REPORT ON VIOLATIONS EXPERIENCED BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR MEHMET TARHAN IN SIVAS MILITARY PRISON

HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATON
REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
EXPERIENCED BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR MEHMET TARHAN IN SİVAS MILITARY PRISON

A. CASE
Sister of Mehmet Tarhan, a conscientious objector, who is currently serving a four-year sentence in Sivas military prison on two charges of insubordination after refusing to do his military service, applied to the Human Rights Associaton (İHD) Headquarters and demanded the association to carry out an investigation regarding his brothers condition in Sivas Military Prison, where she stated that personal rights of his brother were violated, and has undergone severe ill-treatment and subjected to severe-beatings by law enforcement officers on Sept. 10, 2005. She also said that despite a complaint filed by his brother informing prison authorities of the abuse, no immediate action was taken, and she has grave concerns over his brother’s health condition due to the hunger strike he has been going on.

B.COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION:
Upon the application of Emine TARHAN to the İHD Headquarters, a delegation composed of the İHD Central Administrative Board member Att. Faruk DURAN and Att. Ali KIRMIZIGÜL from Ankara Bars Association was established in order to achieve true information regarding the situation of Mehmet TARHAN and in a bid to determine and prevent the human rights violations that were experienced by him.

C. IMPRESSIONS:
The delegation has reached on Oct. 26, 2005 on 08:30 am to the Military Prison of the 5th Private Infantry Education Brigade that is located five kilometer away from Sivas. (Despite being tied to the Brigade Command, the prison is located outside of the Brigade area in a different military campus.) Despite not being informed about the coming of our delegation the military units and officers at the gate of the prison said they guessed that the delegation’s objective in coming is about Mehmet TARHAN, it was observed that military personnel have a certain behavioral reflex specifically on Mehmet TARHAN case. It was thought by the delegation that what lies behind this reflex besides their being heard of the case following its publicizing, is the special attitude developed by military officers against Mehmet TARHAN.

Despite the Criminal Procedures Law (CMK) rules that lawyers can interview with suspects/accuseds or convicts without power of attorneys, the lawyers in delegation were required to show the power of attorneys. Due to the delegation’s being ready for such a practice, the demand of interview was accepted and the delegation went into the prison.

D. INTERVIEWS:
The delegation, first of all, interviewed Sergeant Major Hilmi ŞAVLUK –who is claimed to have directed the forcibly cutting Mehmet Tarhan’s hair and shaving his beard against his will– and then with Mehmet TARHAN himself for a four-hours and lastly with Consultant- Judge Major Tuna POLAT. Due to his being out of office for attending an education program, Director of the Prison Major Volkan (last name of him was unknown to the delegation) wasn’t available for an interview. The military prosecutor wasn’t also available due to his having a sudden health disorder at the very same time that the delegation went to see him in his office.

1. HİLMİ ŞAVLUK (Prison Section Commander -Noncommissioned Sergeant Major)
Reminding him of the forcibly cutting of TARHAN’s hair and shaving of his beard against his will, Sergeant Marjor Hilmi ŞAVLUK was asked about the TARHAN’s health conditions and about the physical conditions in which TARHAN held. ŞAVLUK in his statement said: “I didn’t practice ill-treatment against Mehmet. Nor I have given such orders to the soldiers. All inmates and convicts has to obey military rules as drafted in the Military Prisons Regulations. On Sept. 30, 2005, we had to enforce one rule of the regulation and had to cut Mehmet’s hair and shaved his beard by keeping his hands and arms in control. It is not true that I beat him and watch the scene of shaving his beard and cutting his hair with cracking seeds gaining pleasure from his pain. In fact, Mehmet himself knows all about these, but his lawyers, and friends outside are disseminating false news via Internet. I personally take special care of him. Due to his being on a hunger strike, I always ask for his needs and suggest him to put an end to his strike.”

2. MEHMET TARHAN
The delegation made a four-hours interview with Mehmet TARHAN in a section of the prison open to other persons, and accompanied by several soldiers. What Mehmet TARHAN said during the interview, could be summarized as follows: “This is my 27th day in hunger strike. I do not eat solid food. I only drink sugared and salty water and drink tea and fruit juice. Some important symptoms that emerged in my health condition is the increased sensitiveness towards sound and smell. I also have low blood pressure and headache. I am being held in solitary confinement in a place, dubbed by the inmates as officers’ ward, which is respectively better than other wards in the prison. I were brought to this place after I initiated my hunger strike. Prior to my hunger strike, I was held in solitary confinement cell for approximately one week during Sept. 15-22, 2005. I have frequently been sentenced for staying 7-15 days in solitary confinement cells.

The cell is a windowless place size of which was 2×3 meters. However, I wasn’t sent to the cell since I have initiated my hunger strike. Almost all ill-treatment and harassment exercised on me has ended since I have started the hunger strike. All officers and authorities here became suggestive during the last weeks. They continuously came to my ward to control my health condition during the last week. I guess this sensitivity is mainly due to my initiation of hunger strike and the complaint I filed regarding the ill-treatment that I was subjected to. They are afraid of running into trouble because of that complaint.

There is no problem regarding the supply of medicine. The heat is between normal degrees in this ward. I can use telephone during 14:00 to 16:30. Moreover, although there is a delay in delivery I also can send and receive letters. I can watch TV and could read Milliyet and Yeni Şafak newspapers in the last month.

On the other hand, there is no fruit juice and sugar in prison canteen. My visitors are bringing these materials to me. They didn’t gave me back my radio that they seized when they previously raided my ward. Despite the fact that I am paying in advance, they do not deliver Radikal newspaper. I have objected to this implementation but couldn’t get a response.

My contact with other inmates is being obstructed. My place for aeration is different from theirs. I guess other inmates were also warned regarding my situation in the prison. However, no inmate or soldier has ever attempted to exercise ill-treatment against me.

The place allocated for me to see my visitors is in clear contravention with right to secrecy. Several soldiers are waiting at one side all the time and our conversation could be heard by them.

On the first day of my bringing to the prison and following a statement by Prison Section Commander -Noncommissioned Sergeant Major Mustafa Selvi, in which he said to inmates, “A terrorist is coming, I guess you will take care of him,” I was subjected to a lynching attempt. Inmates were gathered and attacked on me. It took 20 days for me to recover from the blows I received. The prison administration of the time, didn’t take any measures to prevent repetition of such an event. The inmates blackmailed and forced me to pay them. I was forced to give them some 300 million TL and clothes. Following a small scale uprising occurred in the prison in June 2005, the administration of prison was changed. The director of prison and Noncommissioned Sergeant Major Mustafa SELVÝ were removed from the office. There has been some improvement since that time.

On 30 September 2005, current Noncommissioned-Sergeant Major Hilmi ŞAVLUK, accompanied by eight soldiers, came and forcibly cut my hair and shaved my beard against my will. During the incident one of them was sit on my chest. The incident left me with bruises in my back and chest. Subsequently, they hand-cuffed and transferred me to a military hospital where I was examined remaining handcuffed by two military doctors. The examination was cursory, they turned around me and prepared a report stating that there were no signs of beating on my body. Following this incident, I initiated a second hunger strike that will last for an indefinite period of time in protest.

I am demanding an investigation to be initiated into the severe beatings and ill-treatment that I had been subjected to and the perpetrators to be prosecuted. I also demand to be examined at a civilian medical institution. Judicial Consultancy unit have listened my complaint on this issue and wrote down what I have said. When I read what they wrote, I noticed that they transformed my complaint as if the problem is created only by some of the law enforcement officers here, and that they put the expression of “Private Infantry” before my name. Thus, I refused to sign that document.

I also demand the administration to put an end to non delivery of Radikal newspaper and returning back of my radio and to have the same rights as all the other inmates. I can put an end to my hunger strike if some necessary steps are taken.

Finally, the penalties I was sentenced to are against law. My right to defense was limited. Conscious objection is a universal right. I am rightful in my deed and I refuse all kind of examinations on the grounds of my homosexuality.”

In response to our demand on the initiation of an investigation into ill-treatment and severe beatings that TARHAN was subjected to and examination of him by civilian doctors, Judicial Consultant Tuna POLAT said, “I took Mehmet’s testimony under the scope of the investigation, but when I asked Mehmet to sign it, he said, “I don’t want anybody to get punished,” and refused to sign the testimony. What could I do in such a case? On the other hand, the prison administration has the right to cut the hair and shave the beards of inmates against their wills. When the prison administration asked us what to do in that situation, we told them that they could carry out cutting hair and shaving beard. It is natural in such a case that some amount of force to be used against the person resisting to shaving. I therefore do not believe that the event could be classified as torture or ill-treatment. Moreover, we cannot accept the demand to be examined by a civilian doctor because, military doctors also have taken the same deontological oath. These two classes of doctors do not have any difference before the law. Accepting such a demand would be disrespectful against our doctors. Nevertheless, we also asked for the view of National Defense Ministry, and they said they are sharing our views. Actually, Mehmet is not someone that could think of such things. He is defending peace and it is good. But his views are not realistic. His lawyers are orienting Mehmet to a wrong direction. They make him believe wrong ideas and information. I even could say that if the attitudes of the lawyers were not as rigid as it is, he won’t be treated same and could be sentenced to a lower punishment. However, I could allow doctors from Sivas Doctors’ Chamber to see Mehmet but I cannot permit for an examination. I could allow doctors to see him to persuade him and making suggestions on putting an end to his hunger strike.”

E. DETERMINATIONS AND CONCLUSION:
The delegation, as a result of both the impressions it gathered during its visit on Oct. 26, 2005 and from the publicized information about Mehmet TARHAN’s case, has ascertained following points:

1. Conscription of Mehmet TARHAN for military service, his detention, the punishment he was sentenced, the ill-treatment and torture that he experienced during his detention period and during his time in prison is obviously the denial of right to be free from torture and ill-treatment, right to be free from discrimination, right to a fair trial and freedom of thought and conscience. The laws that prohibits right of conscientious objection in Turkey are in contravention with the international covenants, especially Article 18 of UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 and 10 of European Convention on Human Rights and Article 90 of Turkey Constitution. Moreover, Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution rules that the citizens have the freedom of thought, conscience and faith. Therefore, the penalty that Mehmet Tarhan was sentenced due to his declaration of conscientious objection and his resistance to be drafted to military should be abolished, he should be released immediately, and the state should pay in compensation for damage, pain and suffering and for pecuniary loss and other unjust practice performed against TARHAN.

2. Being tried in a military court and being subject to extraordinary rules the right to a fair trial of Mehmet TARHAN was clearly violated. Mehmet TARHAN’s being tried and convicted twice for the same offence, is a clear indication of the unfairness of the trial. Mehmet Tarhan who said that he would reject to do military service during his life in case of they act in such logic is facing the risk of being continuously punished. This approach is incompatible with basic principles of criminal law and human rights. 3. Mehmet TARHAN was subject to discrimination and ill treatment because of his sexual choice besides his conscientious objection, during military, detention, trial and imprisonment process.

4. Even in the period that he was punished disobeying the military rules, his hair and beard was cut by force and he was subjected to violence enforcing him military rules. In addition, other convicted people attacked, beat Mehmet TARHAN, and seized his money and belongings by violence. Thus, besides his physical integrity, freedom of thought and faith was violated, he was deprived of security as well.

5. The delegation was attempted to be manipulated by the administrative authorities. Either demands are rejected or it was misinformed. The best example of this manipulation could be Judicial Consultant Tuna POLAT’s claiming that they have initiated an investigation but Mehmet has made it stop with not signing his testimony. What was obtained from Mehmet TARHAN during the interview is contrary to what POLAT said. Mehmet stated that he refused to sign his testimony as it was written by administrators because he noticed that his testimony was recorded different than what he said. Another reason for his refusal is the expression of “Infantry Private”” that was put before his name. This was a clear violation of the principle of effective usage of application procedures.

6. Despite he is paying in advance and there is not any prohibition, he was not given Radikal newspaper and his personal radio. Thus, his right to communication and information is being limited.

7. Requesting of power of attorney from Mehmet TARHAN’s lawyers is against Criminal Procedures Law. This is not an unfair treatment practiced only towards the members of the delegation but it was also the case with TARHAN’s other lawyers.

8. The place allocated for me to see my visitors is in clear contravention with right to secrecy. Several soldiers are waiting at one side all the time. This is also a clear violation of the articles of Criminal Procedures Law regulating the procedure of interviews with lawyers and their clients.

9. Finally, the Military Court of Appeals’ overruling the local courts decision on the ground that “Mehmet TARHAN’s homosexuality had not been established via proper physical examination procedures,” would lead to Mehmet TARHAN undergoing an intrusive physical examination to which TARHAN is insistently against. Such a forced physical examination is both a violation of the physical integrity of a person and a discriminative treatment when it is considered that this examination is for determination of his sexual orientation. Such an examination would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Therefore, the Military Court of Appeals should immediately revoke his decision on this matter.