Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Türkiye on its Strong Commitment to Fight Violence against Women, Ask about Life Sentences in Prison and the Communication of Detainees with Family Members

The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Türkiye, with Committee Experts welcoming the strong commitment of the State party to fight violence against women, and asking about life imprisonment in Türkiye and the frequency that detainees were permitted to contact their family members.

Naoko Maeda, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed the strong commitment of the State party to fight violence against women and to uphold the principle of zero tolerance. It was commendable that the State party established legal frameworks applicable to gender-based violence, such as law no.6284 to protect the family and prevent violence against women and relevant units, along with application and monitoring systems. The adoption of the fourth national action plan to combat violence against women 2021-2025 was also welcomed.

Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said in Türkiye, death caused by torture was punishable by aggravated life imprisonment without alternative. Could further details be provided on the conditions under which life imprisonment sentences and aggravated life imprisonment sentences were served? Another Expert said reports indicated that the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment had increased by 40 per cent between 2016 and 2022. Could the State provide an explanation of these figures? How many prisoners had been sentenced to life imprisonment to date? Could they submit complaints and speak privately with their lawyers? Did these people stay in single cells, or did they share with other inmates?

Ms. Maeda said a report had been received by the Committee that access of family members to detainees was restricted by a decree which provided that detainees could only be visited by their closest relative and would only be permitted to use a telephone for 10 minutes every 15 days. What were measures to ensure the right of those detained to maintain contact with their family? Were these measures still in place?

The delegation said aggravated life imprisonment was reserved for extremely serious cases. A law regulated this practice. Convicts lived in single cells and had the right to engage in sports and go outside for one hour per day. Depending on good behaviour, time out and time for sports could be extended and they could be allowed to interact with other prisoners sharing the same block. These prisoners did not spend their whole time alone in solitary confinement. They could also be involved in a vocational course every 15 days and had the right to make a phone call to a family member. This regime was the most aggravated penalty and concerned 1.24 per cent of the total inmates.

The delegation said remand prisoners were monitored by a multi-media tool inside a cabin. Juveniles and others could always access this video conferencing system. This tool allowed for video conference calls with families and constituted a major legislative amendment. Prior, remand prisoners were allowed a 10 minute phone call each week. With the change in law and the introduction of this new technology, this had been increased to 60 minutes. If the inmate was a minor, they could speak to their family via video conference for 120 minutes per week. This system had been recognised as an example of excellence for the rehabilitation of inmates.

Introducing the report, Kivilcim Kiliç, Director General for Multilateral Relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye and head of the delegation, said a cornerstone of Türkiye’s reform efforts was the zero tolerance policy towards torture which was adopted in 2003. In line with this policy, Türkiye enacted comprehensive legislation and implemented robust measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish all acts of torture and ill treatment. Currently, there were 403 penitentiary institutions across the country. To increase physical capacity and address issues of overcrowding, 58 new penitentiary institutions to accommodate 48,784 persons were planned to be constructed by the end of 2026. The State ensured that all allegations of torture and ill treatment were immediately brought to the attention of the authorities and duly investigated by the judicial and administrative bodies.

In concluding remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, thanked Türkiye for the updates the delegation had provided since the report had been submitted two years prior. The State had 48 hours to provide additional responses. Mr. Heller expressed his gratitude to the delegation members for their presence and active participation.

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Kiliç thanked the Committee for the dialogue. Türkiye would sustain its cooperation with the Committee and take its comments and questions into consideration. The State would tackle challenges with courage, based on the spirit of the Convention.

The delegation of Türkiye consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Interior; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of National Defence; the Ministry of Family and Social Services; and the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Türkiye at the end of its eightieth session on 26 July. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 23 July at 10 a.m. when it will meet with the Chair of the Subcommittee on Torture.

Report

The Committee has before it the fifth periodic report of Türkiye (CAT/C/TUR/5).

Presentation of Report

KIVILCIM KILIÇ, Director General for Multilateral Relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye and head of the delegation, said it had been eight years since a Turkish delegation had presented its progress on the implementation of the Convention. A cornerstone of Türkiye’s reform efforts was the zero tolerance policy towards torture which was adopted in 2003. In line with this policy, Türkiye enacted comprehensive legislation and implemented robust measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish all acts of torture and ill treatment. Türkiye was one of the few countries around the world which had abolished the statute of limitations for the crime of torture. Work was ongoing on a draft bill aimed at removing the statute of limitations for disciplinary proceedings, mirroring what was done for criminal investigations.

Since the previous reporting cycle, Türkiye had continued its human rights reform agenda. The judicial reform strategy was published on May 30, 2019, and since then, eight judicial reform packages had been adopted. The human rights action plan covering 2021-2023 had been implemented, outlining significant goals and activities to combat all forms of torture. Significant progress achieved under the plan included that if a woman was a victim of torture, this was adopted as an aggravating circumstance, increasing the lower limit of the sentence; the act of repeated stalking was defined as a separate criminal offence; and the penalty for migrant smuggling had been increased from three to five years, among other measures.

To ensure the effective implementation of these reforms, special focus was placed on the training of relevant personnel of the public institutions. Fundamental human rights topics were included in trainings for all public officials, with criminal magistrates and prosecutors provided with continual training on arrest and judicial control measures. Since the report’s submission in October 2020, a total of 150,717 personnel from the National Police and the Gendarmerie had received training in the field of human rights, including the prohibition of torture and ill treatment.

Currently, there were 403 penitentiary institutions across the country. To increase physical capacity and address issues of overcrowding, 58 new penitentiary institutions to accommodate 48,784 persons were planned to be constructed by the end of 2026. Türkiye was implementing smart technologies integration into the penal institutions project, which allowed convicts and detainees to directly communicate their complaints and suggestions to the Ministry of Justice via voice, video, or text from systems installed in their rooms, without needing any staff. To date, nearly 2,000 communications had been made.

The State ensured that all allegations of torture and ill treatment were immediately brought to the attention of the authorities and duly investigated by the judicial and administrative bodies. Such acts were investigated either directly by the Chief Public Prosecutor or an assigned Public Prosecutor, and were regarded as urgent by the national courts. The Ombudsman Institution and the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye directly investigated, without permission from the authorities, complaints of torture and ill treatment and monitored all places where persons were deprived of their liberty. The Human Rights and Equality Institution, which was established in line with the Paris Principles, undertook three major tasks, namely as the national human rights institution, the national preventive mechanism against torture and ill treatment, and the anti-discrimination and equality institution.

Due to the ongoing political instabilities, poor governance, armed conflicts and economic hardship in the region, Türkiye was currently hosting the largest refugee population in the world - almost four million refugees and asylum seekers. Since the current situation was not sustainable, the State continued efforts to create necessary and appropriate conditions to ensure voluntary returns, while strictly complying with the principle of non-refoulment. Türkiye also continued efforts to combat migrant smuggling. It had identified more than 254,000 irregular migrants and apprehended 10,482 migrant smugglers in 2023. In closing, Ms. Kiliç reaffirmed Türkiye’s determination to take all necessary measures to prevent acts of torture and other forms of ill treatment, as defined in the Conventions.

Questions by Committee Experts

BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said two years had elapsed since the submission of the report. Several paragraphs in the report could benefit from an upgrade, some statistics could benefit from being contemporised, and there was some insufficient data in the report. The Committee was well aware of the lifting of the state of emergency on 19 July 2018 and the revocation of incidental derogations from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a positive and encouraging development.

However, the Committee was concerned at reports from sources within the United Nations system and beyond which asserted that the state of emergency declared after the attempted coup d’état had become permanent. Did this imply that the body of emergency decrees specifically for the state of emergency had now become regular laws governing the normal life of the country? The Turkish Constitution allowed the extension of detention to 18 days for individuals and to 36 days for persons suspected of “collectively committed crimes” which was permissible during ordinary governance, rather than under a state of emergency. Could the delegation explain the rationale underlying this deviation from international standards? Who were the subjects of “collectively committed crimes”? What were the safeguards against incommunicado detention? Did decrees promulgated during the state of emergency affect fundamental rights and freedoms?

The Constitution seemed to only address torture, but not other offenses covered by the Convention. Had something been lost in translation? The prohibition of a confession obtained under torture was conspicuously missing from the Penal Code. The report referred the Committee to the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibited extracting statements from a suspect under torture. If elements of the offense of torture could be found in two codes, could they be spread across other statures and sources of Turkish law? The Code of Criminal Procedure seemed to be focused on the protection of a suspect or an accused person; did the Penal Code have the same objective? Could the delegation direct the Committee to provisions which afforded such protection to a witness in criminal proceedings?

The Penal Code also criminalised the crime of “torment”; how did this differ from “torture” and how did both relate to the definition of torture and ill treatment under the Convention? The Committee appreciated as a positive development the total repeal of the statute of limitations with respect to torture. Could specific examples be provided of joint application of domestic law and an international treaty? Could the Committee be referred to judgements, if there were any of the Constitutional Court, in which the Court interpreted the anti-torture provisions of the Constitution, applying the Convention? Regarding removals and deportations to or from Türkiye, was there an established practice on offering and accepting diplomatic assurances in such situations?

The report had one reference from a judgement of the European Court on Human Rights that it said asserted the practice of weekly strip searches. But the Court in the same ruling had concluded that “the combination of routine strip-searching and the other stringent security measures […] amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention. There has thus been a violation of this provision”. Mr. Tuzmukhamedov was willing to give the report the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an inadvertent admission rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the Committee.

Who were the judges in Türkiye and how were they trained? Were they capable of resolving a potential conflict between a domestic law and an international treaty, applying the “prevalence clause” of the Constitution? How did the State party replenish the cadre of the judiciary? It was necessary to address the case of the former judge at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, who was arrested in the aftermath of the coup. Notwithstanding several appeals to release Judge Akay based on his diplomatic immunity sitting in an active case, he was tried, convicted and now serving a sentence. Could the delegation comment on this?

In Türkiye, death caused by torture was punishable by aggravated life imprisonment without alternative. Could further details be provided on the conditions under which life imprisonment and aggravated life imprisonment sentences were served? How many persons had received life imprisonment sentences during the reporting period and what were they convicted for? How many such convictions had been handed down in the aftermath of, and related to, the coup attempt.

The record of Türkiye in relation to core universal human rights treaties was commendable. It was a party to both Covenants and all but one of the Conventions, as well as all but one of the Optional Protocols. What was Türkiye’s reasoning for not acceding to the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance? What was the status of the Treaty of Lausanne in the constitutional system and what was its relevance for international legal obligations? What were the reasons for it not being considered worthy of a reservation, as a tool of interpretation of the Convention?

Could further and up-to-date information be provided on educational programmes developed by the State party to ensure that all law enforcement officials, prison staff, and staff of the National Intelligence Organization, the Border Gendarmerie and the Coast Guard were fully acquainted with the provisions of the Convention? Had Türkiye developed any methodology to assess the effectiveness of these training programmes in reducing the number of cases of torture? Could the delegation provide more detailed information on the training programmes for judges, prosecutors, forensic doctors and medical personnel dealing with detained persons, including illegal migrants, on detecting and documenting the physical and psychological effects, both primary and secondary, of torture?

Could the delegation provide up-to-date information on measures taken by the State party under the 1991 Counter-Terrorism Act? How had these measures affected human rights safeguards in law and in practice? How had the Government ensured those measures complied with all its obligations under international law? Were there any complaints of non-observance of international standards, did they develop into administrative or judicial proceedings, and what were the outcomes?

NAOKO MAEDA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee welcomed that during the Human Rights 75 high-level event in 2023, Türkiye committed to five pledges. Those included the empowerment of women and girls, enhancement of the action plan on human rights, and implementation of the judicial reform strategy. Such a positive and cooperative attitude and approach should contribute to this dialogue. It was noted that the maximum period in custody without bringing the suspect before a judge was reduced from 30 days to seven days, with a possible extension to 14 days by decree 684, article 10. However, the detention of an individual for 14 days without judicial oversight would constitute a violation. What was the status of the application of this extension by the decree and what requirements were imposed upon the extension? Had any legal and institutional frameworks of periodic and independent judicial supervision been provided?

Could the State party provide information on the measures to ensure the ruling of the Constitutional Court which concerned restriction on detainees’ access to lawyers? Could detainees choose the examining doctor in detention places? Did detainees and their lawyers have access to the medical reports? What were the policies to improve restrictions on access to doctors in detention? A report had been received by the Committee that access of family members to detainees was restricted by a decree which provided that detainees could only be visited by their closest relative and would only be permitted to use a telephone for 10 minutes every 15 days. What were measures to ensure the right of those detained to maintain contact with their family? Were these measures still in place?

The Committee welcomed the by-law on the implementation of the law on establishment of the Law Enforcement Monitoring Commission, which set out the operational procedures and principles of the central registry system. Could data and statistics on the number of arrests, detention and remand during the reporting period be provided? Could the State party provide information on the torture cases and measures to ensure that all instances and allegations of torture were investigated promptly, effectively and impartially, and that perpetrators were prosecuted and convicted? Could updated information on the number of complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions be provided? How was accountability ensued in cases of the military?

It was reported that as per law no. 6722 on the amendment of the Turkish

armed forces personnel law and certain laws, passed in 2016, the

investigation of military personnel involved in operations linked to accusations of torture and other forms of ill treatment underwent a special permit procedure, accompanied by a retroactive shield of impunity. Could the State party provide its view on policy and measures that refrained from punishing torture and ill treatment by military and quasi-military personnel, in order to combat impunity?

The Committee had received inputs from civil society on illegal renditions and extradition of Turkish citizens affiliated to the Hizument/Gullen movement in the context of counter-terrorism measures. It was reported that all the cases of abductions and illegal renditions involved heavy torture and incommunicado detention which amounted to enforced disappearance. There was a concern that abductions, enforced disappearances and torture by the intelligence service were often carried out with impunity as article 6 of the law no. 6532 gave de facto full impunity to agents of the National Intelligence Organization. Could the State party clarify this?

Could the State party provide information on measures taken to ensure the independent judicial review of the cases of detained journalists? How were media outlets and non-governmental organizations able to appeal decisions ordering their closure before an independent judicial authorities? How was it ensured that journalists and human rights defenders could carry out their work free of intimidation and the threat of reprisal?

Could the State explain about the procedure of assignment of judges and prosecutors in practice? What mandates were designated to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors that controlled the careers of judges and prosecutors through appointment transfers, promotions and discipline? The independence of the Bar Association was important. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had noted that in Türkiye, over 34 lawyers’ associations had been shut down by presidential decrees following the declaration of the state of emergency in June 2016. What was the status of this issue? How was the independence of the judiciary ensured? The Committee had received information on high numbers of arrested judges and lawyers, not only after the state of emergency, but also recently, including four lawyers from the Progressive Lawyers Association. How was the Turkish Code of Lawyers applied in practice?

What measures had been taken to tackle the issue of overcrowding in prisons? The Committee was wondering why there had been no reported cases of deaths in custody to date since the submission of the report. Could updated information be provided? Could information be provided on the cases in which those deaths were investigated, prosecuted and convicted for the period of reporting? Did relatives of the deceased receive compensation?

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment of the Council of Europe had conducted periodic and

ad hoc visits to Türkiye several times and raised certain issues related to the situation of the prisoners currently held at Imralı f-type high-security prison. In the context of aggravated life imprisonment under certain offences covered by the Turkish Penal Code and the anti-terror law, the 36-year limit to imprisonment was not applied. Could the State party clarify this? In Imralı prison, it was well known that there were three prisoners, including Öcalan, serving as aggravated life imprisonment prisoners and one as a life imprisonment prisoner. Could the State party provide information on the status of these four prisoners and the reason why contact with families and lawyers had been rejected? Were there any plans to remove the articles prohibiting conditional release from the legislation?What measures had been implemented to prevent women from being exposed to harassment in detention facilities? What measures would be taken to ensure the separation of juveniles from adults? States should ensure that children held in prisons with their mothers were never treated as prisoners. What efforts had been made to improve the conditions of all places of detention? Had there been any investigations and prosecutions regarding the excessive use of force by the police, including the use of firearms?

The Committee welcomed the strong commitment of the State party to fight violence against women and to uphold the principle of zero tolerance. It was commendable that the State party established legal frameworks applicable to gender-based violence, such as law no.6284 to protect the family and prevent violence against women and relevant units, along with application and monitoring systems. The adoption of the fourth national action plan to combat violence against

women 2021-2025 was also welcomed. However, the Committee noted with concern in the report of the persistence of crimes, including femicide, honour killings, forced suicides and other disguised murders. What strategies would be undertaken to make further progress on the criminalisation of gender-based violence in private spheres? Could updated data on the investigation, prosecution and conviction of cases related to gender-based violence be provided? What strategies were taken to establish effective and prompt procedures to investigate cases of sexual abuse and harassment and ensure victims had access to legal aid, medical assistance and rehabilitation? Could updated information on the accessibility to shelters for victims be provided?

Türkiye had been the first Member State to ratify the Istanbul Convention in 2012. The decision to withdraw was announced in March 2021 by a Presidential decree. The Committee was concerned this withdrawal was a setback for the promotion and protection of women’s rights and the prevention of gender-based violence. What was the main reason for Turkey withdrawing from this Convention? Would there be any possibility of considering re-ratification? Could the State party explain the legal recognition and rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons?

A Committee Expert said she had visited several places of detention in Türkiye and spoken with prisoners. During the visits, she recognised progress, including the improvement of material conditions of places of detention and progressive rehabilitation and vocational programmes for juveniles. Reports indicated that the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment had increased by 40 per cent between 2016 and 2022. Could the State provide an explanation of these figures?

How many prisoners had been sentenced to life imprisonment to date? Could they submit complaints and speak privately with their lawyers? Did these people stay in single cells, or did they share with other inmates? What measures needed to be taken to improve the prison regime? Could the Committee be provided with information on the number of prisoners released on the grounds of illness? Could information on the competencies of the prison boards be provided? How many prisons in Türkiye still used an isolation regime? What entity had the right to move prisoner between prisons?

Another Expert asked what a strip search entailed? Was this applicable in all prisons? Had there been any follow up on the recommendations from the Committee on the Prevention of Torture to ensure that ill treatment in police custody was not tolerated?A Committee Expert said it was commendable that Türkiye hosted the largest number of refugees in the world. Amongst these four million, 1.7 million were children. It was noted that the birth registration rates for refugees were very low. What efforts had been made by the State party to improve birth registration? What measures were being taken to reduce statelessness? The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Türkiye was 12 years old. How could violations of human rights for juvenile delinquents be prevented?

Another Committee Expert said Türkiye should be hailed as a country which welcomed so many refugees and asylum seekers. There had been reports of a rise in racism and xenophobia concerning certain categories of refugees. Was the Government aware of this? What was being done to tackle this? What did the State plan to do to bring the national human rights institute into compliance with the Paris Principles?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said that in addition to judicial and administrative mechanisms, the national human rights institute and the Ombudsman’s Office directly investigated cases of torture and ill treatment. The national human rights institute had been granted B status in October 2022. Within the scope of the national preventive mechanism function, the institute had visited 260 detention centres since 2020. After each visit, detailed reports, including findings and recommendations, were prepared and forwarded to relevant institutions. The Ombudsman Institution was established in 2013 and was an impartial and independent institution. It had received 5,487 complaints related to penitentiary institutions from 2021 to 2024. These complaints had been notified to the executive. Türkiye’s decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention was not a step back. The State had strong legislation in this area and showed zero tolerance to violence against women.

In the past two decades, Turkish penitentiary institutions had undergone several reform processes. For persons deprived of their liberty, space was critical. In this respect, the reform process focused on infrastructure. From 2020, Türkiye had moved forward in removing all elements which did not comply with modern regimes. New penitentiary institutions had been introduced and many older ones had been closed. The overcrowding resulted from some of the unforeseeable events which took place in Türkiye. By 2025, 39 new penitentiary institutions would be opened. There were 403 penitentiary institutions currently, which allowed for 300,000 inmates. When building new institutions, standards of the United Nations and the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture were taken into account, including regarding the minimum living space.

Aggravated life imprisonment was reserved for extremely serious cases. A law regulated this practice. Convicts lived in single cells and had the right to engage in sports and the outside for one hour per day. Depending on good behaviour, time out and time for sports could be extended and they could be allowed to interact with other prisoners sharing the same block. These prisoners did not spend their whole time alone in solitary confinement. They could also be involved in a vocational course every 15 days and had the right to make a phone call to a family member. Every 15 days they had the right to visits for one hour. This regime was the most aggravated penalty and concerned 1.24 per cent of the total inmates. Convicts serving aggravated life imprisonment were required to behave in compliance with the law. The disciplinary board could determine if an action would receive a punishment. Convicts were permitted to appeal any decisions. One of the prisoners currently serving aggravated life imprisonment had been denied visits for three months, and no appeal to this had been announced. A six-month ban for lawyer visits had been appealed, but the appeal was refused.

Within the reform process, there was a zero tolerance policy against torture. Investigations against torture were carried out thoroughly no matter where they came from. In 2024, 490 police officers had been investigated and three had received penalties. There were 4,288 holding cells under the national police. Camera and surveillance systems were in all centres and the tapes were kept for a long time. There were 263 holding cells within the Gendarmerie which had the same systems. There were anti-terrorist units which investigated crimes of terrorism.

Türkiye had an urgent support system for women, through a mobile app which enabled authorities to be instantly accessed. So far, more than six million people had downloaded the app. Around 1,287 units had been established to deal with allegations of violence against women. In the first six months of 2024, 166 women were murdered. Around 29,260 women had applied to the relevant authorities to benefit from protective measures. These units had female police officers who spoke to victims and provided guidance on the next steps. Between 2020 and 2024, there were more than 272,000 protests which took place with millions of people participating in these protests. The police intervened in only around 1,000 demonstrations which was a low percentage. Fifty-six per cent of the demonstrations were concluded peacefully.

There was a special police force for juveniles, and a children’s unit at the police force. In 2024, training had been provided to 701 staff members on child matters. So far, there had been 77 investigations on allegations of torture against the national police. Human rights courses were provided each year which followed the latest standards, including compulsory courses. Trainings focused on body searches in order to prevent inhumane or degrading treatment. The human rights course covered searches of detainees and searches at prisons. In the last six years, 484,000 members of the Turkish Gendarmerie had received training, either online or in person. Remote training was also provided to staff on proportionality, intervention in social movements, and effective negotiation techniques. These were also available in videos, which had been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Türkiye considered violence against women to be unacceptable. The legal infrastructure had been strengthened to fight violence against women, including in the law on family and the prevention of violence against women. There was also a Presidential decree to fight violence against women which had been issued in 2023. National action plans were regularly prepared and implemented in this regard. Eighty-two violence monitoring centres had been established and there were 110 shelters to help women who were subjected to violence. Women were offered housing, psychosocial support, economic support and kindergarten support. To raise awareness on the fight of violence against women, trainings and seminars were organised for different sectors of society. These trainings and seminars were initiated in 2017, and more than one million army conscripts had received training.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the human rights action plan 2021-2023 had been announced by the President of Türkiye. It outlined significant goals and activities to combat all forms of torture, underscoring the State’s commitments to upholding human rights. Work was underway to prepare the new human rights action plan 2024-2028. Türkiye was in constructive cooperation with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture which had made 34 visits to the country so far. After the visits, the Committee had made 31 reports, 27 of which had already been published.

Evaluations for Türkiye to become a party to the Convention on Enforced Disappearances continued. The State was working constructively with the Working Group on enforced disappearances. According to the Turkish Constitution, the Treaty of Lausanne constituted a part of Turkish law and constituted basic legislation on minority rights. Türkiye meticulously responded to all communications made before the European Court of Human Rights and United Nations mechanisms. The decisions made by these institutions were carefully examined and evaluated.

In response to allegations that human rights defenders and journalists were subject to intimidation in Türkiye, the delegation said the State was committed to protecting and upholding human rights. Human rights defenders were viewed as fundamental elements of civil society, forming an integral part of civil society. However, no one had the right to commit a crime; if the perpetrator of a crime was a human rights defender or a journalist, they were not exempt from investigation.

Detention periods were regulated in the Turkish Constitution. The detention period for individual crimes could not exceed 24 hours from the moment of arrest. The mandatory period to the nearest judge or court could not exceed 12 hours. Collective crimes were crimes committed by three or more persons and were different from individual crimes as the investigation was more complex and therefore needed more time. A maximum extension of detention of four days of pretrial detention in total was allowed for a suspect of collective crimes. The detainee was notified of each extension and had the opportunity to appeal the decision.

The Criminal Procedural Code outlined the maximum threshold of pretrial detention, which changed according to the type of crime. The average duration of detention in Türkiye was below the upper threshold allowed by law. The current average duration of pretrial detention in Türkiye was around eight months. Detention decisions were required to be reviewed every month by judicial authorities. The access of detainees to lawyers was regulated by law. Those detained could meet their lawyers in working hours and on weekdays, without any time limitations. They could contact their lawyers outside of their working hours and on weekends as well.

According to Turkish legislation, the crime of “torture” could only be committed by public officials, but “torment” was a crime which could be committed by anyone. If torment was committed by a public official, it would amount to torture and would therefore not be bound by a statute of limitations. If public officials committed the crime of torment, they would be prosecuted and investigated on the basis of torture. Torture, according to Turkish law, could only be committed by public officials.

In cases where international agreements regarding fundamental rights and freedoms were incompatible with Turkish law, then international agreements prevailed. The Code of Criminal Procedures did not contain a criminal provision on the use of evidence obtained under torture. There was a procedural rule which stated that statements taken under torture could not be used as evidence. If a public official obtained a statement using torture, the statement would not be used as evidence in court. There were no unofficial centres for detention.

There were three different types of imprisonment in Türkiye: a limited duration imprisonment, life imprisonment and aggravated life imprisonment. Depending on the severity of the crime, one of these types of imprisonment was chosen. Life imprisonment was similar to limited duration imprisonment. In aggravated life imprisonment, as a rule, people qualified for conditional release after 30 years; for life imprisonment, this was 24 years. If aggravated life imprisonment was ruled as a result of organised crime, conditional release provisions did not apply.

All the searches conducted at prisons and correctional facilities were vital for the health, safety and security of the inmates. They played an important role in establishing human rights at prison and facilities, and prevented the entrance of dangerous materials which would lead to a loss of life. Strip searches had been abandoned in 2021 and replaced with the detailed search method. Detailed search was only implemented in exceptional cases. Exceptions included serious signs that the person may try to bring in dangerous or forbidden materials into the prison. This reasonable doubt had to be documented. There had to be no other way to find these materials without a detailed search and it had to be deemed necessary by the highest official in that facility. The instructions must come from the commander of the facility in question.

In Türkiye, minors were never housed in adult prisons. There were nine juvenile institutions and four educational centres for minors. The capacity of these centres was sufficient to house juveniles who were in remand. All children in juvenile facilities slept alone at night in individual rooms. Children were permitted to contact their families either through phone or video calls. The State was undergoing reforms in many areas, including digital. Remand prisoners were monitored by a multi-media tool inside a cabin. Juveniles and others could always access this video conferencing system. This tool allowed detainees to carry out activities alone and carry out functions such as ordering food from the canteen digitally. This tool allowed for video conference calls with families and constituted a major legislative amendment. Prior, remand prisoners were allowed a 10-minute phone call each week. With the change in law and the introduction of this new technology, this had been increased to 60 minutes. If the inmate was a minor, they could speak to their family via video conference for 120 minutes per week. This system had been recognised as an example of excellence for the rehabilitation of inmates.

Putting children into prison was a last resort in Türkiye and the numbers of juveniles in prison had not increased throughout the years, constituting nine in 1,000. Projects on child psychology and other topics had been implemented for all personnel who worked with minors. The programme aimed to ensure children integrated well back into society. A special provision had been introduced which stated that the penalties of terminally or severely ill persons could be deferred. Most prisoners in Turkish prisons were males.

There were certain vulnerable groups, including minors, females, children who accompanied their mothers, and senior prisoners. A special bureau followed these groups and monitored their situation. Female prisoners were housed in separate institutes and constituted four per cent of the total prison population. Children who were housed with their mothers in prisons were never treated as prisoners. They could live with their mother up to a certain age - six years. Children never spent their whole day in prison and were either taken to a kindergarten or preschool depending on their age.

The Turkish Justice Academy provided training in fundamental issues, carried out with international partners. Human rights were a major issue and the Turkish Justice Academy collaborated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this. Currently, the total number of judges and prosecutors in Türkiye was 24,811, a significant increase compared to the previous period. The State attached great importance to training activities for candidate judges and prosecutors. Juvenile courts could take necessary measures regarding counselling, education, care and health. Juvenile justice centres had been established in several provinces and had been designed in a child friendly way. These centres conducted forensic examinations of children who were victims of abuse. The aim was to establish a child monitoring centre in every province.

The Bar Association was a professional organization, comprised of lawyers directly elected by their members. There was no institution or legislation which could restrict the independence of lawyers. Any investigation of lawyers was subject to special permission and special procedure. Investigations were carried out under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor. Victims of torture could request material or moral compensation by applying to the institution to which the perpetrator was affiliated. Victims could also seek compensation in civil courts and could benefit from legal aid provisions.

The provisions of the Istanbul Protocol were meticulously implemented in Türkiye and training was carried out to ensure consistency in implementation across the board. Training was provided to medical forensic experts to ensure compliance with standards of the Istanbul Convention. Training for trainers was provided to 89 medical forensic experts, with scientific materials prepared by experts in their field; 30,000 physicians had received training on the Istanbul Protocol.

People who were detained had the right to access a physician without discrimination. Relevant legislation regulated patient privacy for remand prisoners and convicts. No other personnel except medical personnel were allowed to be in the room aside from the physician. Forensic examination reports were impartial, based on the objective reports of the physician. During an examination, if a doctor found any evidence that a crime of torture or torment had been committed, they were required to report the crime to the Public Prosecutor.

Within the framework of the principle of the best interests of the child, foreign children in Türkiye received the same services as nationals, including access to health, education and social services. Language courses were organised for children living in removal centres and all needs were met during their stay. Basic and healthcare services were provided to all children in the framework of the national programme. In cases where unaccompanied migrant children were identified, they were taken into protection by the Ministry of Family and Social Services.

In 2019, a law was accepted to establish a monitoring commission, to ensure law enforcement officials did not commit torture or ill treatment. Any notifications or complaints to do with law enforcement officials were investigated through the commission. The commission’s work was transparent and shared with the public. Among the suspects detained between 2020 and 2024, eight people had died. When such incidents occurred, investigations were initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s office and proceedings continued following this investigation. The authority to detain in Türkiye belonged to the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor continuously monitored whether holding cells met the standards of law.

Between 2020 and 2024, all police staff received training on the legal grounds of the use of force. Not exceeding authority of the use of force was an important principle. Specific children’s bureaus had been established to deal with abuse of children.

Trainings had been provided to military personnel at the university level. Vocational high schools and law academies provided miliary training and legal training to officers on duty. Students were taught a variety of courses, including fundamental courses on human rights. Trainings were provided on approaches and the code of conduct towards immigrants. The principle of discipline was taken into account in all provisions of legislation. The disciplinary rules, duties and tasks were all stipulated in relevant legislation. Any personnel, regardless of their rank, underwent an administrative and judicial investigation.

Questions by Committee Experts

BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the delegation had provided impressive replies and comments to the Committee’s questions. How could the conflict between domestic legislation and international instruments be solved in practice, not in theory? Had the report benefited from inputs of civil society, including inputs from minorities? What was the status of minorities, other than under the Treaty of Lausanne? By 2004, Türkiye had abolished the death penalty and had voted consistently for the resolution of the General Assembly on the moratorium of the death penalty. There had been a concerning political discussion in 2016; should this be taken seriously?

Türkiye deployed forces abroad. Did these forces have pre-deployment training, including in standards of behaviour? When deployed to places such as Cyprus, Iraq and Syria, did Turkish forces abide by the Convention? Which regulations permitted restrictions on lawyer/client contact, and how did they conform to international standards? Could comments on the case of Judge Akay be provided?

NAOKO MAEDA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said previously, the Committee had recommended that the State party take appropriate legal measures to guarantee the appointment of the national human rights institute in line with the Paris Principles. Who decided on the election of the board members? Could information be provided on the head of the institute and how that person was selected?

What kind of issues were monitored by the national preventive mechanism? What recommendations had been made by the national preventive mechanism and how many had been implemented? How was the mandate of the Ombudsman Institute coordinated with the national human rights institute? Could the State party provide information on measures to ensure proper medical and health care in detention and correctional facilities? It was welcomed that the State party had established the civil monitoring board. What actions were taken by the board and how many visits were conducted per year? Was information on the board accessible to civil society?

The Committee had received information that testimonies obtained by torture had been referenced in courts. How was mandatory training provided for all members of law enforcement personnel on the absolute prohibition of torture and ill treatment, and proper investigation techniques? Could information be provided on efforts to analyse statistical data for monitoring the implementation of the Convention in a more targeted manner? Were there any exceptions to the detention period mentioned in the context of counterterrorism measures? Did individuals who were arrested have the opportunity to be medically assessed by a doctor of their choice? What were the regulations around the use of firearms?

Another Expert asked for more information on reporting signs of torture, ill treatment and injuries in prison? Could information on the medical examination upon admission to the police be provided? How were medical examinations being improved? What were the legal provisions for doctors to report cases of torture and ill treatment? How many cases had been reported during the last period? What were the results of these reports?

A Committee Expert said there were certain crimes for which the investigations could not be left in the hands of intelligence agencies, such as corruption by the entity. Torture and ill treatment could not be left in the hands of the agency accused. How was this concern addressed? Was there a possibility under the law for compensation if a person had been tortured but it was not known who the torturer was?

Another Expert asked if the State would consider creating a national coordinating mechanism for human rights treaties?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the death penalty was not an issue in Türkiye, as it was removed a long time ago from Turkish legislation. Türkiye was a free country with a vibrant society. The discussion on this issue was a public debate, particularly as a reaction to certain heinous crimes. This should be regarded within the scope of freedom of expression.

Several mechanisms monitored and supervised prisons and correctional facilities, including national, international and judicial mechanisms, among others. These supervisions were welcomed. Civil monitoring boards became effective in Türkiye in 2021. There were 151 civil monitoring boards in Türkiye, with a total of 755 members. To enable these members to remain independent, individuals applied and the judiciary selected the members. These boards had conducted 219 visits in 2023 and prepared 168 reports. They were required to monitor prisons every two months, but could do this more often if desired. A bureau received all the reports of the board, and if they identified any deficiencies at the prisons, they would directly contact the Chief Prosecutor to rectify these issues.

There were five different training centres in Türkiye, purely established to provide training to prison staff. Training was provided to 80,000 people, both in person and online. Inmates could make video calls to provide feedback and complaints to the Ministry of Justice. This was a pilot project and 2,500 calls had been received so far.

Psychiatry examinations were carried out at high-security units in nine cities in Türkiye. There was a bed capacity of 900 beds. Patients were given the right to choose their own doctors. A 60-page circular had been prepared on forensic medicine as a guideline for physicians.

A one-month training prior to military deployment was carried out to sensitise military personnel. All military personnel were trained in anti-terrorism efforts. In Ankara, there was a training centre of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that ensured that all personnel complied with international standards in combat. Next month in Pakistan, Türkiye would attend a training on protecting civilians during combat. Türkiye had garnered the support and appreciation of many observers for their participation in these activities.

Articles regulating the use of firearms were very clear and succinct. Bodily force could first be used to de-escalate the situation. Using certain tools, such as the use of gas, shields or calvary, was allowed as the next step. By using the step-by-step de-escalation process, police only used what was necessary. The right to use firearms could only be used in extreme cases. Effective investigations into use of force were always carried out by the Public Prosecutor.

The Ombudsman Institution was constitutionally established, and the Turkish Equality and Human Rights Institute was based on law. The Ombudsman had a special budget and it was impartial and independent. The Institute also had a special budget and was connected to the Ministry of Justice. Depending on the complaint, citizens had the right to complain to both institutions. There was no formal coordination between the two groups, but there was informal cooperation.

In cases where the perpetrator could not be determined, but where the administrator was deemed responsible for an act of torture, compensation was paid.

Concluding Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the updates provided since the report had been submitted two years prior. The State had 48 hours to provide additional responses. Mr. Heller expressed his gratitude to the delegation for their presence and active participation.

KIVILCIM KILIÇ, Director General for Multilateral Relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. The State had been pleased to note that the report had attracted considerable attention. Türkiye would sustain its cooperation with the Committee and take its comments and questions into consideration. The State would continue to prepare its periodic reports, and would tackle challenges with courage, based on the spirit of the Convention.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.