concerns that the country’s anti-terrorism legislation was being used in too broad a manner.

What measures had the State party taken to conduct an effective investigation in the murder of Hrant Dink, given that the earlier investigation had been deemed to be ineffective? More information was also asked about the investigation into the attack on the Hürriyet newspaper.

Ms. Gaer also wanted to hear about the results of the monitoring activities of places of detention by official authorities. Had they detected any reported complaints on torture and ill-treatment in prisons, and how many such cases had been reported and/or investigated in recent years? Additional information would also be welcome on the independence of those monitoring boards.

The delegation was asked to explain disparities between the high number of investigations and the very low number of verdicts for cases of torture in the previous three years. How many disciplinary punishments had been handed down to prison staff in 2014 and 2015?

Turning to the suspension or reassignment of persons under investigation, the Expert wanted to receive further information in that regard. Officials accused of torture or ill-treatment had allegedly been allowed to keep their posts or had even been promoted - could the delegation comment on that?

Examples were asked of any cases in which prosecutions had been opened on the basis of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Expert raised the question of all outstanding cases of enforced disappearances in the 1974 Cyprus conflict. Had any cases proceeded to trial and had any perpetrators of enforced disappearances been brought to justice?

On violence against women, Ms. Gaer expressed appreciation for the information provided and steps taken by the State party to combat that problem. How many killings of women had been connected to domestic violence and how many to honour killings? More information was asked on protection measures provided to women who complained about domestic violence.

Abuse of army conscripts was also brought by the Expert, who wanted to know about the lack of investigations into causes of hundreds of such deaths?

Information was also sought on rehabilitation programmes and redress provided to victims of torture. Examples were needed on any cases when administrative courts provided redress to victims. Was any support provided to the work of non-governmental organizations who worked in that field?

A question was also asked about the use of excessive force by police officers breaking up protests. How many convictions had there been, including for the Gezi Park protests in 2013?

Another Expert raised the issue of the definition of torture, which seemed distant from the provisions of the Convention. The intensity of the suffering inflicted was not taken into consideration. Could the Criminal Code be amended and brought in line with the Convention?

No specific figures had been received regarding deaths in custody, noted the Expert.

While Turkey was broadening its definition of refugees, some Experts deemed it not to be completely safe for the return of refugees from Europe. What material, human and financial measures had been taken to secure the provision of the individual review of cases? The implementation of the European Union-Turkey agreement might run counter to the principle of non-refoulement, especially when it came to returning people to Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq.

The shortage of medical staff in Turkey’s prison system was raised by an Expert, who also asked about the access of prisoners to psychiatric care.

Persons sentenced to life for crimes committed under aggravating circumstances in at least two prison establishments were exposed to a very difficult regime, including lengthy solitary confinement. While the State party was making efforts in that regard, more ought to be done, said the Expert.

Another Expert wanted to hear more about training and manuals used for training provided to security officials.

How many complaints had been launched after the Gezi protests, how many investigations had been opened and how many had resulted in convictions and what were the penalties like?

The spirit of openness of the State party was appreciated by an Expert, who expressed understanding for the bellicose environment in which Turkey currently found itself. The collapse of the negotiating process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party was worrisome, as it had led to an outburst of violence. Human rights had suffered in the process.

Why had the Human Rights Institution been replaced by another body after only two years, and what were the criteria for the membership in it? Another cause of concern was the reform of the security law, which had granted additional powers to the police against demonstrators, without much judicial supervision.

The Expert asked whether the European Union-Turkey agreement had succeeded in stemming the influx of migrants.

On the prevention of torture, it was noted that there was a proliferation of institutions working in that regard. What steps were being taken to ensure the efficiency and coordination of the current monitoring system?

Who defined the time of war and the time of peace and who decided on reopening disciplinary prisons in the time of war. Did the delegation consider that Turkey was currently in a state of war?

The crime of torture should not have a statute of limitations, stressed the Expert. What was the State party doing to ensure that that was indeed the case?

An Expert wondered whether the excessive use of force by the police was due to the lack of training, culture or other factors. The State party was obliged to punish such acts. The division of labour between judges and prosecutors was important. There were reports of more than 150 cases of torture from Turkey brought to the European Court of Human Rights, she noted. Impunity was a matter of concern.

Military justice was not designed to try civilians, stressed the Expert, except in exceptional cases. Under what conditions could civilians be tried in military courts in Turkey?

The migrant situation in Turkey was very difficult; it was important that the human aspect be safeguarded and Turkey ought to make an effort to preserve the dignity of human beings.

Medical identification and documentation of torture was very important, said an Expert. Turkey had very advanced tools and practices in that regard. However, unauthorized medical attendance nowadays was reportedly punishable. Why was that the case?

Training in the Istanbul Protocol was very important. What kind of staff had been trained and how many cases had they identified as a result of the training provided?

Had any non-governmental organizations requested to monitor places of detention and been rejected, the Expert asked?

In which way did the State party ensure that broad rehabilitation to the victims of torture was provided?

A question was asked on measures taken to improve the provision of health care in places of detention.

The Expert also wanted to know about the application of excessively strict curfews. Sometimes ill individuals could not get to hospitals or doctors because of such situations, a problem raised on a number of occasions.

Did the Government of Turkey consider that human rights monitoring and reporting constituted a threat to the security of the State and facilitated terrorist activities? If that was not the case, why were so many members of non-governmental and human rights organizations arrested and detained? Were journalism and reporting in the media on the conditions in the country a threat to the State, she inquired.

A number of sources had provided information on the treatment of Abdullah Öcalan. Could the delegation provide an update on his current situation?

Replies by the Delegation

The head of the delegation started providing responses by quoting a Swedish Ambassador to Turkey, who had said that Sweden had adopted the institution of Ombudsman from the eighteenth century Ottoman Empire. Another example was given of a hospital in the European part of the then-Ottoman Empire which had used music for treatment as early as 1484. In 1850, a famous Hungarian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth had been given safe refuge in the Ottoman Empire, which was one of the early examples of non-refoulement in Turkish tradition. Many Sephardic Jews from medieval Spain had also been saved in the Ottoman Empire. The head of the delegation stressed that Turkey had always had a positive experience with migration. Hospitality was part of the Turkish tradition, and Syrian refugees were welcomed along the same lines. Turkey was setting the standards in that field; Turkey had spent more than USD 10 billion just for the camps, which was more than the annual budget of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Turkey strictly complied with the principle of non-refoulement. In the midst of the Syrian crisis, in 2013, the Turkish Parliament had unanimously adopted the Law on Foreigners and International Protection.

Some media outlets had regrettably published allegations that the Turkish Armed Forces had opened fire on Syrian civilians fleeing from Daesh on Turkey’s southern border. The 18 persons killed by the Army in April had been PKK fighters. The aim of Turkey was not only to save lives and provide a safe harbour for the Syrians, but also improve their living conditions. Education of Syrian children was of utmost priority for the Turkish authorities. More than 150,000 Syrian babies had been born in Turkey and they had to be given a good start in life.

In 2015, the Turkish Coast Guard had rescued almost 92,000 migrants from sea. Efforts had been intensified to prevent irregular migration and to dismantle migrant smuggling networks. The agreement with the European Union aimed to completely stem irregular crossings in the Aegean, break the business model of the smugglers, and offer migrants an alternative to putting their lives at risk. The figures of daily average irregular crossings had decreased dramatically. As of 4 April, Turkey had started to take back all irregular migrants and to resettle Syrians to the European Union, in line with the “1 for 1” formula. Migrants readmitted to Turkey would enjoy protection in Turkey. Turkish legislation on migrants of other nationalities was in line with European Union standards.

Regarding questions on victims of torture among the Syrians, the delegation said that health and psychological examinations were carried out on people who needed it. Those whose asylum applications were refused had a possibility to apply to an administrative court directly or through their lawyers. The judgment of the administrative court was final, and the person could stay in the country until the judgment was final. A period of 30 days maximum was then allowed for the person to leave Turkey. Those with fake documents were sent to removal centres within 48 hours.

On the agreement with the European Union, a delegate added that temporary protection rights and facilities were provided for those returned to Turkey from the European Union. If they claimed that they wanted to voluntarily go back to their country, they would sign a form, which also needed to be signed by a UNHCR representative. Unaccompanied minors who came to Turkey were treated with their best interest in mind, stressed the delegate. The General Directorate of Migration Management was the responsible body for those readmitted to Turkey, and was present in 81 provinces. It was a completely civilian authority, attached to the Ministry of the Interior. The delegation informed that the three billion euro would go for the needs of the refugees, not to the Turkish budget. Services provided to Syrian refugees were provided in Arabic, which was not an official language in Turkey.

It was pointed out that the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families only had 48 States parties, which was a shamefully low number.

Turkey was a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, but was subject to geographical limitations applied to persons coming from eastern countries. The emphasis was made on the need to provide legal, orderly channels of migration.

On the issue of disappearances, the delegation said that the United Nations Working Group had visited Turkey in March 2016. It was not true that the Turkish authorities had not taken any steps regarding the cases of disappearances. Some cases had been raised by non-governmental organizations without concrete evidence, which would have provided a basis for investigation.

The issue of missing persons in Cyprus was common, and was the responsibility of both Greek and Turkish sides. The majority of missing Turkish Cypriots were civilians, while most of the missing Greek Cypriots were military personnel. The tripartite Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus had a unique role and should not be politicized; its work was fully supported by Turkey. Turkey had been providing the Committee with any new information it received from different sources. Access to all military areas in the north had been unilaterally granted in 2015.

With regard to counter-terrorism operations, the delegation stressed that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was a terrorist organization, listed as such by numerous countries. Since July 2015, the number of terrorist attacks had significantly increased in Turkey. There was no justification for resorting to arms, as the PKK had done, and returning to violence. The PKK had been using civilians as human shields against law enforcement units. With a view to protecting the security of life and the property of civilians, temporary and limited curfews had been imposed in a number of districts, in accordance with domestic law in order to protect the public from the PKK’s terrorist acts. Utmost attention had been paid for the protection of human rights and great sensitivity had been shown to differentiate terrorists from civilians.

It was underlined that curfews were declared for a limited period of time when necessary to protect civilians. During curfews, individuals had access to all vital public services. Medical services continued to be provided round the clock despite the terrorist attacks against health care workers. The Constitutional Court had refused individual applications made for the lifting of curfews. In order to establish basic rights and freedoms of individuals, it was important to have recourse to certain laws. Basic rights and freedoms could only be limited through laws. Governors were responsible for ensuring public order within borders of their provinces, and could thus impose curfews.

There was a domestic remedy mechanism for victims of terrorism, said the delegation. The Government would compensate the losses of the people. The delegation emphasized that every State had the right and the responsibility to take necessary measures to protect its citizens and public order on its territory.

The Law Enforcement Monitoring Commission was independent. Its relationship with the Ministry of the Interior was limited to being inspected by senior civil officials. The Commission was responsible for monitoring and initiating investigations; it cooperated with the civil sector and sent reports to the National Assembly.

The delegation stated that the Human Rights and Equality Institution was autonomous from the perspective of funding and administration. It could exercise its powers autonomously and did not receive orders from any State organs.

In Turkey, a decision to take someone into detention was issued by a prosecutor and executed by law enforcement officers. Only in cases of spontaneous crimes, when immediate intervention was necessary, could detention decisions be made by law enforcement officers; the number of such cases in 2015 stood at 87.

Detention areas were defined by law and people could not be kept in unofficial detention areas. There were closed circuit cameras in all detention areas, but there was no audio recording. Recordings were kept for 30 days. As soon as people were detained, they were taken to a hospital for a medical examination.

Heavy disciplinary punishments had been handed down to a number of law enforcement staff for the ill-treatment of detainees, informed the delegation.

There were no detainees or prisoners in Turkey who had been arrested just because they were journalists; at the moment, only three detainees held journalist cards. Several individuals had been arrested over the attack on the ªemdinli bookstore.

The delegation informed that there were more than 400 psychologists in Turkish prisons, along with more than 100 social workers. Five campus-style prisons had hospitals.

The legal capacity age currently stood at 12, but everyone under 18 qualified as a minor, stated the delegation.

Non-governmental organizations carried out visits to prisons and were involved in social and cultural activities there.

The delegation said that victim support centres provided support for the victims of torture.

Article 94 of the Criminal Code was in line with the provisions of the Convention, which had become part of the domestic law in Turkey.

Two people had died in police custody in 2015, and one in 2016 so far. Nine people had committed suicide in prisons thus far in 2016. Suicide prevention programmes were in place.

At least once every two months monitoring units visited prisons and they prepared subsequent reports; the Ministry of Justice prepared annual reports on steps it took in that regard. As of April 2016, there were 359 penal institutions in Turkey, and there were plans to build more. There were a total of 182,000 people in penal institutions, only 14 per cent of whom were detainees. A new prison institution would relieve the problem of overcrowding in the city of Antep.

Regarding Abdullah Öcalan, Turkey had never inflicted ill-treatment on him, stressed the delegation, and that had been confirmed by international monitoring visits.

Turkish Armed Forces had a disciplinary punishment system in place, but sentences similar to solitary confinement had been removed. When there was a death, investigations were indeed carried out, confirmed the delegation. Civilians could no longer be tried in military courts.

Turkey had a zero tolerance approach on violence against women. Problematic areas had been identified through impact analysis, and would be accordingly addressed. Violence prevention and monitoring centres had been set up in 47 cities and were open round the clock. Women’s shelter houses had doubled over the past five years.

In line with the Istanbul Protocol, doctors, including family doctors, underwent training. All health institutions were surveyed by the Ministry of Health. Except for emergency cases, anyone providing unauthorized health service would be punished. Individual medical reports were confidential. There could be no exertion of pressure on health staff, stressed the delegation.

Follow-up Questions

ALESSIO BRUNI, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, said that interviews with asylum seekers should be mandatory; the 15-day period for deciding on a person’s status appeared to be short. Were asylum seekers indeed able to have legal assistance? Turkey’s open door policy was certainly welcomed.

The composition of the Human Rights and Equality Institution was completely decided by the executive, so how could its independence be ensured?

The Committee had received allegations of abuse and torture in police vehicles – could the delegation comment?

Was solitary confinement up to 20 days indeed used as a disciplinary punishment? International standards proscribed any solitary confinement over 15 consecutive days.

In the state of war, was there a limit on how long a person could be detained before he was brought before a judge? Were terrorist suspects and convicts under constant video surveillance in their cells?

FELICE GAER, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, reiterated the question on whether any perpetrator of enforced disappearances in Cyprus had been convicted. The delegation was asked to elaborate on any steps taken to ensure criminal responsibility for enforced disappearances.

On the issue of human rights defenders and journalists, Ms. Gaer said that the Committee did not consider the dissemination of information as an act of supporting terrorism. She wanted to hear about the reasons for the arrest of the Kurdish journalist Nedim Oruç. Was there a way to ensure an independent review of such cases?

The Expert asked whether the State party had investigated allegations that security forces had committed torture on people in Silopi and Cizre in 2015 and early 2016. She reiterated her question on the attack on the Hürriyet newspaper. What measures was the State party undertaking to ensure an effective investigation into the Hrant Dink case?

Nobody had heard about or from Abdullah Öcalan over the past two months, which was why the Expert asked for an update.

Another Expert stressed the need for criminal laws to be precise. Why did the State party use the term “reasonable time” for the time of remand after arrest? In criminal cases it was vague and blurry.

The Refugee Convention was meant to cover all refugees, and the geographic limitation applied for Turkey was groundless, in the Expert’s opinion.

The Law on Foreigners was not in line with the 1951 Refugee Convention because it included discriminatory clauses, noted an Expert. The protection of refugees should not be connected to the management of migration flows.

How was the whole national prevention system coordinated? How many victims had benefited from the rehabilitation fund, he asked.

A question was asked about the Government’s view on the main human rights challenges the country was facing.

Another Expert stressed that documenting torture should go under an exception for health care provisions, because time was of critical importance in such cases.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation said that in 1988, hundreds of thousands of Kurds had escaped from Iraq and found refuge in Turkey. Just several months earlier, numerous refugees from Kobane in Syria had been saved in Turkey.

Turkey had not stopped supporting the Fund for Victims of Torture, but its contributions were no longer earmarked.

Cameras were not placed specifically in anti-terrorism units, but across the penitentiary system. Those cameras did not have audio recording functions.

Individuals should be brought before a judge within 48 hours for collective crimes, and within 24 hours otherwise. No difference was made between terrorist and other crimes. Turkey, while subject to many terrorist activities, nonetheless implemented the laws as they stood. The law also stipulated that a detainee should be brought to a detention centre within 12 hours.

If an individual was harmed by security forces, he could sue the State and ask for an indemnification, explained the delegation.

When the Law on Foreigners and International Protection had been drafted, many human rights organizations had been consulted. It was one of the most advanced and visionary such pieces of legislation worldwide. Legal counsel was appointed to persons when needed.

Unaccompanied minors were not sent to removal centres; once they turned 18, they were subject to procedures like adults. Persons from Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan were not sent back to their countries under any condition.

There were some positive developments in the Dink case. The objective was to find whether there was a systemic background to the issue and to go beyond the individuals who had pulled the trigger.

Concluding Remarks

MEHMET FERDEN ÇARIKÇI, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Turkey had been subjected to unfounded accusations by certain circles, which sometimes came close to outright lies. Those sources could not be deemed impartial or independent. It was essential not to encourage or support violence under the pretext of promoting human rights. The use of force by terrorists was sometimes ignored by the international community. A false picture was being painted, where States were presented as grossly violating human rights. State repression was thus seen as the main cause of the problem, which clearly was not the case in today’s world. Turkey would keep on addressing challenges with courage and try to find solutions based on contemporary human rights rules and norms. All recommendations made in the concluding observations would be considered with due diligence.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT16006E