“The 131 Monitoring Boards, whose work focuses on living conditions, health, food, education and the rehabilitation of prisoners, continued to carry out inspections. By June 2005, these boards had made 1 247 recommendations, of which 532 had been acted upon. The Boards paid visits to 419 prisons between October 2004 and May 2005. Their composition still does not include a
significant representation from civil society and their reports remain confidential. In the last quarter of 2004, the 141 Enforcement Judges received 830
complaints on actions involving prisoners and detainees. Of these applications, 83 have been accepted and acted upon, 4 have been partially accepted and acted upon, 679 have been rejected and 64 have resulted in other decisions, such as non-jurisdiction of the Enforcement Judges. Training of Enforcement Judges is ongoing.” [71b] (p24-25)
12.17 As noted in the Amnesty International document ‘Turkey Memorandum on AI’s recommendations to the government to address human rights violations’, dated 1 August 2005:
“Amnesty International welcomes recent steps by the government to allow for greater inspection of places of detention. Article 92 of the new CPC requires State Prosecutors to carry out inspections of places of detention – Amnesty International considers such inspections could be an effective and important measure against torture and ill-treatment if the inspections are carried out on both a regular and an ad hoc basis and the subsequent findings and
recommendations made public.
Both the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission and the Provincial and Regional Human Rights Boards have both reportedly carried out recent visits to places of detention. While such extra levels of scrutiny are welcome, these bodies are not demonstrably independent or necessarily possessed of the necessary expertise in evaluating places of detention. At the moment, the only demonstrably independent body which enjoys the right to carry out visits unannounced in Turkey is the European Committee for the Prevention for Torture (CPT) whose findings and recommendations have generated significant change in Turkey regarding detention regulations and an apparently
commensurate improvement in patterns of torture and ill-treatment.” [12i] (Section on The need for greater scrutiny of places of detention)
12.18 The USSD 2006 report noted that:
“The government permitted prison visits by representatives of some international organizations, such as the CPT; however, domestic
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) did not have access to prisons. Domestic human rights organizations and activists reported that Prison Monitoring Boards, composed of government officials and private individuals, were ineffective. The CPT visited in 2004 and conducted ongoing consultations with the government.” [5g]
The EC 2007 report further noted that:
“Outstanding problems in prisons include: overcrowding, lack of consistent implementation of provisions regarding communal activities, restrictions on prisoners’ correspondence, and inadequate health/psychiatric resources. Furthermore, civil and military prisons are not open to monitoring by
independent national bodies, pending the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. Provisions regarding the application of solitary confinement for persons sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment remain in force. Such a regime needs to be applied for as short time as possible and be based on an individual risk assessment of the prisoner concerned. Furthermore, cases of ill-treatment by prison staff have occurred.” [71d] (p14)
Return to contents Go to list of sources
13
D
EATH PENALTY13.01 The European Commission reported in 2006 that “With respect to the right to life and, in particular, the abolition of the death penalty, Turkey ratified, in March 2006, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims to abolish the death penalty. Protocol 13 to the ECHR, which abolishes the death penalty at all times, was ratified in February 2006. Turkey abolished the death penalty in its national legislation, in all circumstances, in 2004.” [71a] (p61)
13.02 As outlined in the May-June 2005 issue of Newspot (published on the website of the Office of the Prime Minister, Directorate General of Press and Information) in an article on the new Turkish Penal Code, “The new Turkish penal code went into effect on June 1 [2005], along with the penal procedures and the law on the execution of sentences. The new penal code changes the duration and number of penalties in certain cases…Terrorist Abdullah Öcalan and similar criminals will remain in prison indefinitely.” [36h]
13.03 The Amnesty International List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries (1 January 2006) report noted that the date provided for the last execution carried out in Turkey as being in 1984. [12h] (p4)
Return to contents Go to list of sources
14
P
OLITICAL AFFILIATIONFREEDOM OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION
14.01 The US State Department (USSD) report 2006, published on 6 March 2007, noted that:
“The 2002 parliamentary elections were held under election laws that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) found established a framework for democratic elections in line with international standards;
however, the OSCE mission noted that several parties--notably the AKP, the winner of the elections--faced judicial action aimed at closing them down, and many candidates were also prohibited from running. The OSCE reported that, while there were a substantial number of cases of harassment reported by some political parties and by human rights groups, the elections were generally free and fair. Political parties and candidates could freely declare their
candidacy and stand for election. The high court of appeals chief prosecutor could only seek to close political parties for unconstitutional activities by bringing a case before the Constitutional Court.” [5g] (section 3)
14.02 The USSD 2006 report further noted that:
“During the year police raided dozens of DTP (formerly DEHAP) offices, particularly in the southeast, and detained hundreds of DTP officials and members. Jandarma and police regularly harassed DTP members through verbal threats, arbitrary detentions at rallies, and detention at checkpoints. Security forces also regularly harassed villagers they believed were
sympathetic to DTP. Although security forces released most detainees within a short period, many faced trials, usually for supporting an illegal organization or inciting separatism.” [5g] (section 3
14.03 As noted in the Amnesty International 2007 report covering events from January to December 2006, “In June, Parliament revised the Law to Fight Terrorism, greatly widening the scope and number of crimes punishable as terrorist offences, introducing articles liable to further restrict freedom of expression, and failing to restrict the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials. Officials of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) and those joining pro-Kurdish platforms faced frequent prosecutions amounting to a pattern of judicial harassment.” [12e]
14.04 The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) Focus report on Elections noted that:
“Although the OSCE/ODIHR generally deemed the parliamentary elections as a positive sign of the vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy, it noted that there were still strict limits for the scope of political debate. This was seen, for example, in the measures to close down many parties during the election campaign, including the AKP and the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), and in the banning of many candidates from running as a result of past convictions for non-violent expression, including Murat Bozlak, former chairman of HADEP; Necmettin
Erbakan, former prime minister and chairman of the banned Virtue Party; and Akin Birdal, former leader of the Socialist Democratic Party and former
chairman of the Human Rights Association of Turkey. Also, by European standards, the threshold of 10% of the nationwide vote for parties to enter the parliament was exceptionally high. The ODIHR also reported harassment of members of some political parties and human rights defenders, although the situation had improved markedly compared with previous elections. Finally, it recommended Turkey to find alternative penalties to the drastic sanctions (closure) of media outlets which violated regulations of media coverage.” [10b]
14.05 The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) in an assessment report for the Turkish parliamentary elections which took place on 3 November 2002 noted that:
“The 3 November elections for the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) demonstrated the vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy. At the same time, the broader legal framework and its implementation establish strict limits on the scope of political debate in Turkey. Non-violent expression of political views beyond these limits is still restricted by a variety of laws and is rigorously enforced. Several parties faced action aimed at closing them down during the current elections, notably the Justice and Development Party (AK), the winner of the elections. Many candidates were also banned from running, including AK’s leader and leaders of several other parties, generally as a result of past convictions for non-violent political speech. These restrictions on free speech and the practice of dissolving political parties and banning candidates stand in stark contrast to the otherwise pluralist election system in Turkey, as well as its international commitments.” [14a]
14.06 The same OCSE report further noted that:
“Parties must win at least 10% of the vote to enter the TGNA; this is an
exceptionally high threshold by European standards. Only two of the 18 parties running passed the threshold. As a result, 45% of the electorate cast votes for parties that will not be represented in the TGNA, and a party that drew less than 35% of the total vote will control almost two thirds of the seats in the TGNA. To avoid such distortions, the authorities should consider reviewing the level of the threshold. Other aspects of the law that might be reviewed are the absence of any judicial appeals against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Elections, and the absence of procedures for voting abroad.” [14a]
See also paragraph 19:22 Pro-Kurdish Political Parties
Return to contents Go to list of sources