Turkey country assessment

Enforcement of Human Rights

6.82 See section 6C on Treatment of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
Disappearances
6.83 The USSD 2004 reported that:
“There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances [in 2004]. The Government continued to investigate and explain some reported disappearances. The Ministry of Interior operated the Bureau for the Investigation of Missing Persons, which was open 24 hours a day. According to the Government, 14 persons were reported missing during the year due to suspected terrorist activities and 4 missing persons were located alive. There were no new developments in the 2002 disappearance of Coskun Dogan. In March, a Diyarbakir SSC determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute 47 soldiers for their alleged involvement in the 2001 disappearance of Serdar Tanis and Ebubekir Deniz.” [5c] (Section 1b)
6.84 The International Federation for Human Rights report ‘ Turkey Human Rights in the Kurdish Southeast: Alarming situation despite extensive legal reforms’ reported in July 2003 that “Many cases of disappearances in Turkey are not resolved. The majority of these cases reportedly occurred in south-east Turkey, in areas where the State of Emergency was in force.” [70b] (p9) The IFHR also reported that on the 17 May 2002, the ‘Saturday Mothers’ (a group campaign for those that have disappeared) gathered in Istanbul for the first time in two years, in the presence of the press and international observers. [70b] (p10)

Freedom of Speech and the Media

6.85 Europa Regional Surveys of the World ‘The Middle East and North Africa 2005 records that among the most serious and influential Turkish newspapers are the dailies ‘Cumhuriyet’ and ‘Milliyet’. “The most popular dailies are the Istanbul ‘Sabah’,’Hürriyet’, ‘Milliyet’ and ‘Zaman’; ‘Yeni Asir’ published in Izmir, is the best-selling quality daily of the Aegean region. There are numerous provincial newspapers with limited circulation.” [1d] (p1196)
6.86 The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Official General report on Turkey published in January 2002 reported that “It is known that local newspapers sometimes print articles which have been ‘ordered’ in return for payment. These are sometimes submitted in connection with asylum applications.” [2a] (p76)
Freedom of Speech/Expression
6.87 The USSD 2004 stated that:
“The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government continued to limit these freedoms in some cases. The Government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the Penal Code prohibiting insults to the Government, the State, or the institutions and symbols of the Republic. Other laws, such as those governing the press and elections, also restrict speech. In September [2004], Parliament adopted legislation prohibiting imams, priests, rabbis, and other religious leaders from "reproaching or vilifying" the Government or the laws of the State while performing their duties (see Section 2.c.). The "reasoning" attached to the Penal Code states that persons could be found in violation for accepting payment from foreign sources for the purpose of conducting propaganda in favor of withdrawing troops from Cyprus or (quoting from the text of the "reasoning") "saying that Armenians were subject to a genocide at the end of the First World War." The reasoning is not law, but serves as guidance to judges and prosecutors on how to apply the law.” [5c] (Section 2a)
6.88 The USSD 2004 continued:
“Individuals could not criticize the State or Government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the Government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, and the question of Turks of Kurdish origin as "minorities"; however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics risked prosecution.” [5c](p9)
6.89 However, the USSD also noted that “During the year [2004], there were indications that some judges in speech-related cases were conforming their rulings to recent, EU-related legal reforms.” [5c] (Section 2a)
6.90 The Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre ‘Report of fact-finding mission to Turkey (7-17 October 2004)’ noted that:
“Where crucial articles had been removed or amended, public prosecutors and judges would look for and find other reasons to punish people who express oppositional views, according to the HRFT. Both the Penal Code and the Anti-Terror Law were still used to prosecute and convict persons who exercise their freedom of expression. After the amendment of articles 159 (insulting the state and the state institutions) and 169 (adding and abetting criminal organisations) in the Penal Code, state prosecutors have started to apply article 312 (incitement to racial, ethnic or religious enmity) in order to charge people who express their views. One example I was given to underline this was a decision handed down by the Court of Cassation (Yargitay) in Ankara. The Yargitay had reversed a decision by the former State Security Court in Diyarbakýr, which had applied article 169 for sentencing a person who had demanded the release of Abdullah Öcalan.” [16] (p11)
6.91 As outlined in the Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2005 published in January 2005, pressure for reform coming from Turkish civil society, impatient with longstanding restrictions and ingrained institutional abuses; the incentive provided by the European Union through Turkey’s candidacy for membership; resistance to change presented by the powerful sectors within the military, security forces and the state apparatus; and the destructive effects of political violence produced a very mixed picture for freedom of expression. [9e] (p1)
6.92 The HRW report further noted that:
“Journalists and politicians who in earlier years would have received prison sentences for their statements have been acquitted, but prosecutors continue to indict people for their non-violent expression, and several writers served prison sentences during 2004. State security courts, commonly used to prosecute and imprison people for their non-violent opinions, were abolished in June 2004, but laws used to stifle free speech such as articles 159 of the criminal code (insulting state institutions) and 312 (incitement to racial hatred) remain in place, and were copied into he new criminal code that was adopted in October. [9e] (p1)
6.93 The European Commission 2004 recorded that
“With regard to freedom of expression, the situation of people sentenced for the non-violent expression of opinion is now being addressed. Since 2002, the Penal Code, the Anti-Terror Law and the Press Law have been amended to remove restrictions, resulting in a reduction in the number of prosecutions and convictions in cases related to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, there are still a significant number of cases where non-violent expression of opinion is being prosecuted and punished.” [71c] (p36-37)
6.94 The EC report 2004 continued
“According to official figures, there has been a decrease in the number of cases filed by public prosecutors and in the conviction rate pertaining to alleged breaches of reformed Articles 159 (‘insulting the state and the state institutions’), 169 (‘adding and abetting terrorist organizations’) and 312 (‘incitement to racial, ethnic or religious enmity’) of the Penal Code and Article 7 of the Anti-Terror Law (‘propaganda in connection with the (terrorist) organisation in a way that encourages the resort to violence or other terrorist means’) between 2001 and 2003.” [71c] (p37)
6.95 The EC report 2004 further stated that
“Moreover, all those who had been convicted under the now repealed Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (‘propaganda against the indivisible unity of the state’), have been released from prison and, where applicable, prison sentences have been shortened following the amendment to Article 159. According to official figures, as of April 2004, 2,204 persons have been acquitted as a result of the implementation of the amended provisions by the State Security Courts.” [71c] (p37)
6.96 However, the EC report 2004 also reported that
“The impact of the reforms has not been uniform throughout the country. The amended articles of the Penal Code and Anti-Terror Law, as well as other provisions, are still used to prosecute and convict those who exercise their freedom of expression. In some cases, prosecutors have reviewed convictions based on the repealed Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law in order to examine whether the indictment contains grounds to re-convict under alternative provisions. Moreover, numerous legislative and administrative provisions that predate the current reform process could still be used to convict those expressing non-violent opinion.” [71c] (p37)
6.97 Amnesty International’s report of 12 February 2004 stated that “Amnesty International is disturbed by the continuing practice in Turkey of investigating, prosecuting and convicting people who express non-violent dissenting opinions and make statements which ought to be regarded as contributions to lively and critical public debate befitting a democratic society.” [12d] (p7)
6.98 According to the European Commission 2004
“In the field of broadcasting there has been significant progress and previously adopted measures were implemented. The first broadcasts in languages and dialects other than Turkish were aired on radio and television by state broadcasting corporation TRT in June 2004. Broadcasts in Bosnian, Arabic, Circasian and the Kurdish dialects of Kirmançi and Zaza are ongoing. These broadcasts consist of news headlines, documentary, music and sports programmes.” [71c] (p39) (See also Section 6B on Kurdish Language)
6.99 In November 2003 the BBC reported that “Turkey has allowed Kurdish writers to hold a conference in their own language for the first time in years. Kurdish is being used in a literary conference, which opened [4 November 2003] in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir. This week long event is being attended by Kurdish writers and intellectuals from Turkey itself and abroad.” [66q]