Country of origin information report Turkey March 2007

Return to contents

Go to list of sources
16.47 The same report further stated that:
“The prosecution of Professor Baskın Oran and Professor İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu illustrates how the amendments have clearly not gone far enough. Professor Oran and Professor Kaboğlu were members of the Human Rights Advisory Board of the Prime Ministry (BİHDK), a body set up by the Turkish Government to oversee its own adherence to human rights standards. They were both charged under articles 301 and 216 of the revised penal code following the release of a report from the working group on Minority and Cultural Rights, of which they were both members. This case is emblematic of the mistrust which is shown to the work of HRDs by the criminal justice system in Turkey which the state’s program of human rights training seems to have done little to shift. The irony is that the Human Rights Advisory Board was set up, by the state itself, for view points such as this to be aired and debated. Although the charges against these two eminent academics were eventually dropped, the fact that they were indicted in the first place shows that very little has changed, and that the antipathy shown to HRDs by prosecutors and the judiciary remains firmly entrenched.” [6b]
17 Corruption
17.01 Transparency International ranked Turkey 60^th out of the 163 countries (ranging from the least corrupt, ranked one to the most corrupt, ranked 163) its Corruption Perception Index for 2006. [55b] The Index relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, academics and risk analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). Turkey obtained a score of 3.8 in 2006 – a slight improvement from the 3.5 it received in 2005 [55a]
17.02 The European Commission 2006 Report stated that:
“Concerning transparency in the public administration, the Law on Access to Information was amended in 2006 to enable citizens to dispute all decisions of state agencies regarding denials of requests for information. The Parliamentary investigation commissions on the gasoline smuggling and on the illegal public offering completed their reports. Both reports show a wide range of corruption activities. The first case involved a former Minister of Finance and Minister of State, and has serious economic and financial implications. The reports include recommendations for measures to be taken by the public institutions.” [71a] (p10) (Anti-corruption measures)
17.03 The EC 2006 report further stated that, “However a number of issues remain to be addressed. Corruption remains widespread in the Turkish public sector and judiciary, despite the efforts of recent years. Turkey needs to improve its legislation on financing and auditing of political parties. The wide scope of parliamentary immunity remains a significant problem in the context of corruption in Turkey.” [71a] (p10 Anti-corruption measures)
17.04 The EC 2006 report also noted that:
“With regard to corruption investigations carried out by the Inspection Boards, the need for a prior authorisation from the hierarchy when investigating some categories of public officials hampers the investigation. There is a need for better co-ordination of the system currently in place for combating corruption. The designation of a body with sufficient independence responsible for the conception and monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption measures could be helpful in this respect.” [71a] (p11 Anti-corruption measures)
17.05 The EC 2006 report also noted that “Overall, there has been some limited progress in the fight against corruption, notably on increasing transparency in the public administration. However, corruption remains widespread and anti-corruption authorities and policies are still weak.” [71a] (p11 Anti-corruption measures)
17.06 The EC 2006 continued:
“There is still no overall strategy and action plan to prevent and fight corruption. However, corruption continues to be a widespread problem in Turkey. The efficiency and effectiveness of the various governmental, parliamentary and other bodies established to combat corruption remains weak and the degree of co-ordination and co-operation amongst these structures is inadequate. Interaction between the public sector, private sector and civil society needs to be improved. Stronger action is required to raise public awareness of corruption as a serious criminal offence. Continuous support at the highest political level for the fight against corruption needs to be ensured.” [71a] (p59)
17.07 The EC 2006 also added that:
“Despite the fact that the application of parliamentary immunity has been identified as a significant problem in the context of corruption in Turkish public life, no development can be reported in this area. Also, no progress can be reported either on financing of political parties… ” (p59)
17.08 The EC 2006 report further noted that, “The scope of parliamentary immunity needs to be restricted as a matter of priority and the financing of political parties has to be dealt with.” [71a] (p62)
18 Freedom of religion
18.01 The US State Department report on International Religious Freedom, published on 15 September, 2006 noted that:
“The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice; however, the Government imposes some restrictions on Muslim and other religious groups and on Muslim religious expression in government offices and state-run institutions, including universities. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report, and government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion. The generally tolerant relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom; however, a sharp debate continued over the country's definition of ‘secularism,’ the proper role of religion in society, and the potential influence of the country's small minority of Islamists. Some Muslims, Christians, and Baha’is faced a few restrictions and occasional harassment for alleged proselytizing or unauthorized meetings. The Government continued to oppose ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’ Authorities continued their broad ban on wearing Muslim religious dress in government offices, universities, and schools.” [5e] (Introduction)