Distinguished Members of the press,
Welcome to the press conference organised by the Human Rights Association to release the human rights report of 2002. The report which has been derived collected from individual applications to our branches and published sources can only give a light to human rights violations in Turkey partly. However, the table and the report attached to this press statement provides a frame regarding the nature of the regime in Turkey.
Legislative activities in 2002
In 2002, a very important legislative activity was made. Laws amending existing various laws were approved under three main harmonisation packages on 6 February (first package), on 26 March (second package) and on 3 August 2002 (third package).
Amendments were made on following 19 laws .
Turkish Penal Code, Law on Ban and Pursue Smuggling, Law on Forests, Military Penal Code, Law on Fight Against Terrorism, Criminal Procedures Law, Administrative Trial Procedures Law, Law on the Establishment & Trial Procedures of State Security Courts, Press Law, Law on the Establishment and Broadcasting of Radio and Televisions, Association Law, Law on Demonstrations and Meetings, Law No:657 on Civil Servants, Law on Provincial Administration, Law on Duties and Rights of the Police, Political Parties Law, Law on Education and Teaching of Foreign Languages, Law on Directorate-General for Foundations and the Foundations Law.
Among amendments, abolution of the death penalty in peace times, teaching in private courses and broadcasting on languages spoken in Turkey other than Turkish, abolution of the phrases "legally banned languages" existed in some laws, restriction of custody periods to four days and enabling foundations to own property and providing the opportunity for renewal of the trial after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights are significant amendments.
Some of laws amended in 2002 were amended again by the fourth harmonisation package which was published in the Official Gazette on 2 January 2003. Majority of the legislative amendments except the death penalty have a significant importance as to the practices of the law enforcement organs (administrative and judicial organs). However, the first thing to be pointed out is the direction of the amendment process.
In this process, some articles of some laws have been subject to amendment more than once. For example, Article 159 of the Turkish Penal Code was included in first and second harmonisation packages, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedures Law and the Article 445 of the Administrative Trial Procedures Law in third and fourth packages, Article 16 of the Law on State Security Courts in first and fourth package, Article 1 of the Foundations Law in third and fourth packages, Articles 5 and 6 of the Associations Law in third and fourth packages. The most striking example is that Articles 11 and 12 of the Associations Law. These two articles were abolished by the second harmonisation package on 26 March 2002, then they were reintroduced with third harmonisation package and finally these two articles were abolished again by the fourth harmonisation package entered into force on 2 January 2003. This direction clearly reveals that there is an avoidance in taking a clear and determinant position on human rights and democracy. It is clearly seen that some of the amendments are only cosmetic amendments. There is no other meaning of those re-amendments in a very short intervals. Another method followed during this process is the limitation of rights recognised by laws through lower legal arrangements. Two examples can be shown to that. One of them is related to the teaching of languages spoken in Turkey other than Turkish in private courses. The regulation prepared by the Ministry of National Education concerning private courses is an example of how a right recognised by the law can be made unusable in practice. Provisions requiring a separate building, a separate application procedure and qualifications required for personnel gave rise to a conclusion that a single application has not been made to open up a course in the last six months since the introduction of the amendment. The second example is that the regulation concerning the broadcasting in spoken languages other than Turkish on television and radios prepared by the High Council (RTÜK). The RTÜK, by giving the broadcasting authority on spoken languages in Turkey solely to the State-owned Turkish Radio and Television (TRT) has created a monopoly on the spoken languages and prohibited the private radio and televisions. The RTÜK has delegated an authority, which was not foreseen in the law, to an institution which is not under the supervision of the RTÜK. In addition, a time restriction was also made in broadcasting. There are 26 local languages spoken in Turkey. Broadcasting only two hours in a week in televisions and fours a week in radios is already the restriction of the exercise/implementation of the right.
We would like to recall an issue concerning the torture, although very important steps were taken in prevention of torture like non-suspension of sentences and non-transferance into fine of sentences and in human rights in the fourth harmonisation package. Paragraph 4 of the article 16 of the Law on State Security Courts which prevents suspects to see their lawyer during the first 48 hours was abolished with the forth harmonisation package. Therefore, suspects who are detained with the allegation of crimes under the mandate of the State Security Courts shall now be able to see their lawyers. However, in the Turkish legislation seeing the lawyer and benefitting the counselling of the lawyer are arranged as separate processes. The interpretation of the abolition of the concerned paragraph is a language play. The process of taking statements from suspects detained with allegation of crimes under the State Security Courts shall not be conducted before the lawyer. Because, amendments on the Criminal Procedures Law No. 3842 entered into foce in 1992 excluded crimes under the mandate of State Security Courts prescribed in Article 31 of the Law. In order to ensure the fair trial and the right to defense and right to personal security and freedom as well as from the point of ban on torture, Article 31 of the Law on Criminal Procedures should be abolished.
Distinguished members of the press,
It is not possible to say that radical changes in the implementation have been made for human rights in Turkey in spite of legal amendments. As it is known, since 1999 following the official declaration of Turkey's candidacy to the EU, the Human Rights Association monitors the process in terms of both legal changes and implementation. Within this monitoring two basic human rights categories, prohibition of torture and the freedom of expression, are given a special importance.
Four Years with regard to the prevention of torture:
According to the HRA data, 594 people in 1999, 594 people in 2000, 862 people in 2001 and 876 people in 2002 were subject to torture and ill-treatment.
According to the HRA data, a total of 2926 people were subject to torture and ill teratment in the last four years. This also means that approximately two people everyday are subject to the torture. Minister of Interior, Mr. Cemil Çicek, in his reply to a parliamentary question raised by CHP deputy Yakup Kepenek, said that in the last three years a total of 4600 people applied to Prosecutors Offices for the torture allegation. The information given by the Minister covers the ones who dare to apply to prosecutors and presents the gravity of the situation. Attitudes of prosecutors are also open for interpretation in terms of the information provided by the Minister. Because, 80% of torture allegations are not transferred to judicial procedures and decision like non-jurisdiction, lack of authorisation and non-pursuit are given. It is obvious that the system needs to be reconsidered with regard to impunity provided for perpetrators.
There is a need for the existence of the highest will to eradicate the torture as we have been repeating since 16 years. Legal, judicial, administrative and educational measures should be taken quickly and effectively.
Four years with regard to the freedom of expression:
According to data of the Human Rights Association, court cases were launched against 166 individuals in 1999 as they expressed their thoughts. These figures continue in following years as follows: against 468 individuals in 2000, against 3473 individuals in 2001 and against 2498 individuals in this year.
We believe that problems in the field of freedom of expression shall be minimized when public prosecutors and judges in Turkey start to take standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights into consideration.
However, we need to address one of the unacceptable legal practices. In the field of freedom of expression, when a restrictive article has gained a bad reputation, it is replaced by use of another article in the legislation, as it has already been observed through the shift from Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law to the Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. This continues until that article become known, then another article is brought for use. Article 169 of the Turkish Penal Code is another one. Article 169 of the Turkish Penal Code which prescribes the crime of adding and assisting to the ilegal organisation is applied to individuals who make a petition or make a speech in a panel/conference. Human rights defenders also get their share in the practice of this article. For example, Executives of Ankara Branch of the Human Rights Association are under trial since 3 years due to their work on prisons and death fasts. Chairwoman of İstanbul Branch of Human Rights Association, Kiraz Biçici, as she described the 19 December military operation to prisons as massacre, was prosecuted to 3 years and 9 months heavy imprisonment.
In the field of freedom of expression, it is obvious that there is also need to change mentality beside amendments in the legislation.
Distinguished members of the press,
State of Emergency was lifted from the last two remained provinces as of 30 November 2002. Therefore, 24 years-governance of the region with extraordinary rules was ended. However, there is a de facto implementation. Introduction of Coordinator Governor is out of law. Changing the names of things do not mean the change of their nature. In law states, authorities of administrations are identified by constitution and legislation. But not by circulars or transfer of authorities of ministers. Therefore, the disposal of the Minister of Interior on appointment of a Coordinator Governor to the Region do not comply with the law.
The State of Emergency was ended after heavy sorrows and out of law practices. One of the most important of those practices was the forced displacement. By November 2002, a total of 51,000 citizens returned to their villages according to the information provided by the then-super governor. When compared this figure with the official statements on the magnitude of the internally displaced people – 500,000 citizens- it constitutes only 10% of IDPs. According to the official statements, the number of villages and hamlets evicted is 3428. However, the HRA identified 3688 evicted villages and hamlets, and more than 3 million IDPs. Another problem is the village guard system. There are 60,000 village guards at present. Not eliminating the village guard system is one of the major tresholds before the return to village. In addition, land mines and unidentified ordinances. According to our opinion, solution of Kurdish problem is only possible with radical democratisation steps which are integrated with economic and social development. It is not possible to obtain results from plans like "107 article-Southeast Action Plan" of which budget and implementators are not known. What is necessary is to take democratic, transparent and participatory development plans and programmes into the agenda. De facto practices of state of emergency should be left aside.
Distinguished members of the press,
Death fasts continued after 19 December 2000 military operation in 20 prisons continued in 2002. Many people have lost their lives. F type prisons carry isolation conditions and these conditions are still kept. The Ministry of Justice should abandon the isolation policy. The isolation came back again on the agenda with the case of Abdullah Öcalan who has been kept solely in İmrali Island. Ocalan has also been kept in solitary confinement conditions. The problem of not being able to see lawyers and family members in the last three months was added up to the existing problem. We, as the Human Rights Association, want everybody should be treated in the framework of the primacy of the law. Öcalan should benefit from legal facilities too. It is the obligation of being a state of law. Therefore, allocation of a better sea vehicle, enabling him to benefit from communication facilities and so on are necessary for the generalisation of the laws and equal teratment.
3 November 2002 elections were realised on the basis of anti-democratic rules existed in laws concerning elections and political parties. It has been once more observed that the democracy of Turkey has been embraced with political bans. Many citizens were not able to exercise their political rights due to their penalties given for their expression of thoughts. High election treshold kept different parts of the society outside of the legislative organ.
In the EU process, only Advocates Law among others committed in the National Programme was amended in the context of the primacy of the law. Laws concerning independency and impartiality of the judiciary and judicial security were not enforced. Human rights can only be protected by the law and the strength of the democratic public opinion. In legal protection, judicial protection is essential. For that reason, new arrangements are immediately needed in the field of primacy of the law.
No development in the field of primacy of the civilian authority has been made throughout 2002 in the context of the EU process. Let's put aside the necessity to leave the political arena to civilians, even Article 11 of the Law on Military Courts concerning the trials of civilians in the military court has not been abolished.
Distinguished members of the press,
The HRA has always exhibited its position vis a vis the war. We are against to the USA's plans on Iraqi war and invasion. We do not want Turkey's involvement in the war. We believe that problems should be solved in peaceful conditions. We consider the opening up our ports and airports for USA for an armed attack as an attack to our honour. We are against the placement of Turkish Military forces in Iraq whatever the reason behind it. Every nation has to respect to other nation's sovereignity and security as much it has to shown its own sovereignity and security. Taking a war position of the Turkish armed forces in its outside borders cannot be acceptable. We call on the Turkish Grand National Assembly to refuse the decision allowing USA troops to come to Turkey.
Human Rights Association