Committee against Torture continues examination of report of Turkey

CAT
30th session
5 May 2003
Afternoon



The Committee against Torture carried on this afternoon with its review of a second periodic report of Turkey, hearing a Government delegation describe standards for pre-trial detention and for the protection of detainees, efforts to end impunity for acts of ill-treatment, and steps taken to limit terrorist activities in prisons.
The seven-member delegation, led by Turkekul Kurttekin, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, responded to a series of questions put to it upon presentation of the report the morning of 2 May.
The delegation said among other things that a person detained had the right to ask for a lawyer without delay at the beginning of the detention period, regardless of whether the crime fell under the jurisdiction of the regular courts or of the State Security Courts; that the detention period for ordinary crimes was 24 hours, and for crimes falling under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, 48 hours, although if those crimes were committed by three or more persons, the Public Prosecutor could extend detention up to four days, but not longer.
Turkish penitentiary system had been based on dormitory-type arrangements, the delegation said, but that approach had had negative consequences - in effect, prisons had become indoctrination centres for terrorist organizations. To remedy the situation, "F-type" prisons had been established based on small cells for one to three prisoners. These were in line with the recommendations of the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture (CPT), and were fully compatible with the European Prison Rules of the Council of Europe and with United Nations standards, but had met with resistance among the members of the terrorist groups, and there had been hunger strikes and death fasts. Turkey had taken numerous measures to bring these protests to an end in line with the recommendations of the CPT, the delegation said.
Special rules protected women held in custody, the delegation said, and the Government was aware of criticisms that public employees were rarely prosecuted or sentenced for acts of torture or ill-treatment -- a considerable amount of legislation had been passed in recent years to ensure that perpetrators were brought to justice and the Government would continue to take steps to that end.
Turkey, as one of 133 States parties to the Convention against Torture, must submit periodic reports to the Committee on national efforts to prevent such ill-treatment. The Committee's formal conclusions and recommendations on the report of Turkey will be issued the afternoon of 14 May.
The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 6 May, to begin consideration of an initial report of Belgium.

Discussion
Members of the Turkish delegation, responding to questions put by Committee members upon presentation of the report the morning of 2 May, said among other things that a wide range of efforts had been made to transmit information on new legislation to relevant authorities so that steps to better implement the Convention would in fact be put into effect; the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior had duly informed all their affiliated bodies about legal amendments and had sent circulars and instructions; and extensive training and education programmes conducted by the relevant Ministries were being used as way of informing officials about new legislation. In addition, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were published in the "Bulletin of Judicial Legislation" and distributed to all members of the judiciary.
A person detained had the right to ask for a lawyer without delay at the beginning of the detention period, regardless of the crime, the delegation said. That was true of both common crimes and crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts.
Under new legislation, the detention period for ordinary crimes was 24 hours, and for crimes falling under the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, 48 hours, the delegation said; if those crimes were committed by three or more persons, the Public Prosecutor could extend detention up to four days, but not longer. It was impossible for the security forces to exceed the legal period since every phase of investigation was carried out by written instructions bearing date and time. Suspects could meet with defense counsel in a private room, without time limit; correspondence with defense counsel could not be monitored, and a defense counsel could be present while a statement of the suspect was being taken.
Penal institutions were under the constant control of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Enforcement Judge, inspectors of the Directorate General of Prisons, inspectors of the Ministry of Justice, the Human Rights Inquiry Commission of Parliament, and civil monitoring boards, as well as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the delegation said; all inspections were recorded and reports kept for further actions by responsible authorities.
Criminal responsibility of a child began upon the conclusion of 11 years of age, the delegation said; furthermore, a child was deemed to be a child through 18 years of age. Juvenile offenders were dealt with solely by the juvenile police, staff of which were established in 2001 in 80 provinces of the country. Pre-trial detention of juveniles could not be ordered unless a crime was serious and required an imprisonment sentence of 3 to 7 years. Juvenile detainees had to be held separately from adults, tried in juvenile courts, and accompanied by social workers and pedagogues.
Turkish penitentiary systems had been based on dormitory-type arrangements, the delegation said, but this system had had negative consequences - in effect, they had become indoctrination centres for terrorist organizations. To remedy the situation, "F-type" prisons had been established based on small cells for one to three prisoners. These were in line with the recommendations of the CPT, and were fully compatible with the European Prison Rules of the Council of Europe and with United Nations standards. The anti-terrorism law had been amended to enable the extension of open visits and communal activities for inmates convicted of terrorist crimes. The new prisons had met with resistance among the members of the terrorist groups, and there had been hunger strikes and death fasts; but Turkey had taken numerous measures to bring these acts to an end in line with the recommendations of the CPT, and as of April 2003, there were no hunger strikes in prisons, and only nine convicts were continuing death fasts in prisons.
Prison monitoring boards had been established by Parliament in 2001, the delegation said, and could carry out inspections in penal institutions at any time. They were required to visit every institution in their district at least once every two months. As for the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the CPT felt that it would not be compatible with the nature and functions of the monitoring boards to have members who were formal representatives of NGOs. Currently, there were 129 monitoring boards which had made 1,292 recommendations, of which 579 had been acted upon.
Although the Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on Torture had stated that testimony or statements seemed to be the only evidence in 90 per cent of Turkish criminal court cases, testimonies and statements, even if essential to most criminal cases, were not regarded as legal evidence unless they were supported by other indications and evidence, the delegation said. In order to reinforce the finding of evidence, crime scene investigation teams had been established in each province, and fingerprint collection teams had been established in several provinces; additional crime laboratories also had been set up. Since the judiciary was fully independent, it was legally not possible to establish a commission to review cases for retrial; in any case, verdicts of the courts were subject to judicial review by higher courts. Retrials were always possible if new evidence or facts were available, and retrials also could follow upon judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Special rules protected women held in custody, the delegation said. For instance, women were to be kept separately from men, body searches were to be performed by female police officers, and during interrogations a lawyer had to be present. Anyone who felt she had been sexually abused or violated could file complaints with the prosecutor or with security authorities, or, if in prison, with the prosecutor, the prison authority, the Enforcement Judge, or the Monitoring Board.
Statutes of limitations applied to serious crimes, the delegation said; for example, offenses requiring a life sentence were to be dropped after 20 years. The Penal Code recently had been amended so that the punishment for offenses related to torture requiring five years' imprisonment had been increased to eight years, thus increasing the statute of limitations for those crimes to 10 years.
According to the Turkish Constitution, international agreements duly put into effect carried the force of law, the delegation said, and so in effect the definition of torture contained in article 1 of the Convention was part and parcel of domestic legislation. Acts amounting to torture also were prohibited by the Constitution's article 17 and by various criminal offenses, such as those applying to officials, including police, who ill-treated or caused bodily injury to persons. The crime of rape was separately regulated in the Penal Code, but if that crime was committed by law-enforcement officers during detention, then it was considered both rape and torture and the perpetrators would be tried and punished accordingly and would receive heavier penalties. Sentences imposed in cases of torture called for heavy imprisonment and for additional time added in such cases as homicide.
Turkey fully recognized the importance of combating impunity and was aware of criticisms stating that public employees were rarely prosecuted or sentenced for acts of torture or ill-treatment, the delegation said; a considerable amount of legislation had been passed in recent years to ensure that perpetrators were brought to justice and the Government would continue to take steps to that end. New jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation on the interpretation of torture and ill-treatment was an important development, as the Turkish judiciary functioned to a large extent on the basis of the case law of the higher court. Following a recent legal amendment, administrative permission for the prosecution of public employees, such as employees who committed torture, was no longer required.
The Human Rights Inquiry Commission of Parliament, among other things, examined applications based on alleged violations of human rights and forwarded them to relevant authorities when it deemed such a step necessary, the delegation said; it had extensive powers of investigation and also could refer a specific case to the judiciary. There were several other Government human rights bodies, several of which also could receive individual complaints and carry out investigations. The organizational structure might look a bit confusing, but it was not window dressing; it was an indication of the Government's commitment to promoting human rights.
Concerns about "virginity control" and examinations could not apply to prisons and other institutions, since they were not places of interrogation, the delegation said. If virginity control was implemented during initial custody of 24 hours by police or gendarmerie, it was only possible if a complaint had been made to the Public Prosecutor's Office on the ground that a person had been subject to rape or attempted rape; in such cases a person could be transferred to a forensic doctor for a medical examination to determine evidence of rape or attempted rape. In a trial, a judge could send a person for such an examination, but the person in question had the right to refuse.
Human rights defenders were neither harassed nor attacked, the delegation said. Any violation committed against these persons was in no way condoned or excused under the Turkish legal system. However, it was a fundamental principle of law that non-compliance with the laws would naturally be brought to justice.
It was important to distinguish between Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the delegation said. The PKK was not a political party but a terrorist organization internationally labeled as such and responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Turkish citizens. Turkey's fight against terrorism thus could not be portrayed as an "internal armed conflict with the PKK", as one Committee member had remarked in a statement. Citizens of Kurdish origin also had been referred to as a "minority". But "Turkish" included all Turkish citizens, whatever their ethnic roots. Thus it was incorrect to describe citizens of Kurdish origin as a "minority".
Freedom of thought and expression were ensured under the Constitution, the delegation said; and successive legal reforms had been carried out to promote respect for those and other human rights and freedoms; Turkey was determined to continue reforms to that end and to fully implement existing legislation.
The delegation gave details on individual cases mentioned by the Committee; those of Gulistan Durc, Rasim Asan, Guderen Baran, Eren Keskin, Suleyman Yeter, and Alp Avan were pending, and Kiraz Bicici had been sentenced to three years and nine months in prison.
It had been alleged that Abdullah Ocalan had not been permitted to meet with anyone for a long time, but the facts were otherwise, the delegation said. Mr. Ocalan could visit with his defense counsel and his relatives after informing the local Public Prosecutor's Office; and his foreign defense counsel could visit him after obtaining permission from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry had responded positively to every such request. In addition, the CPT had visited Mr. Ocalan following a request to do so.
Responding to further questions by Committee Experts, the delegation said among other things that the definition of torture contained in the Convention could in fact be said to be part of Turkish legislation even if such a definition did not exist in the Penal Code, because the Convention was formally part of domestic law; and that Turkey, in cooperation with the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, was struggling to cope with problems of population displacement, especially in southeastern Turkey. Many of those displaced were of Kurdish ethnic origin, and because of the struggle against terrorism, some villages had had to be evacuated for security reasons. Now there was a major programme to return these people to their home villages.



* *** *