EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT </EntPE>
2004 / / 2009<Commission>{DEVE}Committee on Foreign Affairs
Sub-Committee on Human Rights
25 October 2004
THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN TURKEY
This paper is a compendium of governmental and non-governmental organisations’ reports, documents and statements on the Human Rights situation in Turkey. The statements in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Parliament or of any other institutions of the European Union.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background notep. 3
1. The Kurdish questionp. 5
1.1. The recognition of the Kurdish identity: cultural rights for Kurdsp. 5
1.2. Freedom of expression, banning of political parties with Kurdishp. 5
origin
1.3. Integration of ex-Kurdish prisoners in the societyp. 6
1.4. Social and economic development in the South-East regionp. 7
1.5. Internal Displacement in the South-East provincesp. 8
2. Freedom of religion and non-Muslim minoritiesp. 10
2.1. The Armenian questionp. 11
2.2. Greek Minority of Imvros (Göçeada) and Tenedos (Bozcaada)p. 13
3. Civil-military relationsp. 14
4. Torture, inhuman and degrading treatment in detention facilitiesp. 17
5. Freedom of Expression and Pressp. 18
6. Freedom of Association and Policing of Demonstrationsp. 20
7. Violence against Womenp. 21
8. Progress in the ratifications of International Human Rights Standardsp. 23
8.1. Status of ratification of International Human Rights Instrumentsp. 23
8.2. Main reservationsp. 23
8.3. Turkey and the European Court of Human Rightsp. 24
Bibliographyp. 24
Background Note
In July 1959, shortly after the creation of the European Economic Community in 1958, Turkey made its first application to join. The ensuing negotiations resulted in the signature of the Agreement Creating an Association Between The Republic of Turkey and the European Economic Community (the "Ankara Agreement") on 12 September 1963, which entered into force on 1 December 1964.[1]
In April 1987 Turkey made a formal application to become a full member of the European Community, and in December 1999 Turkey was given official status as a candidate for European community membership. In March 2001 the Turkish Government published its "National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis," which set out the steps to enable Turkey to meet the criteria for membership of the EU. Particularly after the election of the Islamic-oriented AKP in November 2002, Turkey has adopted a series of reforms designed to ease the country's membership into the European Union.
On April 1st 2004 the European Parliament adopted a resolution with 211 votes in favour, 84 against and 46 abstentions on Turkey's progress on the road to accession.[2] According to the Parliament, Turkey has carried out many important reforms since last year in order to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, but must still make efforts to enforce reforms in many areas.[3]
The application process and the conditional nature of EU membership had a significant impact on human rights practices in Turkey. Particularly after the adoption of the 'National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis' in March 2001 and the establishment of the new AKP Government in November 2002, a series of reform packages have been adopted and key international human rights instruments ratified.
Progress has been made in several areas, such as:
- public administration and Government have been streamlined;
- the role of Parliament strengthened;
- by virtue of Art.90 of the Constitution, international law takes priority over national law when there is inconsistency between them;
- the death penalty has been abolished in all circumstances;
- the closing down of political parties has become more difficult;
- the controversial State Security Courts system has also been abolished and the Criminal Procedure Code amended;
- a new penal code that has just been adopted by the Turkish Parliament includes harsher punishment for torturers, rapists, paedophiles, human traffickers;
- Leyla Zana and three other former Democracy Party (DEP) parliamentarians have been released in June 2004 after ten years' imprisonment.
- The lifting of the state of emergency curtailing basic liberties in the South-east for 25 years has led to slight improvements in the quality of life for the Kurds living in that region.
- Broadcasting and teaching in Kurdish is now allowed even though in a restricted manner. There is only 30 minutes a week broad casting in Kurdish and teaching is allowed in private schools.
- Efforts have been made to execute the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and to pay just satisfaction.[4]
Despite these positive moves, criticism remains on several issues:
- the Kurdish question. The Kurdish people are still victims of human rights violations particularly in the impoverished South-east. In the words of Leyla Zana in the road towards Turkish democratisation it is fundamental that 'Kurds should be recognised as a part of the majority and should be given legal safeguards.'[5]
- the issue of internal displacement for the villagers of the South-east region remains a key human rights concern.
- the protection of the rights of non-Muslim minorities.
- the interference of the military in civil society.
- freedom of press and freedom of speech.
- the poor protection of detainees against acts of torture and ill treatment due to lack of supervision of police stations and gendarmeries.
- the actual implementation of the reforms, particularly in regard to the prosecution for acts of torture, to the possibility to freely express non-violent opinions and to form political parties.
On October 6th 2004 the European Commission published its Regular Report on Turkey's progress towards accession to the European Union. According to the Commission, Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria and recommends to open the accession negotiations.[6] However, the Commission recommends the suspension of the negotiations in the case of a serious and persistent breach of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.[7]
Based on these recommendations, the European Council at its meeting in December 2004 will decide on the opening of formal membership negotiations.
Relying on international and local NGOs reports and documents, this overview on the human rights situation of Turkey seeks to provide information on the most recent reforms adopted by the Turkish Government, their compliance with international human rights standards and their status of implementation.
The analysis does not claim to provide an exhaustive list of issues with regard to the implementation of international human rights standards in Turkey, but merely an overview of key matters that should not be overlooked when considering the accession of Turkey to the European Union.
1. The Kurdish Question
In considering the Kurdish question, the following current issues should be taken into account.
1.1. The recognition of the Kurdish identity: cultural rights for Kurds.
The Kurdish people make up the 20% of the total Turkish population.[8] Kurds share the Muslim religion with the Turkish population, but their language, ethnic origin, culture and history are different. Despite the considerable number of Kurds, their identity has not been legally recognised. As Leyla Zana stated in her recent speech to the European Parliament, 'Kurds should be recognised as elements of the majority and should be given legal safeguards. It is right to give a name to the issue and to define it. Everything has a name, the flowers, plants, animals... What has not a name, has not an identity.'In the light of this, a new democratic Constitution ensuring legal safeguards for the political, civil and social rights of the Kurds should be developed.
Lacking an official recognition, the Kurdish identity has in fact been undermined by the replacement of original names of Kurdish cities, towns and other geographic places by Turkish names. Also, until July 2004 the use of non-Turkish names was forbidden. A new law now allows children to be given names that are not contrary to moral rules and that do not offend the public. Regrettably, a Circular of September 2003 states that names consistent with the Turkish alphabet would be considered consistent with the law, with the consequence that most Kurdish names including letters such as 'w', 'x' or 'q' cannot be registered.
Significant steps have been recently achieved in the recognition of the right of the Kurds to teach Kurdish in private centres and to broadcast in Kurdish. The Constitution has been amended to lift the ban on the use of languages other than Turkish.[9] Nevertheless, there is a general agreement among Kurdish NGOs that much more needs to be done to make sure that improvements remain more than just cosmetic. In Leyla Zana's words, reforms should not be palliative, but radical solutions with a practical impact.[10] Primarily, Turkey should officially recognise the use of Kurdish language in all fora. Dismay persists on the characterisation of the Kurdish language as a ‘local Turkish dialect,’ whilst it is well known that its roots differ from Turkish.
Broadcasting in different languages and dialects rather than Turkish is now accepted. However, the Kurdish broadcasts are permitted to last only 35-minutes in total per week. The right to broadcast in Kurdish should be permitted at the national, private and local level.
Teaching in Kurdish should be allowed in state schools and not exclusively on "private courses." The recognition of the right to be educated in Kurdish should be extended to all educational levels- primary, secondary and higher. Further, concern has been expressed in relation to the closing down of new Kurdish schools because of technical problems. The Turkish authorities should not merely grant the right but also take all the necessary measures to fulfil it.
1.2. Freedom of expression, banning of political parties with Kurdish origin
Freedom of speech and organisational rights are still restricted.
- The activity of Kurdish political groups is limited. A succession of mainly Kurdish parties has been closed down on grounds of ‘separatism.’[11] When political parties are not prohibited by law, there are judicial proceedings pending.[12]
- Kurdish language in politics and political propaganda is restricted.[13]
- Kurds have not been granted their right to use their languages before official authorities, in the judiciary for instance or in communications with the administrative.
Some progress has been made in regard to hate speech against Kurds. On 17 July 2004, the Court of Appeal approved the decision of the local court to sentence a medical doctor under Article 312 of the Penal Code for incitement to hatred on the grounds of ethnic difference. When dead bodies were taken to a health centre following a clash between the PKK and Turkish army, the doctor stated: ‘you filthy Kurds, you all deserve to be killed …’. This was the first instance in which Article 312 of the Penal Code has been used as a way of protecting an ethnic group.[14]
However, on 22 September 2004, eleven police officers accused of beating and torturing a prominent Kurdish human rights defender, Ferhat Kaya, were acquitted. The case against the officers was dismissed for lack of evidence. The trial was observed by an international NGO delegation comprising representatives from KHRP, Corner House and Environmental Defence. The delegation believes that there was clear medical evidence to show Kaya sustained serious injuries in the hour after he was detained.[15]
Turkey should allow Kurdish political parties to carry out their normal functions andplay a role in politics and society. Elected representatives should not be deprived of their right to freely express their political opinions.
1.3 Integration of ex-Kurdish prisoners in the society.
According to the Commission, there is an estimated number of 5,809 persons detained for terrorist-related crimes in Turkey.[16] At least half of them are deemed to be Kurdish. Most of them have been ill-treated and they suffer, together with their families, from psychological trauma.[17]
As suggested by Leyla Zana, new solutions should be found to reintegrate the detainees in civil society. This particularly holds true for those who, being released, have to integrate in the Turkish society. Examples of ex-detainees rejected by business companies are numerous.
A solution for releasing and reintegrating the detainees into the civil society should be found. Programmes allowing ex-detainees to open up their own business should be promoted. In the same vein, it is of crucial importance to disarm the number of young armed Kurdish people in South-East Anatolia. Programmes to finance their demilitarisation and bring them back into society are deemed essential.
1.4 Social and economic development in the South-East Region
The South-East region of Anatolia, where many people of Kurdish origin live, has been socially, economically, politically devastated by years of conflict.[18]
The state of emergency, which had been in force for 15 years in some provinces of the Southeast, was completely lifted in 2002. In June 2004 the Kongra-Gel (formerly Kurdistan Workers Party -PKK) announced the end of its unilateral cease-fire. Terrorist activities and clashes between the Kongra-Gel militants and the Turkish military have been reported.[19]
One of the consequences of the conflict has been the displacement of at least 350,000 Kurds[20] from their homes (on the displacement of Kurds, see para 1.5 of this paper) and the impoverishment of the region.
It is crucial that Turkey be held accountable for the fulfilment of the basic rights of the people living in the region, such as the right to life, health, education, food and the right to have a safe place to live.
The essential infrastructures for the use of the water resources of the Ilisu Dam should be put into place so that the Kurdish people could benefit from its construction.[21]
The economic reconstruction of the South-east region is necessary to attract new investments, also from the Kurds who now have established themselves in Istanbul and started private activities.
The European Union could play a crucial role in supporting Turkish efforts to reconstruct the region, by assisting local NGOs, which should be taught the procedures to apply to the European funds and projects. The NGOs are indeed the fist interlocutors of civil society, they constitute the bridge between institutions and the people.
The European Union should finance the reconstruction of the rural infrastructures in the South- East and, through the NGOs, inform the locals on how to benefit from the European assistance.
1.5. Internal Displacement in the South-East provinces [22]
The Kurdish population continues to suffer the effects of internal displacement, after three million Kurds have been forcibly evacuated from their homes during over fifteen years of violent conflict.[23]
As reported by Human Rights Watch, Turkish armed forces forcibly evacuated hundreds of thousands of Kurdish villagers from their homes in the South-east in the 1990s as a form of retaliation against the PKK. 'The evictions were unlawful and violent. Villagers’ homes were torched, and their crops and livestock destroyed. Security forces killed or “disappeared” scores of villagers. The Turkish army moved out any inhabitants who refused to join the paramilitary “village guards,” armed and paid by the Government to fight the PKK.'[24]
Lack of progress on the internal displacement of Kurdish villagers in the region remains a key human rights concern.
The European Court of Human Rights has addressed these violations in several judgements against the Turkish Government, dealing with destruction of homes, crops, and livestock, extrajudicial execution, and ´disappearances´ committed by soldiers during the clearance.
Governments' return programmes have been discriminatory, under-financed, and ineffective, underscoring the intention of the Government to deflect criticism rather than provide homes and protection.
Despite the Government’s claims that 124,218 displaced persons[25] were resettled in South-east between June 2000 and December 2003, no records of the names of the settlements or the numbers of returnees have been provided.
Most villagers are still unable to return to their property because of the threat posed by paramilitary village guards and uncleared mines, or because they cannot afford to restore their homes and local infrastructure. The majority of the displaced are still living in poverty in urban areas throughout the country.
Until now the response of the Turkish Government has been inadequate.
- The Turkish Government has made no progress in disbanding the paramilitary village guard system, which is still operating in the South-East, despite the 2002 recommendations of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on Internal Displaced Persons, Dr. Francis Deng.[26] It is worth mentioning that the guards were involved in the original displacement. If dismantled, however, alternative programmes for employing the village guards should be considered, to avoid their involvement in criminal activities. In its last report the Commission also placed emphasis on solving the issue of the village guards.[27]
- There is no transparent programme for providing funds for reconstructing houses or restarting agriculture. The funds currently allocated are insufficient in proportion to the estimated number of returnees.
- A Compensation Law was passed by the Government on July 27 2004. According to Human Rights Watch, ‘it remains unclear whether this law will serve to channel funds to the displaced.’ The commissions mandated to evaluate the damages and levels of compensation, are composed not of independent assessors, but of ministry representatives. These representatives are headed by assistant provincial governors-the same authorities who presided over the original displacement.
In the short term, as recommended by the Council of Europe, the Turkish Government should "move from a dialogue to a formal partnership with UN agencies to work for a return in safety and dignity of those internally displaced by the conflict in the 1990’s."[28] To date, however, Turkey has failed to collaborate effectively with the UN international organisations in the field.
The Turkish Government should commit to a plan of action that provides for the specific involvement of international organizations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which are already working in Turkey and have the expertise and means to facilitate returns. The involvement of such U.N. agencies, as well as other relevant bodies such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the E.U., would ensure that any Government return programmes are in accordance with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and that the programmes are actually implemented on the ground. This guarantee of quality and experience would also greatly facilitate attracting international funding.