Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Commission on Human Rights
Default title
22 March 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
22 March 2000
Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is indeed a pleasure for me to address this august body as the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights in Turkey.
I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming the chair of the 56th Session of the Commission on Human Rights. I also wish to express our appreciation for the successful work carried out by your predecessor.
Mr. Chairman,
As globalization takes hold everywhere, human values gain importance. State sovereignty is being redefined by the sweeping gust of globalization. The state is now increasingly understood to be existing for the security and well-being of its citizens and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty is being enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny in complete freedom.
In these circumstances, such values as “democracy”, “the supremacy of law” and “human rights” have become the main criteria for gauging the advancement of nations and tailoring their role in the new world order.
Even in terms of foreign policy, there seems to be an attempt to replace national security by human security as an essential concept for the behaviour of nations in the international arena.
So, where do we stand ? What is the meaning of all these changes ?
First of all, an obvious conclusion is that the values of democracy, supremacy of law and human rights have undergone an amazing metamorphosis during the last two decades. Secondly, their contents have been significantly enriched and they have become an inseparable core concept of the contemporary public administration philosophy.
Under these circumstances there appears to be one immutable road map for those nations which have shortcomings in the sphere of democracy, supremacy of law and human rights. And that is to be courageous enough to face their problems in all frankness and open-mindedness, and to address them under the guidance of universal norms, while remaining cognizant of their distinguishing peculiarities.
Mr. Chairman,
The Republic of Turkey is a democratic and secular state governed by law. The Republic was founded as a - Nation State - based on the principle of respect for individual rights and freedoms for all under its jurisdiction.
As humanity has just ushered in the new millennium, Turkey still has certain shortcomings which can by no means be underrated. But how come a country, which has adopted a democratic system much earlier than some of the members of the European Union; a country which successfully completed all basic political, legal and social reforms as early as the 1930s, can still have non-negligible deficiencies in the area of human rights ?
Mr. Chairman,
In order to better understand the conditions that caused Turkey to fall behind in the race of improving human rights, I think it would be appropriate to look into the developments of the recent past.
The military’s intervention in Turkish political life in 1980 caused a short break for democracy. The decision of the armed forces was the outcome of a rampant wave of terror on ideological grounds which took away more than 5,000 lives. The inevitable end-result of this intervention was the curtailment of human rights and freedoms and the enactment of a Constitution which was based on the philosophy of the protection of the State.
Democracy was re-established in 1983. Yet, the reinstitution of the multi-party system coincided with the outbreak of terror of another kind. This time it was ethnic terrorism, supported from outside, and which has claimed more than 30,000 lives, a third of which have been innocent civilians.
For years, successive Turkish Governments struggled to enlarge the scope of democracy and freedoms, while at the same time, waged a relentless fight against ethnic terrorism. This was not a very easy job. Attempts for further progress were interrupted by terrorism, and the defensive reflexes of the society became even more prominent, inevitably.
Our successful struggle against terrorism has brought to its death knell the merciless violence which has been targeted at our democratic institutions, social peace and harmony, even at the welfare of the people whose case it claims to be pleading. The capture of the terrorist leader in February 1999 was a turning point. Thereafter, the terrorist organization has announced certain moves which, in our view, fall short of one essential step. That is the renunciation of violence, giving up of their arms and rendering themselves in the hands of law.
Mr. Chairman,
In these conditions, Turkey sets one of the rare examples in which the State has managed, to the best of its abilities, not only to protect democracy, human rights and freedoms against terrorism, but also to enrich them through a slow, yet continuous process of reforms.
From my Government’s perspective Turkey’s problem is not that of solving an ethnic question, but the problem of raising its democratic standards. In certain areas we are indeed behind international standards in terms of democracy and human rights. Therefore, the magical word should be more democracy and more rights and freedoms for all. In fact, my Ministry’s essential task is to be instrumental in reaching this target within the shortest possible time.
Despite all the challenges I mentioned earlier, many things have been achieved in recent years. To name few, constitutional changes have been made, detention periods have been reduced in accordance with international standards, the geographical scope of the emergency rule in the south-east has been gradually narrowed and measures have been taken for further improvement of the conditions in prisons.
The following legal reforms have been made since my government took office ten months ago :
Constitutional and legislative amendments on the restructuring of the State Security Courts. After these amendments, members of the State Security Courts are now only civilian judges.
A repentance law, bringing amnesty and reduction of sentences for members of the terrorist groups.
The law amending articles 243, 245 and 354 of the Turkish Penal Code, which redefines torture, ill-treatment and abuse of power against individuals by public officials. These amendments increase the penalties for those officials who commit such offences, or forensic personnel who draft fake reports on torture. More importantly, these amendments broaden the definition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in line with the United Nations and European conventions on torture.
The law on the postponement of sentences and trials on crimes committed through press and broadcast. As of now 22 writers and reporters have benefited from this law and released from prison. This number is expected to increase because there are some files still under examination.
The law on the prosecution of civil servants and other public officials. This law facilitates the prosecution of public officials on torture and mistreatment cases.
Moreover, we put in place more strict guidelines for apprehension, detention, interrogation and release procedures, intensified human rights education and eased conditions for civil servants to form or join unions.
As for education, I should also mention that the National Committee for the UN’s “Decade of Human Rights Education” prepared a national programme a copy of which was presented to the High Commissioner. The programme was put in force in July last year.
Intensive work to amend further our basic laws continues. These include the Civil Code, Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Law, the Code on the Execution of Sentences and the Draft Law on - Ombudsman -. In particular, the work to overhaul the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law has come to an advanced stage.
And finally, I would like to inform you that Turkey will soon sign the two important Human Rights Covenants; namely the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Mr. Chairman,
I can confidently state today that the improvement of human rights is an irreversible process in Turkey. The public is increasingly sensitive in protecting its rights and freedoms, and the flourishing civil society institutions serve the useful role of a barometer of the Government’s performance.
Being fully cognizant of the immense contributions that our civil society organizations are making in highlighting the problem areas and offering practical solutions, I personally attach great importance to involve them as key role players of the reform process. Indeed, these organizations are an integral element of the Human Rights Coordinating High Committee which is, in effect, the initiator of reforms.
The candidate status accorded to Turkey at EU’s Helsinki Summit, in December, certainly gives us an additional impetus to proceed more energetically along our reform projects. However, had the EU not given us a perspective for membership, we would still have continued with our reforms in no less determination. The Helsinki Summit has been instrumental in converging EU’s expectations from Turkey with our needs and our people’s demands.
In closing, I would like to state that the Commission on Human Rights, its plenary, Sub-Commission, special rapporteurs, working groups, thematic mechanisms and NGOs provide a very useful insight for governments, including my own. As such, the Commission is a pace-setter. Yet, a pace-setter which should re-organize its working methods and subsidiary mechanisms in order to gain more efficiency and credibility.
My Government gives importance to cooperation with the mechanisms of the Commission. It is indeed our enthusiasm to work closer with the human rights institutions in Geneva which motivated us to present the candidature of Mr. Gündüz AKTAN, a former Ambassador and a distinguished expert on human rights, for elections to the Sub-Commission. If elected, I am sure Mr. AKTAN will serve as a very useful bridge between Geneva and reformers in Turkey. At present, being the head of an NGO himself, Mr. AKTAN’s presence in the Sub-Commission will also be an element of encouragement not only for the Turkish civil society institutions, but also for other such institutions aiming to promote human rights all around the world.
With these thoughts, I respectfully greet you, Mr. Chairman, the members of the Commission as well as the observer government delegations and NGO representatives and wish you success in the current session.
Thank you.
56th session
22 March 2000
Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is indeed a pleasure for me to address this august body as the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights in Turkey.
I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming the chair of the 56th Session of the Commission on Human Rights. I also wish to express our appreciation for the successful work carried out by your predecessor.
Mr. Chairman,
As globalization takes hold everywhere, human values gain importance. State sovereignty is being redefined by the sweeping gust of globalization. The state is now increasingly understood to be existing for the security and well-being of its citizens and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty is being enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny in complete freedom.
In these circumstances, such values as “democracy”, “the supremacy of law” and “human rights” have become the main criteria for gauging the advancement of nations and tailoring their role in the new world order.
Even in terms of foreign policy, there seems to be an attempt to replace national security by human security as an essential concept for the behaviour of nations in the international arena.
So, where do we stand ? What is the meaning of all these changes ?
First of all, an obvious conclusion is that the values of democracy, supremacy of law and human rights have undergone an amazing metamorphosis during the last two decades. Secondly, their contents have been significantly enriched and they have become an inseparable core concept of the contemporary public administration philosophy.
Under these circumstances there appears to be one immutable road map for those nations which have shortcomings in the sphere of democracy, supremacy of law and human rights. And that is to be courageous enough to face their problems in all frankness and open-mindedness, and to address them under the guidance of universal norms, while remaining cognizant of their distinguishing peculiarities.
Mr. Chairman,
The Republic of Turkey is a democratic and secular state governed by law. The Republic was founded as a - Nation State - based on the principle of respect for individual rights and freedoms for all under its jurisdiction.
As humanity has just ushered in the new millennium, Turkey still has certain shortcomings which can by no means be underrated. But how come a country, which has adopted a democratic system much earlier than some of the members of the European Union; a country which successfully completed all basic political, legal and social reforms as early as the 1930s, can still have non-negligible deficiencies in the area of human rights ?
Mr. Chairman,
In order to better understand the conditions that caused Turkey to fall behind in the race of improving human rights, I think it would be appropriate to look into the developments of the recent past.
The military’s intervention in Turkish political life in 1980 caused a short break for democracy. The decision of the armed forces was the outcome of a rampant wave of terror on ideological grounds which took away more than 5,000 lives. The inevitable end-result of this intervention was the curtailment of human rights and freedoms and the enactment of a Constitution which was based on the philosophy of the protection of the State.
Democracy was re-established in 1983. Yet, the reinstitution of the multi-party system coincided with the outbreak of terror of another kind. This time it was ethnic terrorism, supported from outside, and which has claimed more than 30,000 lives, a third of which have been innocent civilians.
For years, successive Turkish Governments struggled to enlarge the scope of democracy and freedoms, while at the same time, waged a relentless fight against ethnic terrorism. This was not a very easy job. Attempts for further progress were interrupted by terrorism, and the defensive reflexes of the society became even more prominent, inevitably.
Our successful struggle against terrorism has brought to its death knell the merciless violence which has been targeted at our democratic institutions, social peace and harmony, even at the welfare of the people whose case it claims to be pleading. The capture of the terrorist leader in February 1999 was a turning point. Thereafter, the terrorist organization has announced certain moves which, in our view, fall short of one essential step. That is the renunciation of violence, giving up of their arms and rendering themselves in the hands of law.
Mr. Chairman,
In these conditions, Turkey sets one of the rare examples in which the State has managed, to the best of its abilities, not only to protect democracy, human rights and freedoms against terrorism, but also to enrich them through a slow, yet continuous process of reforms.
From my Government’s perspective Turkey’s problem is not that of solving an ethnic question, but the problem of raising its democratic standards. In certain areas we are indeed behind international standards in terms of democracy and human rights. Therefore, the magical word should be more democracy and more rights and freedoms for all. In fact, my Ministry’s essential task is to be instrumental in reaching this target within the shortest possible time.
Despite all the challenges I mentioned earlier, many things have been achieved in recent years. To name few, constitutional changes have been made, detention periods have been reduced in accordance with international standards, the geographical scope of the emergency rule in the south-east has been gradually narrowed and measures have been taken for further improvement of the conditions in prisons.
The following legal reforms have been made since my government took office ten months ago :
Constitutional and legislative amendments on the restructuring of the State Security Courts. After these amendments, members of the State Security Courts are now only civilian judges.
A repentance law, bringing amnesty and reduction of sentences for members of the terrorist groups.
The law amending articles 243, 245 and 354 of the Turkish Penal Code, which redefines torture, ill-treatment and abuse of power against individuals by public officials. These amendments increase the penalties for those officials who commit such offences, or forensic personnel who draft fake reports on torture. More importantly, these amendments broaden the definition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in line with the United Nations and European conventions on torture.
The law on the postponement of sentences and trials on crimes committed through press and broadcast. As of now 22 writers and reporters have benefited from this law and released from prison. This number is expected to increase because there are some files still under examination.
The law on the prosecution of civil servants and other public officials. This law facilitates the prosecution of public officials on torture and mistreatment cases.
Moreover, we put in place more strict guidelines for apprehension, detention, interrogation and release procedures, intensified human rights education and eased conditions for civil servants to form or join unions.
As for education, I should also mention that the National Committee for the UN’s “Decade of Human Rights Education” prepared a national programme a copy of which was presented to the High Commissioner. The programme was put in force in July last year.
Intensive work to amend further our basic laws continues. These include the Civil Code, Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Law, the Code on the Execution of Sentences and the Draft Law on - Ombudsman -. In particular, the work to overhaul the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law has come to an advanced stage.
And finally, I would like to inform you that Turkey will soon sign the two important Human Rights Covenants; namely the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Mr. Chairman,
I can confidently state today that the improvement of human rights is an irreversible process in Turkey. The public is increasingly sensitive in protecting its rights and freedoms, and the flourishing civil society institutions serve the useful role of a barometer of the Government’s performance.
Being fully cognizant of the immense contributions that our civil society organizations are making in highlighting the problem areas and offering practical solutions, I personally attach great importance to involve them as key role players of the reform process. Indeed, these organizations are an integral element of the Human Rights Coordinating High Committee which is, in effect, the initiator of reforms.
The candidate status accorded to Turkey at EU’s Helsinki Summit, in December, certainly gives us an additional impetus to proceed more energetically along our reform projects. However, had the EU not given us a perspective for membership, we would still have continued with our reforms in no less determination. The Helsinki Summit has been instrumental in converging EU’s expectations from Turkey with our needs and our people’s demands.
In closing, I would like to state that the Commission on Human Rights, its plenary, Sub-Commission, special rapporteurs, working groups, thematic mechanisms and NGOs provide a very useful insight for governments, including my own. As such, the Commission is a pace-setter. Yet, a pace-setter which should re-organize its working methods and subsidiary mechanisms in order to gain more efficiency and credibility.
My Government gives importance to cooperation with the mechanisms of the Commission. It is indeed our enthusiasm to work closer with the human rights institutions in Geneva which motivated us to present the candidature of Mr. Gündüz AKTAN, a former Ambassador and a distinguished expert on human rights, for elections to the Sub-Commission. If elected, I am sure Mr. AKTAN will serve as a very useful bridge between Geneva and reformers in Turkey. At present, being the head of an NGO himself, Mr. AKTAN’s presence in the Sub-Commission will also be an element of encouragement not only for the Turkish civil society institutions, but also for other such institutions aiming to promote human rights all around the world.
With these thoughts, I respectfully greet you, Mr. Chairman, the members of the Commission as well as the observer government delegations and NGO representatives and wish you success in the current session.
Thank you.