Doc. 8300

15 January 1999

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey

Information report1

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

Co-Rapporteurs: Mr András Bársony, Hungary, Socialist Group and

Mr Walter Schwimmer, Austria, Group of the European People's Party

Summary

Monitoring procedures in respect of Turkey under Order N° 508 (1995) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member States of the Council of Europe, were opened in April 1996, after adoption of Assembly Recommendation 1298 (1996) on Turkey’s respect of commitments to constitutional and legislative reforms.

Since then, the rapporteurs made three fact-finding missions to Turkey, most recently on 6 – 9 September 1998.

In this information report, they analyse the present situation in the country. They report on areas where they have seen progress and identify problems which warrant further action and assistance.

In summary, the co-rapporteurs wish to draw the attention of the Turkish authorities to the following important steps to be taken :

Acknowledgement

      The co-rapporteurs wish to thank the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation and its Secretariat for the perfect organisation of this visit, as well as of the preceding visit on 23 – 26 November 1997.

      They wish also to express their gratitude to all interlocutors who, in the course of both visits, made themselves available and supplied information in a frank and cordial way. Apart from the Turkish parliamentarians and officials, this includes also the Ambassadors, the representatives of the UNHCR, the Human Rights Foundation, the Human Rights Association, the Mazlum Der Organisation of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People, the Turkish Medical Association, the representatives of the press and all those who spontaneously replied to questions of the co-rapporteurs.

      The co-rapporteurs regret that the success of their most recent mission was overshadowed by the refusal of the Ankara Closed Prison Authorities to allow a scheduled visit of the former DEP members.

Contents

      Pages

FOREWORD       4

A.       INTRODUCTION        5

B.       MAIN ISSUES       6

      i.       Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment        6

      ii.       The rule of law       7

      iii..       Freedom of expression and Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act       8

      iv.       Imprisoned former DEP parliamentarians       9

      v.       Constitutional reform       9

      vi.       Respect for the rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin       10

C.       CONCLUDING REMARKS       11

APPENDICES

I.       Parliamentary Assembly documents and adopted texts on Turkey       13

II.       Programme of the fact-finding mission to Turkey (6-9 September 1998)       14

III.       Programme for the visit to Ankara and Istanbul (23 - 26 November 1997)        16

IV.       Comments of the Turkish authorities on the draft information report on Turkey       18

      - Opinion of the Turkish authorities        19

      - Comments of the Motherland Party       30

      - Comments of the True Path Party       33

      - Comments of the Republican People's Party       40

      - Comments of the Nationalist Movement Party       43

      - Comments of the Virtue Party (main oppositions)       46

FOREWORD

1.       Over the years, Turkey has, more than any other member State, been the subject of recommendations, resolutions and orders of the Parliamentary Assembly; your co-rapporteurs have reproduced a list in Appendix 1 to this information report. And yet, we are all impressed by the efforts made by the respective governments, by the many activities and unconditioned co-operation of the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation, by the number of Conventions signed and ratified 2and, in general, by progress made towards full implementation of the obligations and commitments under the Council of Europe membership.

2.       In this information report, the co-rapporteurs will try and analyse the present situation in the country. They will report on the areas where they have seen progress and they will identify the problems which warrant further action and assistance. But they will also endeavour to create understanding for the reasons why in some respects this important and devoted member State takes a specific position in the Council of Europe and define guidelines for further development. In doing so, they have no pretention to give an authoritative interpretation of the history of Turkey; they merely wish to explain the background against which they view the developments in Turkey and they would be grateful for any complementary remarks by their Turkish collegues.

3.       Turkey in its present form was created as of 1923 by one of its greatest statesmen, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. His doctrine, referred to as Kemalism, was characterised by a number of principles, which would allow the country to make the enormous jump from the Ottoman heritage into modern society. The influence of these principles can still be found, more or less prominently, in the Turkish Constitution. These principles are the following:

4.       Through the strict implementation of these principles, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk succeeded in introducing a democratic regime in a country which had not achieved a more gradual transition towards democracy in Western Europe; although he established democracy by authoritarian means, it was clearly for the benefit of his fellow citizens. These citzens are still grateful for this accomplishment and respect Kemalism as their indivisible heritage: where in other member States government offices and public places are ornamented with pictures of the Head of State in office, in Turkey every official room and even many private houses bear an image of Atatürk.

5.       Since the instalment of democracy in Turkey, the country is characterised by some traditions which have gradually disappeared elsewhere: the nearly untouchable position of the military and the police forces, the extensive powers of the public prosecution, the respect for, in particular, the senior civil service and the influence of university professors. The co-rapporteurs have gained the impression that today, contrary to the reformist intentions of the founder of the Republic of Turkey, in certain circles in Turkey these principles in their original , petrified form of 1923 are being considered and applied as still valid doctrines to solve the topical problems of modern Turkey.

6.       There can be no doubt that Turkey is a democracy – with a multiparty system, free elections and an active and independent legislature. However, in general the Turkish nation is more patriotic, more disciplined and more obedient to authority; it is more easily ready to accept the limitations of fundamental freedoms and human rights when the integrity and the independence of the Turkish State so requires. This respect of the heritage of Kemalism causes clashes when individuals or groups of individuals want to implement norms and standards which are applied in other member States where the supremacy of the State is less evident.

7.       When they take into account the above conception of human rights and individual freedoms, the co-rapporteurs can more easily understand why in Turkey, notwithstanding the efforts made and progress achieved, there are still some areas where there is room for improvement in the fulfilment of obligations and commitments. These areas are set out in the following report.

A. INTRODUCTION

8.       Following visits in November 1996 and March 1997 within the framework of the former monitoring process of Order 5083 the Rapporteurs visited Turkey from 23 to 26 November 1997 and from 6 to 9 September 1998. The purpose was to extend and deepen

dialogue with the Turkish authorities, in cooperation with the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation, on a certain number of issues which the Committee had determined as "priority"

following an exchange of views with the Delegation at the Committee's meeting in Strasbourg on 25 September 1997. The programmes are contained in Appendices 2 and 3.

9.       For many observers outside Turkey the country has a negative human rights image, which seems justified by a number of facts, and it is important to take action. This image reflects negatively on the Council of Europe and on Turkey, notably as regards its aspirations for membership of the European Union. There is therefore a common interest in seeking to determine whether the dynamics exist in Turkey for improving the human rights situation, taking into account mainly the obligations and commitments entered into by Turkey with respect to the Council of Europe but also to the history and the geopolitics of the region.

B. MAIN ISSUES

i. Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

10. The most damaging criticism of Turkey is recourse to torture and to inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees as part of its administrative culture. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs refer, inter alia, to the 1996 Declaration made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

11.       However, times have changed since 1995 when the Assembly expressed its deep concern about human rights violations in Turkey in Recommendation 1266. Human rights in general, and these aspects in particular, have become a persistent theme of domestic political debate. Moreover, they have now become a part of Government policy, including in its foreign relations dimension, as shown by the Prime Minister's circular of 3 December 1997. It contains the following passage: "...bearing in mind that the violation of human rights is a disgrace for humanity, that it adversely affects public opinion in our country and in the civilised world and that it can cause damage for our country which is difficult to remedy, the measures set out below shall be implemented without fail and their implementation shall be monitored by the authorities responsible"

12.       The co-rapporteurs were impressed by the activity of the High Coordinating Committee for Human Rights which has now met 52 times, to propose new laws or amendments to existing legislation, promote deregularisation and improve training and education. They regret, however, that the Parliament has not yet started to discuss these proposals, mainly because of the lack of strength of the ruling coalition.

13.       The co-rapporteurs also noted that the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee on Human Rights had toured the country and was preparing a report on the respect of human rights in Turkey. They express the hope that this report will be finalised as quickly as possible and given due publicity.

14. This growing awareness of the need to put an end to degrading treatment and torture of

detainees in particular has resulted in a number of practical measures, both preventive and repressive, such as training and education of police officers, the distribution in police stations of rules for correct interrogation and of the texts of the related Conventions, medical checks before and after interrogation and investigation and punishment in cases of torture. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs refer to the following initiatives which have been taken:

15.       The co-rapporteurs welcome these initiatives as important steps forward but are not yet convinced that they are or will be systematically implemented in practice. One reason for the continuing torture might be the importance which is attached to the confession in Turkish criminal law, which in itself is sufficient for conviction of the suspect. Another difficulty lies in the fear of suspects to report on torture which they have undergone; here measures should be taken to establish formal and safe procedures for such complaints to be investigated objectively. Furthermore, the co-rapporteurs recommend that the initial period of detention for persons accused of “political offences” (eg terrorism, narcotics) should be the same as for ordinary suspects and thus be reduced from 4 days to 48 hours; similarly, detainees brought before the State Security Court should be provided with the same rights as “normal” suspects in police custody, in particular the right to consult a lawyer without delay.

16.       Concern about still ongoing torture and inhuman or degrading treatment seems justified in the light of information supplied by the Diyarbakir Bar Association and non-governmental human rights organisations in Turkey, such as the Human Rights Association, the Human Rights Foundation, the Mazlem Der Organisation of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People and the Turkish Medical Association, who can play a very important role in this context. The co-rapporteurs firmly recommend that these organisations, which are now tolerated by the authorities, will in the near future be assisted in their work, in particular by facilitating their access to detainees.

ii.        The rule of law

17.       The co-rapporteurs noted that a number of important amendments to existing laws, including the Penal Code and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have been prepared which, if enacted, would improve the respect of human rights in Turkey. The text of these amendments was, however, not yet available in English and it was said that these amendments might still be modified. The co-rapporteurs have asked to be kept informed about developments in this respect.

18.       The co-rapporteurs welcomed improvements already made in existing legislation, such as certain rules on the treatment of detainees. However, after their visit to the Aksaray Security Headquarters in Istanbul, they wish to express their concern that some changes made in the relevant laws should be strictly implemented, in particular respect for the right of the detainee to consult a lawyer, medical examination and the duration of detention.

19.       Another aspect of the rule of law in Turkey is the existence of emergency rule in certain parts of the country, justified by the Turkish authorities as necessary to fight terrorism perpetrated by the PKK (Workers Party of Kurdistan). While Turkey has the right, like any other state, to combat terrorism and preserve its territorial integrity, in the medium and long-term such emergency rule is incompatible with the rule of law. Since 1987, emergency rule has been imposed in a number of provinces of Turkey. After the number of provinces subject to such rule had decreased, it was again extended, by a decision of the National Security Council on 29 June 1998, for four months in the provinces of Diyarbakir, Hakkari, Siirt, Sirnak, Tunceli and Van.

20.       Under these emergency rules a number of villages have been evacuated and even destroyed. The fact that such dramatic actions are being taken can only underline the immediate need for peace to be established in the region. In that context, an accompanying feature of emergency rule in these provinces is the existence of a village guard system. The village guards are a force of approximately 50,000 ethnic Kurdish villagers armed and paid by the Government to fight the PKK. Pressure to join the village guards and reprisals by the security forces against those who refuse, or retaliation by the PKK against those who consent, puts the local population in an impossible situation. In two cases by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkish security forces were found guilty of burning houses to force the evacuation of villages in the south-east which refused to join the village guard system.4 In the most recent case also linked to the village guard system, the Turkish authorities failed to protect a Turkish citizen’s right to life on account of the defects in the planning and conduct of a security forces’ operation and the lack of an adequate and effective investigation.5 The co-rapporteurs therefore recall the appeal to abolish the village guard system contained in Assembly Recommendation 1377 (1998) on the humanitarian situation of the Kurdish refugees and displaced persons in South-East Turkey and North Iraq.

21.       The co-rapporteurs furthermore consider that it is incompatible with the rule of law for military staff to participate as judges in State Security Courts and thus sit in judgement over civilians.

22.       Although there are no more executions in Turkey, the co-rapporteurs observe that the death penalty still exists in Turkish law and that death sentences are still pronounced by the courts. After their visit to Turkey, they have been informed that a Draft Turkish Criminal Code has been presented to the TGNA Justice Commission, providing inter alia for the abolishment of the death penalty. Pending the adoption of this Code and its enactment, the co-rapporteurs recommend that Turkey sign and ratify Protocol N° 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

iii. Freedom of expression and Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act

23.       The right of freedom of expression is one of the pre-conditions for democracy and as such confirmed by Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention. The exercise of this freedom may be restricted by law on very precise conditions, as indeed most member States have done. The criticism of Article 8 of Turkey's Prevention of Terrorism Act is that it sanctions but does not clearly and sufficiently define "offences of opinion". This opens the door to arbitrary action by the State against individuals for “crimes of thought”, not only in violation of the right to freedom of expression but also of the rights to freedom of thought and conscience and to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

24.       The recent prosecution and imprisonment of some journalists for terms of 10 to 40 months is but one example of the different interpretation by the Turkish authorities of Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention. The co-rapporteurs are concerned about many other incidents, not only involving journalists but also elected officials, particularly from the Virtue and HADEP Parties, which have been reported to them and which would seem to indicate that freedom of expression is excessively restricted on matters considered to be sensitive. The co-rapporteurs recommend that Article 8 in the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be adapted to prevent any interpretation contrary to the Human Rights Convention.

iv.       Imprisoned former DEP parliamentarians

25.       Four former DEP parliamentarians continue to serve a 15-year sentence.6 Convicted under Article 168 of the Criminal Code for "membership of and assistance to separatist gangs", they claim they are being punished for their political views. This claim is rejected by the Turkish authorities, which shows, once again, how extremely narrow the margin is in Turkey between freedom of expression and prohibited propaganda. Their application to the European Commission on Human Rights was declared admissible in October 1997. In discussions with the co-rapporteurs on 24 November 1997, they affirmed their commitment to work for constitutional reform through Turkey's democratic institutions and without challenge to Turkey's territorial integrity. The Council of Europe and the OSCE Parliamentary Assemblies as well as the European Parliament and NATO have all made appeals for their release.

26. For their visit on 6 – 9 September, the co-rapporteurs had asked to be enabled to visit again the former DEP parliamentarians, and this visit had been arranged for 7 September at 9.45 am. When the co-rapporteurs arrived at the Ankara Central Prison at 9.45 am, they were kept waiting for 15 minutes in front of the gates, with press and public watching, before being told that the Prison Administration could not ensure their safety and therefore could not let them enter. According to an article in the Turkish Daily News, riot teams from the gendarmerie and the police had carried out on the preceding Sunday morning a search for prohibited objects and had transferred more than 100 inmates to other prisons. According to the article, police and gendarmerie officials had said that all necessary security measures had been taken inside and outside the prison. The co-rapporteurs regret that they were thus prevented from meeting the former DEP parliamentarians and, in particular, that they had not been informed of this before their trip to the prison.

v.       Constitutional reform

27.       In Article 2 of its Constitution Turkey is affirmed to be a democratic State, committed to respect for human rights. This affirmation was challenged by Assembly Recommendations 1266 (1995) and 1298 (1996). Some Articles of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were amended in 1995. Other Articles of the Constitution (on freedom of thought and expression, on freedom of science and the arts, and on rights and freedoms of the press) are now being examined, with a view to amendment, by the Turkish High Co-ordinating Committee for Human Rights. The co-rapporteurs welcome the pledge made on 7 August 1998 by the Human Rights Minister that he would push through legal measures to ease restrictions on freedom of expression and shorten jail sentences for “separatist propaganda”. It will be important to act on this pledge before parliamentary elections set for 18 April 1999; during the visit on 6 September the Minister voiced however some doubts about this possibility.

28.       A basic concern of the Assembly, however, is still not being addressed. The Turkish Constitution, adopted under military rule in 1982, leaves room for (although it does not necessarily entail) conceptions of the relationship of the State to the individual which are authoritarian and not compatible with the Council of Europe's Statute and the European Convention on Human Rights.

29.       A recent report by the Civilian Affairs Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly referred to the general weakness of political forces vis-à-vis the military establishment.7 The most important aspect in this context is the existence of the National Security Council (NSC).8 The NSC was set up during military rule and given constitutional status in 1982 (see Article 118 of the Constitution). It has been described as a “State within the State” because the scope of its activities has extended beyond security to cover the economy, foreign policy, education, human rights and religion. The co-rapporteurs therefore share the conclusion by the North Atlantic Assembly’s report that if Turkey wishes to move in the direction of a modern democracy, the issues of domestic and foreign security and national defence must be differentiated, and the Turkish Armed Forces’ sphere of interest must be restricted to national defence. In line with one of the points made in Recommendation 1377, this entails that civilian control must be established over all military activity in Turkey.

30.       A democratic state is characterised, among others, by a multi-party system. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs wish to voice their concern about the issue of the ban in Turkey of certain political parties.

31.       Radical changes of a Constitution are not easy to envisage. However, adjustment to the Preamble might suffice, since it governs interpretation of the General Principles (set forth in Part One). The co-rapporteurs suggest that the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the “Venice Commission”) be sought on these constitutional issues.

vi.       Respect for the rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin

32.       From the very beginning of the monitoring procedure, the co-rapporteurs have paid

special attention to the Kurdish question. In addition, Order No. 545 (1998) instructed the Monitoring Committee to study the issue of the Kurdish minority in the framework of the monitoring procedure concerning Turkey.

33.       Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, notably in the south-eastern part of the country, who

wish to maintain their languages and traditional cultural identities should be able to do so. The Turkish authorities, in their observations on this report, have argued that 30 local radio and television stations broadcast in Turkish and Kurdish, that there is no restriction on the sale of magazines and music casettes in Kurdish and that 15 newspapers and periodicals are printed in Kurdish. However, several interlocutors told the co-rapporteurs in the course of their visit to Turkey that the freedom of expression of Kurdish media is severely limited, that many Kurdish publications have been banned and that access to the remaining publications is difficult.

34.       The co-rapporteurs do not consider it useful to exchange arguments as to whether there

is an obligation on the Turkish State to regard any groups of citizens as "national minorities". They merely wish to underline that here is clearly a case of an ethnical group with a cultural identity and common traditions which in accordance with the principles and norms of the Council of Europe should be preserved and protected and that such protection is not in contradiction with the Turkish Constitution nor with the Treaty of Lausanne. The essential point is that any such group should have the opportunities and material resources to use and sustain its natural languages and cultural traditions in circumstances and under conditions now clearly and reasonably defined by two important Council of Europe Conventions: the Framework Convention on Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, as well as by Assembly Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an additional protocol on the rights of national minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights. The argument that this would threaten the unity of the Turkish State is unconvincing. The effect is more likely to be the contrary, as terrorism is progressively brought under control.

35.       Since the Treaty of Lausanne which established Turkey's borders in 1923, conceptions of international law and of obligations of States vis-à-vis their citizens have considerably evolved. States with a unitary structure which are reluctant to sign and ratify certain Council of Europe texts are nonetheless ready to accept these texts as enlightened statements of principle and to translate these principles into policy. As political, economic, social and cultural conditions improve in the south-east, the Turkish authorities, including the military, should accept the concepts and principles of the rest of Europe, and act accordingly. Many examples in
Europe show that the implementation of cultural rights for ethnic groups that are different from the majority of the population do not harm the territorial integrity of the State.

36.       In this respect, the co-rapporteurs discussed with the Turkish authorities the “cease fire” offer by the leader of the PKK as from 1 September 1998. The authorities considered that this was a political manoeuvre and would not be respected. In fact, it was withdrawn less than two weeks later.

37.       One important aspect of the restoration of peace and prosperity in the south-east are measures to reconstruct and revive the economy. The co-rapporteurs refer in this respect to Recommendation 1377 (1998), in which the Parliamentary Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to use its influence with the European Union to resume promised financial co-operation with a view to fostering economic development in Turkey, particularly in its south-eastern provinces. The co-rapporteurs therefore also support all efforts by the Turkish authorities which go in that direction so long as they are also accompanied by confidence-building measures in favour of the Kurdish population in the cultural and social fields. Altogether, these measures would encourage those members of the Kurdish population who desire to return to do so, thus also supporting the activities of  the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

C. CONCLUDING REMARKS

38.       In summary, the co-rapporteurs wish to draw the attention of the Turkish authorities to the following important steps to be taken:

39.       The co-rapporteurs submit these considerations to the Assembly so that it can take stock of the situation on the honouring of obligations and commitments of Turkey. Thereafter they expect to return to the country to verify whether progress has been made with regard to the aforementioned steps to be taken and, if appropriate, submit a final report to the Assembly within the next twelve months.

      APPENDIX I

PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY DOCUMENTS AND ADOPTED TEXTS ON TURKEY

Rec 904 (1980) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4621 (Steiner) - CR 32/18 - CM reply Doc 4645, 4659

Order 392 (1980) Members of the Turkish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly - Doc 4621 - CR 32/18

Order 395 (1981) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4657 (Steiner) - CR 32/26

Order 397 (1981) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4723 - CR 33/6

Order 398 (1981) Term of office of the Turkish parliamentary delegation - Doc 4727 - CR 1981/3, 4, 5

Res 757 (1981) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4784 (Steiner) - CR 33/15

Rec 936 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4841 (Urwin, Ludwig Steiner) - CR 33/26

Res 765 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4841 (Urwin, Ludwig Steiner) - CR 33/26

Order 406 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4841 (Urwin, Ludwig Steiner) - CR 33/26

Rec 938 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4865 (Ludwig Steiner) - CR 33/CP

Order 413 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4965 - CR 34/19

Res 786 (1982) Situation in Turkey - Doc 4965 (Steiner) - CR 34/19

Res 794 (1983) Situation in Turkey - Doc 5008 (Steiner) - Doc 5014 opinion (Bardens) - CR 34/27 - CM reply Doc 5169

Res 803 (1983) Situation in Turkey - Doc 5117 (Steiner)- CR 35/16 - CM reply Doc 5169

Res 822 (1984) Situation in Turkey - Doc 5208 (Steiner), Doc 5216 opinion - CR 36/

Res 840 (1985) Situation in Turkey - Doc 5378 (Ludwig Steiner) - CR 37/3

Res 860 (1986) Situation in Turkey - Doc 5546, Doc 5547 opinion (Ludwig Steiner) - CR 38/7

Rec 1094 (1989) Iranian and Iraqi refugees and asylum-seekers in Turkey- Doc 5995 (Mrs Luuk, D, SPD) - CR 40/19 et 20 - CM reply Doc 6042

Rec 1151 (1991) Reception and settlement of refugees in Turkey - Doc 6267 (Eisma) - CR 43/4 and 5 - CM reply Doc 6482

Res 985 (1992) Situation of human rights in Turkey - Doc 6553 (Mrs Lentz-Cornette and Mrs Baarveld-Schlaman) - CR 44/10 - CM reply Doc 6672

Order 478 (1992) Situation of human rights in Turkey - Doc 6553 (Mrs Lentz-Cornette and Mrs Baarveld-Schlaman) - CR 44/10 - CM reply Doc 6672

Res 1030 (1994) Arrest and detention of six members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 2 and 3 March 1994 - Doc. 7067 (Jurgens) - CR 1994/13

Res 1041 (1994) Consequences of the dissolution of the Party for Democracy (DEP) in Turkey -Doc 7112 (Jurgens) - CR 1994/22

Doc 7159 Addendum Information report on the visit to Ankara (Turkey) of the ad hoc committee on Resolution 1041 (1-3 Septembre 1994) (Mr Martinez, President of the Assembly)

Rec 1266 (1995) Turkey's military intervention in northern Iraq and on Turkey's respect of commitments concerning constitutional and legislative reforms - Doc 7290 (Bársony), Doc 7295 avis (Cucó) - CR 1995/13 - CM reply Doc 7334

Rec 1298 (1996) Turkey's respect of commitments to constitutional and legislative reforms (follow-up to Recommendation 1266 (1995)) par la Turquie des engagements concernant la réforme constitutionnelle et législative <suites à donner à la Recommadation 1266 (1995)> - Doc 7445 and Addendum I (revised) (M. Barsony) - CR 1996/15

Doc 7994 Credentials of the Turkish delegation (Mr Juris Sinka)

Rec 1377 (1998) Humanitarian situation of the Kurdish refugees and displaced persons in South-East Turkey and North Iraq - Doc 8131 (Mrs Vermot Mangold)

Order 545 (1998) Humanitarian situation of the Kurdish refugees and displaced persons in South-East Turkey and North Iraq - Doc 8131 (Mrs Vermot-Mangold) - CR 1998/22

APPENDIX II

Programme of the fact-finding mission to Turkey

(6-9 September 1998)9

Rapporteurs: Mr András Bársony (Hungary, SOC) and Mr Walter Schwimmer (Austria, EPP/CD)

Sunday 6 September

Arrival in Ankara, check in at Hotel Sheraton (Tel: 90 312 4685454/Fax: 90 312 4671136)

Mr Schwimmer: 8.45 a.m. on flight TK 384 from Izmir; Mr Ausems : 5.30 p.m. on flight TK134 from Istanbul; Mr Schade: 6.35 p.m. flight TK1606 from Frankfurt

9.00 p.m.       Dinner hosted by Ismail Cem, Minister of Foreign Affairs

      [Place: Residence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sehit Ersan Cad. No. 7]

Monday 7 September

2.15 a.m.       Arrival of Mr Bársony on flight LH 3502, transfer to Hotel Sheraton;

8.30 a.m.       Deputy Ambassador of Greece (Michael Christides), Ambassadors

      of Hungary (György Kery) and Austria (Ralf Scheide) and EU

      (Sören Södergaard) and UNHCR Representative (Lina Sultani)

      [Working breakfast, Hotel Sheraton]

9.30 a.m.       Departure from the hotel

[9.45 a.m.       Ankara closed prison, contacts with former DEP parliamentarians

      Hatip Dicle, Ohran Dogan, Selim Sadak and Leyla Zana – cancelled]

11.00 a.m.       Parliamentary spokespersons of opposition parties

      [Place: meeting room of Foreign Relations and Protocol Department]

12.00 p.m.       Working lunch at Parliament with Parliamentary spokespersons of government parties [Place: National Assembly Guest Lounge]

1.00 p.m.       State Minister Hikmet Sami Türk,

2.00 p.m.       Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Hikmet Çetin

3.00 p.m.       Interior Minister Kutlu Aktaş

4.00 p.m.        Departure for the airport

5.10 p.m.       Flight to Diyarbakir TK 640

6.30 p.m.       Arrival in Diyarbakir and transfer to Kervansaray Hotel10

8 p.m.       Working dinner with Furio de Angelis, UNHCR Head of Legal Unit, and        Erdogan Kalkan, UNHCR Field Assistant in Silopi

Tuesday 8 September

9.15 a.m       Governor of State of Emergency Administration Aydin Arslan

10.15 a.m.       Head of Diyarbakir Bar Association Hüseyin Tayfun and other members

12.30 p.m.       Working lunch with Mayor of Diyarbakir Ahmet Bilgin

2.00 p.m.       Deputy Head of HADEP party in Diyarbakir Selim Kurbanoglu

3.00 p.m.       Mehmet Vural and Sezgin Tanrikulu of the Human Rights Foundation and the President of Mazlum-Der Yilmaz Ensaroglu

4.00 p.m.       Head of Security of Diyarbakir Gaffar Okkan

5.00 p.m.       Returnee center/village near Diyarkbakir, “Besyüz Evler”

7.30 p.m.       Departure for Istanbul TK 641

9.25 p.m.       Arrival in Istanbul and check-in at the Hilton Hotel11

Wednesday 9 September

9.00 a.m.       Departure from the hotel

9.30 a.m.       Istanbul Director of Security Hasan Özdemir

10.00 a.m.       Istanbul Police Security Headquarters (Aksaray)

11.30 a.m.       Mayor of Istanbul Recep Tayyip Erdogan

13.00 p.m.       Head of the Turkish Journalist Association Nail Güreli

2.00 p.m.       Departure for the airport

APPENDIX III

COMMITTEE ON THE HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS

BY MEMBER STATES

Chairman: Mr Guido De Marco

TURKEY

Rapporteurs: Mr András Bársony (Hungary, SOC) & Mr Walter Schwimmer (Austra, EPP/CD)

Programme for the visit to Ankara and Istanbul

Sunday 23 to Wednesday 26 November 1997

Sunday 23 November       arrival in Ankara & check-in at Hotel Sheraton       tel: 90 312 468 5454

20 h 30       dinner hosted by Mr Cevdet Akçali, Member of the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation

Monday 24 November

08 h 30       working breakfast with German Ambassador Hans-Joachim Vergau 5

11 h 30       arrival of Mr Bársony and Mr Schwimmer in Ankara 6

13 h 00       working lunch

14 h 30       State Minister for European Affairs Sükrü Sinä Gürel

15 h 00       Interior Minister Mr Murat Basesgioglu

16 h 00       Ankara Closed Prison, contacts with former DEP parliamentarians MM Hatip Dicle, Ohran Dogan, Selim Sadak and Ms Leyla Zana

17 h 30       Justice Minister Mr Oltan Sungurlu

20 h 00       working dinner hosted by the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation

Tuesday 25 November

07 h 15       working breakfast

08 h 15       leave for airport

09 h 30       flight to Istanbul

11 h 30       check-in at Hilton Hotel      

13 h 00       working lunch

14 h 30       Briefing by diplomatic community in Istanbul

16 h 00       Istanbul Director of Security, Mr Hasan Özdemir

18 h 00       Mayor of Istanbul Mr Tayyip Erdogan

20 h 00       working dinner hosted by the Political, Economic & Social Foundation (SISAV)

Wednesday 26 November

9 h 30       Governor of Istanbul Kutlu Aktas

11 h 00       Mr Öztürk, Editor of Hürriyet, and Mr Civaoglu, columnist for Milliyet

12 h 00       Mr Hasan Cemal, Columnist for Sabah

13 h 30       leave for airport

APPENDIX IV

Comments of the Turkish authorities on the

draft information report on Turkey

_________

Letter from the Chairman of the Turkish Delegation

to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Ankara, 21 December 1998

Dear Mr Chairman,

Yours sincerely,

Cevdet AKÇALI

The Chairman of the Committee on the

Honouring of Obligations and Commitments

by Member States

Council of Europe

Strasbourg

France

Opinion

of the Turkish authorities

on the draft information report

on Turkey

by the "Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe"

Rapporteurs: Mr András Bársony (Hungary, SOC) and

Acknowledgement

Foreword

Introduction

Main issues

Comments of the Motherland Party concerning the draft information report dated 15 September 1998

Comments of the True Path Party concerning the draft information report dated 15 Sepember 1998

Conclusion

1.       Those citizens do not have such a demand.

2.       With whom and on the grounds of which titles such a dialogue would be established? Is it possible for a state to initiate a dialogue with a terrorist who is the murderer of
30 000 people?

3.       How, with the European Union, the economic development in the southeast would be fostered? Does the European Union want to realise that in spite of its isolating position towards Turkey? The economic development of this region in which Turkey has made and continues to make the greatest investments, is not neglected deliberately. Therefore, this does not need to be mentioned as a wish.

Comments of the Republican People's Party

concerning the draft information report dated 15 September 1998

Comments of the Nationalist Movement Party

concerning the draft information report dated 15 September 1998

Foreword

Article 3:

Secularism: The rapporteurs' criticism on this issue is superficial and prejudiced.

B.       Main issues

Article 14:

Article 15:

Article 21:

Article 22:

Article 23:

Paragraph 24:

Paragraph 26:

vi.       Respect for the rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin

Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33:

Conclusion

Comments of the Virtue Party (main opposition) concerning the draft information report dated 15 September 1998

General assessments

1.       According to our constitution, the Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular state governed by the rule of law. Democracy is undoubtedly the desire of the political parties as well as the entire people. It is a fact that Turkish democracy, in comparison to contemporary democracies, has some deficiencies and shortcomings. In this context, our democracy has many deficiencies when compared to the democracies of the countries which we are trying to accomplish the same level of standard. On the other hand, it is also another fact that our democracy is much more advanced when compared to the Middle East and other Muslim countries.

2.       Turkey is one of the oldest members of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The basic founding philosophy of the Council of Europe is to secure the democracy, pluralism, human rights and freedoms, and the rule of law in the member states and to see that these are realised in acceptable standards. Turkey, due to her respect towards her own people, has upheld the principles of the Council of Europe and has actively contributed along with these principles.

3.       In recent political history it has been witnessed that Turkish democracy had been damaged by anti-democratic interventions due to some reasons. As a result of these interventions political party leaders had been judged, some democratic rights and freedoms in the country had been temporarily banned. These anti-democratic periods had given an opportunity to criticise Turkey harshly because of anti-democratic incidences that took place during these interim periods.

4.       We must admit that Turkey has to apply universally accepted principles of the democracy and human rights conventions since these principles were approved by the Turkish constitution and laws, and the Turkish people deserve them. It is impossible for Turkey, which has narrow democracy and where human rights were damaged and argued in her territory, to be in the same league with other democratic countries. Turkey with her current level of democracy, therefore, cannot be together with democratic countries in international organisations. This conflicting situation would, henceforth given an opportunity to European powers to be unfair toward Turkey since they have already had several historical prejudices against our country.

5.       To pretend as if nothing has happened in Turkey in regards to the violation of human rights and narrowing the limits of democracy would only help these organisations to prepare several reports against Turkey. Those who do not see the incidences that have been occurring especially in the past one-and-a-half years and that are in conflict with democracy, human rights and rule of laws are responsible for the preparation of several reports by the international organisations against Turkey.

Attitude of the rapporteurs

1.       The Rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe visited Turkey between the dates indicated in the report and had made several contacts. In this period, many important political developments took place in Turkey. For instance, the Welfare Party was outlawed, some mayors were arrested, and as a result of several terrorist attacks many soldiers and policeman died. At the same time we experienced many headscarf problems in Turkish universities.

2.       When the persons and institutions that the delegation have contacted and the subject matters that were emphasised in their report are considered, it can easily be understood that the report is partly prejudiced and written without sufficient perception of the realities in Turkey.

3.       Especially, the part regarding our problem in the southeast Anatolia and terrorism is far away from being realistic and written in a prejudiced way.

Our comments with regard to various points in the report

1.       We agree with the view that in our country bureaucracy, especially the military, police forces, public prosecution, senior civil servants hold an untouchable position with regard to their powers and influence.

2.       The points expressed in paragraph 11 proves how the rapporteurs are far away from the realities of Turkey. Although in the Prime Ministry Declaration dated 3 December 1997, it has been declared that "Human rights have become a government policy", just the opposite were done in practice. In this period, existing fundamental rights and freedoms were restricted by regulations and decrees. When we look at the practices of High Co-ordinating Committee for Human Rights, it is obvious that the committee did not function as the protector of human rights and freedoms. On the contrary this committee took an adverse position towards the violation of human rights and freedoms. This period is a period in which people were labelled and registered; bureaucrats were discriminated against according to their background; civil servants were treated according to high schools that graduated from. In this period, people were removed from their offices because of their wives and daughters' dresses. Also, there has been widespread application of discrimination in the universities, students with headscarves and beards going into universities. The university students were punished because of their dresses, hairs or beards. These incidences received great coverage both in domestic and foreign media, the rapporteurs have shown that they are not familiar with these realities.

3.       It is also apparent from paragraph 12 that the rapporteurs are not aware of the matters explained in the paragraph. They state that laws concerning human rights and freedoms have not yet been discussed " ... because of the lack of strength of the ruling coalition". This is totally unrealistic. The current coalition intentionally prevented the discussion of these proposals at the Assembly. These proposals, adopted by the committees with the support of the opposition parties and submitted to the assembly, were prevented by the government itself despite the insistence of the opposition.

4.       In paragraph 14, the rapporteurs, while stating their views on Turkish criminal law, confused the "political offenders" and "terrorism and narcotic offenders". Neither terrorism nor narcotics has nothing to do with political offences. The rapporteurs overlooked the level of terrorism and drug trafficking that reached in Turkey.

5.       The "village guard" system mentioned in paragraph 19 of the report has become a highly debatable matter and it cannot achieve its objectives that have been declared when this system was initially implemented. Therefore, w believe that this system should be abolished gradually.

6.       We share the considerations concerning the "state security courts" stated in paragraph 20 of the report. State security courts have enlarged their authority areas with the aim of excluding the ordinary courts and have harmed the independence of law. The imprisonment of the mayors of Istanbul and Kayseri and the confinement of the mayor of Ankara by the sate security court whose authority area has been defined by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and several other sensational imprisonment's resulted in decision of non-prosecution are examples. Moreover, the prosecutions of the previous prime-minister and many parliamentarians with death penalty, have been weakening confidence in the courts.

7.       We agree on the part concerning the crime of thought in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report. Today, many politicians, mayors, journalists and authors have been prosecuted and imprisoned because of the paragraph 312 of the Turkish Penal Code and paragraph 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Despite the fact that, there exist some draft amendments concerning these paragraphs, their entrance into force has been delayed deliberately by the government.

8.       In paragraph 25 of the report, it has been stated that the rapporteurs had been prevented from meeting the former DEP parliamentarians. The officials who did not allow them to see deputies should have known that such an act would be used against Turkey in abroad the officials must have prepared all necessary conditions for the meeting of the rapporteurs with DEP deputies.

9.       We share the views mentioned in paragraph 27 of the report relating to our constitution. The improvement of individual freedoms in our constitution in line with the European Convention on Human Rights is the desire of our people as well as all the political parties.

10.       We agree on the considerations of the rapporteurs indicated in paragraph 28 concerning the National Security Council, demilitarisation and the power of the civilian authority.

11.       We agree on the rapporteurs' concerns stated in paragraph 29. When we take into consideration the number of political parties banned in Turkey in the last fifteen years, we see that a bad and negative image abroad has emerged for Turkey. Moreover, it is a fact that banning political parties has become easier than banning associations as a result of the amendment of the Constitution in 1995 and the abolition of certain paragraphs of the Political Parties' Act by the Constitutional Court in the last year. This shows a threat to the Turkish political system since all the political parties have become vulnerable.

12.       The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, mentioned in paragraph 30 of the report, consists of independent lawyers and do assist the member states in transforming their constitutions in accordance with the Council of Europe's standards. Taking into consideration the fact that the opinions of this Commission are completely recommendatory and the authority belongs to the Turkish Grand National Assembly, we suggest that the views of this Commission could be taken into consideration.

13.       "The Kurdish minority" approach stated in paragraphs 31 and 32 is not correct. In accordance with the Lausanne Treaty minorities and minority status is explicitly drawn up. There is no Kurdish minority in Turkey. But instead we have citizens with different ethnic origins who lived for hundreds of years on the same land enjoying equal rights according to our constitution. However, democratic rights of all citizens should be enlarged.

14.       There is no remark with regard to the PKK's being a separatist terrorist organisation and having international links. It is not possible and definitely incorrect to show this terrorist organisation which is responsible for the massacre of nearly 30 000 citizens in southeast Anatolia as the representative of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.

Conclusion

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States.

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) of 27 January 1997.

Information report approved by the committee on 12 January 1999.

Members of the committee: Mr Sole Tura (Vice-Chair), Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout (Vice-Chair), MM. Glotov (Vice-Chair), Akselsen, Atkinson, Averchev, Mrs Aytaman, MM. Bársony, Bindig, Brunetti, Christodoulides, Columberg, Dagys, Davis, Dinçer, Domljan, Dumitrescu, Mrs Durrieu, MM. Eltz, Fico, Figel, Mrs Fleetwood, MM. Frunda, Gjellerod, Gross, Gusenbauer, Hagċrd, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Jurgens, Mrs Kautto, MM. Kelam, Kiratlioglu, Kostytsky, Koulouris, Kuzmickas, Leoni, Magnusson, Marmazov, Martelli, Marten, Melcak, Mota Amaral, Mozetic, Muehlemann, Pahor, Mrs Poptodorova, Mr  Ramirez Pery, Mrs Ringstad, Lord Russell-Johnston, MM. Sceberras Trigona, Schwimmer, Mrs Severinsen, MM. Shishlov, Sinka, Smorawinski, Steolea, Mrs Stoyanova, MM. Tahiri, Urbain, Valkeniers, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend.

N.B.: The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ausems, Mr Dufour and Mrs Chatzivassiliou

1 This draft report is based on a memorandum circulated following the Rapporteurs' visit to Turkey from 23 to 26 November 1997 (see AS/Mon (1997) 40) which was revised following the Rapporteurs’ follow-up visit from 6 to 9 September 1998.

2 On 15 September 1998, Turkey had signed 31 conventions and ratified 75.

3 See documents AS/Jur (1997) 5 and 20 and the reply thereto by the then Chairman of the Turkish Parliamentary Delegation (and current Minister for Foreign Affairs), Mr Ismail Cem, document AS/Jur (1997) 22.

4 Akdivar, 16 September 1996 and Mentes, 28 November 1997.

5 Ergi, 28 July 1998.

6 Hatip Dicle, Ohran Dogan, Selim Sadak and Leyla Zana.

7 See the Migone report, March 1998, AR63, CC(98)3, following the visit to Ankara and Diyarbakir in February 1998.

8 The NSC is composed of the President of Turkey, the Prime Minister, the Ministers of Defence, Interior, Foreign Affairs, the Joint Chief of Armed Forces and the four Commanders of the Armed Forces.

9 Contact in Turkey: Ms Elif Eren, Foreign Relations and Protocol Department, Turkish Parliament

Tel: 90 312 420 5149, Fax: 90 312 420 6768

10 Tel: 90 412 228 9606/ Fax: 90 412 223 7731

11 Tel: 90 212 231 4646 / Fax: 90 212 232 0909

5        The breakfast had to be cancelled because of the delayed arrival of the rapporteurs due to fog. The other meetings foreseen with Ministers in the morning were rescheduled as shown.

6        following delay due to fog.