Doc. 9120

13 June 2001


Honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey

Report

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

Co-rapporteurs: Mr András Bársony, Hungary, Socialist Group, and Mr Benno Zierer, Germany, Group of the European People’s Party

Summary

The co-rapporteurs welcome the Turkish National Programme for adoption of the “acquis communautaire”, but point out that the chapters relating to the honouring by Turkey of its obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe, are worded in a cautious way, as good intentions, with long and flexible deadlines for their implementation.

      They recall the Assembly’s request to abolish the death penalty and call on Turkey to sign and ratify Protocol No 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      They regret that the ongoing prison reform has cost so many lives and encourage the Turkish authorities to follow all recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

      Whilst recognising that progress has been made in the honouring of certain aspects of Turkey’s obligations but that other aspects still warrant further action, they suggest that the monitoring procedure in respect of Turkey be pursued.

I. Draft resolution

1. The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 1298 (1996) on Turkey’s respect of commitments to constitutional and legislative reforms, in which it instructed its committees concerned to open the monitoring procedure in respect of Turkey under Order N° 508 (1995), as well as Order N° 545 (1998) on the humanitarian situation of the Kurdish refugees and displaced persons in south-east Turkey and northern Iraq, in which it instructed its Monitoring Committee to study the issue of the Kurdish minority in the framework of the monitoring procedure concerning Turkey.

2. The Assembly is aware of the importance of Turkey – one of the oldest member states of the Council of Europe – for the Organisation, because of Turkey’s choice for Europe, its contribution to Europe’s social and cultural heritage and basic values, as well as the geo-political significance of Turkey.

3. The Assembly is pleased with the increased mutual understanding of each other’s concerns: in the other Council of Europe member states comprehension of the difficulties met by Turkey in its efforts to solve the conflict in south-east Turkey and, in Turkey, understanding of the criticism from other member states on Turkey’s human rights record.

4. The Assembly commends the Turkish authorities on the establishment – notwithstanding an economic crisis without precedent - of the National Programme for the adoption of the “acquis communautaire”, approved in March 2001 by the Turkish government in the framework of the accession process to the European Union and out of which Chapters 1.1 “Introduction” and 1.2 “Political Criteria” have been presented by the Government as a programme for honouring the obligations and commitments of Turkey as a member state of the Council of Europe.

5. The Assembly recognises that Turkey is a functioning democracy with a multiparty system, free elections and an active and independent legislature, based on a Constitution approved by referendum in 1982.

6. However, the Assembly recalls also that this Constitution was drafted when Turkey was under military rule and that it is partly based on principles which stem from the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, and which are no longer in line with present-day criteria in force in the Council of Europe.

7. The Assembly welcomes therefore the amendments which have since been made to the Constitution, in particular regarding the replacement of the military judge in the Turkish State Security Courts. It also notes with satisfaction that in the National Programme the review of the Constitution will have priority and trusts that the amendments will include the changes which the Assembly suggests in paragraph 16 of this resolution.

8. As for the rule of law, the Assembly welcomes the measures taken by the Turkish authorities to improve the conditions in police custody, to eradicate torture and ill-treatment and to identify and efficiently sanction those who have committed such acts.

9. In particular, the Assembly commends the Turkish authorities on their recent decision to authorise publication of the reports drawn up by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) after its visits to Turkey in 1999, 2000 and in January 2001.

10. The Assembly welcomes also the adoption of laws amending the Criminal Code, the Law on penal procedures against civil servants and the Law on the fight against organised crime, and encourages the authorities concerned to accelerate work on the new Code of criminal procedure, the new Penal Code, amendments on the Civil Code, the Bill on the creation of the Institute of Ombudsman and the Bill on local authorities.

11. The Assembly notes with satisfaction that the Turkish authorities have accepted the need to reform their penitentiary institutions and that Article 16 of the Anti-Terror Law has been amended to allow prisoners to take part in communal activities.

12. Turkey is to be commended on progress made in creating awareness of the need for respect of human rights and individual freedoms, as well as on the measures taken by the Turkish authorities to improve or complement legislation in this field.

13. Above all, the Assembly welcomes the return of peace in south-east Turkey, the cease-fire announced by the PKK and the reduction of action by the Turkish armed forces to some occasional security operations; it also notes that the Turkish authorities have embarked on a relief programme for people who have left their homes and returnees and that they are determined to develop the economy in the region.

14. The Assembly acknowledges the increased freedom of association in Turkey, which enables a growing number of associations, foundations and trade unions to state their opinions and views and thus to influence the public opinion. However, there are concerns that human rights defenders and human rights organisations are still under pressure.

15. The Assembly welcomes the extension of the freedom of expression following enactment of the Law on postponement of sentences and trials in respect of crimes committed through press and broadcast, and the ongoing amendment of the Penal Code, including the debate on modifying Article 312 which provides for sentences of up to three years and exclusion for life from public functions for incitement to hatred on grounds of race or religion.

16. However, the Assembly is concerned about a number of obligations where progress made cannot yet be considered to be substantial and the honouring of which requires further action by the Turkish authorities in charge:

      a. the Assembly trusts that the revision of the Constitution announced in the National Programme will lead also to the establishment of a certain parliamentary control over the Turkish National Security Council, revision and completion of the system of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, abolition of the death penalty, confirmation of the pre-eminence of law and reinforcement of the judiciary’s control over all administrative acts;

      b. whilst recognising fully the independence of Turkey in constitutional matters, its experience and its expertise, the Assembly recommends nevertheless that in any amendment of the Turkish Constitution account be taken of the rich experience of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“the Venice Commission”) in constitutional revisions;

      c. the Assembly recommends that the Turkish authorities ensure that the relevant Constitutional provisions and other legal rules cannot be interpreted in a way which prevents political parties from carrying out their normal functions and elected representatives from expressing freely their political opinions;

      d. pending a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mrs Leyla Zana and others, the legal possibilities should be examined or, if necessary, be created to revise the prosecution procedures and subsequent sentences in respect of the former DEP parliamentarians imprisoned since;

      e. the Assembly encourages the Turkish authorities to ensure implementation of the measures taken to improve the conditions in police custody, to eradicate torture and ill-treatment and to identify and efficiently sanction those who have committed such acts; they should also continue their co-operation with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT);

      f. in respect of the prison reform converting a large dormitory system to living units for 1 to 3 prisoners, the Assembly regrets that hunger strikes have caused to date the loss of 23 lives and urges the fasting prisoners and the Turkish authorities to end this human drama. The Turkish government should follow the advice of the Anti-Torture Committee and take immediately the necessary measures to ensure that in particular prisoners in the F-type prisons spend a reasonable part of the day engaged in a programme of communal activities outside their living units;

      g. as for the right to life, the Assembly encourages Turkish society to continue and conclude the ongoing debate: no death sentences must be executed; the death penalty must be abolished de jure and Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights must be signed and ratified;

17. The Assembly is aware that most of its concerns, expressed in paragraph 16 above, have been taken into account by the drafters of Chapters 1.1 and 1.2 of the National Programme for adoption of the “acquis communautaire”. It realises also that these chapters, ambitious and far-reaching as they may seem, reflect a delicate compromise between the ruling political forces in Turkey and are therefore worded in a cautious way, as good intentions, with long and flexible deadlines for their implementation.

18. In conclusion, the Assembly welcomes the progress Turkey has made in the honouring of its obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe since the start of the monitoring procedure and in particular the open and sincere dialogue that has developed on still outstanding issues. The Assembly encourages therefore the Turkish authorities to implement the National Programme and to continue taking the legislative and administrative measures necessary to comply with the outstanding obligations listed in paragraph 16 above.

19. Whilst thus recognising that progress has been made in the honouring of certain aspects of Turkey’s obligations but that other aspects still warrant further action, the Assembly resolves to pursue, in close co-operation with the Turkish delegation, the monitoring procedure in respect of Turkey, with a view to advise and assist the Turkish authorities concerned in their policy towards complying with Turkey’s obligations as a member state and to assess further progress until the Assembly decides to close the monitoring procedure.

II.        Draft recommendation

1.       The Assembly refers to its Resolution …. (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey as a member state of the Council of Europe, in which it:

i.       commends the Turkish authorities on the establishment – notwithstanding an economic crisis without precedent - of the National Programme for the adoption of the “acquis communautaire”, approved in March 2001 by the Turkish government in the framework of the accession process to the European Union and out of which Chapters 1.1 “Introduction” and 1.2 “Political Criteria” have been presented by the Government as a programme for honouring the obligations and commitments of Turkey as a member state of the Council of Europe;

ii.       welcomes progress made by the Turkish authorities since the start of the monitoring procedure as regards:

iii.       expresses concern about a number of obligations where progress made cannot yet be considered to be substantial and the honouring of which requires further action by the Turkish authorities, in particular concerning :

f. the abolition of the death penalty and the signature and ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights;

g. the full enjoyment of the freedom of association in respect of organisations and in particular organisations working legally for the protection of human rights in south-east Turkey, and access of human rights organisations to prisoners;

h. the modification of Article 312 of the Penal Code and the revision of Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which in its present unclear wording opens the door to arbitrary action by the state against individuals for “crimes of thought”;

i. the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loizidou case;

iv.       acknowledges that most of the concerns expressed in paragraph iii. above, have been taken into account by the drafters of Chapters 1.1 and 1.2 of the National Programme, but that these chapters reflect a delicate compromise between the ruling political forces in Turkey and are therefore worded in a cautious way, as good intentions, with long and flexible deadlines for their implementation;

v.       resolves to pursue, in close co-operation with the Turkish delegation, the monitoring procedure with a view to advise and assist the Turkish authorities concerned in their policy towards complying with Turkey’s obligations as a member state and to assess further progress until the Assembly decides to close the monitoring procedure.

2.       The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers

i.       following its Interim Resolutions DH (99) 680 and (2000) 105, pursue its action under Article 54 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to ensure compliance by Turkey with the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou against Turkey;

ii.       step up the assistance of the Council of Europe in respect of Turkey, by:

III.       Explanatory memorandum by the co-rapporteurs

CONTENTS

A.       INTRODUCTION        10

B.       PRIORITY ISSUES       13

C.        NEW DEVELOPMENTS       22

D.       RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF TURKISH CITIZENS OF KURDISH

E.       CONCLUDING REMARKS       32

APPENDICES

I.       Parliamentary Assembly documents and adopted texts on Turkey       35

II.       Programme Fact-finding visit to Turkey 26 - 30 March 2000       37

III        Programme Fact-finding visit 23 – 26 May 2001       39

IV. Turkish National Programme for the adoption of the “acquis communautaire”       40

V.       Treaties of the Council of Europe signed but not ratified by Turkey and

Council of Europe Treaties ratified by Turkey       48

VI. Co-operation programme to strengthen the Rule of Law 2001: Turkey       60

A.       INTRODUCTION

1. The report hereafter covers the fact-finding visit to Turkey which the co-rapporteurs MM Bársony and Zierer made on 26 - 30 March 2000. It was revised in the light of the comments made by the Turkish delegation [AS/Mon (2000) 40] and updated after the fact-finding visit on 23 – 26 May 2001.

2. The co-rapporteurs have drafted their report in the spirit of the impressions which the then co-rapporteurs MM Bársony and Schwimmer described in the information report which they drew up after their visit in September 1998 (Doc. 8300) and which was debated in the plenary in January 1999.

3. In the 1999 report, the then co-rapporteurs concluded that Turkey was a functioning democracy, with a multiparty system, free elections and an active and independent legislature; this democracy is based on a Constitution influenced by certain principles of Kemalism and approved by referendum in 1982 under military rule.

4. The 1999 report also indicated that Turkey differs from other member states to the extent that certain circles are still attached to traditions and privileges stemming from the creation of the modern Republic in 1923. As examples were quoted the influence of the military and police and the extensive powers of the public prosecution.

5. As a second characteristic of Turkey, the co-rapporteurs referred in 1999 to the pride of the Turkish nation and the ensuing strong nationalistic and patriotic feelings, which resulted in a certain priority being given to sovereignty and integrity of the state Turkey - over the unconditional respect of individual rights and freedoms.

6. In the course of their visit in March 2000 the co-rapporteurs have found that this mentality is evolving. They believe that several factors have contributed to this evolution which they welcome.

7. First and foremost, the co-rapporteurs found much understanding in the then new Turkish parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, chaired by Mr Uluç Gürkan. Apart from the traditional Turkish hospitality and friendship during their visit in March 2000, the co-rapporteurs have much appreciated the frank and open dialogue which they have enjoyed on many delicate subjects.

8. In March 2000, the co-rapporteurs had a strong impression that the arrest and trial of the PKK leader Öcalan, the subsequent cease-fire announced (and largely respected) by the PKK and the withdrawal of their armed groups from South-eastern Turkey have had important psychological effects. Even if this cease-fire was fragile, if the state of emergency had not been lifted in the region and the Turkish armed forces were still present and operational, there was - apart from some occasional security operations in the area - no longer an armed conflict raging on Turkish territory with all its dramatic consequences. There seemed to be a feeling of relief and satisfaction that after 15 years of armed action the state authority had prevailed, that bloodshed and destruction had come to an end and that at long last, the attention could again be focussed on social and economic issues of the whole country.

9. It must be pointed out that the Turkish authorities refer to the PKK as “terrorist organisation”, to PKK members as “terrorists” and to PKK’s acts of violence as “terror acts”. They argue that these qualifications are justified by, in particular, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Zana v. Turkey (69/1996/688/880).

10. The co-rapporteurs are aware that in November 1997 in the Zana case the Court in its deliberations (§57 and 581) has indeed referred to the PKK as a terrorist organisation. In subsequent judgements (eg Inçal, 9 November 1998; Surek and Ozdemir, 8 July 1999 and Gerger, 8 July 1999), the Court does, however, not use such qualifications any more but refers to the PKK as an “illegal organisation”. In the absence of any official position taken on this subject by the Parliamentary Assembly, the co-rapporteurs will in the report hereafter follow the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

11. The spontaneous solidarity shown by the international community with the Turkish population hit by earthquakes in January 2000, may also account for a better understanding in Turkey of criticism voiced elsewhere in Europe; indeed, after having undergone for many years reproaches in the European public opinion that in Turkey human rights were being violated and that civilians were suffering from armed action, the Turks have realised that notwithstanding this criticism the other Europeans care for Turkey, especially in times of misery.

12. In this light, the nearly emotional strengthening of relations between Turkey and Greece, can be considered symptomatic. After decades of mutual mistrust and suspicion, both governments and in particular their foreign affairs ministers came to a kind of intimacy which had never been witnessed before; in March 2000 this intensification of relations had already led to the conclusion of nine agreements.

13. Last but not least, the decision of the Helsinki summit in December 2000 which finally recognised Turkey's legitimate expectation to become a candidate for European Union membership, is certainly considered as one of the most important steps forward in Turkey.

14. Indeed, with its option to adhere to the Union, Turkey has definitely chosen for its roots in Europe. This decision is of exceptional importance in the present geo-political context - and not only for Turkey.

15. But even at domestic level, the option has started to cause a profound change in mentality: the Turks are understanding that membership of the EU will not be free and that Turkey will have to render to the Union a great deal of its independence and sovereignty. They are ready to do so because they realise that admission to the EU is in the interest of Turkey as a state and it is a recognition of the fact that Europe is not complete without Turkey.

16. The co-rapporteurs are confident that the Council of Europe will benefit from this change of mentality. After all, the EU Copenhagen criteria2 run parallel to the main obligations under the Council of Europe Statute and meeting these criteria implies respecting these obligations.

17. It is this spirit of receptiveness and goodwill that the co-rapporteurs have met in March 2000 in many of their meetings, not only with the parliamentary delegation but also with most members of the government, administration officials and the judiciary. It made them believe - if this evolving mentality would have reached all levels of the Turkish society - that Turkey would soon be in a position to meet fully its obligations as a Council of Europe member state and solve notably the two major problems: the respect of certain human rights and the situation of the Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.

18. However, even in this optimistic view on the future, the co-rapporteurs did not want to conceal that in the immediate future a number of issues regarding the honouring by Turkey of its obligations deserve attention. These issues, which correspond to those identified by the then co-rapporteurs on 18 June 1997 [AS/Mon (1997) 16], and accepted by the Turkish parliamentary delegation, are set out hereafter.

ii.       Fact-finding visit of 23 – 26 May 2001

19. In May 2001, the co-rapporteurs found the same spirit of determination of the Turkish authorities to comply with the criteria for membership of the European Union and, simultaneously, to honour Turkey’s obligations and commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe. But the conditions were not the same as in March 2000.

20. First and foremost, Turkey was struck by a dramatic economic crisis which had also serious political and social consequences. In order to face rocketing inflation and fulfil the conditions for the indispensable international loans, the Turkish government and parliament had to overhaul the economic and financial regulations, including the banking sector. Not only diverted this crisis public attention from Turkey’s international obligations, it also added to the already considerable legislative burden.

21. Secondly, following approval by the European Union on 8 March 2001 of its Accession Partnership with Turkey, the candidate state was expected to present a programme of action outlining how it intended to prepare for an eventual EU membership. That the Turkish government, in a delicate coalition and already confronted with an economic crisis without precedent, was able to publish, on 19 March 2001, its National Programme for the adoption of the “acquis communautaire”, forces the admiration of the co-rapporteurs. Parts of this Programme have been presented by the Turkish authorities as their action plan to honour Turkey’s obligations and commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe.

iii.       The Turkish National Programme

22. To present their achievements and intentions regarding the honouring of Turkey’s obligations and commitments, the Turkish authorities refer in particular to the introduction to their National Programme and to Chapter 1.2 Political Criteria; these parts appear in Appendix IV to this report.

23. These parts cover practically all items covered in the co-rapporteurs’ report and constitute indeed a full list of outstanding obligations and commitments. The requirement of consensus within the ruling coalition in Turkey has forced the authors to draft a text acceptable to all; consequently the undertakings of the government are presented as intentions (“the Turkish Government plans to ..”), whilst the time limits set for implementation of these plans are not precise (“in the short term, in the medium term”).

24. The co-rapporteurs consider nevertheless adoption of this programme as an important step forward: it reflects the determination of the Turkish society to reform and it confirms the general agreement of the political forces to adapt 51 articles of the Turkish Constitution – an idea launched without much success by the co-rapporteurs during preceding visits.

25. In his explanations on 25 May 2001, Vice Prime Minister Yilmaz said that the Government considered one year as “at short term”; they had identified eight provisions in the Constitution which required priority and their amendment was planned before the end of the month of June 2001 – even if Parliament would have to shorten its summer break.

B.       PRIORITY ISSUES

General

26. One of the most serious problems in Turkey in the field of human rights is the failure of the state – although a longstanding party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – to implement certain provisions, in particular those on freedom of expression and the prohibition of torture. According to statistics produced by the Council of Europe Directorate General of Human Rights, between 1995 and 1999 the European Court found Turkey to have violated the Convention 41 times, whilst a number of cases where the Commission had found violation are still pending before the Court. Moreover, the Committee of Ministers has adopted 6 Resolutions on violation by Turkey of the Convention and is examining 5 other such cases.

27. A second difficulty in respect of implementation of the Convention lies in the failure of Turkey to follow up certain judgements of the Court3. Reference is made in this respect to the Loizidou case, where the Committee of Ministers execution control covers two judgements of the European Court, one concerning the merits and establishing a continuing violation of the Convention and the other concerning the just satisfaction to accord to the applicant. In respect of execution of the latter judgement, the co-rapporteurs recall that the Committee of Ministers had adopted Interim Resolution DH (2000) 105 in which the Committee of Ministers “declares that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgement of the Court demonstrates a manifest disregard for its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member state of the Council of Europe”. Without wishing to start here a debate on the arguments put forward by Turkey to postpone payment of just satisfaction to the applicant, the co-rapporteurs are concerned that next to the legal issues at stake, non-execution of judgements of the Court endangers the whole Convention system and as such, has become a political issue of the utmost importance. The cases of the Socialist Party, the Unified Communist Party and the Özdep Party are still on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. The co-rapporteurs refer also to Interim Resolution DH (99) 34 in which the Committee of Ministers notes that the principal problems at the origin of a number of cases on violation of human rights by the Security Forces in Turkey have remained, notably in the territory subject to a state of emergency.

28. The co-rapporteurs see a clear relation between the situation in South-eastern Turkey and the different conception in Turkey of priorities in the respect of human rights. Indeed, the most frequent violations of the ECHR concern rights the full respect of which is considered as being sometimes incompatible with, and hence subsidiary to, the interests of the state. Alleged torture occurs mainly during detention of persons suspected of acts of terrorism or separatism4 - which in Turkish legislation cover a wide field. Freedom of expression and the rights of the media seem to be restricted in particular in respect of the Kurdish ethnic group and its aspirations. The co-rapporteurs do not contest that, like all other Turkish citizens, citizens of Kurdish origin enjoy equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and actively participate in Turkey’s political, social and economic life; however, they believe that in the exercise of these rights Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin are more restricted than the other citizens. They believe also that freedom of association is limited in respect of certain political convictions, including those in favour of more respect of the rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin (see paragraphs 132-167 below).

29. The easing of the tension in South-eastern Turkey has therefore led to less prosecutions of suspected PKK supporters and sympathisers and, consequently, to less violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Moreover, the conditions for Turkey's accession to the European Union have increased awareness of the need to improve the Human Rights record.

30. In September 1998, the co-rapporteurs were impressed by the activity of the High Coordinating Committee for Human Rights which had then met 52 times, to propose new laws or amendments to existing legislation, promote de-regularisation and improve training and education. At that time, they regretted, however, that Parliament had not yet started to discuss these proposals, mainly because of the lack of strength of the then ruling coalition.

31. In May 2001, the co-rapporteurs were pleased to note that legislation had been enacted on the establishment of a new Human Rights Directorate at the Office of the Prime Minister, to co-ordinate action of the executive; NGO’s working in the field of Human Rights would be represented in a consultative council.

32. In their comments of 23 October 2000, the Turkish authorities informed the co-rapporteurs that a draft law on the creation of an institution of “Public Inspector” or “Ombudsman”, consistent with universal standards and compatible with conditions prevalent in Turkey was almost finalised and would soon be forwarded to the Parliament. The mandate of this institution would be to protect and uphold the rights of individuals against infractions by official bodies. In his address to the Standing Committee on 23 May 2001, the Minister of Justice said that a draft law on the establishment of public auditing institutions, intended to be consistent with universal standards of ombudsman and compatible with conditions prevalent in Turkey, had been presented to Parliament.

33. Furthermore, in March 2000 the co-rapporteurs welcomed the establishment of a National Committee for the United Nations’ “Decade of Human Rights Education”. This Committee was created in accordance with a regulation issued in June 1998, with a view to reorganising and developing human rights education. The committee has prepared a national programme which has been made public in July 1999. In May 2001, the co-rapporteurs noted that according to the National Programme (Chapters 1.2.6 and 1.2.7), the government planned to put into action a Human Rights Education Project of the Ministry of the Interior and seek further opportunities for the education and training of Turkish judges and prosecutors.

34. Finally, the co-rapporteurs welcome Turkey’s signature, on 18 April 2001, of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that no-one can be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground. They trust that ratification and implementation of this Protocol will follow shortly.

35. These developments make the co-rapporteurs hopeful for the evolution of Turkey as a member state of the Council of Europe. If more understanding can be found in Turkey for the requirements of the international community in respect of the situation in South-eastern Turkey, such change of mentality will automatically result also in more respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

36. Already, important progress has been made in the required legislative improvements, as will be shown in paragraphs 95-107 hereafter. This legislation will be more strictly implemented once the awareness will have grown that full respect of the individual freedoms, on the conditions defined by the Council of Europe, does not forcibly put at risk the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Turkey.

Death penalty

37. Although no death penalty has been executed since 1984, Turkey has still not signed Protocol N°6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty. In their comments of 23 October 2000, the Turkish authorities explained that political party groups in Parliament have started an initiative to abolish death penalty and replace it with aggravated life imprisonment. The issue was expected to be included in the agenda of the Parliament in due course. In March 2000, the new Penal Code which was being drafted by the Ministry of Justice also excluded the death penalty.

38.       The National Programme of March 2001 (Chapter 1.2.8) confirms that “the abolition of the death penalty in Turkish criminal law, its form and its scope will be considered by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in the medium term”. Whatever the results of these initiatives, the co-rapporteurs wish to recall Turkey’s obligation to sign and ratify Protocol n°6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning abolition of death penalty.

39.       In respect of the death sentence of Mr Öcalan, the co-rapporteurs refer to the reports presented in June 19995 and September 19996 by the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to ensure the presence of the Assembly at the trial of Abdullah Öcalan.

40.       The co-rapporteurs recall that on 30 November 1999 the European Court of Human Rights had asked Turkey to defer the execution of Abdullah Öcalan in order to enable the Court to proceed effectively with the examination of the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention. They welcome the decision which the Turkish government has taken in January 2000 that the file concerning Abdullah Öcalan would be transmitted to the Parliament upon completion of the process consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Turkey’s international obligations.

41.       They express their hope that this decision is another step towards abolition of the death penalty.

Freedom of association

42.       The co-rapporteurs wish to stress the importance of the role of NGO’s which are finding there place in society and participate more and more actively in Turkish political life, even if they are not systematically consulted by the authorities. In general, within the limits of the Constitution, foundations, associations and even trade unions are stating their opinions and views and thus influence the public opinion. Some Turkish authorities reproach certain NGO’s to pursue political objectives rather than providing service to the public.

43.       A circular concerning the freedom of association of civil servants was issued by the Prime Minister in August 1999. This circular stipulates that until the necessary legislation is adopted, public authorities should allow civil servants to join unions and confederations and facilitate their activities in this regard. The co-rapporteurs wish to encourage the Turkish authorities to complete this process as soon as possible.

44.       On the other hand, in March 2000 representatives of Human Rights organisations informed the co-rapporteurs that although the atmosphere was getting better, they were still working under judicial and political pressure. Two members of the Board of the Human Rights Association had been arrested in Izmir and the office in Malatya had been closed, whereas the office of Diyarbakir had been closed for three years and had only recently been reopened.

45.       Also in March 2000, the co-rapporteurs were told that in Diyarbakir the telephones of the Human Rights Foundation and the Bar Association (as well as those of 30 lawyers) had been tapped by virtue of the 1999 Law on the fight against organised crime. The Turkish authorities qualified this information as “baseless and hear-say allegations.”

46.       According to AFP in April 2000, the Human Rights Association had complained about prosecution of several medical doctors, members of the Association or working for it, including Dr Veli Lök who had published an article defending two other doctors persecuted for violation of the Law on public meetings, because they had attended the funeral of an inmate killed in a prison mutinery. The Izmir Court was also examining the case of Dr Zeki Uzun, prosecuted – and allegedly tortured – for “assistance to an illegal organisation”; in 1995 and 1996 Dr Uzun had provided medical assistance to two presumed female members of the PKK7.

47.       Because of Article 4 of the Law on associations, Akin Birdal who had been convicted under Article 312 of the Penal Code, was forced to resign not only his leadership of the Turkish Human Rights Association, but also his membership (see paragraph 60 hereafter).

48.       According to the National Programme (Chapter 1.2.2), the Turkish government plans in the short term to enhance constitutional safeguards for non-governmental organisations and the institutions for social and economic democracy.

49.       In May 2001, however, both Human Rights Foundation and Human Rights Association regretted that the National Programme did not contain any more concrete proposals on the exercise of their activities; they complained to the co-rapporteurs that the situation had not changed and that many NGOs, Bar associations and medical organisations were being sued before Turkish courts.

50.       The reports above illustrate the fact that, where in general in Turkey freedom of association seems to be less threatened than over the past years, this right is still not being respected fully, in particular not in the South-eastern region - possibly as a consequence of the prevailing emergency rule.

51.       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).

52.       The co-rapporteurs welcome the Law on postponement of sentences and trials in respect of crimes committed through press and broadcast, enacted in August 1999.

53.       Moreover, Article 13 of the Penal Code follows the European Convention on Human Rights with a specific provision saying that freedom of speech may be restricted as long as this is compatible with European standards.

54.       Article 312 of the Penal Code provides for sentences up to three years and exclusion for life of public functions for incitement to hatred on grounds of race or religion. Former Prime Minister and former leader of the Welfare Party Necmettin Erbakan was sentenced to one year of prison for a speech he had made six years ago [see also paragraph 72 hereafter]. In their comments of 23 October 2000 the Turkish authorities observed that there was a public debate on Article 312 and that a parliamentary committee was working on its reform.

55.       A number of convictions under Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code have already been found to contravene Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (including Ozturk v. Turkey 22479/93, 28/9/99; Ceylan v. Turkey 00023556/94, 8/7/1999; Incal v. Turkey 00022678/93, 9/6/98).

56.       Another aspect of the freedom of expression was underlined by the European Court on Human Rights on 16 March 2000, when it ruled that Turkey had violated the Convention by failing to take adequate protective and investigative measures to protect the Özgür Gündem newspaper’s freedom of expression (Özgür Gündem v. Turkey 23144/93).

57.       The recent prosecution and imprisonment of some journalists is but another 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, including a former Minister and members of the HADEP Party8, which would seem to indicate that freedom of expression is excessively restricted on matters considered to be sensitive. The co-rapporteurs recommend again that Article 8 in the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be adapted to prevent any interpretation contrary to the Human Rights Convention.

58.       The co-rapporteurs are therefore pleased to note that the National Programme (Chapter 1.2.1) commits the Turkish government, in the short term, “to review Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code, without prejudice to values protected therein, and to review Articles 7 and 8 of the Anti-terrorism Act, with the same understanding”, even if they reserve their final conclusion until they will have seen the revised provisions.

59.       On the other hand, according to the 1998 Human Rights Foundation’s report, the number of people prosecuted for “délit d’opinion” or demonstrations is increasing in Turkey, whilst the number of participants in demonstrations is globally decreasing.

60.       Last but not least, in March 2000, the co-rapporteurs deplored the return to prison of Mr Birdal, former President of the Turkish Human Rights Association, who had been sentenced to nine and a half months in jail for “inciting racial hatred” on the basis of declarations made in 1995 and 1996 calling for “peace and understanding” with the PKK9. Mr Birdal, who had survived an assassination attempt, had been released on health grounds before the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999 and the December EU Summit in Helsinki. Quite understandingly, this decision caused great disappointment and provoked sharp reactions from the European Union and in particular the European Parliament.

61.       The co-rapporteurs therefore welcome the release of Mr Birdal in September 2000.

62.       The co-rapporteurs wish to express their satisfaction for having been able to visit in March 2000 the four former DEP parliamentarians serving a 15-year sentence at the Ankara closed prison10. Convicted under Article 168 of the Criminal Code for "membership of and assistance to separatist gangs", the prisoners claim they are being punished for their political views and that they did not enjoy any parliamentary immunity. Their application to the European Commission on Human Rights was declared admissible in October 1997. During their talks with the co-rapporteurs on 30 March 2000, they affirmed that they receive the same treatment as any other prisoner in the Ankara closed prison, but that like the others they suffer from overcrowding and lack of medical assistance. The Turkish authorities observed that medical care of inmates is carried out in accordance with the relevant regulation of the Ministry of Justice: they are examined and treated by the doctors of penitentiary institutions on a regular basis and those who need further treatment or examination are transferred to state or university hospitals.

63.       The case of these DEP parliamentarians has to be considered in the more global framework of pluralist democracy.

Pluralist democracy

64.       As was concluded in the preceding report, Turkey is no doubt a pluralist democracy; there are five political groups11 represented in the Grand Turkish National Assembly and the present government is formed by a coalition of three12 parties. 34 Political parties are active in Turkish political life.

65.       And yet, the co-rapporteurs share the concern of the outside world that the principle of pluralism is not completely respected in Turkey.

66.       First of all, the prohibition of certain political parties in Turkey (e.g. the Welfare Party Refah in 1998, the DEP in 1994) does not seem to be in accordance with the rights of expression and association as laid down in the European Convention of Human Rights. In its judgement of 25 May 1998 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the dissolution of the Turkish Socialist Party in 1992 constituted a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). In December 1999, the Court reached a similar conclusion in respect of dissolution of the OZDEP-Party. The procedure started by the Prosecutor General for prohibition of the Virtue Party Fazilet, because of its anti-secular activities, may well raise similar problems.

67.       The co-rapporteurs regret that in the turmoil of the election of the President, in May 2000, the proposed amendment to the Law on political parties which would have complicated the prohibition of political parties and which was part of the political package for the re-election of the sitting President, was not passed by Parliament. They welcome the statement in the National Programme (Chapter 1.2.1) that the Turkish government plans to review the Political Parties Act – although only in the medium term.

68.       In respect of prohibition of political parties, the co-rapporteurs wish to refer first of all to the Assembly’s Recommendation 1438 (2000) on the threat posed to democracy by extremist parties and movements in Europe, which lists a number of preventive measures against extremism. Secondly, attention is drawn to the “Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogous measures”, adopted in December 1999 by the Venice Commission.

69.       According to the Venice Commission’s recommendations, measures to prohibit a political party must only be taken in exceptional cases. In particular, a political party cannot be banned for the mere reason that it advocates a change in the constitutional system, without resorting to violence. In addition, a party cannot be held responsible for statements made by its members unless such statements have been endorsed by the party itself. Lastly, a prohibition procedure can only be applied after a judicial procedure which offers all the guarantees of a fair trial.

70.       Parliamentary democracy cannot function without respect of certain prerogatives of the members of Parliament, in particular their freedom of expression. Several elected representatives - although members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly - have been arrested and convicted to prison terms in procedures which are presently the subject of appeals before the European Court of Human Rights. It has to be noted that the rules concerning the foundation, activities and closure of political parties are clearly defined in the Constitution, as well as in the Law on political parties and other relevant laws. Accordingly, political parties can only be banned by the highest judicial authority which is the Constitutional Court, upon request of the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals.

71.       Attention is drawn also to a request from the Turkish Prosecutor General to the Turkish Constitutional Court in May 1999, to suspend membership of the Grand National Assembly in respect of Dr Abdullah Gül, member of the Turkish Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, because of a speech Dr Gül had made on behalf of the Virtue Party Group in the Grand National Assembly. In May 2001, Dr Gül said to expect the Court’s decision to be taken in June 2001.

72.       Finally, the lifelong ban on any political activity pronounced in respect of Mr Necmettin Erbakan, former leader of the closed down Welfare Party, is not in accordance with the pluralist democracy13. Neither is the additional sanction imposed on Mr Akin Birdal, the former leader of the Turkish Human Rights Association sentenced under Article 312 of the Penal Code: under Article 81 of the Law on political parties he may not stand for any political office nor join any political party during his lifetime. A similar sanction struck Hasan Celal Guzel, former Education minister and leader of the Rebirth Party. Recep Tayyip Erdogan was stripped of his status as mayor of Istanbul for reading out a poem.

73.       The above measures taken in respect of political parties or their members are said to be in accordance with Turkish law, which allows for the rights on free expression and association to be waived in case of calls for separatism. But the wide interpretation of such laws in Turkey is not in accordance with the Council of Europe norms and standards.

iv.       Conditions in police custody

74.       A “Regulation on Apprehension, Police Custody and Interrogation” has entered into force on 1st October 1998. It 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. On 13 August 1999, Articles 8, 18 and 21 of this Regulation have been amended to improve the conditions of female suspects and minors as well as access of lawyers to the files on detainees.

75.       Moreover, the Prime Minister has issued a circular on 25 June 1999 which stresses the importance of respect for human rights in a modern democratic society and the necessity of strict compliance with the earlier circulars and the new Regulation.

76.       The co-rapporteurs welcome these initiatives as an important step forward but are not yet convinced that they are systematically implemented in practice. During their visit in March 2000, they were told several times that laws adopted in Ankara were hardly implemented in other regions of the country. Moreover, they also noted that, on many issues, observations and proposals coming from politicians and organisations in the Southeast region were not given sufficient attention by Ankara.

77.       The main problem remains frequent recourse to torture and to inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees, which is still the most damaging criticism of Turkey. In the observations made by the delegations of the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on their visits to Turkey from 27 February to 3 March 1999 and from 14 to 24 July 2000, the delegations reiterate concern about the methods employed in the Anti-terror Department at Istanbul Police Headquarters. The co-rapporteurs welcome the decision of the Turkish authorities to publish the reports by the CPT delegation on its visits in 1999, 2000 and January 2001.

v.       Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

78.       In March 2000, the co-rapporteurs were pleased to see that awareness of the need to improve the fate of detainees continued to grow. They welcomed the statement of the Speaker of the Parliament that it was the Turkish Parliament’s sincere intention to eradicate torture and ill treatment. They noted that in the Criminal Code the provisions related to torture had been reinforced. (see also paragraph 95 hereafter)

79.       In March 2000 the co-rapporteurs were informed that a Unit for Complaints against Torture was being created, which would report to a Human Rights Directorate, attached to the Prime Minister’s Office (see paragraph 31 above).

80.       Since then, this Human Rights Directorate has been authorised to take the necessary measures for the prevention of incidents of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment despite measures already in force.

81.       In August 1999, provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment were amended so as to align the definitions thereof with those in international conventions. Moreover, sanctions were increased in general and criminal penalties were introduced for health services personnel issuing falsified reports on incidents of torture (see also paragraph 88 hereafter).

82.       In December 1999, the Act on prosecution of civil servants and other public employees was amended speeding up the investigation and prosecution of public personnel.

83.       More recently, the National Programme (Chapter 1.2.3) provides that in the medium term the Turkish government plans to introduce legal provisions on the joint and [individual] liability of perpetrators of torture.

84.       It is also noteworthy that in April 2000, a friendly settlement has been achieved in the inter-state complaint against Turkey made in January 1997 before the European Commission of Human Rights by Denmark14. According to a press release of 5 April 2000 by the Court Registrar, Turkey has accepted to pay Denmark an amount ex gratia of DKK 450.000 which includes legal expenses connected with the case.

85.       Notwithstanding these positive developments, concern about ongoing torture and inhuman or degrading treatment seems justified in the light of information supplied in March 2000 by the Diyarbakir Bar Association and non-governmental human rights organisations in Turkey, such as the Human Rights Association, the Human Rights Foundation, Human Rights Institute, who play a very important role in this context.

86.       According to a Human Rights Foundation’s report15, in 1998, 3800 people have said to have been tortured. This increase can only partly be explained by the fact that with the improved complaint procedures people loose their fear for adverse consequences of such complaint.

87.       In May 2001, the General Director of the Human Rights Association said that in 1999 594 individuals had complained to the Association about torture; in 2000 the number of plaintiffs had been the same, although the number of detentions had increased. These cases had occurred either in detention centres, during transfers of convicts to prisons, inside prisons or during actions of the gendarme police in the countryside.

88.       Also in May 2001, the President of the Turkish Medical Association confirmed that the Association did not have the impression that torture was decreasing in Turkey. The Association complained on pressure exercised on its members not to report on suspected cases of torture and on cases where officials convicted of torture had been released prematurely.

89.       One reason for continuing torture might be the importance which in Turkish criminal law is attached to the confession during interrogation, which in itself may be sufficient to convince the judge of guilt of the suspect. The Turkish authorities pointed out that the accused‘s confession taken by the police cannot be read as evidence of his confession during the trial and this confession cannot be considered as evidence against the accused and in no way affects the Court’s decision.

90.       Another difficulty lies in the fear of suspects to report on torture which they have undergone. Although the co-rapporteurs welcome the measures which have been taken to establish formal and safe procedures for such complaints to be investigated objectively, and the number of cases brought to justice, they are still not satisfied about follow-up given to these complaints.

91.       For example, representatives of the Human Rights Foundation in Diyarbakir said that out of the 4752 suspects brought before the State Security Court in 1999, 73 had filed complaints about torture. In the first three months of 2000, 38 suspects had complained.16 According to the Foundation such complaints, had, however, little chance of success. On the one hand, medical doctors were hesitant to certify torture or ill-treatment. On the other hand, the prosecutors or the courts rarely followed up such complaints; the example was given of a case in which 17 detained people had launched complaints on torture supported by medical certificates - none of which had been taken up by the prosecution.

92.       In April 2000, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the authorities had not investigated a complaint by Ms Sevtap Veznedaroglu that she had been tortured.

93.       A second aspect of the complaint procedure is that even where the number of prosecutions of officials suspected of acts of torture or ill-treatment may be increasing (according to Mr Gürkan, in 1999 36 members of the security forces were sent to prison, whilst about 50 members were expelled from the forces), not all perpetrators of such acts are yet systematically and adequately punished.

C.       NEW DEVELOPMENTS

94.       In March 2000, during their meeting with the Minister of Justice who, in September 1998, was in charge of the Human Rights ministry, the co-rapporteurs were impressed by the number of ongoing reforms on very important issues of the Turkish legislation and Constitution in accordance with Council of Europe standards.

Legislation

95.       Laws amending the Criminal Code’s Articles 243, 245, 354 were adopted in August 1999. In Article 243, penalty for torture was increased from 5 to 8 years prison. In Article 245, punishment of ill-treatment was raised from 3 to 5 years. In Article 354, forgery of certificates to hide acts of torture is now punishable up to 8 years (see also paragraph 78 above).

96.       A law on penal procedures against civil servants is in force since February 2000 and facilitates investigations of civil servants suspected of acts such as torture (see paragraph 82 above).

97.       A law on the fight against organised crime, including human traffic, drugs trade and terrorism, was adopted in 1999. However, the Turkish authorities underlined that the fight against organised crime can only be successful if through international co-operation criminals residing abroad can be prosecuted.

98.       In March 2000, it was announced that the Code of Criminal Procedure would be replaced by a new law introducing reform of 74 points in the Turkish judicial system. The draft was sent to ministries, universities and courts. When finalised, it would be presented to the Council of Ministers and the Parliament should examine it within the following months. The draft provided for a new appeal procedure, composed of one central appeal instance and 15 regional appeal instances, which would be inserted in between the courts and the Court of Cassation.

99.       In the National Programme (Chapters 1.2.3 and 1.2.4), the government plans in the medium term to enact the new Code of Criminal Procedure.

100.       In March 2000, work on a new draft of the Penal Code had been taken up again to revise and adapt the previous draft which after the elections was no longer valid. This work should be finished in 7 or 8 months, the resulting draft would be presented for public debate and sent to the Council of Ministers and finally to Parliament for examination.

101.       The National Programme (Chapter 1.2.3) also confirms that the government plans to enact, in the medium term, the new Turkish Criminal Code.

102.       In March 2000, amendments to the Civil Code, inspired by the Swiss Civil Code, had been prepared by the Ministry of Justice and their examination was said to appear on the agenda of Parliament.

103.       On 23 May 2001, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the draft of a new Turkish Civil Code was now on the agenda of the Justice Commission of the Grand National Assembly.

104.       Also in March 2000, a Bill on the creation of the Institute of an Ombudsman had been transmitted to the Council of Ministers. It proposed the election by Parliament of one central ombudsman and between five and eleven assisting ombudsmen, with a 6 years mandate and different portfolios.

105.       On 23 May 2001, the Minister of Justice announced that a draft law on the establishment of public auditing institutions had been presented to Parliament (see also paragraph 32 above).

106.       In March 2000 draft laws on the execution of sentences and on compensation for damages caused by terrorism or by action against terrorism was said to be progressing. The National Programme (Chapter 1.2.1) confirms that in the medium term the Turkish government plans ”to undertake work for reimbursement of payments of reparations from public officials who are found at fault, in the light of decisions taken by the European Court of Human Rights”.

107.       A bill on local authorities has been finalised and will soon be signed for transmission to Parliament; it provides for more autonomy in particular in respect of culture and education and economic development.

Constitution

108.       The co-rapporteurs welcome the changes made in the Turkish Constitution recently, in particular the replacement in State Security Courts of the military judge by a civil judge.

109.       However, as explained in the preceding information report on the honouring by Turkey of its obligations and commitments, the co-rapporteurs are of the opinion that the present Turkish Constitution, approved in 1982 under the military regime, would benefit from a certain adaptation to Council of Europe standards and norms. In March 2000, the co-rapporteurs were pleased to see that this opinion was shared by a number of interlocutors, including the then President (now the President of Turkey) and Vice President of the Turkish Constitutional Court.

110.       The co-rapporteurs attach great importance to the election, on 9 May 2000, of the new President of Turkey, Mr Ahmet Necdet Sezer and they recall that in April 2000 in his previous function as President of the Constitutional Court, Mr Sezer had called for a revision of the Constitution, drafted under military rule after the coup d’état in 1980.

111.       The Minister of Justice said that it was the Government’s duty to adapt the 1982 Constitution and to reinforce the individual freedoms, but that this had to be done gradually and simultaneously with a change in mentality – for which time and education were needed. This process had started and a commission composed of representatives of the various parties had made 26 proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals regarding privatisation, arbitration and the creation of a Supreme Administrative Court.

112.       The co-rapporteurs welcome therefore as one of the principal elements of the National Programme the decision in Chapter 2.1 “Political criteria” that “In the context of the reform process regarding democracy and human rights, the review of the Constitution will have priority”.

113.       In May 2001, the co-rapporteurs were told by Vice Prime Minister Yilmaz that after 3 years work an Inter-Party Constitutional Harmonisation Commission had reached agreement on the amendment of 51 Articles in the Constitution. The government had selected 8 of these articles the amendment of which would have to be finalised before the end of the month of June 2001.

114.       In the view of the co-rapporteurs, one of the most important issues to reconsider would be to introduce a system of parliamentary participation in, if not control on, the National Security Council. As they outlined in their introduction, the powers of the army in fields other than national defence- however important in the past and contemporary Turkey - are a tradition inherited from the foundation of the Republic, confirmed by the military regime in 1982, and are difficult to integrate into a modern democracy based on Council of Europe values.

115.       The co-rapporteurs were therefore pleased to learn that the proposed amendments to the Constitution would also include the reinforcement of the civilian element in the National Security Council – even if this would not yet mean any parliamentary influence on the activities of the Council.

116.       In May 2001, the Secretary General of the Turkish National Security Council explained the purely advisory role of the Council in exclusively matters of national security17. The Council consisted of the Prime Minister and three other ministers, the Chiefs of Staff of the navy, the army, the air force and the gendarmerie and the Secretary General (at present General Asparok) and was chaired by the President of the Republic. Decisions were taken by consensus, were carried out by civilians and not mandatory for government or parliament

117.       Secondly, the co-rapporteurs are of the opinion that the system of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Constitution, which to a certain extent has been eroded by 15 years of armed conflict in South-eastern Turkey, should be revised and completed.

118.       Thirdly, the pre-eminence of the rule of law should be better anchored in the Turkish Constitution and provisions should be included to ensure control of the judiciary over all administrative acts.

119.       The co-rapporteurs are pleased to note in the National Programme (Chapter 1.2 Political criteria) that “the Turkish Government will closely monitor progress in the country in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, regularly evaluate the work underway for harmonisation with the EU acquis and will take all necessary measures to speed up the ongoing work”.

120.       As the then co-rapporteurs did in September 1998, the present co-rapporteurs suggest that the Turkish authorities consider the possibility of seeking the advice of the European Commission for Democracy through Law ("the Venice Commission") on the suggestions above.

Prison reform

121.       In May 2001, the co-rapporteurs paid particular attention to the then dramatic situation of prisoners and relatives who were on hunger-strike against the prison reform in Turkey. The co-rapporteurs met with the President of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Mrs Casale, and visited the F-type prison that had been opened in December last in Sincan.

122.       In his speech on 23 May 2001 to the Standing Committee, the Minister of Justice supplied the following figures: there are 554 penitentiary institutions in Turkey: 513 “closed prisons”, 36 “open prisons”, 1 “juvenile and women closed prison”, 1 “juvenile closed prison” and 3 “juvenile reformatories”. On 1 May 2001, these institutions hosted 58.490 detainees and convicts: 48.372 convicted for common crimes, 9.137 for terrorist crimes and 981 for organised crimes.

123.       It is recalled that Article 16 of the 1991 Anti-Terror Law introduced “special prosecution institutions”, a system of isolation with specific detention conditions where open visits to the prisoners were prohibited. On several occasions, the CPT qualified this isolation system as not acceptable since “moves towards smaller units for prisoners must be accompanied by measures to ensure that prisoners spend a reasonable part of the day engaged in a programme of communal activities outside their living units”.

124.       Moreover, the Turkish government started in 1999 a reform of the prison system whereby the system of large dormitories (up to 100 prisoners in one room) would be replaced by a system of cells for 1 – 3 prisoners each. This reform was rejected by the prisoners, who feared that in isolation they would be subjected to torture and ill-treatment. They started hunger strikes18 and manifestations in several prisons which led to the intervention by the Turkish gendarme police and cost 32 lives. On 23 May 2001, 22 prisoners and relatives had fasted themselves to death.

125.       The Turkish Human Rights Foundation, the Human Rights Association and the Medical Association told the co-rapporteurs in May 2001 that not only they, but also all other NGO’s were against this prison reform. Human Rights Watch has warned that the new prison regime might violate international standards whilst Amnesty International said that the changes do not go far enough.

126.       Faced with this opposition, the Turkish authorities amended on 7 May 2001 Article 16 of the Anti-Terror Law in order to allow prisoners to take part in educational, social and sportive communal activities. On 23 May 2001, the Minister of Justice announced that draft laws had been prepared on the establishment of prison monitoring boards and the designation of judges in charge of the control on the execution of sentences.

127.       In the new F-type prison of Sincan, which the co-rapporteurs visited on 25 May 2001, out of the 340 prisoners, only 45 (convicted of common crimes) participate in the communal activities. The others, convicted of acts of terrorism, refuse to leave their cells for security reasons; 26 of them are on hunger strike.

128.       The co-rapporteurs cannot but join all those who have urged the fasting prisoners and the Turkish authorities to end this human drama. The Turkish authorities should follow the advice of the CPT and take immediately the necessary measures to ensure that prisoners in the F-type prisons spend a reasonable part of the day engaged in a programme of communal activities outside their living units.

129.       The co-rapporteurs also urge the Turkish authorities to re-establish the procedure granting access of Human Rights NGO’s to the prisoners.

Religious minorities

130.       On 23 May 2001, on their request, the co-rapporteurs met with representatives of the Greek orthodox minority in Istanbul, estimated at less than 2000, and with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They confirmed that the Orthodox Church had total freedom to celebrate its rituals, but it lacks a theological school which since 1971 has been integrated into the state University. They said that the Orthodox Church receives no subsidies from the state and has its own sources of income. According to them, because the Orthodox Church has no legal personality - which prevents the Patriarch from receiving official visitors such as the Presidents of Germany and Poland - it cannot dispose freely of its immobile properties, it cannot accept immobile donations and a number of its assets has been expropriated. The community also complained that the Greek-ethnic character, recognised by the Treaty of Lausanne, of the islands Gokceada and Bozcaada had been lost, out of the 3000 ethnic Greeks who were living there in 1965, only 250 had remained with between 7 and 8000 ethnic Turkish settlers.

131.       Councillors to the Chief Rabbinate in Istanbul confirmed that the Jewish community of about 20.000 could celebrate their religion freely. They said that the community received no money from the state which for the rest remained perfectly neutral; the only signs of anti-Semitism came from the fundamentalist media which did also deny the Holocaust.

D.       RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF TURKISH CITIZENS OF KURDISH ORIGIN

132.       The co-rapporteurs recall that in its Order N° 545 (1998) the Assembly instructed the Monitoring Committee to "study the issue of the Kurdish minority in the framework of the monitoring procedure concerning Turkey".

133.       The co-rapporteurs also recall Recommendation 1377 (1998) on the humanitarian situation of the Kurdish refugees and displaced persons in South-East Turkey and North Iraq, adopted by the Assembly on 25 June 1998, in which it invited Turkey to take certain measures. Without wishing to pronounce themselves on the situation in respect of refugees and other people who left their homes – which is under the remit of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography19 – the co-rapporteurs are pleased to report that since then the general situation in south-east Turkey has considerably improved and that indeed the Turkish authorities have taken a number of measures.

134.       In the course of their visit to the region in March 2000, the co-rapporteurs have carefully examined the situation and analysed the recent developments.

135.       The co-rapporteurs have no official figures about the total number of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin. Although in the census of 1990 data were required about the citizens' mother tongue, it is not certain that the information collected on this issue was complete and reliable. The co-rapporteurs have been told by the Democratic Left Party that about 12 million Turkish citizens are of Kurdish origin. The Turkish authorities said that according to the 1997 population census, the number of inhabitants in the cities in the provinces under emergency rule was 4.973.805 and in the neighbouring cities 2.900.225. These figures would seem to indicate that around 8 million Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin live (or used to live) in South-eastern Turkey; however, the Democratic Left Party believes their number not to exceed 5 million. The number of Turks of Kurdish origin living abroad is estimated at 500.000.

136.       The Turkish authorities do not consider that these citizens constitute a minority in Turkey; they argue that there are only Turkish citizens, whatever their ethnic origin - of which there are said to be 36. They claim that there is no ethnic problem in Turkey, but that the PKK has provoked the people of Kurdish origin by making use of its poverty and underdevelopment.

137.       This position has not created any problem for the 7 million Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin living in Turkey outside the South-eastern part. Although they may cherish their Kurdish origin, they do not insist on being enabled to live in full the Kurdish cultural identity.

138.       The situation is different in South-eastern Turkey. Compared to Western Turkey, the region is less developed and much poorer20. Here the population is mainly of Kurdish origin, they speak Kurdish (a language of Indo-European origin)21, have kept their Kurdish traditions and want to live their Kurdish cultural identity. It is here that in 1984 the PKK has started to provoke the people of Kurdish origin and to commit acts of terrorism, resulting in the armed conflict which so far has cost about 30.000 human lives.

139.       The aspirations in south-eastern Turkey for more economic and cultural development have been more or less actively supported by the Kurdish colonies abroad, who, like any colony of ethnic groups living in another country, encourage their members to safeguard and cultivate their Kurdish cultural identity. These Kurds support their relatives in South-eastern Turkey morally and financially. The Turkish authorities pointed out that PKK front organisations abroad organise propaganda activities in the guise of “cultural, social or sports activities”, in which participation is limited to PKK members and sympathisers. These activities are frequently violent and threaten public order and security of the country in question. For these reasons, the PKK and its front organisations in France and Germany were banned in 1993, and in March 2001 in the United Kingdom. As for financial support provided by the “Kurdish colonies”, proceeds from organised criminal activities such as drug trafficking, blackmail, robbery, smuggling of arms and persons constitute the bulk of financial revenues of the PKK terrorist organisation.

140.       With the capture of PKK leader Öcalan, his subsequent appeals for a truce and the decision of the PKK in August 1999 to stop violence, unrest in south-eastern Turkey has practically come to an end. The PKK has, however, not ceased to exist; in March 2000 the Turkish authorities estimated that between 500 and 800 armed militants were still in Turkey whilst between 4 500 and 5 000 stayed in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

141.       The Turkish authorities do not envisage lifting the state of emergency (which Parliament on 27 March 2001 prolonged for 4 months in 4 provinces22), because they fear that the PKK militants would immediately return. This state of emergency implies military presence in full operation23, martial law, maintenance of the village guard system24, regular roadblocks, curfews, identity controls and many other impediments of a normal economic and social life. No wonder that the inhabitants want this state of emergency to be lifted as soon as possible. The Turkish authorities recalled that the source of the present difficulties of the region is the security problem resulting from the PKK terror since the 1980’s rather than the present state of emergency. Should the decline of the PKK terror prove to be permanent, the state of emergency will also be abolished in the remaining four provinces.

142.       Some interlocutors of the co-rapporteurs pointed out that the important military presence in south-east Turkey was also due to the fact that the neighbouring countries Syria, Iraq and Iran were not reliable and that Turkey had an important role to defend the rest of Europe against growing Islamic fundamentalism.

143.       Notwithstanding the decrease of insecurity in the region, the climate is still tense enough to lead to incidents. In March 2000, the HADEP mayor of Diyarbakir told the co-rapporteurs how the month before he and the HADEP mayors of Siirt and Bingol had been arrested and kept in custody for four days on charge of contacts with the PKK25. The Diyarbakir Bar Association confirmed that the arrest of the mayors had not been conducted in accordance with the legal procedures, that they had not had access to their lawyers and that they had been ill-treated. The case was pending before the State Security Court. The Turkish authorities pointed out that the mayors were apprehended within the framework of a strictly legal proceeding instituted by the judicial authorities and detained on charges that are considered criminal in any democratic country; there are medical reports confirming that they had not been subject to ill treatment or torture under custody.

144.       During the military actions (1984 - 1999), the Turkish army is said to have evacuated and destroyed thousands26 of settlements of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, ranking from individual dwellings to small villages, to prevent the PKK militants from finding refuge27. Rather then restoring these settlements, most of which were situated in remote and isolated areas, the Turkish authorities prefer to rebuild new villages in safer and more accessible places. In the area of Sirnak, six villages have thus been resettled whilst resettlement of five others was planned for the year 2000. The 2000-2001 Plan foresees also the construction of 4 boarding schools and 19 primary schools.

145.       In March 2000, the co-rapporteurs visited two resettled villages: Inçeler and Tasdelen. They were welcomed warmly by the inhabitants who said to be pleased with their new accommodation, equipped with electricity and current water, and grateful for the financial assistance from the state. In Tasdelen, the inhabitants said that they were cultivating again their former acres; in the other village people had not yet returned to their land for security reasons.

146.       Both villages disposed of one common school for elementary education in Turkish; Kurdish is not being taught at public schools in Turkey. The co-rapporteurs regret that the Turkish educational system allows the teaching of 8 foreign languages, but not of Kurdish which is the mother tongue of most inhabitants of the south-east and which they need to master if they want to live their cultural identity.

147.       In this respect, the co-rapporteurs regret that the National Programme, in its Chapter 1.2.9 Cultural life and individual freedoms, is restricted to the following text: “The official language and the formal education language of the Republic of Turkey is Turkish. This, however, does not prohibit the free usage of different languages, dialects and tongues by Turkish citizens in their daily lives. This freedom may not be abused for the purposes of separation and division”.

148.       On the other hand, the co-rapporteurs are encouraged by one of the proposed amendments of the Constitution, which would tend to designate Turkish as an “official language” rather than “the language of the state” and might, if approved, open the door to education in other languages. The co-rapporteurs are aware, however, that Article 3 of the Constitution cannot be changed and that, anyhow, the proposal has not yet been approved.

149.       But many inhabitants of destroyed settlements have gone to the cities. According to the mayor of Diyarbakir in March 2000, the population there had increased 3,4 times over the last five years; whilst the official number of inhabitants was 560 000, the estimated number was 1.2 million. Apart from the rise of unemployment, the city faces serious problems in the field of housing and infrastructure, with only 30% of the inhibited area connected to the sewage system. The Turkish government has allocated financial resources to the province of Diyarbakir and is carrying out a “back to the village” project.

150.       According to a report prepared in June 1999 by the Turkish Directorate General of Press and Information, 10 newspapers and magazines are printed in Kurdish and circulated; 29 books have been printed in Kurdish and are on sale; 4 printing houses print in Kurdish; 10 radio stations broadcast in Kurdish and 3 Kurdish films are circulating in cinemas.

151.       Kurdish interlocutors admitted that newspapers and magazines are published in Kurdish, but that these were not always easily available; private TV and radio stations did broadcast in Kurdish, but, according to the same sources, their programmes had to be approved beforehand. According to the Turkish authorities the information that radio programmes in Kurdish are subject to approval before broadcast is false.

152.       HADEP, the political party which has succeeded DEP after its prohibition28, is admitted in South-eastern Turkey; in the 1999 local elections the party won in 37 towns and cities; HADEP has the majority in 9 districts and is represented in 90% of the municipal councils. Out of the 52 members of the Provincial Council, 26 belong to HADEP.

153.       And yet, notwithstanding its strong support in the region, the mere 4,5 % of the votes collected at national level prevents HADEP from playing the role it should in the Grand National Assembly. Its activities are, moreover, not facilitated. In Diyarbakir, the Party programme was confiscated on the grounds that it contained the word “peace” in Kurdish. After three years, HADEP has still not been authorised to open an office in Sirnak and shortly before the co-rapporteurs' visit in March 2000, 7 HADEP members including the Party leader in the Province were arrested and kept in detention for four days, in connection with the Nevroz celebrations.

154.       In 2000, celebration of the arrival of spring was authorised on the outskirts of Diyarbakir, in the neighbouring province of Batman, in Izmir and in several other cities - probably to avoid the violence and subsequent arrests of previous years, when festivities had been prohibited. Some incidents occurred, but mainly outside the South-eastern region, like in Istanbul where celebration had not been authorised. The fact that "Nevroz" was at least partly tolerated was welcomed by the Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin as an important signal of more understanding for their culture on the side of the authorities. On 21 March 2001, Reuter reported that hundreds of thousands of Kurds had marked their spring festival of Newroz, undeterred by the arrests of more than 200 people at unauthorised gatherings.

155.       All this has led the co-rapporteurs to view the situation with some optimism. First of all, they have the impression that violence in South-eastern Turkey has decreased to the level of a certain truce - even if no formal cease-fire or surrender has been negotiated, nor will be negotiated in the near future. Secondly, the fear that the inhabitants of South-eastern Turkey aim at independence and separation from Turkey seems to be unfounded, as long as due consideration is given to their desire for more respect of their rights as Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin to live their cultural identity. Thirdly, even if they maintain the present state of emergency in the region, the Turkish authorities start showing more understanding for the concerns of the international community for the plight of the inhabitants of this region.

156.       Where a complete stop of armed violence seems thus to be within reach, the time has come to start collecting the conditions for intensifying the dialogue - if not immediately between the parties involved, then at least on behalf of them. The Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin in South-eastern Anatolia should be given the opportunity to define their problems and their proposals for solution and to make these known to the central government.

157.       In a parliamentary democracy, the obvious way to solve such problems would be through legislation in Parliament. The inhabitants in South-eastern Turkey should be prepared to represent their legitimate aspirations in a democratic way, i.e. by their own, democratically elected representatives. Kurdish political parties should refrain from having any separatist aspiration or any other objective which might put into question the integrity or security of the Turkish state. In return, any such party should be respected in Turkish political life and materially supported.

158.       The Turkish authorities recalled that Turkey is a functioning democracy with a multiparty system. It is known that in a democratic country, existing problems are addressed and settled through democratic means and institutions. They observed that the TGNA is composed of 550 members; approximately 150 of them are of Kurdish origin most of whom have been elected in south-eastern Anatolian cities. Therefore, as is the case for other regions, the possibility to respond to the aspirations of the south-eastern Anatolian people by democratic ways is always possible in the Turkish political system.

159.       The co-rapporteurs agree that Turkey with its 34 political parties is a pluralist democracy (see paragraph 64 above) and they acknowledge that 150 members of the TGNA may be of Kurdish origin; these members are, however, spread out over different parties. The legal requirements for admission of political parties to the TGNA prevents smaller regional parties from participating in the parliamentary work. As an example, the co-rapporteurs refer to the HADEP Party which in the 1999 local elections won in 37 towns and cities but with its score of 4,5 % of the votes at national level, has no representatives in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Pending measures to improve representation of regional parties in Parliament, such as lowering the 10% hurdle to the more common 5%, the central government could create other fora at local and regional level, closer to the voters in south-eastern Turkey, to listen to their proposals, analyse them in the light of Turkey's interests and obligations as a sovereign state, member of the Council of Europe and candidate for accession to the European Union, and reach an agreement. The Turkish delegation to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities might provide useful advice on such procedure.

160.       Regarding the 10% threshold, on 24 May 2001 Vice Prime Minister Yilmaz said that it was envisaged to renew the Electoral Law; on that occasion the threshold for political parties to enter Parliament might be lowered but probably not to 5% because of the great diversity of political parties in Turkey.

161.       Pending such reforms, the Turkish authorities should accelerate some immediate action. The state of emergency in South-eastern Turkey should be lifted by Parliament as soon as possible and be replaced by a state of economic emergency, to remove the present obstacles for economic development of the region. More leeway should be given to the Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin to live their cultural identity - to start with, their children should be enabled to learn Kurdish at school, particularly in South-Eastern Turkey where Kurdish is currently spoken.

162.       Parallel to this policy, the Turkish authorities should also pay more attention to the effective protection of the basic human rights of the Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin. On 28 March 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Turkey in two cases of Kurdish activists murdered by “unidentified assailants”; in the case of journalist Kemal Kiliç, killed in February 1993, the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and had failed to conduct an effective investigation. In the case of Dr Hasan Kaya, found dead on 27 February 1993, the Court held that Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 had been violated.

163.       In this respect, the co-rapporteurs wish to mention also the re-apparition of the right-wing organisation “Hizbullah” – with the killing in January 2000 of one of the Hizbullah leaders, Huseyin Velioglu, followed by the discovery of at least 60 bodies of murdered Turks, mostly of Kurdish origin. Hizbullah started attacking suspected sympathisers of the PKK in the early 1990’s, killing more than 1000 people opposing government policy. Although hundreds of suspected Islamic militants have been arrested since January last, the Turkish authorities should step up their investigations into the alleged links of Hizbullah with certain circles in Turkey.

164.       A very important factor in consolidating democratic stability in South-eastern Turkey is undoubtedly the economic development of the region. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs recall Recommendation 1377 (1998) in which the Assembly called on the Committee of Ministers to use its influence with the European Union to resume promised financial co-operation, and on Turkey to present reconstruction projects to be financed by the Council of Europe’s Social Development Fund. The Turkish authorities should introduce and enact legislation to attract and guarantee investments in the area, not only from national industry but also from abroad. The Assembly's Committee on Economic Affairs and Development might be asked to advise on this issue and co-operation with and assistance of the European Union should be ensured.

165.       Such assistance might help the Turkish authorities to realise the intentions set out in the National Programme (Chapter 1.2.10, Alleviating regional disparities to increase economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens): “since separatist terrorist activities ongoing since 1984 have been effectively curbed, the Turkish government has undertaken a series of measures for economic and social development. The implementation of this strategy is planned for the medium term”.

166.       Turkey has launched a comprehensive development project, the South-eastern Anatolia Project (GAP), in order to contribute to the welfare of the whole country. The process of economic development and social progress in Turkey resulted in regional disparities in terms of urbanisation and growth. This made it necessary for the system of incentives to focus on specific regions. In order to give effectiveness to the overall system of incentives, a distinction is observed as “Normal areas” and “Areas with priority in development”. As far as the GAP Region is concerned, all provinces in the region with the exception of Gaziantep and Kilis are in the status of “development priority”. Turkey invites foreign investors to the region and has already signed bilateral agreements encouraging joint ventures with other countries. In spite of all the encouraging precautions taken by the government, terrorism still prevents the targeted levels of national and foreign investments from being reached. It is clear that improvement of the welfare of the whole country and the region depends on the success achieved in the fight against terrorism.

167.       Turkey should be assisted in developing its prestigious GAP project in accordance with the principles of International Public Law. Here the Committee of Culture and Education could advise on how to conciliate this prestigious land reform plan with the interests of the cultural heritage in the region.

E.       CONCLUDING REMARKS

168.       In this report, the co-rapporteurs have endeavoured to present in an objective and impartial way new developments in respect of Turkey’s honouring of obligations and commitments, as well as the facts and figures which have been provided to them by all interlocutors, they have analysed them and where possible, formulated their impressions and conclusions.

169.       These conclusions can, for each of the issues reported on above, be summarised as follows:

I.       PRIORITY ISSUES

a. respect for human rights in the combat against terrorism

170.       Progress has been made in creating awareness of the need for respect of human rights and individual freedoms; this progress must be consolidated and continued with a view to accelerating the evolution of mentality. Legislative measures have been taken or are being taken to improve or complement existing legislation. Implementation of this legislation should be improved and monitored and the legislative process should be completed.

171.       No more death sentences must be executed; the death penalty must be abolished de jure and Protocol N°6 to the European Convention on Human Rights must be signed and ratified.

172.       The influence of NGO’s on public opinion is increasing, even if on certain decisions public authorities do not yet systematically seek the advice of NGO’s concerned by such decisions. The central authorities should ensure that the related legislation is also implemented in respect of law-abiding NGO’s in south-east Turkey.

b.       Freedom of expression

173.       Measures taken to improve respect of freedom of expression are starting to produce results, but too many people, in particular journalists and politicians, are still being prosecuted for having expressed opinions which under the existing rules could be interpreted as incitement to separatism. To prevent excessive prosecution of journalists and politicians on the basis of a too wide interpretation of these existing rules, they should be redefined.

c.       Continued imprisonment of former DEP parliamentarians

174.       Pending a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, the legal possibilities should be examined, or if necessary, be created to revise the prosecution procedures and subsequent sentences in respect of the former DEP parliamentarians imprisoned since.

175.       Legal provisions allowing for the dissolution of political parties and for the lifelong banning of politicians from political responsibilities should be aligned on Council of Europe norms, including the “Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogous measures” established by the Venice Commission.

176.       Freedom of expression by members in meetings of the Grand National Assembly should be guaranteed and subjected only to the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly. The Turkish authorities confirmed that the members of the TGNA are free to express their opinions on every subject, on the condition that these are not against the national unity and territorial integrity of the country.

d.       Police custody

177.       Important initiatives have been taken by the Turkish authorities to improve the conditions of police custody; implementation of these measures should be ensured and monitored.

e.       Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

178.       Growing awareness of the need to eradicate torture and ill-treatment has resulted in a number of measures, legislative, administrative and educational, which are as many important steps forward, on the condition that these measures are implemented and their implementation is monitored, especially in the south-eastern part of the country.

II.       NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Legislation

179.       The co-rapporteurs are pleased to report that since the visit in September 1998, the Turkish authorities have enacted a number of important legislative texts and started the preparation of other such texts, which – on the condition that they will be properly implemented – will enable Turkey to honour its obligations and commitments.

Constitution

180.       The co-rapporteurs welcome the amendments made to the Constitution, in particular regarding the composition of State Security Courts, as well as the intentions set out in the National Programme. They wish to recall, however, the suggestion made after their visit in September 1998, that the present Constitution, approved in 1982 under military regime, would benefit from a certain adaptation to Council of Europe standards and norms – if need be in consultation with the Venice Commission – including the improvement of parliamentary participation in the National Security Council.

III.       RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF TURKISH CITIZENS OF KURDISH ORIGIN

181.       The co-rapporteurs have noted with satisfaction that, apart from occasional military action, large scale armed violence has stopped in south-eastern Turkey and that notwithstanding the maintenance in four provinces of the state of emergency, the atmosphere has become less tense. They have also noted that the Turkish authorities have embarked on a relief program for internally displaced persons and returnees and that they are determined to develop the economy in the region.

182.       The co-rapporteurs recommend that the Turkish authorities lift the state of emergency to replace it by an economic state of emergency, that they take the necessary legislative and administrative measures to guarantee full respect of the human rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin and enable them to live their Kurdish cultural identity (including possibilities to learn Kurdish) and that they seek - if appropriate with the Council of Europe – ways and means to start a dialogue with the inhabitants of south-eastern Turkey.

IV.        NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE “ACQUIS

COMMUNAUTAIRE”

183.       Much of the suggestions above can be implemented by executing the ambitious National Programme, which covers practically all the fields identified by the co-rapporteurs, even if the objectives in the National Programme are sometimes indirect or flexibly worded and the deadlines for their realization are imprecise and wide.

184.       In making this vast commitment the Turkish authorities have undoubtedly taken an important step on their way to honouring the obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe. Turkey will need the understanding and assistance of the other member states and the Parliamentary Assembly must continue to advise on implementation of her ambitious National Programme.

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) - Doc 7445 and Addendum I (revised) (M. Bársony) - 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

Doc. 8300 Information Report on honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey – 15/01/1999 (MM. András Bársony and Walter Schwimmer)

Rec 1447 (2000) Economic consequences of the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Greece - Doc. 8594 (Mr Verivakis)

Rec 1448 (2000) Social consequences of the recent earthquakes in Turkey - Doc. 8638 (Mr Surján).

APPENDIX II

Programme Fact-finding visit to Turkey

(26 - 30 March 2000)

Sunday 26 March

20.30        Arrival in Diyarbakir

Monday 27 March

7.00       Departure to Şirnak

11.00       Meeting with Mr Hüsseyin BAŞKAYA, Governor of Şirnak

12.30       Meeting with returnees in Inceler Village

14.00       Meeting with returnees in Tasdelen Village

15.00       Meeting with Colonel Ranazar ÇAKNAK, of the Turkish Gendarmerie

16.00       Departure for Diyarbakir

Tuesday 28 March

09.00       Meeting with Mr Cemil SERHADLI, Deputy Governor of State of Emergency Administration and Governor of Diyarbakir

10.00       Meeting with Mr Mustafa ŎZER, Head of Diyarbakir Bar Association

10.45 Meeting with MM Mehmet VURAL and Sezgin TANRIKULU, Representatives of the Human Rights Foundation in Diyarbakir

11.30       Meeting with Mr Ali ÜLKÜT, Head of HADEP in Diyarbakir

12.30       Meeting with Mr Kudbettin ARZU, President of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce and members of the General Assembly

13.00       Working lunch with Mr Kudbettin ARZU, President of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce and members of the General Assembly

15.30       Meeting with Heads of parties in Diyarbakir (DSP, ANAP, FP, DYP)

16.30       Meeting with Mr Feridun ÇELIK, Mayor of Diyarbakir

17.45       Meeting with Mr Gaffar OKKAN, Head of Security of Diyarbakir

19.40       Departure for Ankara

Wednesday 29 March 2000

09.00       Meeting with ambassadors of Hungary, Germany, Portugal and Ireland and representatives of UNHCR and the European Union

10.30       Meeting Mr Yildirim AKBULUT, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly

11.00       Meeting with the Turkish Delegation to PACE

13.00       Working lunch hosted by Mr Ismail CEM, Minister of Foreign Affairs (co-rapporteurs only)

14.30 Session of the Turkish National Grand Assembly

15.15       Meeting with Mr Haşim KILIÇ, Acting President of the Constitutional Court

16.15       Meeting with Mr Nevzat HELVACI, President of the Human Rights Institute

17.15       Meeting with Mr Hüsnü ŐNDŰL, President of the Human Rights Association

18.45       Meeting with Mr Yavuz ŐNEN, President of the Human Rights Foundation

20.00       Working dinner hosted by Mr Uluç GŰRKAN, Chairman of the Turkish Delegation in honour of the co-rapporteurs

Thursday 30 March 2000

9.15 Meeting with Ms Füsun KOROĞLU, Deputy Under-secretary at the Prime Ministry and Member of the Human Rights High Co-ordinating Committee

10.00       Meeting with Mr Recai KUTAN, Chairman of Virtue Party (FP) and Mr Ertan YÜLEK, Vice Chairman

10.45 Meeting with Ms Tansu ÇILLER, Chairperson of the True Path Party (DYP) and Mr Saffet Arikan BEDŰK, Deputy Chairman

11.30       Meeting with Mr Saadettin TANTAN, Minister of Interior

12.30 Working lunch with Mr Nazmi BILGIN, President of Ankara Journalist Association and other members

14.30       Meeting with Mr Hikmet Sami TŰRK, Minister of Justice

15.30       Meeting with former DEP parliamentarians, Mrs Leyla Zana and MM. Hatip Dicle, Ohran Dogan, Selim Sadak, at Ankara Closed Prison

18.00       Departure from Ankara

APPENDIX III

Programme Fact-finding visit to Turkey

(23 - 26 May 2001)

Wednesday 23 May

14.00       Meeting with representative of the Jewish community

15.30       Meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (His All Holiness Vartholomeos, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch)

17.30       Meeting with Chief-Editor of Milliyet

18.30       Meeting with Chief-Editor of Hürriyet

21.50        Departure for Ankara, transfer to Hotel Sheraton

Thursday 24 May

08.15       Departure from Hotel Sheraton

08.30       Meeting with ambassadors and representatives of international organisations

09.30        Meeting with Mr Bulut Cengiz, Deputy under-secretary of the Interior

11.00       Meeting with Mrs. Tansu Çiller, Chairman of True Path Party

11.30       Meeting with Mr Omer Igzi, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly

12.00       Meeting with the Turkish Delegation to PACE

13.00       Luncheon hosted by Mr. Uluç Gürkan, Chairman of the Turkish Delegation

14.30       Meeting with Mr Oktay VURAL, Vice-President of the Nationalist Movement

15.30       Meeting with Mr. Mesut Yılmaz, Minister of State and Deputy Prime Minister

16.30       Meeting with Mr. Hikmet Sami Türk, Minister of Justice

17.30       Meeting with Mr. Recai Kutan, Chairman of the Virtue Party

18.30       Meeting with representatives of the HADEP

19.30                                  Return to Hotel Sheraton

Friday 25 May

08.30                                  Departure from hotel

09.30       Visit to Sincan F type prison

11.30       Meeting with Air Force General Cumhur Asparok, Secretary General of the National Security Council

12.30       Meeting with Mr. Kurtulus TASKENT, Secretary of State Foreign Affairs

13.30       Lunch

15.00       Meeting with Mr. Erol OCAL, Vice-President of the Supreme Court

16.00       Meeting with Mustafa BUMİN, President of the Constitutional Court

17.00       Meeting with Mr. Inal BATU, Vice-Chairman of Republican People’s Party

18.00       Meeting with Mr Yavuz ONEN, President of the Turkish Human Rights Foundation

19.00       Meeting with the Turkish Medical Association

APPENDIX IV

Turkish National Prgramme for the adoption

of the acquis communautaire

Introduction and Political Criteria (Unofficial translation)

1.1.INTRODUCTION

The modern Turkish Republic is founded on the principles of a peaceful foreign policy, secularism, the rule of law, a pluralistic democratic system based on participation, and fundamental human rights and freedoms.

The Turkish Republic founded under the leadership of Atatürk underwent, in a short period of time, sweeping reforms based on the contemporary system of values in all spheres of social life. These reforms enabled the Turkish nation to participate in the system of values shared by the European family of nations with which this nation has a common history and geography.

As of the proclamation of the Republic, Turkey established her legal and social order according to Western norms; multiparty politics was introduced in 1946 and major strides, first and foremost in the areas of the freedom of the press and labour union rights, were taken towards an open and participatory social order. Turkey placed the individual and the inalienable human rights and freedoms of the individual at the very core of her efforts. Thus, a dynamic process of the evolution of democracy and the legal order was set in motion in Turkey.

Since 1984, Turkey has been fighting against separatist terrorism that has considerable external support. This phenomenon has adversely affected the environment of democracy and human rights, as well as the social and economic progress in Turkey. Despite this threat, the Turkish Republic has maintained her national integrity and unity, based on the equality of her citizens.

Economic policies in Turkey have progressively moved from the state-led development model attuned to the needs of the early years of the Republic towards first a mixed economic system, and later on, a market economy, keeping in step with developments in the international economic system. Despite the recent economic crises stemming mainly from the financial structure, Turkey is currently going ahead with her policies to further strengthen the rules and institutions of a free market economy. In order to eliminate macro-economic instabilities, Turkey aims to ameliorate the harmful effects of long-term inflation on the Turkish economy, maintain public deficits at a sustainable level, realise structural reforms in areas such as the financial and agricultural sectors and social security and speed up privatisation. Turkey intends to meet the Copenhagen economic criteria through the achievement of these objectives.

Turkey, a country that contributes to the enhancement and reinforcement of peace, security, stability and prosperity in international relations, will continue to develop her relations with neighbouring countries on the basis of a peace-seeking foreign policy. In this context, Turkey will continue to undertake initiatives and efforts towards the settlement of bilateral problems with Greece through dialogue; support the efforts of the UN Secretary General, in the context of his good-offices mission aiming at a mutually acceptable settlement with a view to establishing a new partnership in Cyprus based on the sovereign equality of the two parties and the realities on the Island; act as a model for the Turkic States and the Islamic world in their further development on the basis of universal values; enhance, as a key actor, stability in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East; contribute to the ongoing rapprochement of Europe and Asia and hence, help extend contemporary standards throughout Eurasia.

The Republic of Turkey would like to share and is resolved to contribute to a peaceful and prosperous future based on common universal values with the Member States of the EU.

The Turkish Government regards EU membership as a new step forward, a milestone confirming the founding philosophy of and Atatürk’s vision for the Republic.

For the Turkish nation, conforming to contemporary values is a way of life and an ideal to be pursued. Therefore, the Turkish nation is able and willing to assume the significant duties and responsibilities entailed by the ideal of European unification, drawing upon its centuries-old historical heritage and respect for civilization. In this context, Turkey is fully resolved to adopt and implement the EU acquis.

Turkey intends to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria and complete the accession process, on the basis of the fundamental principles of the Republic as articulated in the Turkish Constitution. The basic ideals of EU membership are one and the same as the ideals inherent in Turkey’s national identity. Therefore, membership in the EU is a conscious choice for Turkey, promising new horizons in the nation’s progress towards the highest contemporary standards. In this context, raising the standards of education for all citizens for further alignment with those of the EU Member States, both in terms of quality and quantity, will facilitate the achievement of the objectives set out in the National Programme.

Turkey will accede to all relevant international conventions and take the necessary measures for their effective implementation for further alignment with universal norms manifest in the EU acquis and the practices in EU Member States, particularly in the areas of democracy and human rights. In fact, Turkey has already acceded to a majority of the international conventions in these areas.

Turkey’s membership in the EU will possibly be a symbol of the convergence of dynamic trends, embracing aspirations for the harmonious co-existence of cultures and enriching the spiritual fabric of the EU. In this context, a process that sustains continuous cultural interaction between Turkey and the EU may well pave the way for the common achievement of an higher moral and philosophical stature. This process would enable both parties to help shape a brighter future in a more stable and secure environment by encouraging positive developments in political, economic and social spheres.

Turkey can assume a fundamental role in the process of European unification through concrete and distinct contributions that she can offer. The combined experiences and strengths of Turkey and the EU will be a major advantage in meeting the promising, but also challenging prospects of our era. It would thus be possible to reap future benefits more fully by taking advantage of opportunities offered today by global spiritual and material assets. Hence, through mutually advantageous and beneficial contributions, Turkey and the European Union would be better prepared for and capable of shaping the dynamics of the twenty-first century, and would continue to work together in cooperation and solidarity for the advancement and the development of their peoples and the international community.

1.2. POLITICAL CRITERIA

As of 2001, the Turkish Government will speed up the ongoing work on political, administrative and judicial reforms and will duly convey its legislative proposals to the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The goal is to strengthen, on the basis of Turkey’s international commitments and EU standards, the provisions of the Constitution and other legislation to promote freedom; provide for a more participatory democracy with additional safeguards; reinforce the balance of powers and competences between State organs; and enhance the rule of law. In the context of the reform process regarding democracy and human rights, the review of the Constitution will have priority. The constitutional amendments will establish also the framework for the review of other legislation.

The Turkish Government will closely monitor progress in the country in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, regularly evaluate the work underway for harmonization with the EU acquis and will take all necessary measures to speed up the ongoing work.

The Turkish Grand National Assembly has already undertaken a substantial amount of work for the reforms; the Inter-Party Constitutional Harmonization Commission is currently working on amendments to the Constitution.

1.2.1 Freedom of Thought and Expression

Further development of the freedom of thought and expression in line with the EU acquis and the practices in EU Member States is a priority for the Turkish Government. The Turkish Constitution and relevant provisions of other legislation will be reviewed in order to enhance the freedom of thought and expression, in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including those concerning the territorial integrity and national security, and on the basis of the basic principles of the Turkish Constitution, in particular those concerning the secular and democratic character of the Republic, national unity and the unitary state model.

With a view to enhancing the constitutional and legal guarantees of the freedom of expression, in the short-term, the Turkish Government plans to:

And in the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to:

1.2.2 Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly and the Civil Society

 Encouraging the further development of civil society is a priority for the Turkish Government. Strengthening the civil society will contribute to the development of democracy in Turkey. Enhancement of the freedom of association and peaceful assembly is expected to encourage individuals to become more actively involved in social issues. 

In this context, in the short term, the Turkish Government plans to:

And in the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to: 

A circular issued by the Prime Ministry in August 1999 cautions against undue restrictions on public employees who may wish to organize in trade unions and confederations, and the activities thereof pending the enactment of the “Draft Law on Public Employees’ Trade Unions”. 

1.2.3 Fight Against Torture 

The Turkish Government is determined to fight against torture. To this end, the Government has strengthened legal and administrative measures, ranging from enhanced training programmes on human rights to the thorough and timely investigation of incidents of torture and prosecution of those responsible.

Recent measures introduced in this context are as follows: 

In addition to the Ministries concerned, the Human Rights Directorate of the Prime Ministry has been authorised to undertake necessary measures for the prevention of incidents of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment that may arise despite measures already in force, which cannot be tolerated by the Government under any circumstances. 

A series of laws and amendments are planned to enhance the fight against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. In this context, in the short term, the Turkish Government plans to: 

And in the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to: 

1.2.4 Pre-Trial Detention 

In order to align legal practices and procedures related to pre-trial detention with the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to attain uniformity throughout the relevant Turkish legislation, in the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to: 

1.2.5 Strengthening Opportunities to Redress the Consequences of Human Rights Violations 

The Turkish Government, in the medium term, plans to: 

1.2.6 Training of Law-enforcement Personnel and Other Civil Servants on Human Rights Issues 

Work to intensify training of law-enforcement personnel and other civil servants on human rights issues is currently underway at all institutions concerned. The Turkish Government will seek to intensify international cooperation in this area both at bilateral and multilateral levels. 

To this purpose, in the short term, the Government plans to: 

Other measures in this area are covered in the section on “Justice and Home Affairs”. 

1.2.7 Improving the Functioning and Effectiveness of the Judiciary, Including the State Security Courts 

The Turkish Government accords particular importance to improved functioning and effectiveness of the Judiciary. In the short term, the Government plans to: 

And in the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to: 

Other measures in this area are covered in the section on “Justice and Home Affairs”.

1.2.8 Abolition of the Death Penalty

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, only the Turkish Grand National Assembly is authorised to take the decision to enforce a final sentence of capital punishment. The Turkish Government respects the practice of not infringing upon the essence of the right to life, sustained by the Turkish Grand National Assembly since 1984.

The abolition of the death penalty in Turkish criminal law, its form and its scope, will be considered by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in the medium term.

1.2.9 Cultural Life and Individual Freedoms

The official language and the formal education language of the Republic of Turkey is Turkish.

This, however, does not prohibit the free usage of different languages, dialects and tongues by Turkish citizens in their daily lives. This freedom may not be abused for the purposes of separatism and division.

1.2.10 Alleviating Regional Disparities to Increase Economic, Social and Cultural Opportunities for All Citizens

The Government has adopted a comprehensive strategy to alleviate regional disparities and increase cultural and social opportunities for all citizens.

 Since separatist terrorist activities ongoing since 1984 have been effectively curbed, the Turkish Government has undertaken a series of measures for economic and social development. The implementation of this strategy is planned for the medium term.

1.2.11 Full Enjoyment by All Individuals without Any Discrimination and Irrespective of Their Language, Race, Colour, Sex, Political Opinion, Philosophical Belief or Religion of All Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Article 10 of the Constitution prohibits all forms of discrimination, and adopts the principle of equality of all citizens before the law.

In the short term, in accordance with this principle, the Turkish Government plans to:

In the medium term, the Turkish Government plans to:

1.2.12 Alignment of the Turkish Constitution and Other Relevant Legislation with the EU acquis

The Turkish Government plans to review, in the short term, the Constitution in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and to undertake, in the medium term, necessary amendments in other legislation.

1.2.13 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The fact that Turkey has signed these conventions demonstrates the Government’s political will and resolve in this regard. Legislation initiating the process of ratification will be submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly along with any reservations there may be.

1.2.14 Detention Conditions in Prisons

The Turkish Government is resolved to eliminate any unfavourable conditions that may exist in prisons and has undertaken intensive efforts to this end.

The ward system, discontinued in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, is also being phased out in Turkey. In accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, prison rules and standards are being aligned with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the European Prison Rules of the Council of Europe.

In the short term, the Turkish Government plans to:

Other measures in this area are covered in the section on “Justice and Home Affairs”.

1.2.15 The National Security Council

The National Security Council, which is a constitutional organ, has the status of a consultative body in areas of national security. Relevant articles of the Constitution and other legislation will be reviewed in the medium term to define more clearly the structure and the functions of this Council.

1.2.16 State of Emergency

The lifting of the State of Emergency, introduced to fight terrorism, in the remaining four provinces is an integral part of the comprehensive strategy for economic, social and cultural development in the area. The State of Emergency will be lifted with due regard to threat assessment and developments on the ground with respect to security.

APPENDIX V29

Treaties of the Council of Europe

signed but not ratified by Turkey

 

No.

Title

Date
of opening
for signature

023

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

29/04/57

 

Signature: 08/05/58

 

 

 

032

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE ACADEMIC RECOGNITION OF UNIVERSITY QUALIFICATIONS

14/12/59

 

Signature: 14/12/59

 

 

 

041

CONVENTION ON THE LIABILITY OF HOTEL-KEEPERS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY OF THEIR GUESTS

17/12/62

 

Signature: 17/12/62

 

 

 

046

PROTOCOL No 4 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, SECURING CERTAIN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OTHER THAN THOSE INCLUDED IN THE CONVENTION AND IN PROTOCOL No 1

16/09/63

 

Signature: 19/10/92

 

 

 

048A

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CODE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

16/04/64

 

Signature: 13/05/64

 

 

 

049

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF DIPLOMAS LEADING TO ADMISSION TO UNIVERSITIES

03/06/64

 

Signature: 27/11/64

 

 

 

051

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPERVISION OF CONDITIONALLY SENTENCED OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED OFFENDERS

30/11/64

 

Signature: 13/09/65

 

 

 

052

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PUNISHMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES

30/11/64

 

Signature: 13/09/65

 

 

 

059

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF NURSES

25/10/67

 

Signature: 11/09/68

 

 

 

084

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGE OF TISSUE-TYPING REAGENTS

17/09/74

 

Signature: 13/10/80

 

 

 

089

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGE OF TISSUE-TYPING REAGENTS

24/06/76

 

Signature: 13/10/80

 

 

 

097

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW

15/03/78

 

Signature: 01/09/80

 

 

 

100

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE OBTAINING ABROAD OF INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

15/03/78

 

Signature: 05/09/79

 

 

 

101

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF THE ACQUISITION AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUALS

28/06/78

 

Signature: 03/04/79

 

 

 

106

EUROPEAN OUTLINE CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OR AUTHORITIES

21/05/80

 

Signature: 04/02/98

 

 

 

108

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARD TO AUTOMATIC PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

28/01/81

 

Signature: 28/01/81

 

 

 

116

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES

24/11/83

 

Signature: 24/04/85

 

 

 

117

PROTOCOL No 7 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

22/11/84

 

Signature: 14/03/85

 

 

 

119

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON OFFENCES RELATING TO CULTURAL PROPERTY

23/06/85

 

Signature: 26/09/85

 

 

 

123

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF VERTEBRATE ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES

18/03/86

 

Signature: 05/09/86

 

 

 

125

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PET ANIMALS

13/11/87

 

Signature: 18/11/99

 

 

 

128

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER

05/05/88

 

Signature: 05/05/88

 

 

 

136

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF BANKRUPTCY

05/06/90

 

Signature: 05/06/90

 

 

 

138

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE GENERAL EQUIVALENCE OF PERIODS OF UNIVERSITY STUDY

06/11/90

 

Signature: 06/11/90

 

 

 

139

EUROPEAN CODE OF SOCIAL SECURITY (revised)

06/11/90

 

Signature: 06/11/90

 

 

 

140

PROTOCOL No 9 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

06/11/90

 

Signature: 06/11/90

 

 

 

147

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON CINEMATOGRAPHIC CO-PRODUCTION

02/10/92

 

Signature: 10/01/97

 

 

 

160

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EXERCISE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

25/01/96

 

Signature: 09/06/99

 

 

 

162

SIXTH PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

05/03/96

 

Signature: 15/02/99

 

 

 

164

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN BEING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE: CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND BIOMEDICINE

04/04/97

 

Signature: 04/04/97

 

 

 

168

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN BEING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, ON THE PROHIBITION OF CLONING HUMAN BEINGS

12/01/98

 

Signature: 12/01/98

 

 

 

176

EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION

20/10/00

 

Signature: 20/10/00

 

 

 

177

PROTOCOL No. 12 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

04/11/00

  
 

Signature: 18/04/01

     

 

 

Treaties of the Council of Europe

ratified by Turkey

 

No.

Title

Date
of opening
for signature

001

STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

05/05/49

 

 

Ratification or accession: 13/04/50

Entry into force on : 13/04/50

 

002

GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

02/09/49

 

Signature: 02/09/49

Ratification or accession: 07/01/60

Entry into force on : 07/01/60

 

005

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

04/11/50

 

Signature: 04/11/50

Ratification or accession: 18/05/54

Entry into force on : 18/05/54

 

009

PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

20/03/52

 

Signature: 20/03/52

Ratification or accession: 18/05/54

Entry into force on : 18/05/54

 

010

PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

06/11/52

 

Signature: 06/11/52

Ratification or accession: 07/01/60

Entry into force on : 07/01/60

 

012

EUROPEAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES RELATING TO OLD AGE, INVALIDITY AND SURVIVORS

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 14/04/67

Entry into force on : 01/05/67

 

012A

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES RELATING TO OLD AGE, INVALIDITY AND SURVIVORS

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 14/04/67

Entry into force on : 01/05/67

 

013

EUROPEAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY OTHER THAN SCHEMES FOR OLD AGE, INVALIDITY AND SURVIVORS

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 14/04/67

Entry into force on : 01/05/67

 

013A

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY OTHER THAN SCHEMES FOR OLD AGE, INVALIDITY AND SURVIVORS

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 14/04/67

Entry into force on : 01/05/67

 

014

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SOCIAL AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 02/12/76

Entry into force on : 01/01/77

 

014A

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SOCIAL AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 02/12/76

Entry into force on : 01/01/77

 

015

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF DIPLOMAS LEADING TO ADMISSION TO UNIVERSITIES

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 10/10/57

Entry into force on : 10/10/57

 

016

EUROPEAN CONVENTION RELATING TO THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS

11/12/53

 

Signature: 11/12/53

Ratification or accession: 22/10/56

Entry into force on : 01/11/56

 

017

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF PATENTS FOR INVENTION

19/12/54

 

Signature: 19/12/54

Ratification or accession: 22/10/56

Denounced on : 17/02/98

 

018

EUROPEAN CULTURAL CONVENTION

19/12/54

 

Signature: 19/12/54

Ratification or accession: 10/10/57

Entry into force on : 10/10/57

 

019

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON ESTABLISHMENT

13/12/55

 

Signature: 13/12/55

Ratification or accession: 20/03/90

Entry into force on : 20/03/90

 

020

AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGE OF WAR CRIPPLES BETWEEN MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE WITH A VIEW TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

13/12/55

 

Signature: 13/12/55

Ratification or accession: 07/10/59

Entry into force on : 01/11/59

 

021

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF PERIODS OF UNIVERSITY STUDY

15/12/56

 

Signature: 25/09/57

Ratification or accession: 18/02/60

Entry into force on : 18/02/60

 

022

SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

15/12/56

 

Signature: 25/09/57

Ratification or accession: 07/01/60

Entry into force on : 07/01/60

 

024

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

13/12/57

 

Signature: 13/12/57

Ratification or accession: 07/01/60

Entry into force on : 18/04/60

 

025

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

13/12/57

 

Signature: 25/05/61

Ratification or accession: 25/05/61

Entry into force on : 01/06/61

 

026

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGE OF THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES OF HUMAN ORIGIN

15/12/58

 

Signature: 15/12/58

Ratification or accession: 03/06/66

Entry into force on : 01/07/66

 

027

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT CONCERNING PROGRAMME EXCHANGES BY MEANS OF TELEVISION FILMS

15/12/58

 

Signature: 15/12/58

Ratification or accession: 27/02/64

Entry into force on : 28/03/64

 

028

THIRD PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

06/03/59

 

Signature: 31/03/59

Ratification or accession: 16/01/75

Entry into force on : 16/01/75

 

029

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON COMPULSORY INSURANCE AGAINST CIVIL LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

20/04/59

 

Signature: 26/06/74

Ratification or accession: 26/04/00

Entry into force on : 25/07/00

 

030

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

20/04/59

 

Signature: 23/10/59

Ratification or accession: 24/06/69

Entry into force on : 22/09/69

 

033

AGREEMENT ON THE TEMPORARY IMPORTATION, FREE OF DUTY, OF MEDICAL, SURGICAL AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FOR USE ON FREE LOAN IN HOSPITALS AND OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT

28/04/60

 

Signature: 01/06/62

Ratification or accession: 10/03/66

Entry into force on : 11/06/66

 

034

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS

22/06/60

 

Signature: 22/06/60

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Denounced on : 31/12/89

 

035

EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER

18/10/61

 

Signature: 18/10/61

Ratification or accession: 24/11/89

Entry into force on : 24/12/89

 

036

FOURTH PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

16/12/61

 

Signature: 01/06/62

Ratification or accession: 01/06/62

Entry into force on : 01/03/65

 

037

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON TRAVEL BY YOUNG PERSONS ON COLLECTIVE PASSPORTS BETWEEN THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

16/12/61

 

Signature: 14/09/62

Ratification or accession: 14/09/62

Entry into force on : 15/10/62

 

038

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN THE MATTER OF SPECIAL MEDICAL TREATMENTS AND CLIMATIC FACILITIES

14/05/62

 

Signature: 14/05/62

Ratification or accession: 27/11/64

Entry into force on : 28/12/64

 

039

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGES OF BLOOD-GROUPING REAGENTS

14/05/62

 

Signature: 14/05/62

Ratification or accession: 27/11/64

Entry into force on : 28/12/64

 

044

PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, CONFERRING UPON THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPETENCE TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS

06/05/63

 

Signature: 06/05/63

Ratification or accession: 25/03/68

Entry into force on : 21/09/70

 

045

PROTOCOL No 3 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 30 AND 34 OF THE CONVENTION

06/05/63

 

Signature: 06/05/63

Ratification or accession: 25/03/68

Entry into force on : 21/09/70

 

048

EUROPEAN CODE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

16/04/64

 

Signature: 13/05/64

Ratification or accession: 07/03/80

Entry into force on : 08/03/81

 

050

CONVENTION ON THE ELABORATION OF A EUROPEAN PHARMACOPOEIA

22/07/64

 

 

Ratification or accession: 22/11/93

Entry into force on : 23/02/94

 

053

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF BROADCASTS TRANSMITTED FROM STATIONS OUTSIDE NATIONAL TERRITORIES

22/01/65

 

Signature: 13/08/69

Ratification or accession: 16/01/75

Entry into force on : 17/02/75

 

054

PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS

22/01/65

 

Signature: 24/05/74

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Denounced on : 31/12/89

 

055

PROTOCOL No 5 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, AMENDING ARTICLES 22 AND 40 OF THE CONVENTION

20/01/66

 

Signature: 14/05/71

Ratification or accession: 20/12/71

Entry into force on : 20/12/71

 

062

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INFORMATION ON FOREIGN LAW

07/06/68

 

Signature: 07/06/68

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Entry into force on : 20/03/76

 

063

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE ABOLITION OF LEGALISATION OF DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BY DIPLOMATIC AGENTS OR CONSULAR OFFICERS

07/06/68

 

Signature: 01/09/80

Ratification or accession: 22/06/87

Entry into force on : 23/09/87

 

065

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS DURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT

13/12/68

 

Signature: 18/04/74

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Entry into force on : 20/06/76

 

070

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS

28/05/70

 

Signature: 26/06/74

Ratification or accession: 27/10/78

Entry into force on : 28/01/79

 

071

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE REPATRIATION OF MINORS

28/05/70

 

Signature: 26/06/74

Ratification or accession: 02/12/76

 

 

073

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

15/05/72

 

Signature: 26/06/74

Ratification or accession: 27/10/78

Entry into force on : 28/01/79

 

077

CONVENTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHEME OF REGISTRATION OF WILLS

16/05/72

 

Signature: 18/04/74

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Entry into force on : 20/03/76

 

078

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SOCIAL SECURITY

14/12/72

 

Signature: 14/12/72

Ratification or accession: 02/12/76

Entry into force on : 01/03/77

 

078A

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SOCIAL SECURITY

14/12/72

 

Signature: 14/12/72

Ratification or accession: 02/12/76

Entry into force on : 01/03/77

 

080

AGREEMENT ON THE TRANSFER OF CORPSES

26/10/73

 

Signature: 26/10/73

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Entry into force on : 20/01/76

 

081

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS

14/01/74

 

Signature: 24/05/74

Ratification or accession: 19/12/75

Entry into force on : 20/01/76

 

090

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

27/01/77

 

Signature: 27/01/77

Ratification or accession: 19/05/81

Entry into force on : 20/08/81

 

092

EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE TRANSMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL AID

27/01/77

 

Signature: 27/01/77

Ratification or accession: 22/03/83

Entry into force on : 23/04/83

 

093

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS

24/11/77

 

Signature: 24/11/77

Ratification or accession: 19/05/81

Entry into force on : 01/05/83

 

098

SECOND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

17/03/78

 

Signature: 16/07/87

Ratification or accession: 10/07/92

Entry into force on : 08/10/92

 

099

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

17/03/78

 

Signature: 04/02/86

Ratification or accession: 29/03/90

Entry into force on : 27/06/90

 

103

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS DURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT

10/05/79

 

Signature: 19/06/85

Ratification or accession: 19/05/89

Entry into force on : 07/11/89

 

104

CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS

19/09/79

 

Signature: 19/09/79

Ratification or accession: 02/05/84

Entry into force on : 01/09/84

 

105

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS CONCERNING CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND ON RESTORATION OF CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

20/05/80

 

Signature: 20/10/97

Ratification or accession: 08/02/00

Entry into force on : 01/06/00

 

109

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGE OF THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES OF HUMAN ORIGIN

01/01/83

 

 

Ratification or accession: 01/01/85

Entry into force on : 01/01/85

 

110

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE AGREEMENT ON THE TEMPORARY IMPORTATION FREE OF DUTY OF MEDICAL, SURGICAL AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FOR USE ON FREE LOAN IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS FOR DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT

01/01/83

 

 

Ratification or accession: 01/01/85

Entry into force on : 01/01/85

 

111

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE EXCHANGES OF BLOOD-GROUPING REAGENTS

01/01/83

 

 

Ratification or accession: 01/01/85

Entry into force on : 01/01/85

 

112

CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS

21/03/83

 

Signature: 19/06/85

Ratification or accession: 03/09/87

Entry into force on : 01/01/88

 

113

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS

21/03/83

 

Signature: 25/10/84

Ratification or accession: 13/12/84

Entry into force on : 01/01/85

 

118

PROTOCOL No 8 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

19/03/85

 

Signature: 04/02/86

Ratification or accession: 19/09/89

Entry into force on : 01/01/90

 

120

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON SPECTATOR VIOLENCE AND MISBEHAVIOUR AT SPORTS EVENTS AND IN PARTICULAR AT FOOTBALL MATCHES

19/08/85

 

Signature: 25/09/86

Ratification or accession: 30/11/90

Entry into force on : 01/01/91

 

121

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF EUROPE

03/10/85

 

Signature: 03/10/85

Ratification or accession: 11/10/89

Entry into force on : 01/02/90

 

122

EUROPEAN CHARTER OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

15/10/85

 

Signature: 21/11/88

Ratification or accession: 09/12/92

Entry into force on : 01/04/93

 

126

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

26/11/87

 

Signature: 11/01/88

Ratification or accession: 26/02/88

Entry into force on : 01/02/89

 

131

THIRD ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS

20/04/89

 

Signature: 20/04/89

Ratification or accession: 24/11/89

 

 

132

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION

05/05/89

 

Signature: 07/09/92

Ratification or accession: 21/01/94

Entry into force on : 01/05/94

 

134

PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE ELABORATION OF A EUROPEAN PHARMACOPOEIA

16/11/89

 

 

Ratification or accession: 22/11/93

Entry into force on : 23/02/94

 

135

ANTI-DOPING CONVENTION

16/11/89

 

Signature: 16/11/89

Ratification or accession: 22/11/93

Entry into force on : 01/01/94

 

137

FIFTH PROTOCOL TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

18/06/90

 

Signature: 30/09/91

Ratification or accession: 01/06/94

Entry into force on : 01/10/94

 

143

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (REVISED)

16/01/92

 

Signature: 16/01/92

Ratification or accession: 29/11/99

Entry into force on : 30/05/00

 

151

PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

04/11/93

 

Signature: 10/05/95

Ratification or accession: 17/09/97

 

 

152

PROTOCOL No 2 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

04/11/93

 

Signature: 10/05/95

Ratification or accession: 17/09/97

 

 

155

PROTOCOL No 11 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, RESTRUCTURING THE CONTROL MACHINERY ESTABLISHED THEREBY

11/05/94

 

Signature: 11/05/94

Ratification or accession: 11/07/97

Entry into force on : 01/11/98

 

171

PROTOCOL AMENDING THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION

01/10/98

 

 

Ratification or accession: 01/10/00

 

 

APPENDIX VI

23 April 2001

COOPERATION PROGRAMME

TO STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW

2001

Turkey

1       THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ORGANISATION OF THE STATE

1.3       Administrative law, administrative justice and functioning of the administration

1.3.1 The legal framework of the activities of the State and its bodies

*       Regional seminar on current issues relating to public administration and on the possible introduction of alternative means to litigation in administrative matters

1.4       Local and regional authorities

1.4.1 Local and regional democracy

*        Regional workshop on local finances and intergovernmental fiscal relations

*        Regional conference on local finances and intergovernmental fiscal relations

3. IMPROVING THE INDEPENDANCE AND THE FUNCTIONING OF THE

3.1 The judiciary and judges in a state governed by the rule of law

*       Regional seminar of the follow up group to the Budapest conference on the independence of justice

*       Regional seminar on the composition and powers of the judicial service councils

*       Regional meeting of the Directors of the training schools and centres for judges and prosecutors with a view to preparing guidelines for the work of these schools and centres

*       Bilateral meeting as follow-up to the regional conference of Ankara on the training of judges and prosecutors

3.2       Harmonisation of the rules governing the profession of lawyers within a state

*       Regional seminar on the establishment of a regional council of the Bars

3.4 Legal aid and alternatives to legal aid

*       Regional seminar on legal aid

*       Regional seminar on the role, functioning, status and training of bailiffs

4.       THE RULE OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

4.2       Fight against crime and corruption

4.2.1 Prevention and control of criminality

*       Participation in the PACO programme against corruption and organised crime

4.2.2 Fight against corruption

*       Participation in the PACO programme against corruption and organised crime

4.3       The police in a State governed by the rule of law

4.3.2       Police ethics

*       Conference on police ethics at the police academy

4.4       The penitentiary system

*       Participation in the Joint project CoE – OSCE-ODIHR for the reform of prison systems in the countries of South-eastern Europe

4.4.1 The enforcement of sentences and alternatives to imprisonment

*       Expert meeting on "How to deal with juvenile offenders in penal institutions"

4.4.2 The organisation of the prison system

*       Visits of specialised staff of the Turkish prison administration to countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom on "Prison construction with special emphasis high security facilities"

4.4.3       The training of prison staff

*       Expert assistance relating to the development of training programmes

*       Visits of higher-grade prison staff and prison staff trainers to Western European prison staff training schools to familiarise themselves with modern teaching methods

Reporting committee : Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Members States of the Council of Europe.

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

Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 8 June 2001.

Members of the committee: MM. Mota Amaral (Chair), Polozhani, Ms Severinsen, Ms Durrieu (Vice-Chairpersons), Ms Akgönenc, MM. Arzilli, Atkinson, Attard Montalto, Bársony, Bartos, Begaj, Ms Belohorska, MM. Bindig, van den Brande, Brunetti, Cekuolis, Christodoulides, Cilevics, Davis, Demetriou, Diana, Einarsson, Enright, Eörsi, Evangelisti, Ms Feric-Vac, MM. Floros, Frey, Frunda, Gjellerod, Glesener, Gligoroski, Gross, Gürkan, Gusenbauer, Haraldsson, Holovaty, Irmer, Ivanenko, Jakic, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Ms Jones, Mr Jurgens, Ms Kanelli, Ms Kautto, MM. Kostytsky, Landsbergis, van der Linden, Luis, Magnusson, Marmazov, Martínez-Casań, Moeller, Olteanu, Pollo, Popescu, Ms Poptodorova, Ms Ringstad, MM. Rogozin, Saglam, Ms Sehnalova, Ms Shakhtakhtinskaya, MM. Smorawinski, Soendergaard, Ms Stoyanova, MM. Surjan, Taylor, Ms Tevdoradze, MM.Vahtre, Vella, Weiss, Ms Wohlwend, MM.Yanez-Barnuevo, Zierer.

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

Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ausems, Mr Mezei, Mrs Clamer, Ms Trévisan.

1 §57. “The court takes as a basis the applicant’s statement as published in the national daily Cumhriyet on 30 August 1987 (see paragraph 12 above), which the applicant did not contest in substance. This statement comprises two sentences. In the first of these the applicant expresses his support for the “PKK national liberation movement”, while going on to say that he is not “in favour of massacres”. In the second he says “anyone can make mistakes, and the PKK kill women and children by mistake”.

§58. “Those words could be interpreted in several ways but, at all events, they are both contradictory and ambiguous. They are contradictory because it would seem difficult simultaneously to support the PKK, a terrorist organisation which resorts to violence to achieve its ends, and to declare oneself opposed to massacres; they are ambiguous because whilst Mr Zana disapproves of the massacres of women and children, he at the same time describes them as “mistakes” that anybody could make”.

2 Membership of the EU requires that the candidate country has achieved “stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities”.

3 A report on the execution of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (rapporteur: Mr Erik Jurgens) was debated by the Assembly on 28 September 2000 and has resulted in the adoption of Resolution 1226 (2000) and Recommendation 1477 (2000).

4 According to the Turkish Human Rights Foundation in March 2000, 65% of the complaints on torture addressed to them were made by Turks of Kurdish origin.

5 Doc.8441 Addendum I

6 Doc.8502 Addendum I

7 In their comments of 23 October 2000, the Turkish authorities announced that the case initiated against Dr Uzun at the State Security Court of Izmir on charges of aiding and abetting the PKK terrorist organisation was concluded on 23 May 2000 with his release.

8 On 25 February 2000, the Ankara State Security Court sentenced 18 HADEP members and officials to prison terms of 3 years and 9 months each for having organised demonstrations and hunger strikes to protest the detention of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan.

9 The Turkish authorities pointed out that “Akin Birdal has been judged and sentenced by the independent Turkish courts for praising the terrorist organisation PKK, which is a crime according to law”.

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

11 Democratic Left Party (DSP), Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Virtue Party (FP), Motherland Party (ANAP), True Path Party (DYP), others and independents.

12 Democratic Left Party (DSP), Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Motherland Party (ANAP)

13 In July 2000, the confirmation by an appeals court of the life-long ban on any political activity and the prison sentence prompted the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Lord Russell-Johnston, to the following statement: “ Sending an old man to prison for something he said is wrong, sad and undignified for a modern, European society. However, if the Court’s argument is that it is merely applying the existing law, the primary responsibility for providing appropriate, effective legal guarantees for a normal exercise of democracy lies with the Turkish Parliament. The absence of such guarantees today certainly prejudices Turkey’s prospects for further integration in Europe”.

14 Application 34382/97 Denmark v. Turkey is related to an examination of the allegation by a Danish citizen concerning ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Turkish authorities during the period of 8 July to 16 August 1996, when he was detained in Turkey, and an examination of an allegation whether the interrogation techniques allegedly applied to this Danish citizen, are applied in Turkey as a widespread practice.

15 In 1998, the Turkish Human Rights Foundation received the Council of Europe’s European Human Rights Prize.

16 These figures do not correspond with the data supplied by the Turkish parliamentary delegation: in the last quarter of 1999 only 3 claims on torture had been received, whilst no claim had been made in the first quarter of 2000.

17 The Secretary General said that the present economic crisis was not considered to constitute a threat to security.

18 Between 300 and 400 prisoners, the vast majority of whom have been convicted for terrorist crimes and are members of the Revolutionary Liberation Party / Front (DHKP/C)

19 The Committee’s rapporteur, Mr John Connor (Ireland, EPP/CD), intends to visit the region in September 2001.

20 It is argued that the central government in Ankara has always had more difficulties in the South-eastern part of Turkey than in the West because of the strong feudal system in the region - not because it was inhabited by Kurds.

21 One of the three Kurdish dialects: North Kurmanci (75%), South Kurmanci or Sorani, Kirdki Kirmancki or Zazaki. The Turkish authorities indicated that there is no single language that may be called “Kurdish” in south-eastern Turkey, but there are many different sub-languages and dialects. This has led the Turkish language to become the primary medium of communication in the region.

22 Tunceli, Diyarbakir, Hakkari and Sirnak.

23 During their trip to Sirnak the co-rapporteurs did not see any potentially strategic mountain pass or hilltop without the presence of security forces.

24 In March 2000, the number of village guards was said to be 65 000, with about 335 000 – 400 000 family members, who are paid by the State.

25 This arrest provoked on 23 February 2000 a critical declaration by the Assembly’s President, the Secretary General and the CLRAE President.

26 On 28 July 1997, the Chairman of the TGNA Committee on Migration confirmed that 364 742 inhabitants of 3185 villages and hamlets had been forced out since 1990 in the framework of the fight against terrorism (Doc 8131, §17).

27 In a number of judgements the European Court has ruled that some practices of the security forces in south-east Turkey, including the burning of houses, constituted violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.

28 DEP was prohibited by the Turkish Constitutional Court in 1994

29 Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int