Turkey cois report November 2006

Return to contents

Go to list of sources
16.32 As noted in the European Commission 2006 report, “As regards access to radio/TV broadcasting, progress was achieved on broadcasts in languages other than Turkish at local and regional level. However, in accordance with the regulation on TV and radio broadcasting in other languages and dialects used by Turkish citizens (2004), TV broadcasts remain limited to 45 minutes per day, 4 hours a week. Radio broadcasts are limited to 60 minutes per day, 5 hours per week. The Radio and Television Higher Council (RTÜK) decided in May 2006 to lift these restrictions as far as music and cinematographic works are concerned. However, as this decision was not officially communicated to broadcasters, they refrained from exceeding the previous limitations for fear of sanctions.” [71a] (p42)
16.33 The EC 2006 report further noted that:
“On the national level, the Public Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) is broadcasting in Bosnian, Arabic, Circassian, Kirmanji and Zaza. However, these emissions are limited to five days a week, 30-35 minutes daily and only cover news, sports, music and documentaries, and not, for example, children’s programmes. The issue of the independence, including adequate funding, of the Public Service Broadcaster TRT, and the Radio and Television Higher Council (RTÜK) remains a matter of concern.” [71a] (p43)
The High Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK)
16.34 “The government owned and operated the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT). According to the High Board of Radio and Television (RTUK), there were 226 local, 15 regional, and 16 national officially registered television stations and 959 local, 104 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. Most media were privately owned by large 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.” (USSD 2005) [5b] (Section 2a)
16.35 The Europa Regional Survey 2005 lists the functions of the Supreme Broadcasting Board or Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) as responsible for assignment of channels, frequencies and bands, controls transmitting facilities of radio stations and TV networks, draws up regulations on related matters, monitors broadcasting and issues warnings in case of violation of the Broadcasting law. [1d] (p1199-1200)
16.36 The European Commission 2006 report recorded that:
“Recent decisions taken by the government in relation to the appointment procedure of the members of the High Audiovisual Board (RTÜK) are a cause for concern to the extent that they weaken the independence of the media regulatory body. The Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television broadcast also poses problems in terms of definitions, jurisdiction, freedom of reception, major events, promotion of independent works and restrictions on the share of foreign capital in television enterprises. With regard to the administration of the broadcasting sector, the Radio and Television Higher Council (RTÜK) has so far not been able to reallocate frequencies and review the temporary licences effectively. The issue of the independence, including adequate funding, of the Public Service Broadcaster TRT, and the Radio and Television Higher Council (RTÜK) remains a matter of concern. Progress was made in this area. However, alignment in media and audiovisual policy remain very limited.” [71a] (p42)
16.37 The USSD 2005 report noted that:
“The government maintained significant restrictions on the use of Kurdish and other minority languages in radio and television broadcasts. RTUK regulations limit minority-language news and cultural programming to 60 minutes per day, 5 hours per week on radio, and 45 minutes per day, 4 hours per week on television. The regulations also require that non Turkish radio programs be followed by the same program in Turkish and that non-Turkish television programs have Turkish subtitles. The state-owned TRT broadcasting company provided national programming in Kurdish and three other minority languages.” [5b] (Section 2a)
16.38 On 16 July 2005 the Turkish Daily News reported that “The new members of the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) on Friday elected as chairman Zahid Akman, who said they had no intention of imposing penalties such as closures, bans or fines in the coming period. Akman took over as chairman in a ceremony attended by Fatih Karaca, the man he is replacing. Karaca said he always called for RTÜK members to be elected and was happy that Parliament had implemented such a change.” [23aj]
16.39 On 21 February 2006 the Turkish Daily News reported that the executives of two Diyarbakır’s local stations Gün Radio-TV and Söz Radio-TV, both of which had applied to RTÜK two years ago to broadcast in the Kırmançi dialect of Kurdish, had met with Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) officials. RTÜK was apparently considering allowing the broadcast in local dialects in March 2006. [23w] On 9 March 2006 the same newspaper reported that broadcasts in Kurdish had been approved for Gün Radio-TV, Söz Radio-TV and and a radio station in Şanlıurfa, Medya FM and that the channels would only be able to start their broadcasts after signing a protocol. “According to law, radio stations can broadcast in local dialects five hours a week and at most one hour a day. Programs in local dialects can be broadcast four hours a week and at most 45 minutes a day on television stations. All television broadcasts in Kurdish need Turkish subtitles, which channels argue imposes severe technical difficulties… ” [23n]
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
Internet
16.40 The USSD 2005 report stated that:
“There generally were no government restrictions on the Internet; however, the law authorizes RTUK to monitor Internet speech and to require Internet service providers to submit advance copies of pages to be posted online. The law also allows police to search and confiscate materials from Internet cafes to protect ‘national security, public order, health, and decency’ or to prevent a crime. Police must obtain authorization from a judge or, in emergencies, the highest administrative authority before taking such action.” [5b] (Section 2a)
16.41 As recorded in the European Commission 2006 report:
“Internet subscribers increased from 1% to 2% of the population…” [71a] (p30) “The penetration rate for internet services has reached 15.5% as of May. Mainly due to a lack of competition broadband coverage is low, facing persistent quality problems and high pricing.” [71a] (p42)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
Human Rights institutions, organisations and activists
17.01 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) 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)
17.02 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)
17.03 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)
17.04 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]
17.05 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)
17.06 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]
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
17.07 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]
17.08 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)
17.09 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
17.10 The New Anatolian reported 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]
17.11 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)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
human Rights Presidency and Human Rights Boards/Councils
17.12 The European Commission 2006 report noted that:
“With regard to the promotion and enforcement of human rights, the Human Rights Presidency and the 931 District Human Right Boards continued to provide training on human rights and process applications on alleged human right violations. Between January and June 2006, 778 applications were received. The vast majority of applications related to health and patients' rights, non-discrimination, right to property, and social security rights.” [71a] (p13)
17.13 The EC 2006 report also noted:
“However, the Human Rights Presidency lacks independence from the government, is understaffed and has a limited budget. Furthermore, a new president has not been appointed since the resignation of the previous one in September 2005. 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) Furthermore, “The Human Rights Boards have yet to assume a more prominent role in the on-site monitoring of law enforcement establishments. Since October 2005, the Boards carried out 992 visits to police stations and detention centres.” [71a] (p13)
17.14 As noted in the summary of the HRW report ‘Turkey - First Steps Toward Independent Monitoring of Police Stations and Gendarmeries’, published on 6 March 2006:
“Provincial governors’ close identification with the boards may help to establish the boards in the early stages of their monitoring activities, but already there have been instances where it has undermined the perceived or actual independence of a visiting delegation. In the longer term, the independence of monitoring activities should be enhanced, and the involvement of Turkey’s most respected nationwide human rights nongovernmental organizatons (NGOs), even in a consultative capacity, may significantly promote credibility and trust. Reporting of the boards’ visiting activities is as yet limited, but the Human Rights Presidency has committed itself to detailed reporting in the near future. Rolling out an interim independent monitoring system based on the human rights boards could ensure that the high standards observed in some police units are applied consistently throughout the country.” [9c]
17.15 The USSD 2005 report noted that:
“There were government-sponsored human rights councils in all 81 provinces and 850 subprovinces to serve as a forum for human rights consultations among NGOs, professional organizations, and the government. The councils investigated complaints and, when deemed appropriate, referred them to the prosecutor’s office. However, many councils failed to hold regular meetings or effectively fulfill their duties. Human rights NGOs generally refused to participate on the councils, maintaining that the councils lacked authority and were not independent, in part because unelected governors and subgovernors served as chairmen.” [5b] (Section 4)
17.16 “A Human Rights Presidency (HRP) monitored the implementation of legislation relating to human rights, coordinated with NGOs, and educated public officials. The HRP was generally considered effective. The HRP was attached to the Prime Ministry; it did not have a separate budget, and its resources were limited. Other government human rights bodies include the High Human Rights Board, an interministerial committee responsible for making appointments to human rights posts; a Human Rights Consultation Board (HRCB), which serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas between the government and NGOs; and a Human Rights Investigative Board (HRIB), a special body to be convened only in cases where lower-level investigations are deemed insufficient by the HRP. The HRIB has never been convened. In March six NGOs – the Society of Forensic Medicine Specialists, the Pir Sultan Abdal Culture Association, the Turkish Medical Association, the Turkish Human Rights Institution Foundation, the Human Rights Foundation, and the Public Administration Institute for Turkey and the Middle East–announced that they were withdrawing from the HRCB because of ‘government interference’ with the body.” (USSD 2005) [5b] (Section 4)
Parliamentary Human Rights Commission/Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Committee
17.17 In the European Commission 2005 report it was noted that:
“The Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Committee continued to collect complaints on human rights violations and, in relation to some high-profile cases, requested that the relevant authorities follow up and redress the situation when necessary. It received 1 307 complaints between October 2004 and June 2005.” [71d] (p21)
17.18 The EC 2006 report however noted that:
“The Parliamentary Human Rights Committee continued to play an active role in collecting complaints on human rights violations and conducting fact-finding visits to the regions. The Committee received 864 applications between October 2005 and June 2006. It has conducted several investigations and finalised three reports since January 2006. The Committee has no legislative role, and is thus not consulted on legislation affecting human rights.” [71a] (p13)
17.19 The USSD 2005 report recorded that “The parliamentary Human Rights Committee, which has a mandate to oversee compliance with the human rights provisions of domestic law and international agreements, investigated alleged abuses, prepared reports, and carried out detention center inspections.” [5b] (Section 4)
17.20 As outlined in ‘The Activity Report of the Human Rights Investigation Commission from 3 November 2002 – 20 May 2004’ provided by the Turkish Embassy in London, in August 2004 the Human Rights Investigation Commission received 804 applications relating to human rights issues in the period 3 November 2002 to 10 May 2004. Of these 244 (30%) were related to prisons, 142 (15%) to judicial problems and 75 (9%) were related to torture and ill-treatment. During the period 549 of the 804 applications were concluded, 207 were still being processed and 47 were still pending. [60a] (p8-9)
Ministry of Interior’s Investigation Office
17.21 The European Commission 2005 report recorded that:
“The Ministry of Interior’s Investigation Office, which was established in February 2004, has received 1,003 complaints of human rights abuses from the public. These complaints are assessed by inspectors, who follow them up with the relevant authorities within the ministry at local or central level. Most complaints received have been made against the police. To date, on only one occasion has a complaint led to disciplinary action being taken against a public official. This Office has also carried out inspections of a number of the provincial police disciplinary boards and has inspected detention procedures and places of detention in 26 provinces.” [71d] (p21)
Return to contents

Go to list of sources
Prison Inspection Committees/Prison Monitoring Board
17.22 The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs report 2002 reported that:
“Special Prison Inspection Committees were set up pursuant to a law adopted in June 2001. An inspection committee has to be set up for the area of jurisdiction of each criminal court. The committee is to be made up of five members chosen for four years by a commission of judges from the relevant area. The members must have university education and practise the profession of doctor, lawyer, psychologist or similar.” [2a] (p67)
17.23 In the European Commission 2005 report it was noted that:
“A number of provincial Human Rights Boards have begun to carry out unannounced visits to places of detention in a number of provinces. Although a positive development, NGOs have raised doubts about the independence of such monitoring and of the Human Rights Boards in general. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that this monitoring will represent a first step towards establishing fully independent monitoring as recommended by the CPT and the UN. Turkey signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) in September 2005. This protocol provides for a system of regular visits to places of detention by complementary international and national independent expert bodies.” [71d] (p24)
17.24 The USSD 2005 report noted that:
“The government permitted prison visits by representatives of some international organizations, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT); however, domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) did not have access to prisons. The CPT visited in March 2004 and conducted ongoing consultations with the government. Requests by the CPT to visit prisons were routinely granted.” [5b] (Section 1c)