Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers the report of Turkey

Committee on the Elimination 
  of Racial Discrimination

4 December 2015

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning concluded its consideration of the combined fourth to sixth periodic report of Turkey on its implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Hasan Ulusoy, Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said that the main philosophy of Turkey’s human rights approach could be summarized as “human rights for all with no discrimination”. The constitutional system was based on the equality of all individuals without discrimination before the law irrespective of language, race, colour, gender, political opinion, religion and sect, or any such consideration.  Constitutional amendments approved by the 2010 referendum had introduced positive discrimination in respect of women, children, the disabled and the elderly.  Under the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, Turkish non-Muslim citizens fell under the scope of the term “minority”.  Measures against the discrimination of Roma had commenced in 2006.  Today, Turkey was hosting 2.2 million people from Syria, which made it the largest refugee-hosting nation in the world.

In the interactive dialogue which followed, Committee Experts raised numerous questions regarding the definition of minorities and “non-Muslim minorities” in line with the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, the collection of statistics on ethnicity or religion, usage of minority languages and the status of the Kurds.  They also wanted to hear how Turkey was coping with the unprecedented influx of refugees, treatment of stateless persons, fight against the Islamic State, functioning of the National Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman, and the preservation of the secular nature of the country.  Questions were raised on the definition of “Turkishness”, recent examples of curtailing of freedom of expression, the murder of Hrant Dink and internally displaced persons.

Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Turkey, in concluding remarks, said that the Committee appreciated the frank dialogue with the State party over issues which were constantly changing.  There was no doubt that the State party was grappling with many of its historical legacies and current-day challenges.  Limitations and contradictions of the Turkish national identity were noted. 

Mr. Ulusoy, in his closing remarks, stated that Turkey was aware of the issues and difficulties, which was why the reform process was continuously ongoing.  A reform action group, composed of Ministers, would meet soon to take further measures on various human rights related issues, including anti-discrimination.

The delegation of Turkey included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Undersecretariat of Public Order and Security, and the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Turkey was the last State party to be considered at the eighty-eighth session of the Committee.  The Committee will be holding private meetings until the public closure of the session at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 December.

Report
 
The combined fourth to sixth periodic report of Turkey can be read here: CERD/C/TUR/4-6.
 
Presentation of the Report
 
HASAN ULUSOY, Ambassador and Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, reiterated Turkey’s full commitment to the fight against racism and racial discrimination as defined in the Convention.  Following the consideration of the previous report before the Committee in 2009, the concluding observations and the recommendations had been diligently assessed, and the outcome of the current dialogue would be given due consideration as well. 

The main philosophy of Turkey’s human rights approach could be summarized as “human rights for all with no discrimination”. The constitutional system was based on the equality of all individuals without discrimination before the law irrespective of language, race, colour, gender, political opinion, religion and sect, or any such consideration.  The Constitution granted the judiciary wide discretion and flexibility on its judgments regarding the cases of inequality before the law.  The concept of citizenship made no reference to the origin of citizens; the Turkish nation was an amalgamation of individuals from various backgrounds. 

The Government continuously reviewed the country’s laws and regulations with a view of bringing them further in line with Turkey’s international human rights obligations.  Constitutional amendments approved by the 2010 referendum had introduced positive discrimination in respect of women, children, the disabled and the elderly.  The new Law on Foreigners and International Protection had been enacted in 2013, while hate crime was now included, for the first time, in the Turkish Criminal Code, as a part of the “Democratization Package”.  A comprehensive Anti-Discrimination and Equality Law had been drafted and submitted to the Prime Minister.  The Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman had been established in 2012, while the creation of an Anti-Discriminatory and Equality Board was also envisaged. 

Training of State officials, in particular law enforcement officials and members of the judiciary, was seen as being of vital importance.  Awareness raising activities had been expanded to include students at all levels, civil society and the public at large.  Considerable advancements had been realized vis-à-vis Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.  Under the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, Turkish non-Muslim citizens fell under the scope of the term “minority”.  While they enjoyed the same rights and freedoms as the rest of the population, they also benefited from their minority status in accordance with the Treaty.  Many places of worship of various sects had been renovated by the authorities and reopened for worship.  New schools had been opened and course materials published for non-Muslim citizens.  The long-standing issue of the Assyrian Mor Gabriel Monastery had been resolved and the property returned to the Monastery Foundation.

Measures against the discrimination of Roma had commenced in 2006.  Turkish citizens of Roma origin generally lived in big cities and had a sedentary lifestyle.  A Research Institute of Roma Language and Culture had been established, and a draft National Strategy Document for Social Integration of Roma Citizens 2015-2020 had been finalized.

Turkey had a long and strong tradition of responding to affected peoples in need, who had to flee their original lands.  Today, Turkey was hosting 2.2 million people from Syria and 300,000 Iraqis, which made it the largest refugee-hosting nation in the world.  Turkey maintained an open border policy for Syrians fleeing violence and placed them in temporary protection under international law.  Free services, including food , shelter, health and schooling, were provided.  A multi-fold strategy had been developed from the very beginning of the current humanitarian crisis.  The principle of non-refoulement now had a legal basis in Turkish legislation.  The procedure relating to humanitarian residence permits and subsidiary protection mechanisms had been defined and “temporary protection” to be provided in cases of massive influx had been codified for the first time. 

Questions by Experts
 
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Turkey, said that Turkey described itself as a secular, pluralistic democracy governed by social law.  It was governed by the separation of powers, and local councils were empowered to deliver services to their citizens.  The good economy that Turkey had could help address and reduce inequalities.  Turkey’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria was commended.  Ms. January-Bardill noted that the context in which the Convention had been adopted in 1965 had changed.

The State party said that it did not collect data on ethnic or linguistic considerations.  Differences were not a problem, but a fact of life, and they had to be addressed adequately.  Collecting such data could help deliver focused policies and better evaluate and understand how different groups enjoyed their human rights. 

The State party should consider withdrawing its limitations to Article 22 of the Convention, said the Expert.

Comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation was reportedly before the Prime Minister.  That issue had been raised by a number of committees.  The draft law did not contain all grounds for discrimination.  Could Turkey speed up the adoption of the law and make sure that it complied in full with the Convention by including references to descent and national origin. 

The State party said that equality and consultative boards would be established – could more details be provided in that regard? 

The absence of the definition of racial discrimination was also raised by the Expert. The issue had been repeatedly brought up by the Committee, she said.  When did the State party intend to adopt such a definition in full compliance with Article 1 of the Convention?

The Expert asked the delegation to update the Committee on the adoption of the Human Rights National Action Plan, and provide its main provisions and details on funding the Plan.

The National Human Rights Institution was reportedly independent and enjoyed financial and administrative autonomy, but some civil society representatives had voiced concerns over the independence of its members.  Had the Institution already sought international accreditation? Turkey should take steps to make it fully compliant with the Paris Principles.

An update was sought on the Ombudsman.  More details were needed on its composition, resources and role. 

A question was asked on the absence of defining a racist motive as an aggravating circumstance, in line with Article 4 of the Convention. 

The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne protected only non-Muslim minorities, which were Armenians, Orthodox Christians, Greeks and Jews, while all others were left out.  How long would Turkey stick to the 1923 Treaty, which divided the society? 

Until when would Turkey host millions of people on its territory, asked another Expert.  Given that the European Union was closing its borders, would Turkey at some point do the same?  Would Turkey at one point intervene in the field militarily to put an end to military undertakings by Islamic State terrorists? Would it join other countries in their fight against the terrorists?

An Expert inquired about the use of other languages in Turkey.

Why could the State party not recognize some Muslim Turkish citizens as a minority if they spoke a different language or were of a different ethnicity?

He suggested that the term “positive discrimination” be avoided.

Recent developments in Turkey were quite worrisome, as there was too much ambiguity in the current Government policy.  The foundations of the State as established by Ataturk, such as its secular nature, seemed to be threatened. 

Turkey defined “terrorism” in broad terms.  While going against the Kurds, the fight against the Islamic State did not seem to be a priority for Turkey in spite of the recent bombings which had taken place in Turkey.  Turkey’s approach in bargaining with the European Union over letting through or keeping in migrants did not contribute to its credibility.

Lifting of the prohibition on disseminating information in languages other than Turkish was a positive development, commented another Expert.

What could the National Human Rights Institution investigate? 

It was still not clear how many Roma lived in Turkey.  How many of them did not have national identity documents and what was being done to change that?

The basis of the Convention was ethnic and national origin, and not religion, another Expert said.  The Lausanne Treaty, adopted a century earlier, spoke of Muslim and non-Muslim minorities.  Since then, a lot of time had gone by and today criteria other than religion ought to be used.  Religion was not an essential factor.   Why would there be no special measures for the promotion of Kurdish culture and language?

Diversity had to be expressed and acknowledged and accepted by all, the Expert stressed.

Another Expert wondered why Turkey had opted to be European rather than Asian.

Did the Ombudsman cover only discrimination on the part of the administration, while the relevant parliamentary committee of inquiry seemed to have broader powers?   How many cases had been dealt with by the committee?

How many women were in the Parliament, and how many of them were from minorities?

An Expert raised the State party’s approach to its Muslim minorities, such as the Kurds.  Turkey seemed to be denying that those groups constituted separate ethnic groups and discouraged them from separating their distinctiveness.  The Constitutional Court had also ruled that the Kurds were not a separate ethnic group.  Could more details be provided?

Some laws in Turkey made reference to “Turkish origin” as a basis for granting certain benefits.  That was of concern for the Committee as they seemed to be drawing ethnic lines in contravention to the Convention.  How was “Turkish origin” defined?

Teaching of religious subjects in schools was not allowed, which seemed to particularly affect the Alawis.  What was the State party doing in that regard?

Measures to monitor and stop racist speech should not be used to curtail the freedom of expression of racial and ethnic minorities.  Provisions against the “denigration of Turkishness” were worrisome in that regard.

It was very troubling that the sentence of the murderer of Hrant Dink had been reversed on technical grounds.  The delegation was asked to provide updated information.  Police and other officials had reportedly celebrated the murder, which the Government had been slow to condemn.

Another Expert commented that the Ottoman Empire had not feared diversity, but had rather endorsed it.  Turkey today seemed to be steering away from that course and turning inwards.  The very name of the country came from the name of the ethnic group of Turks.  Did it mean that other ethnic groups could be denied?

The Lausanne Treaty could not be ignored, he said, but the State party had to ensure that all of its citizens felt recognized and accepted.

A question was asked about the education of refugee children, especially bearing in mind the language barrier.  Were there any schools that provided classes in Arabic?

In Turkish legislation, incitement to racial hatred was linked to the imminent danger to public order.  That condition should be removed, the Expert said, and incitement to racial hatred should be considered as a crime on its own. 

On the same issue, another Expert inquired what would happen if inciting words were said in a closed area and did not lead to immediate violence or disturb public peace.  It might be very difficult to prove such an offence. 

There was data available, an Expert stressed and encouraged the State party to find ways to quantify the issues which needed to be addressed vis-à-vis racial discrimination.

Education in Turkey seemed to be mono-cultural, she said and asked for more details on efforts to make it more inclusive and intercultural.

Could an update be provided on the outcome of the National Human Rights Institution’s application for recognition?

She asked about the situation in Northern Cyprus and the application of the anti-discrimination legislation in that territory.

Another Expert reiterated that racial discrimination should be clearly defined, which would help everyone understand, inter alia, where the limits were regarding freedom of speech.

Turkey was clearly on a major migration route.  Given the magnitude of the problem, solutions were beyond the reach of one single country.  What were the plans in that regard?

An Expert said that he personally believed that it was not essential to have statistics on the ethnic breakdown.  But, if no statistics were collected, how did the State party know that there were Kurds and Roma?

Who were “martyrs” in Turkish legislation, as their widows and orphans were entitled to certain privileges?

An Expert observed that having several institutions to which a person could address his complaint on discrimination might lead to confusion and duplication.

What was the composition of the Monitoring Commission for the oversight of the security forces going to be?

The Expert requested clarification regarding the information concerning decisions taken by national tribunals and other State institutions on acts of racial discrimination, which was provided in the report.

More information was requested on the tribunal on jurisdictional disputes.

Were there internally displaced persons in Turkey, asked an Expert.

The issue of the definition of racial segregation was brought up by another Expert, who asked for further clarifications. 

The refugee burden that Turkey was bearing was a very heavy one, she said.  What were the State party’s plans in that regard?
 
Replies by the Delegation
 
The delegation said that when Turkey had joined the Convention, it had made reservations in full conformity with its provisions.

Turkey did not collect data on sensitive issues, including ethnicity, for the reason of respecting privacy and non-profiling.  Non-compulsory classification was nonetheless carried out.  There was no restriction for private actors to carry out qualitative and quantitative studies on ethnicity, for example for academic purposes.  Persons could self-identify in line with their preferences. 

The delegation believed that it should not be recommended that Turkey withdrew from the Lausanne Treaty, which provided for the term “non-Muslim minorities”.  There was no universally agreed definition of minority internationally; it was a prerogative of the State.  It was not important how one classified people, but how they were treated. 

Several measures had been taken in recent years on the use of different languages spoken in Turkey, including in education, political campaigning and the media. 

The term “Turk” was stipulated in the Constitution.  Everyone bound to the Turkish State through citizenship was called “Turk” irrespective of their origin.  That provision did not have an ethnic connotation, but referred to the citizenship of the Turkish Republic.  The term “Turkishness” had been replaced by “Turkish nation” in 2008. 

The National Human Rights Institution had administrative and financial autonomy and could not receive recommendations or instructions from any other body.  The Institution was about to apply for accreditation in line with the Paris Principles.  The Institution would also serve as a preventive mechanism, in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.  The Ombudsman did not intend to apply for accreditation.  Decisions had been adopted on strengthening and improving the efficiency of both bodies in line with Turkey’s national commitments.  In addition, there were many specialized bodies with the view of providing various State institutions with expertise in addressing different human rights issues.

Turkey was engaged in several projects, together with international partners, to construct schools for Syrian children.  Syrian teachers in those schools were paid through such projects, and the children would thus learn in Arabic.

Turkey would continue to embrace refugees in need as long as it could; it was its legal and moral obligation.  Turkey was hoping that other members of the international community would do the same.

Daesh was recognized as a terrorist organization by Turkey.  Thousands of foreign fighters had been banned from entering Turkey so far.  Turkey’s fight with the terrorist Daesh and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party was a political issue and did not fall within the scope of the Convention.

“Martyrs” were law and military personnel who died in missions, and their families were compensated.  There was no religious connotation.

The delegation informed that translation to languages other than Turkish was provided in courts.

The electoral threshold stood at 10 per cent, but it was not considered to be contradictory to human rights, said the delegation.

Turkey was perceived as a European country by virtue of its geographical location, history and membership of various pan-European bodies. 

It was explained that the prohibition of discrimination was provided for in the Turkish Constitution.  In order to fulfil its obligations, Turkey had foreseen a board for fighting against discrimination and an equality board, independent organizations which would not accept any type of outside interference.  Direct and indirect discrimination, hate speech, mobbing and harassment were all defined as types of discrimination.  Monetary fines could be applied to companies promoting such practices.  The burden of proof would be borne by the institution or the individual who had allegedly perpetuated discrimination.

Hrant Dink had been heinously assassinated, said a delegate.  His assassination had opened deep wounds in society, and there was no excuse for such an act.  The perpetrators were being tried by Turkish courts.  New judiciary and administrative investigations had also been launched, and police officers were being currently investigated. 

The National Document for the Integration of Roma was in line with European and international frameworks and processes.  The focus was on the Roma people, but not at an exclusion of other people who shared similar social and economic circumstances.  Promoting social inclusion through employment was one of the activities undertaken.  A modular social inclusion guidebook for public and non-governmental organizations would be prepared on how to best include and support Roma.  Approximately 90 trainers and hundreds of teachers in various provinces would be trained on combatting discrimination against Roma and social exclusion.  Identity cards problems for Roma in Turkey were regularly solved.

Regional development plans had been prepared and were being implemented now with the view of overcoming interregional gaps in development.  That was one of the priorities of the current Government, as announced by the Prime Minister in November.  Projects included support for village infrastructures, road, water and municipalities, culture, arts and sports, among others.  

More than half of Turkish citizens who had left their villages because of the armed activities in Turkey had since returned to their homes, said a delegate.  Compensation was provided to citizens who suffered as a result of terrorist activities and counter-terrorism measures.  There were 21 commissions operating on those issues throughout the country at the moment, and more than 60 commissions had already completed their work.  More than 180,000 applicants had received compensation in excess of three billion Turkish liras, while 160,000 applications had been rejected.  The European Court of Human Rights had ruled that an adequate domestic remedy was in place.

Regarding foreigners of Turkish origin, a delegate said that the Council of State had decided that such foreigners had to apply for work permits under the same rules as all other foreigners.

The Law on Foreigners and International Protection, unanimously adopted and in force since 2013, was in conformity with the provisions of the Refugee Conventions and European legislation. A General Directorate for Migration Affairs had been established, and the international protection law was applied very effectively in Turkey today.  Regular migration was encouraged, and the number of foreigners regularly residing in Turkey was close to 400,000.  An action plan to combat irregular migration had also been adopted. 

Turkey had become a State party to the Convention on Statelessness in 2014.  Stateless persons were issued one-year identity cards, which were comparable to residence permits.  They could also receive travel documents and apply for international protection.  Temporary protection regulations were in place for citizens of Syria. 

It was explained that there was continuous training going on for law enforcement officials regarding extradition.  Training sessions were also regularly held for judges, prosecutors and police officers in the framework of human rights, including fighting racial discrimination. 

There were civil, military and administrative courts in Turkey, the delegation explained.  Their judgments were separate and independent from one another; any disputes between them would be resolved by the Court of Disputes.  In court statistics, details on persons’ ethnicity and religion were not contained. 

The delegation said that there were parliamentarians from recognized minorities as well as from the Roma community.  The total number of female Members of Parliament was 81.

Follow-up Questions
 
Was there a possibility to regulate and recognize other minority religions, asked an Expert.

Was the State party doing anything to prepare for the Decade of People of African Descent?

Another Expert said that she understood that the Lausanne Treaty provided for naming certain minorities, but that did not mean that some others could not be made minorities as well.  Another Expert added that the Treaty provided a minimum, not a maximum, requirement and did not present an impediment to the recognition of Muslim minorities.

Had the report under consideration been made available to civil society for their information and input?  Would concluding observations be translated and made public?

A question was asked whether the State party was planning to develop a national plan of action to combat racism and racial discrimination, in line with the Durban Declaration.

What measures were put in place to protect and promote the rights of Syrian women in camps? 

More information was asked about targets in the National Strategy for Roma 2015-2020.

Ethnic origin should be explicitly included as a prohibited ground of discrimination, stressed an Expert.

Clarification was sought on the State party’s position on whether the Kurds constituted a separate minority group which required protection as such.

He welcomed the replies by the delegation regarding Hrant Dink.  What was being done to ensure that the provisions prohibiting the denigration of Turkishness, including referring to the 1915 genocide, would not suppress the expression of legitimate views, especially by minorities?

The issue of structural discrimination, including against Roma, had to be taken up, as they had suffered from marginalization for a very long time, said an Expert.  Special measures were a solution.

Another Expert inquired whether the unicity of Turkish citizenship caused any problems to belonging to a particular ethnic group within Turkey.
 
Replies by the Delegation
 
Non-Muslim foundations had been allowed to regain their properties; as a result, more than 300 properties had been registered, and compensation had been paid for others. 

Turkey was opening up embassies in multiple African countries with which there had been relations throughout history.  Special emphasis was on development needs.  People of African descent were cherished as contributing to the richness of Turkey.

More information would be provided on Roma issues, as discussed.

There was determination to involve civil society in the reporting process as much as possible, said the delegation.  The authorities would do their best to provide translation. 

Programmes were run by Turkish authorities with a special focus on Syrian women.  One focus was on training the trainers.  The majority of Syrians in Turkey resided in shelters, and the rate of crimes, committed by either Syrians or Turkish nationals, was rather low. 

Efforts were made to combat trafficking in human beings, the punishment for which was between eight and 12 years.  As soon as there were indications of possible cases of trafficking, social workers would go to the places of alleged incidents and follow through.  Legal, medical and psycho-social aid was provided.  Urgent call centres had been established to be at the service of Syrian refugees. 

On who were the minorities, the delegation reiterated that the key purpose was that their rights were being respected.  It was the prerogative of the State party to decide who minorities were.  There were ongoing reforms to provide additional rights and freedoms of different groups.  Kurdish dialects were now elective courses in primary and secondary schools, and the Turkish TV and the Anatolia State Agency had started broadcasting news in Kurdish.  After a recent amendment, everyone could defend themselves in their own language in front of the courts. 

The same advancements had been made for the Turkish citizens of Assyrian origin. Turkish social policies were demand-driven. 

The 1915 events were not a taboo in Turkey, and it was not uncommon to find publications supporting the Armenian narrative.  Specific statistics regarding 1915-related cases were not recorded.

The Justice Academy included special classes on anti-discrimination and human rights, within which freedom of expression was also discussed.  The draft law on anti-discrimination and equality prohibited discrimination on a wide range of grounds.  Compensation would be decided on by the relevant boards, stated the delegation.

Regarding the Roma in Turkey, the delegation explained that the authorities were regularly consulting with Roma individuals and numerous Roma associations.  A big congress of Roma representatives, with 10,000 participants, had recently taken place.  One Member of Parliament was of Roma origin.  Special measures were indeed necessary and were provided to remedy the difficulties they were facing in their daily lives. 
 
Concluding Remarks
 
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Turkey, said that the Committee appreciated the frank dialogue with the State party over issues which were constantly changing.  Turkey was a successful multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious country.  There was no doubt that the State party was grappling with many of its historical legacies and current-day challenges.  Limitations and contradictions of the Turkish national identity were noted.  Some confusion remained regarding ethnicity, nationhood, religion and even secularity.  Certain ideologies of Turkish superiority seemed to persist and ought to be duly considered.  The Committee condemned collision with Kurdish and Armenian communities, and special attention had to be paid to those issues.  It was welcome that the authorities were working on anti-discrimination legislation, but its application in practice was essential.

HASAN ULUSOY, Ambassador and Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, thanked the Committee for the interactive dialogue. There had not been much mention of people of African descent as the focus over the past five years had been on helping millions of Syrians currently in Turkey.  More attention would be given to them in the subsequent report.  Turkey attached importance to the recommendations, which would help it combat discrimination.  Turkey was aware of the issues and difficulties, which was why the reform process was continuously ongoing.  A reform action group, composed of Ministers, would meet soon to take further measures on various human rights related issues, including anti-discrimination.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr