COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF TURKEY

CAT
30th session
2 May 2003
Morning




The Committee against Torture began review this morning of a second periodic report of Turkey, praising extensive legal reforms carried out to protect the rights of detainees and prisoners but querying an eight-member Government delegation about reports that detention by police was often much longer than the norms laid down by law, that registration of detainees was often delayed, and that human rights defenders and organizations were targets of Government hostility.

Committee Experts also asked about reports of sexual violence against women held in custody and about allegations that impunity for acts of torture or maltreatment was a problem, in part because of slow functioning of the judicial system when State officials were charged with such offenses.

Introducing the Turkish report, Turkekul Kurttekin, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, described a wide range of amendments to the national Constitution and to national legislation. He also said the long-standing state of emergency in Turkey had been lifted in November 2002, and the provisions of the Code of Penal Procedure for protection of defendants were now applicable to persons appearing before State Security courts.

Turkey was well aware of the criticisms leveled against it in relation to human rights, including maltreatment and torture, Mr. Kurttekin said; that was why he had explained Government reforms at such length. The country was tackling its problems with determination, and the Government had announced a policy of zero tolerance for human rights violations.

The Turkish delegation also included Ugur Dogan, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Erdogan Iscan, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Director General for the European Council and Human Rights of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Necati Nursal, Head of Department of the Ministry of Justice; Husrev Unler, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission; Bilal Sevinc, of the Directorate General of Security of the Ministry of the Interior; Selcuk Unal, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission; and Tolga Kaya, Second Secretary at the Permanent Mission.

Turkey, as one of 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Turkish delegation will return to answer the Committee's questions at 3:30 p.m., Monday 5 May.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of a second periodic report of Iceland.


Second Periodic Report of Turkey

The report of Turkey (CAT/C/20/Add.8), in reviewing new developments in terms of their relation to articles of the Convention, notes among other things that along with article 17 (3) of the Turkish Constitution, which forbids torture and ill-treatment, crimes against the physical and psychological security and integrity of the individual are defined and subjected to punishment in the relevant articles of the Turkish Penal Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended to shorten detention periods; the maximum period of police custody for ordinary individual crimes is now 24 hours and the maximum period of custody for ordinary collective crimes (crimes committed by three or more persons) has been reduced from 15 days to four days. The period of custody may be extended to four days only upon the written approval of the public prosecutor, and that period may be extended to eight days, under exceptional circumstances, upon the request of the public prosecutor and with the approval of a judge.

A new law amending the previous law on combating terrorism removed the former prohibition on open visits for inmates accused or convicted of such acts, the report notes; prisoners are now entitled to receive open visits from their families on religious and national holidays under conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Justice. According to the report, the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that in the case of a person forwarding a warning or a complaint of torture or ill-treatment, the public prosecutor is obliged to launch an investigation. The country's Human Rights Inquiry Commission also possesses extensive powers of investigation. Any citizen may submit a petition to the Commission with regard to alleged infractions by official authorities in the area of human rights, and all applicants are informed within three months at the latest of the results of the inquiries undertaken in response to their applications.


Presentation of Report

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the country was committed to preventing and eradicating torture and had taken and would continue to take legislative, administrative and other measures to achieve that goal. There had been Constitutional amendments, legal amendments, amendments to secondary legislation, measures related to the implementation of laws and regulations, and measures related to training on human rights standards. In October 2001, the Turkish Parliament had adopted a comprehensive package of Constitutional amendments, including provisions to prevent torture and protect the security of the individual. Article 19 of the Constitution, paragraph 5, had been amended so that a person arrested or detained must be brought before a judge within 48 hours, and in the case of offenses committed collectively, within four days; previously, the limit had been 15 days in the case of offenses committed collectively. Restrictions on notification of next of kin of the detainee had been removed. A phrase had been added calling for compensation by the State for persons treated contrary to Constitutional provisions.

A new paragraph was added to article 38 of the Constitution stating that evidence obtained through maltreatment in violation of the law could not be admitted as evidence in court, Mr. Kurttekin said. The Code on Penal Procedure had been amended to require that arrests should be reported without delay to a relative of the person under arrest, along with notification of any extension of the period of detention. The Act on the prosecution of civil servants and public employees had been amended so that prosecution related to allegations of torture and maltreatment would no longer require approval by the highest relevant administrative authorities. Penalties for torture or maltreatment under the Penal Code could no longer be converted into fines, and could no longer be suspended. Detention periods and conditions during states of emergency had been amended to further protect detainees, including through limiting the opportunities for removing detainees from detention places for purposes of carrying out investigations. Each time a detainee was taken out and returned, moreover, medical examinations were required.

In addition, the state of emergency in Turkey had been lifted in November 2002, Mr. Kurttekin said, and the provisions of the Code of Penal Procedure for protection of defendants were now applicable to persons appearing before State Security courts. The Court of Cassation had created a new interpretation of torture and ill-treatment, binding on all other courts and based on European and other international standards. The details of the interpretation had been communicated to the Committee.

Turkey was well aware of the criticisms leveled against it in relation to human rights, including maltreatment and torture, Mr. Kurttekin said; that was why he had explained Government reforms at such length. The country was tackling its problems with determination, and the Government had announced a policy of zero tolerance for human rights violations.


Discussion

Serving as Rapporteur on the report of Turkey was Committee Expert FERNANDO MARIÑO-MENENDEZ, who remarked among other things that it had been 13 years since consideration of Turkey's initial report, and obviously the Turkish State had undergone major changes, including through its participation in the Council of Europe and through the activities and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Recent changes had been so rapid, especially after the lifting of the state of emergency, that it was difficult to discern the current situation in Turkey. It was praiseworthy that so many reforms had been carried out by the Government.

Among Mr. Mariño-Menendez's questions were about a recent decision of the Court of Cassation that seemed indicate that torture would now be considered a specific crime in its own right, with its own punishments, and if that was in fact the case; why there was no reference to the Convention's article 1 in the Turkish report, relating to a domestic criminal definition of torture; if rape could amount to an act of torture under Turkish law; if the legislative norms, many of them quite recent, were actually being applied, especially those related to the treatment of persons in custody; if places of detention were inspected systematically and visited periodically; if records were kept of such visits; if such visits and inspections were carried out, if they appeared to be effective; and if non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were involved in such monitoring work, as it was good to have the involvement of entities that were not directly associated with the Government. Independent NGOs had alleged that many of the norms were flouted, that detention was often much longer than the normal periods laid down by law, and that registration of detainees was often delayed.

Mr. Mariño-Menendez also asked reports of attacks on human rights defenders in Turkey, saying information had been received that various human rights organizations were regarded in a hostile way by State institutions. For example, the president of the organization of Human Rights of Istanbul had been sentenced to 48 months in prison for providing support for a Kurdish political party. Mr. Mariño-Menendez asked if there was in fact a Government hostility towards human rights organizations.

He also queried the Government delegation about standards for the detention of children -- if they were provided with legal counsel from the moment of detention, and if they were protected from maltreatment, including from other children; about minorities and how they were treated, including the Kurdish population, as there had been consistent complaints of a policy of the demolition of dwellings and the forced displacement of Kurdish populations in some locations; about reports of sexual violence against women in custody; about allegations that impunity for acts of torture or maltreatment was a problem, in part because of slow functioning of the judicial system when State officials had been charged with such offenses; about reports that complaints of ill-treatment were often ignored; and if examples could be cited where prosecutors or judges had been dismissed because of corruption, as there were consistent complaints of judicial corruption.

Mr. Mariño-Menendez also asked why fairly short sentences -- nothing longer than eight years -- appeared to be given for serious acts of torture.

Serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Turkish report was Committee Expert OLE VEDEL RASMUSSEN, who said among other things that Turkey had been the object of an article 20 investigation under the Committee from 1990-92; it was the first country to be subject to such an investigation, and only Egypt, Peru and Sri Lanka had been similarly investigated under article 20 of the Convention against Torture. A public statement also had been made expressing concern over the situation in Turkey by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and the CPT had visited Turkey 14 times, more than it had visited any other country. While these things indicated a history of problems, it also was laudable that the Government had cooperated so thoroughly with international mechanisms and had publicized the results. It also was clear that in recent years Turkey had improved its human rights performance considerably. He furthermore agreed with Mr. Mariño-Menendez that given the wide scope of recent reforms carried out, it was difficult to tell how matters currently stood in the country.

Among Mr. Rasmussen's questions were if detainees often were allowed to see their lawyers only for five minutes or so, as had been alleged; if persons detained for collective state security offenses were not allowed immediate access to lawyers, as had been reported; if there were precise time limits for incommunicado detention, and if those limits could be extended; and about the fasting to death of some 64 prisoners as a result of protests against prison reforms that further restricted inmates' freedoms and contacts with the outside world.

Mr. Rasmussen also asked if the system requiring police approval for investigations into complaints of torture by police could be eliminated and authority for undertaking such inquiries transferred to the judicial system and to the country's new human rights Ombudsman; why over a hundred investigations into charges of maltreatment, which were supposed to be "prompt", were still pending after seven years, and if the officials charged were continuing in their posts in the meanwhile; if efforts were being made to reduce the courts' reliance on confessions for establishing guilt, and if past sentences of that sort were being reviewed, as there were widespread reports that many confessions had been extracted by torture; if blindfolds were still used on persons held in custody, against regulations; and if, as reported, "virginity tests" of women held in custody were still carried out, although prohibited.

Other Committee members also put questions. Among their queries were what was meant by a phrase used in the report, "crimes contributing to the continuation of the state of emergency"; if sexual violence in prisons was regularly monitored, if statistics were kept, and if persons who complained of such offenses were provided suitable protection against retribution; what was the rate of prosecution and conviction for so-called "honour killings"; and if there was a limitation period, as appeared, for the prosecution of such serious crimes as torture, rape and murder.



* *** *