Country of origin information report Turkey March 2009

Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Journalists
15.07 The Bianet article, published 1 December 2008, noted that: “According to the report published by the Media Monitoring Desk of the Independent Communications Network (BIA) for the period of July-August-September 2008, total of 116 people, 77 of whom are journalists, were prosecuted in the 73 freedom of expression cases. The 32 page long report presents the violations under the following headings: ‘Attacks and Threats’, ‘Custodies and arrests’, ‘Cases and Attempts’, ‘Arrangements and seeking of rights’, ‘European Court of Human Rights’, ‘Reactions to censorship and monopolizations’, and ‘RTÜK Implementations’.” [102h]
15.08 The Bianet article ‘Turkish Journalist Faces Threats in Belgium for Writing against Nationalist Remarks’, published 12 December 2008, noted that “Belgian authorities were forced to put journalist Doğan Özgüden under protection because of the violence and lynch threats he found himself facing due to the publications he made in his site against the nationalist comments of Vecdi Gönül, the Minister of National Defense… Özgüden had announced at his site İnfo-turk.be National Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül’s praise of the forced deportation of the Greeks and Armenians right around the time of the formation of the Turkish national state in the 1920s.” [102c]
15.09 In another article posted by Bianet, published 11 December 2008, it was reported that “Temel Demirer, who is on trial under article 301 of the Penal Code (TCK) because of the permission granted by Mehmet Ali Şahin, Minister of Justice, said the minister was distorting his words. Demirer is accused of ‘denigrating the Turkish Republic’ and ‘inciting to hatred and hostility’ for saying that Hrant Dink was not only killed for being an Armenian, but for recognizing the genocide as well.
“The Justice Minister had claimed that Demirer’s words were inviting everyone to commit crime against the state by calling the state murderer, having a negative influence on people.” [102g]
15.10 Reporters without Borders (RSF) posted an article ‘Thirteen year jail term requested for provincial newspaper editor who accused prosecutor of bias’ on 2 December 2008, stating that:
“Reporters without Borders deplore the 13-year prison sentence which a prosecutor in Gerger, in the southeastern province of Adiyaman, requested on 2 December for Haci Bogatekin, the owner and editor of the local fortnightly Gerger Firat, for an article accusing another local prosecutor of bias. A four-and-a-half-year sentence was also requested for the editor of a website that posted the article.
“Bogatekin’s 2 December court appearance was the seventh time he has gone before a judge in Gerger in this case, in which he is charged with trying to influence the course of a trial and with insulting and defaming Sadullah Ovacikli, a local prosecutor.” [11b]
15.11 Reporters without Borders (RSF) in their 2008 annual report also noted that:
“The EU’s annual progress report on Turkey’s application to join the EU said very serious efforts were still needed to improve freedom of expression. Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said on 6 November the government would amend article 301 and that the cabinet would give priority to proposals based on calls from civil society groups. Prime Minister Erdogan made similar promises a year earlier.” [11c]
15.12 The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in their 2007 report ‘Attacks on the Press in 2007 – Turkey’ noted that “In the last 15 years, 18 other Turkish journalists have been killed for their work, many of them murdered, making it the eighth-deadliest country in the world for journalists, CPJ research shows. The last killing was in 1999. More recently, journalists, academics, and others have been subjected to pervasive legal harassment for statements that allegedly insult the Turkish identity, CPJ research shows.” [15a]
15.13 The same CPJ 2007 report also noted that: “In July 2006, ’Turkey’s High Court of Appeals upheld a six-month suspended prison sentence against Dink for violating Article 301 of the penal code in a case sparked by complaints from nationalist activists. His prosecution stemmed from a series of articles in early 2004 dealing with the collective memory of the Armenian massacres of 1915-17 under the Ottoman Empire. Armenians call the killings the first genocide of the 20th century, a term that Turkey rejects.” [15a]
15.14 The European Commission 2008 Progress report, published 5 November 2008, noted that “Overall, with the amendment of Article 301 there has been some progress in the efforts to strengthen the safeguards for freedom of expression, which is a priority of the Accession Partnership. However, only a consistent track record of implementation will show whether or not the revised article is adequate.” [71d] (p16)

Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Print Media

15.15 The US State Department (USSD) report 2007, published on 11 March 2008, noted that:
“Turkey had an active print media independent of state control. There were hundreds of private newspapers that spanned the political spectrum… Most media were owned by large, private holding companies that had a wide range of outside business interests; the concentration of media ownership influenced the content of reporting and limited the scope of debate. Observers noted that media conglomerates increasingly used media as a tool to build pressure against government policies.” [5g] (Section 2a)
15.16 The USSD 2007 report noted that:
“Prosecutors harassed writers, journalists, and political figures by bringing dozens of cases to court each year under various laws that restrict media freedom; however, judges dismissed many of these charges. Police harassed and beat journalists during at least one demonstration. Authorities ordered raids of newspaper offices, closed newspapers temporarily, issued fines, or confiscated newspapers for violating speech codes. Despite government restrictions, the media criticized government leaders and policies daily and in many cases adopted an adversarial role with respect to the government.” [5g] (Section 2a)

The High Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK)
15.17 The United States Department of State (USSD) 2007 report, published 11 March 2008, noted that:

“The government owned and operated the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT). According to the High Board of Radio and Television (RTUK), there were 213 local, 16 regional, and 23 national officially registered television stations and 952 local, 102 regional, and 36 national radio stations. Other television and radio stations broadcast without an official license. The wide availability of satellite dishes and cable television allowed access to foreign broadcasts, including several Kurdish-language private channels.” [5g] (Section 2a)

15.18 The USSD 2007 report noted that:
“The government maintained significant restrictions on the use of Kurdish and other minority languages in radio and television broadcasts. RTUK regulations limited minority-language news broadcasts to 45 minutes per day, with no time restrictions for minority-language cultural shows or films. RTUK regulations required non-Turkish-language radio programs be followed by the same program in Turkish and that non-Turkish-language television programs have Turkish subtitles. Start-up Kurdish broadcasters reported that these were onerous financial obligations that prevented their entry into the market. The state-owned TRT broadcasting company provided limited national programming in Kurdish and three other minority languages.” [5g] (Section 2a)
See section 19 – Kurdish Language
15.19 The European Commission 2008 Progress report, published 5 November 2008, recorded that “Following the June 2008 amendments to the relevant Law, TRT - the public service broadcaster - is allowed to broadcast nationally all day long in languages other than Turkish. Since 2004 this has only been possible for half a day. An appeal against the Law is pending before the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, a new local radio channel, Muş FM, has received authorisation to broadcast in Kurdish. However, the launching of a channel broadcasting in languages other than Turkish has been delayed on several occasions.” [71d] (p25-26)
15.20 The EC 2008 progress report also noted that “Some progress can be reported, the Turkish Grand National Assembly amended the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) Law allowing broadcasts in languages other than Turkish (See Political criteria). RTÜK promoted selfregulation by broadcasters and enhanced its administrative capacity to fulfil its monitoring duties. Since August 2008, RTÜK decisions are accessible to the public.” [71d] (p50)
15.21 The EC 2008 Progress report further added that: “The Law on the establishment of radio and television broadcasts still poses problems in terms of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, definitions, jurisdiction, freedom of reception and retransmission, major events, promotion of European and independent works and administration of the broadcasting sector, RTÜK has not reallocated frequencies or reviewed temporary licences. RTÜK established a regular dialogue with the broadcasters and enhanced the transparency of its decisions. However, further measures are needed in order to strengthen the functionality of the regulator.” [71d] (p50-51)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Internet

15.22 The United States Department of State (USSD) 2007 report, published 11 March 2008, stated that “Limitations on freedom of expression expanded to the Internet, as Turkish courts on several occasions ordered telecommunications providers to block access to Web sites… The Internet was widely available in the country. It is used in schools, libraries, private internet cafes and other public locations, and the government encouraged its use.” [5g] (Section 2a)
15.23 The European Commission 2008 Progress report, published 5 November 2008, stated that “Some progress can be reported in the field of electronic communications and information technologies. As of June 2008, the total number of fixed subscribers is around 18 million with a penetration rate of roughly 25%. The total number of mobile subscribers reached to 63.6 million with a penetration rate of 90%. The number of Internet subscribers reached to approximately 5.4 million, 5.3 million of which are broadband (ADSL) subscribers.” [71d] (p 50)
15.24 The EC 2008 Prgress report also noted that “Turkey continued its alignment by introducing new regulations on access and interconnection based on the 2002 EU framework, on operators with significant market power (SMP) on the reference interconnection offer (RIO)… However, the Electronic Communications Law which would provide the basis for alignment with the EU framework did not enter into force after its adoption by the Parliament. The Turkish President vetoed four articles on the administrative and financial conditions for the regulatory authority and the draft is back in Parliament for discussion.” [71d] (p50)
15.25 The Freedom House report ‘Freedom of the press 2007’ noted that: “An estimated 13 percent of the Turkish population was able to access the internet in 2005, and the government refrains from restricting the internet beyond the same censorship policies that it applies to other media.” [62e]
15.26 The Freedom House, Countries at the Crossroads, Turkey – 2007 noted that “Internet freedom can also be affected; a court ordered Turkey’s main internet provider to ban access to video-sharing website YouTube in March as a result of a video making fun of Ataturk. A draft bill on internet crimes would ban access to Turkish websites with content related to crimes defined under the new anti-terror law (see section ‘Rule of Law’).” [62c]

Return to contents

Go to list of sources
16 Human Rights institutions, organisations and activists
Overview
16.01 The European Commission 2008 Progress report, published 5 November 2008, noted that: “There have been no developments on the institutions monitoring and promoting human rights, such as the Human Rights Presidency, which lack independence and resources. The Law on the establishment of the ombudsman is still before the Constitutional Court following the veto by the President of the Republic in November 2006. The Constitutional Court ordered a stay of execution of the Law, but has yet to give its verdict. Finally, Turkey has given no firm commitment on participation in the Fundamental Rights Agency.” [71d] (p68)
16.02 The EC 2008 report further noted that: “During the reporting period, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a total of 266 judgments finding that Turkey had violated the ECHR. Similarly to last year, the total number of new applications to the ECtHR continued to increase, with 3,705 applications during the reporting period. The majority of these new applications concerned the right to a fair trial and protection of property rights. Few of them concerned violations of the right to life or torture and ill-treatment.” [71d] (p11)
16.03 The EC 2008 Progress report further noted that: “Turkey abided by the final judgment of the ECtHR in the majority of cases. However, a considerable number of ECtHR judgments are awaiting enforcement by Turkey. This is sometimes because general legislative measures are required. For instance, the legal provision preventing the re-opening of domestic proceedings in certain circumstances following a judgment by the ECtHR remains in force.” [71d] (p12)
16.04 The US State Department (USSD) report 2007, published on 11 March 2008, 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. Government officials were generally uncooperative and unresponsive to their views. 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. Human rights organizations reported that official human rights mechanisms did not function consistently and failed to address grave violations.” [5g] (Section 4)
16.05 The USSD 2007 also added that: “The Human Rights Association (HRA) had 34 branches nationwide and claimed a membership of approximately 14,000. The HRA reported that prosecutors opened dozens of cases against HRA branches during the year. The HRF, established by the HRA, operated torture rehabilitation centers in Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul, Diyarbakir, and Adana and served as a clearing house for human rights information. Other domestic NGOs included the Istanbul based Helsinki Citizens Assembly, the Ankara-based Turkish Democracy Foundation, the Turkish Medical Association, human rights centers at a number of universities, and Mazlum Der.” [5g] (Section 4)
16.06 The USSD 2007 report further noted that:
“In January the Istanbul ’governor’s office, with no prior notice, froze three of the bank accounts of Amnesty ’International’s (AI's) Turkey branch, worth approximately $62,600 (75,000 lira). In May AI filed civil cases against two local government authorities, the Beyoglu district ’governor’s office and the Istanbul ’governor’s office, for failing to respond to ’AI’s administrative queries related to the seizure. On May 30, the Beyoglu district ’governor’s office issued a decision that AI had participated in ‘unauthorized fund raising.’ The decision did not specify what AI actions violated the law. In a June 22 public statement, AI stated that it does not seek or accept money from governments or political parties for its work but that its funding depends on the contributions of its worldwide membership and fundraising activities, including street fundraising or ‘face-to-face’ activities. The statement noted AI feared the incident could have been ‘a tactic of government harassment intended to impede legitimate fundraising activities.’ At ’year’s end AI had not received an official explanation as to what activities violated the law, and the civil case continued.” [5g] (Section 4)
16.07 The Human Rights Watch July 2007 Human Rights Concerns in the Lead up to July Parliamentary Elections report stated that: “On July 11, human rights defender Eren Keskin received a one-year sentence converted to a fine (US$3,400) under article 301. Çerkezköy Penal Court of First Instance convicted her for a speech made on February 20, 2005, at an event organized by the Çerkezköy district headquarters of the Kurdish party DEHAP during which Keskin had referred to Turkey’s dirty history and used the word Kurdistan.” [9f]
Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Human Rights Advisory Board (ihdk), Human Rights Presidency and Human Rights boards and councils
16.08 The European Commission 2008 report, published 5 November 2008, noted that “Several State-sponsored bodies have the task of ensuring the promotion and enforcement of human rights. These include the Human Rights Presidency under the Prime Minister's office and the Human Rights Boards (931 in all). The latter have the task of visiting places of detention and State-sponsored social services.” [71d] (p12)
16.09 Freedom House, in their report Countries at the Crossroads Turkey – 2007 noted that:
“Many of the EU harmonization reforms that Turkey has passed since 2001 have been specifically geared toward protection of civil liberties, including increased minority and ’women’s rights, broadened freedom of association and religion, stronger measures to protect against and prosecute torture, and a more democratic penal code. Moreover, the government is watching implementation closely. It has set up rights-monitoring boards to receive complaints and conduct independent monitoring of police stations to help prevent torture. A Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Committee now investigates abuses, and police, judges, and public prosecutors receive human rights training. Long-term detention has been effectively curbed by reforms. Turkey ratified a European Convention protocol abolishing the death penalty in February 2006. Nevertheless, problems remain, particularly (although not entirely) with implementation.” [62c]
16.10 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 expert advisory committee to assist the government in its implementation of reforms. The Human Rights Boards/Councils membership consist of the 850 county level boards reporting to 81 provincial boards. They are responsble in turn to the Presidency. Each has at least 16 members, including at least 3 associations or foundations, representatives of local government, local press, trade unions, chambers of commerce, doctors, bar association, universities, political parties (only those represented in Parliament), and provincial general assembly. Their role is to provide an organised structure of semi-independent bodies to research, document and champion human rights abuses at a local level. The boards feed into the human rights presidency and use the same application form” [4c]
16.11 The Turkish Daily News of 7 January 2007 reported that:
“An advisory board established to give civil society a say in efforts to improve human rights has not been called for a meeting since October 2004. The 27-month-long break of the Human Rights Advisory Board (İHDK) has been questioned by former members of the board, while sources close to the Prime ’Ministry’s Human Rights Presidency (BİHB) -- the body to which the board is attached -- offered the ’board’s ‘clumsy structure,’ consisting as it does of 94 members, as a reason for not convening a meeting... According to the former head of the board, legal specialist Professor İbrahim Kaboğlu, who resigned in February 2005, ‘The absence of a call for a meeting merely, and unfortunately, displays the insincerity of the government as well as its superficiality regarding the issue of human rights’.” [23b]
16.12 The European Commission 2008 report recorded that “The Human Rights Advisory Board – a body representing NGOs, experts and ministries – has not been operating since the publication of a report on minority rights in October 2004.” [71d] (p12)
16.13 Information obtained from correspondence on 5 February 2007 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices in Ankara regarding the Human Rights Presidency and Human Rights Boards / Councils stated that:
“Membership: The Presidency is a civil service department.

“Role: The Presidency reports directly to the deputy permanent undersecretary equivalent at the Prime Ministry, but is indirectly under the authority of the Minister for Human Rights. It is established by the Article 2 of law (no. 4643) and has a number of responsibilities:

“To co-ordinate the work of public bodies on human rights issues

“To follow and assess developments in human rights, ensuring that Turkey is in line with international standards

“To co-ordinate and assess pre-service internments on human rights issues and in-service human rights training for govt departments

“To investigate human rights abuses (it has a standard application form for investigation), assess and advise on preventative measures

“To act as the secretariat within the prime ministry for other groups/councils working on similar issues (e.g. the advisory board).” [4c]
16.14 The Human Rights Presidency website’s ‘Statistics concerning applications on human rights violation claims: (2004-2007)’ stated that:
“Province and sub-province boards entitled ‘Implementation Barometrical’ have restructured in order to provide services to all citizens. Thus, Boards consist of NGO’s representatives rather than state personals. [sic] In other words, in accordance with current structure, just 2 members are state personnel out of min 16.
NGO’s representatives who work for boards are as follows:

• Minimum 3 associations and foundations carry out activities in human rights.

• Demarche’s representative

• Local press representatives

• Trade Union’ representatives

• Chamber of commerce and industry’ representative

• Chamber of MD’s representative

• Bar’ representative

• University’ representative

• Political parties who have group in Parliament.

• Province General Council’ representative

• Mayor
“In 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 a total of 4516 persons have applied to the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry (1773) and the Provincial (2595) and Sub-provincial (148) Human Rights Councils throughout Turkey. As an individual may claim the violation of more than one right, the number of rights claimed to be violated amount to 6787.” [79a]