Country of origin information report Turkey March 2007

Return to contents

Go to list of sources

16 Human Rights institutions, organisations and activists
16.01 The European Commission 2006 report noted that “Throughout the year, the EU Harmonisation Committee and the Human Rights Committee played an important role in addressing issues arising under the Copenhagen political criteria… [71a] (p5)
16.02 The EC 2006 report further noted that, “Overall, Turkey has made progress on the ratification of international human rights instruments and in the execution of ECtHR judgements. However, there is a need to further upgrade the human rights institutional framework.” [71a] (p13)
16.03 The US State Department Report 2005 (USSD 2005), published on 8 March 2006, reported that:
“A number of domestic and international human rights groups operated in many regions but faced government obstruction and restrictive laws regarding their operations, particularly in the southeast. The government met with domestic NGOs, responded to their inquiries, and sometimes took action in response to their recommendations. The Human Rights Association (HRA) had 34 branches nationwide and claimed a membership of approximately 14 thousand.” [5b] (Section 4)
16.04 The USSD 2005 report also noted that:
“Human rights organizations and monitors, as well as lawyers and doctors involved in documenting human rights violations, continued to face detention, prosecution, intimidation, harassment, and formal closure orders for their legitimate activities. The HRA reported that prosecutors opened 47 cases against HRA branches. Amnesty International maintained a headquarters in Istanbul and reported good cooperation with the government during the year. The government also cooperated with international governmental organizations such as the CPT, UNHCR, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).” [5b] (Section 4)
16.05 The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) reported in an article published on 10 April 2006 that:
“Mr. Kaboglu, former head of the Human Rights Advisory Council and Mr. Oran, member of this Council, will appear before the Ankara Penal Court of First Instance for the second time. Initially charged under Articles 216/I (inciting hatred and enmity) and 301/II (humiliation of the courts authority) of the new Penal Code, the second count of indictment was cancelled by the judge during the last audience, on 15 February 2006. Mr Kaboglu and Mr Oran still face prison sentences from one year to three years under Art.216/I. This case is an additional example of infringements to the freedoms of opinion and expression and therefore constitutes flagrant violations of the international standards, in particular of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” [112a]
16.06 The FIDH publication further reported that:
“On 4 April 2006, Mr. Ali Oncu and Mr. Edip Yasar, members of the Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association (HRA), were arrested and detained by an anti-terrorism branch of the security force. On 5 April 2006, they were heard by the Public Prosecutor of Diyarbakir and by the judge who decided to transfer them to Diyarbakir D Type prison. Mr. Oncu and Mr. Yasar were charged with assisting and supporting illegal organisations.” [112b]
human Rights Advisory Board (ihdk)
16.07 In correspondence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dated 5 February 2007 it was noted that:

“Membership of the Human Advisory Board consists of academics, civil society, public sector organisations, representatives of professional organisations. The Board reports directly to the Minister for Human Rights (Gul). Their role as an expert advisory committee to assist the government in its implementation of reforms.” [4c]
16.08 The Turkish Daily News of 8 February 2005 reported that:
“The Prime Ministry Human Rights Advisory Board (IHDK) chairman Prof. Ibrahim Kaboglu and three of the top members of the board resigned on Monday, noting that they were incapable of continuing with their work, because the government had no intention of listening to them. He said: ‘We weren’t pushed out for neglecting our work; we were pushed out for performing our work properly. Some circles reacted negatively when we made a certain decision or became angry when we proposed something they did not like.’ The government announced on Feb. 3 the term of office had ended for 14 members of the 78-member Board including Chairman Ibrahim Kaboglu, reported CNN-Turk television on its Web site. Speaking at the press conference, Kaboglu said his attorney had filed a lawsuit against the government for terminating the terms of 14 members.” [23s]
16.09 As recorded on 28 March 2005 on the website of the Hellenic Resources Network, HR-Net:
“Ozgur Politika news (25/03/05) reported that five members of the Turkish Prime Ministry Human Rights Advisory Board [BIHDK] have resigned. The resigning BIHDK members announced their reasons at a joint press conference held at the Turkish Human Rights Foundation [TIHV] headquarters. TIHV Chairman Yavuz Onen, holding the joint press conference, said that the government had not consulted once with the board despite making many legal changes to the four adaptation packages issued so as to ensure conformity with the EU’s political and economic criteria. Pointing out that the board’s work had been aimed at specific ‘centres’ within the public and had ruffled feathers within the government.” [49a]
16.10 The European Commission 2006 report recorded that “The Human Rights Advisory Board under the Office of the Prime Minister has not been operating since the publication of a report on minority rights in Turkey in October 2004. This is a body composed of NGOs, experts and representatives from ministries.” [71a] (p12)
16.11 As noted in the Amnesty International Turkey Memorandum of 1 August 2005:
“Turkey has an urgent need for effective and independent National Human Rights institutions which will promote and protect human rights, including through effective investigation of patterns of human rights concerns and individuals’ complaints about human rights violations they have suffered, and through making recommendations accordingly. Present examples of bodies which it is claimed fulfil the function of a National Human Rights Institution include the above-mentioned and ill-fated Human Rights Advisory Board as well as the Provincial and Regional Human Rights Boards attached to the Prime Ministry. The latter bodies have been well-publicized by the government. However, Amnesty International has serious concerns about the operations of these Boards – concerns which are shared by Turkish and international human rights non-governmental organizations” [12i] (Section on The urgent need for independent, resourced and effective national human rights institutions)
Reform Monitoring Group
16.12 As confirmed by the British Embassy in Ankara on 5 February 2007 the membership of the (EU) Reform Monitoring Group consists of senior officials and ministers from the Prime Ministry and key government departments. The membership is currently being reformed. The role of the Reform Monitoring Group oversees the passage of all reforms relating to the EU Accession Process, including the planning and timetabling of such reforms. Its role is therefore much broader than human rights, but it does oversee the passage and implementation of human rights related legislation. [4c]
16.13 The New Anatolian reported on 15 March 2006 that:
“The Reform Monitoring Group (RMG), the main body responsible for supervising the implementation of the reforms, met yesterday to review the implementation and new reform packages… Officials, following the meeting, told reporters that there is no change in the government's determination to move forward with EU political reforms, and several key reforms will be adopted before the summer holiday as a sign of that. According to the sources, one of the key reforms will be revision of the Military Code of Justice with an aim to put an end to trials of civilians. The Defense Ministry is reportedly finalizing a new draft on the issue.” [113]
16.14 The European Commission 2006 reported that “There were no developments as regards the institutions in charge of monitoring and promoting human rights, such as the Human Rights Presidency.” [71a] (p60)