Country of origin information report Turkey March 2009

Return to contents

Go to list of sources

23.38 When asked by the UKBA FFM about the prevalence of child labour, Ms Douglas-Todd, Resident Twinning Advisor, Independent Police Complaints Commission Project Team, said that this was reported to be widespread in Van, but even more so in Istanbul and that police ‘turn a blind eye’. [59] (S18.8)

23.39 Regarding children employed in the urban sector, Mrs Pieters the Deputy Representative of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) told the mission that number of children engaged in economic employment/activity in this sector had fallen from 478,000 in 1999 to 457,000 in 2006. However, there had been an increase in the number of children employed aged between 6 and 14 from 109,000 to 116,000. The statistics further indicated that out of the total number of children in employment, 392,000 were engaged in agriculture, 271,000 in industry and 294,000 in trade and other services. However these figures did not take into account children who took responsibility for domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning, shopping and care of siblings or older members of the family. According to the 2006 survey 53% of girls and 33% of boys carried out house hold chores but as girls got older they were more likely to continue with domestic chores than boys. [59] (S3.5)
23.40 The NGO 2006 compiled by Ankara Child Rights Initiative states that “Although problem of children in agricultural sector are being addressed more and more, there are still report of abuse of economically disadvantaged segments of the society by brokers who hire children between 12-16 years of age from their families in Eastern and South Eastern Turkey to work in Western Northern parts of Turkey mostly during summer months. These children not only are exposed to forced hard labour in fields but also to all forms of abuse including sexual.” [80b] (p6)
23.41 The US State Department (USSD) report 2007, published on 11 March 2008, noted that:
“There are laws to protect children from exploitation in the workplace; however, the government did not effectively implement these laws. The use of child labor was particularly notable in agriculture, carpentry, the shoemaking and leather goods industry, the auto repair industry, small-scale manufacturing, and street sales… The law provides that no person shall be required to perform work unsuitable for their age, gender, or capabilities, and the government prohibits children from working at night or in areas such as underground mining. The law prohibits school-aged children from working more than two hours per day or 10 hours per week.” [5g] (Section 6)
23.42 The USSD 2007 report also noted that “The Ministry of Labor and Social Security effectively enforced these restrictions in workplaces that were covered by the labor law, which included medium and large-scale industrial and service sector enterprises. A number of sectors are not covered by the law, including small-scale agricultural enterprises employing 50 or fewer workers, maritime and air transportation, family handicraft businesses, and small shops employing up to three persons.” [5g] (Section 6)
23.43 The NGO 2006 report compiled by Ankara Child Rights Initiative stated that “Due to economic hardships, child labour is being used as cheap labour in parts of Turkey. For example recently Food Processing Trade Union branch in Erzurum (Eastern Turkey) reported that number of children working is increasing as a source of cheap labour.” [80b] (p6)
23.44 The USSD 2007 report also noted that “An informal system provided work for young boys at low wages, for example, in auto repair shops. Girls rarely were seen working in public, but many were kept out of school to work in handicrafts, particularly in rural areas… Small enterprises preferred child labor because it was cheaper and provided practical training for the children, who subsequently had preference for future employment in the enterprise.” [5g] (Section 6)
23.45 The BIA News Center on 15 May 2008 reported in an article, ‘School Principle Beats and Injures 12 Students’, that:
“A school principle beats up 12 students for not cleaning the school garden by hitting their hands with a big pair of compasses. The students are hospitalized and the principle is suspended until the investigation is completed. The incident happened in Silifke, a district of Mersin in the eastern section of the Mediterranean region of Turkey.” [102a]
Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Legislative framework
23.46 The Report of the UK Border Agency Fact Finding Mission includes information regarding Legislative Framework for Children obtained from interviews with a number of sources. Mr Yilmaz Head of the Department of Child Labour told the mission that the Turkish government had adopted laws and regulations relating to the prevention of child labour in line with international standards. There were also many international organisations operating in Turkey that worked with the Government to regulate child labour, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations (UN). Mr Yilmaz reported that in 2006, the ILO had chosen Turkey as one of the most responsible and sensitive countries in taking forward work to prevent child labour. [59] (S15.1)
23.47 Mr Yilmaz said that there were a number of Turkish byelaws related to the prevention of child labour but that constitutionally, article 50 of the Turkish Labour Law was the strongest provision in place. Byelaws concerning the education of children and the prevention of child labour included:
“- Law no 4857 (Article 71 of the Turkish Labour Law) which prohibits children from being engaged in hard labour.

- Law no 222 which concerns the obligation to complete compulsory primary and secondary education for 8 years (6 to 14yrs).

- Law no 2821 which concerns the syndicate trade union law provision on child labour.

- Law no 2559 which concerns the provision of guidelines for the police and local authorities on preventing child labour.

- Law no 1580 which concerns the responsibilities of municipalities regarding child labour.

- Law no 2828 which pertains to social services and child care services.

- Law no 5395 which concerns child protection.” [59] (S15.2)
23.48 The Report of the UKBA Fact Finding Mission noted that Mrs Pieters, the Deputy Representative of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that UNICEF had undertaken a comparative study assessing the differences between the provisions in Turkish national laws that addressed issues relating to children and those in EU directives. This study would be used to lobby the government on amendments needed to strengthen the existing legislative framework for children. She said that child laws relating to freedom of expression and freedom to be taught in one’s own language dated back to 1932 and were in need of major amendments. Amendments made in 2004 had not addressed the need to extend coverage to the agricultural sector. While ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Turkey submitted reservations on articles 17, 29 and 30. These reservations remain today. The Turkish authorities should be encouraged to withdraw these reservations during the review of their 2 and 3 State Party Report in 2009. [59] (S3.3)
23.49 Ms Douglas-Todd, the Resident Twinning Advisor, told the mission that legislation was in place and there were many active campaigns in relation to child labour, but implementation remained a problem. [59] (S18.8)
23.50 When the fact finding team asked about any evidence on prosecutions and convictions bought forward on the unlawful use of child labour the Deputy Representative of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Mrs Pieters, stated that there were no statistics maintained by the government or the Bar Association on this subject. Mrs Pieters said that each Bar Association office across the country had a department for dealing with children’s issues but these were not very efficient. Mrs Pieters also mentioned that 60 Bar offices across the country had offices known as ‘Child Rights Commissions’ but only 40 of these were quite active. Officially speaking, legal redress was available to children, though concerns remained around the fact that there were no children’s courts and some children’s cases had been referred to the adult courts. [59] (S3.11)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
Education
23.51 The Child Information Network in Turkey, accessed 26 August 2008, noted that under Article 28:
“States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity; they shall, in particular
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.” [91c]
23.52 The US State Department (USSD) 2007 report on Human Rights Practices published 11 March 2008, noted that “The government was committed to furthering ’children’s welfare and worked to expand opportunities in education and health.Government-provided education through age 14 or the eighth grade was free, universal, and compulsory. Turkey Statistical Institute and World Bank figures showed that gross enrollment for grades one to eight was 96 percent, while net enrollment for those grades was 90 percent. The maximum age to which public schooling was provided was 18. Only 40 percent of children have a high-school diploma, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. One in 10 girls does not attend compulsory primary school.” [5g] (Section 5)
23.53 The European Commission 2008 Progress report on Turkey, published 5 November 2008, mentioned that “there was an increase in net primary school enrolment from 90% in the 2006/2007 school year to 97% in 2007/2008. Over the same period, the gender gap in primary education was halved from 4.6% to 2.3%. The number of pupils in pre-school education has increased by 28% over the last three years, from 550,000 in 2005 to 700,000 in 2007. The government target is to attain a 50% pre-school enrolment rate from the current 25%.” [71d] (p21)
23.54 The Report of the UK Border Agency Fact Finding Mission includes information regarding Education for Children obtained from interviews with a number of sources. Mrs Pieters, the Deputy Representative of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), reported that Turkey did not have enough schools for its 10.8 million school age children, despite the fall in the pace of population growth. Over the past ten years, the Ministry of National Education had mobilised resources to combat the issue including, in cooperation with UNICEF, the launch of a girls’ education campaign ‘Haydi Kizlar Okula’ (Come on Girls, to School). This campaign was launched because in many parts of the country, local communities saw no point in girls attending school, expecting women to play a traditional role in society later in life. Many conservative families were unwilling to educate their daughters, particularly beyond the age of 11. As well as doubting the benefit of education for girls, they did not want them to mix with boys and did not think it safe to travel to school on a bus. [59] (S3.6)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
23.55 Mrs Pieters said that there were some parents who were willing to send both their daughters and sons to school, but in cases of financial hardship, the sons were given preference to continue schooling, as daughters were more likely to be asked to stay at home to help out with domestic chores. The government had enlisted the help of community leaders and field workers in an effort to overcome these preconceptions and provide families with financial support so that their children could attend school. Despite this, overcrowded school facilities and other unfavourable circumstances provided families with a powerful excuse to not send girls to school. [59] (S3.7)
23.56 Mrs Baş, Head of Department, Directorate General for Women’s Status, told the mission that the ‘Come on Girls to School’ campaign which was being run in rural areas was becoming widespread across the whole of Turkey. [59] (S13.14) Mrs Baş also said that there were many initiatives being implemented to increase the proportion of girls attending schools. [59] (S13.18)
23.57 Ms Sahin, AKP MP for Gaziantep, added that raising educational awareness among young girls on human rights was a key priority and seen as an important means of eradicating abuses against women at a later stage in their lives. The campaign had so far seen 250,000 girls return to school. [59] (S20.8)
23.58 With regard to absenteeism from school, Mrs Pieters told the mission that Turkey had no strict guidelines on children who were absent or missing from school. Until recently, there was no data kept on numbers absent. However, with UNICEF support, the government had now made it mandatory for schools to record absentees and take action against parents for non-attendance. The new system (e-school) recorded all children in each sub district from the ages of 6-14 who attended school and teachers and school principals then fed this information into a database. School principals and teachers were also required to open a file for each student to further track their progress and attendance. The province of Urfa had shown positive results in school attendance since the introduction of the new recording system and Mrs Pieters indicated that the new system would provide a useful tool for UNICEF to conduct a trend analysis in 2009 on the proportion of children working in Turkey. [59] (S3.9)
23.59 The EC 2008 Progress report further noted that “The Ministry of National Education has established an e-school database containing information on school attendance. The Ministry can thus identify children that are out of school and try to ensure their enrolment or provide catch-up education. In May 2008, the Education Board approved the catch-up education programme: this is meant to give a second chance to children of 10–14 years of age who either never enrolled or who dropped out. This measure is targeted mainly at working and Roma children. In addition, mobile schools are trying to reach out to children working in agriculture.” [71d] (p21)
23.60 As recorded in Turkey’s Statistical Yearbook 2007, in the education year 2007/2008, 98.53 per cent of males and 96.14 per cent of females were in primary education; in secondary education 61.17 per cent of males and 55.81 per cent of females and for higher education year 2006/07, 21.56 per cent of males and 18.66 per cent of females were in higher education. [89a] (p96 Education and Culture)
23.61 A letter from the British Embassy in Ankara to the Country of Origin Information Service, dated 27 March 2007, stated:
“I refer to your letter of 21 February for additional information about services for children who are deaf, or whose hearing is impaired, in the province of Izmir. We are aware of at least one state-funded school for deaf children in the city of Izmir. This provides education from pre-school level up to 8th grade:

“Tülay Aktaş İşitme Engelliler İlköğretim Okulu

Mevlana Mahallesi, 373/2 Sokak

No:6/1, Bornova - IZMIR

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

email: [e-mail]
“There is no secondary school for the deaf and hearing impaired in the province. At present children have the choice between being assisted to attend a normal secondary school or attending a specialist school in one of the neighbouring provinces in the Aegean region.
“Pre-school education is also available. We are aware of two state-funded specialist toddler groups in Izmir itself, in the Carsi and Konak districts. Provision is likely to be much more limited outside of the main towns, as in the UK. To access these services a child’s parents must first submit documentation to the local Directorate of Education confirming that his or her hearing is impaired. A state hospital will usually be able to provide a suitable report.” [4q]
See section 21 - Disability
23.62 The International Deaf Children’s Society (IDCS) released a report by Mary C Essex on ‘Resources for Deaf people in Turkey’, which noted that:
“Turkey has been doing a good job of special education and there are many resources available for people with disabilities. There are 47 elementary schools and 14 high schools for the Deaf throughtout Turkey. All of these schools are under the auspice of the Turkish Ministry of Education. Other Key National Offices that provide support for People with Disabilities are:
“Ministry of Social Services and Child Protection Services

Milli Sosyal Hizmitler Cocuk Esirgeme Kurumu Bakanligi.

“Turkish Rehabilitation Centers (SHCEK): There are 385 updated lists of centers with 41 centers for Hearing and Speech Impaired 337 centers for the Mentally Retarded and 7 Spastic centers. These centers serve an early infant program and work with families and children from 0 – 21.” [28]
See also Section 21 Disability
23.63 The EC 2008 Progress report also stated that “However, respect for and implementation of children's rights continue to be a matter of concern. Children out of school remain a problem: the e-school database has revealed that approximately 450 000 children between 6 and 14 years of age do not attend school.” [71d] (p22)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources

Religious education
23.64 The US State Department (USSD) 2007 report on Human Rights Practices, published 11 March 2008, noted that “The constitution and laws provide for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice; however, the government imposed significant restrictions on Muslim and other religious groups… The government oversees Muslim religious facilities and education through its Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), which is under the authority of the Prime Ministry.” [5g] (Section 2c)
23.65 The USSD 2007 report further noted that “The law establishes eight years of compulsory secular education for students. Subsequently students may pursue study at imam hatip (Islamic preacher) high schools…The constitution establishes compulsory religious and moral instruction in primary and secondary schools. Religious minorities are exempted. However, a few religious minorities, such as Protestants, faced difficulty obtaining exemptions, particularly if their identification cards did not list a religion other than Islam.” [5g] (Section 2c)
23.66 The European Commission 2008 Progress report on Turkey, published 5 November 2008, stated that “In October 2007, further to an application lodged by a family who are followers of Alevism, the ECtHR found that these classes did not just give a general overview of religions but provided specific instruction in the major principles of the Muslim faith, including its cultural rites. The Court requested Turkey to bring its educational system and domestic legislation into conformity with Article 2 of Protocol No1 to the ECHR. This ECtHR judgment needs to be implemented. In August 2008 an Alevi Federation applied to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe complaining that this judgment is not being implemented and claiming that the new textbooks include superficial information on Alevis part of which could also be considered misleading. In March 2008, in two separate cases, the Council of State (CoS) decided that children of Alevi families were entitled to be exempted from these religious education classes.” [71d] (p18)
23.67 As outlined in the Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2008, published on 31 January 2008:
“In an October judgment that may have implications for the draft constitution, the European Court of Human Rights found that the failure to grant an Alevi schoolgirl exemption from constitutionally enshrined compulsory religious education classes focused on Sunni Islam constituted a violation of the right to education (Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey).” [9b]
23.68 The Minority Rights Group International (MRG) report ‘A Quest for Equality: Minorities in Turkey’, published 10 December 2007, stated that “Compulsory religious instruction in schools is discriminatory not only against Alevis, as is often emphasized by the EU 195 but also against other non-Sunni Muslims and Sunni Muslims who either do not conform to the Sunni Hanefi faith or do not agree with its official version. It is also discriminatory against atheists, agnostics and secularists, who may not wish their children to receive any religious education.” [57c] (p21)
23.69 The USSD International Religious Freedom report 2007 on Turkey, published 14 September 2007, stated that:
“Alevi children have the same compulsory religious education as all Muslims, and many Alevis alleged discrimination in the ’Government’s failure to include any of their doctrines or beliefs in religious instruction classes in public schools. Alevis currently have more than 4,000 court cases against the Ministry of Education regarding this alleged discrimination. The Government revealed in January 2007 its new religious course curriculum which was to include instruction on Alevism, but many Alevis believed the materials were inadequate and, in some cases false.” [5e]
23.70 The BIA News Center on 11 March 2008 reported in an article, ‘Compulsory Religious Education is Hypocritical Violation of Rights’, that:
“Constitutional law expert Gürcan has criticised the continuing obligation of school children to attend Religious Education classes. They have been controversial for two reasons. For one, many people argue that religious education should not be compulsory. Secondly, although the name of the class is ‘Religious Culture and Ethics’, students are mostly instructed in religious practices of Sunni Islam, rather than learning about different religious beliefs.” [102b]
See section 18 - Freedom of Religion
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
Child care
23.71 The US State Department (USSD) 2007 report on Human Rights Practices, published 11 March 2008, noted that “The government operated 113 orphanages, including 48 for girls and 65 for boys, serving a total of 6,116 children during the year. The government operated 43 children and youth centers and eight surveillance homes that provided daycare services and temporary boarding.” [5g] (Section 6)
23.72 The Report of the UK Border Agency Fact Finding Mission includes information regarding child care and orphanages obtained from interviews with a number of sources. Mrs Nurdan Tornaci, Deputy Director General, and Nilgun Geven, Head of Department for Women’s Branch Department of Services for Women, Children and Society (SHCEK), told the mission that SHCEK provided orphanages for children aged up to 12, dormitories and nurseries to educate children aged between 13-18, rehabilitation centres for children working on the street, homes for the elderly and the disabled, and shelters for women subject to domestic violence. SHCEK also worked on child custody issues, particularly in cases of children of foreign nationals. [59] (S11.3)
23.73 The EC 2008 Progress report noted that “Reception centres have been opened in a number of provinces for children who are perpetrators or witnesses of crimes or victims of violence. Six (6) such centres were established for the first time in 2007 in accordance with provisions of the Child Protection Law. Four (4) of these centres are ‘Protection, care and rehabilitation centres’ and assist children involved in criminal activities; two (2) are ‘Care and social rehabilitation centres’ and assist child victims of violence and abuse.” [71d] (p22)
23.74 The European Commission 2008 Progress report on Turkey, published 5 November 2008, stated that “Implementation of minimum standards of care and protection of children living outside parental care needs to be improved. SHCEK needs to make the data on domestic violence against children and child abuse and on children living and working on the streets publicly available in order to improve policy-making and public debate.” [71d] (p22)
23.75 Mrs Pieters, the Deputy Representative of United Nations Children’s Fund, explained that UNICEF was working to come up with recommendations to present to the Turkish parliament on minimum standards of care. UNICEF’s research had identified the need for more qualified social workers trained in early childhood development to work in orphanages. She also explained that the training of more social workers would take time as there were only two facilities in Turkey that provided the necessary training. [59] (S3.13)
23.76 The EC 2008 Progress report noted that “SHCEK has recruited new members of staff. The number of specialised staff such as psychologists, child development experts and sociologists increased during the same period. SHCEK has also made efforts to improve the quality of the services it provides and has assumed more responsibilities in implementation of the Law on child protection.” [71d] (p21-22)
23.77 The US State Department (USSD) 2007 report on Human Rights Practices, published 11 March 2008, noted that “In 2005 police arrested over a dozen nurses, caretakers, and other employees of the Malatya state orphanage in connection with an investigation into the alleged torture and abuse of children at the institution. On December 26, a Malatya penal court sentenced nine suspects to one year’s imprisonment for negligence and misuse of authority. A second case against five other employees continued at year’s end.” [5g] (Section 5)