|
Letter calling for release of Kurdish
activists in Turkey
8.6.2006
|
|
|
|
Letter calling for
release of Kurdish activists İbrahim Güçlü, Zeynel
Abidin Özalp and Ahmet Sedat Oğur, and expressing
alarm at gathering threats to reform process
HRW Letter to the Turkish
Prime Minister June 7, 2006
His Excellency Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Prime Minister
Başbakanlık
06573 ANKARA
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing to you today to express our deep and
growing concern about the stalled reform process in
Turkey and about several recent events that raise
troubling questions about Turkey’s commitment to
international human rights standards.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly and publicly
acknowledged the important human rights progress
that Turkey has made during the reforms of the past
four years. We welcome your government’s commitment
to “dynamic and continuous reform,” declared by
Deputy Prime Minister Gül on April 11 when he
introduced plans for a ninth reform package, and
promised measures to increase accountability for
government officials, enhance the independence of
the Human Rights Presidency, and further improve the
status of foundations that hold property on behalf
of the Jewish, Greek, Armenian minority communities.
Mr Gül went on to say that “the important thing is
the direction in which we are going. The reform
process must be kept consistently dynamic.” We at
Human Rights Watch fully endorse the view that the
reform process needs to maintain its momentum and
additional progress needs to be made in a number of
key areas. We are therefore particularly concerned
about recent developments suggesting that your
government is backtracking on important human rights
reforms and that the reform process itself may be in
jeopardy. After months of growing concern, we write
to you today to set out some of the areas where we
have seen a deterioration in human rights in recent
months and/or where serious human rights concerns
have yet to be addressed.
The Arrest of Ibrahim Güçlü, Zeynel Abidin Özalp and
Ahmet Sedat Oğur
On May 2, police detained Ibrahim Güçlü, Zeynel
Abidin Özalp, and Ahmet Sedat Oğur in Diyarbakır, as
they prepared to walk to the border with Iraq to
peacefully protest recent killings of civilians by
security forces in southeastern Turkey and their
concern about tensions between the Turkish
government and the administration in northern Iraq.
The three men were held overnight for questioning
and formally arrested the following day. They were
charged under the Anti-Terror Law with “making
propaganda for the PKK,” a charge that is patently
absurd given that Güçlü has frequently and publicly
condemned PKK violence. The three men will be tried
on June 8 at Diyarbakir Criminal Court No 4.
The arrest and prosecution of Güçlü, Özalp, and Oğur
violate article 10 and 11 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, which safeguard freedom of
expression and assembly respectively, and is one
example of a worrying trend, in which the security
forces and courts in Turkey appear to be reverting
to abusive policies and practices that undermine the
reform process.
We urge you to ensure that Ibrahim Guclu, Zeynel
Abidin Özalp, and Ahmet Sedat Oğur are released and
the charges against them are dropped.
Retrograde developments in freedom of expression and
language rights
In late 2005, Human Rights Watch wrote to express
disappointment that your government and the
judiciary had failed to abandon longstanding
restrictions on freedom of expression and fully
recognize language rights for minorities.
Prosecutors and judges continue to prosecute and
convict individuals who peacefully exercise their
right to free expression in clear violation of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which
was incorporated into Turkish law in 2003. In
addition to the case of Güçlü, Özalp, and Oğur
discussed above, other recent examples include the
prosecutions of Birgül Özbarış and Perihan Mağden
under article 318 for “alienating the public from
the institution of military service” because they
wrote newspaper articles regretting the lack of
alternative civilian service for conscientious
objectors. They face up to three years’ imprisonment
for each offense.
The government has not even considered abolishing
article 318, although it is clearly used to restrict
internationally protected expression. It is only one
of a number of articles of the criminal code that
are used to punish peaceful expression and assembly.
Article 301, which prohibits “denigrating
Turkishness” and insulting state institutions, is
also frequently used for such purposes. In March,
Eren Keskin was sentenced to ten months
imprisonment, converted to a 6,000 Turkish Lira (TL)
fine, for a speech she made in Germany saying that
the security forces were responsible for many cases
of sexual assault of women. Many other cases under
article 301 are ongoing, including prosecutions
against the publisher Ragip Zarakolu, the artist
Ferhat Tunç, and the journalist Hrant Dink, all of
whom face possible imprisonment for having expressed
their peaceful opinions. Deputy Prime Minister Gül
has said that, the ninth reform package will not
repeal article 301 although he might consider doing
so, “if the need arises.” It is clear, from these
and other similar cases that the need is urgent.
Some judges and prosecutors seem to be attempting to
turn back the tide on hard-won language and cultural
rights for minorities, as well. Leaders of Hak-Par
(the Rights and Freedoms Party) will stand trial
under the Political Parties Law on June 8 in Ankara
Criminal Court for speaking Kurdish at their party
congress. On April 20 Diyarbakır Primary Court No 2
closed Kürt-Der (the Kurdish Association) of which
the prisoners Ibrahim Güçlü, Zeynel Abidin Özalp,
and Ahmet Sedat Oğur were founding members. Kürt-Der
was closed under the Associations Law on the grounds
that it was working for an extension of broadcasting
and education in Kurdish, and had conducted its
internal business in the Kurdish language—the normal
business of such cultural organizations. The closure
is indicative of resistance by elements within the
civil service and judiciary to the standards
established by the European Human Rights Convention,
which Turkey signed and ratified more than half a
century ago.
The rights to assemble freely and peacefully express
ones views are fundamental to all the other rights
and freedoms enshrined in the human rights treaties
to which Turkey has committed itself. For this
reason, people imprisoned for their opinions are of
special concern to us. Human Rights Watch criticized
your own imprisonment on this basis and called for
your release, raising your case in various
publications including our 1999 World Report, and
our report of February 1999 entitled Violations of
Free Expression in Turkey.
Given your own experience, as well as your
obligations under international law, we would have
expected your government to take concrete steps to
ensure that the people of Turkey are able to
exercise their right to free expression.
Unfortunately, to date your government has failed to
implement this fundamental human rights commitment
and has not pushed hard for repeal of articles of
the criminal code that are most problematic with
regard to free expression and minority language
rights. Instead, your own private prosecutions of
critics such as Musa Kart and the magazine Penguen
for their caricatures presenting you as a kitten,
giraffe etc —mild by comparison with trends in
political cartooning elsewhere in Europe—not only
violate the EHCR, but also raise doubt about your
own commitment to freedom of expression.
We urge you to ensure the abolition of criminal code
articles 301 (insulting state institutions) and 318
(undermining the institution of military service)
and to drop all charges against Birgül Özbarış,
Perihan Mağden, Eren Keskin, Ragip Zarakolu, Ferhat
Tunç, and Hrant Dink.
Undermining the reform process
From the late 1970s onwards, violent political
conflict provided the context in which soldiers,
police, other security forces, and the judiciary
committed gross violations of the human rights of
ordinary Turkish citizens (see, for example, the
string of judgments against Turkey at the European
Court of Human Rights for extrajudicial execution,
“disappearance,” torture, unfair trial and denial of
free expression). The leaders and members of illegal
armed groups also committed serious acts of violence
against state bodies, as well as civilians (see, for
example, Human Rights Watch’s list of twenty-five
massacres attributed to the PKK or for which the PKK
assumed responsibility, included as an appendix to
our letter to the Italian prime minister urging that
Abdullah Öcalan be prosecuted for his part in such
violations, following his arrest in Rome in 1998
[http://www.hrw.org/press98/nov/italy-apendix.htm]).
Both sides used unlawful and undemocratic methods to
develop and maintain a powerbase within their
respective constituencies through acts of
intimidation, torture, and killing that were
calculated to generate fear and loyalty.
The reform process and improvements in human rights
protection since 1999¬¬—in which your government
played a role—has not only empowered individuals and
the broader civil society in Turkey, but has also
eroded the powerbase of armed groups described
above. As a result, it is widely believed that some
armed groups–both state and non-state actors—oppose
the reform process because it threatens their raison
d’etre. Many in Turkey suspect that some parts of
the state apparatus, as well as some armed
opposition groups, are carrying out violent attacks
and committing grave human rights violations in an
effort to destabilize the reform program and
re-establish their authority. The Şemdinli case
discussed below appears to confirm these suspicions.
The Events in Şemdinli
On November 9, 2005, a bomb was thrown into a
bookshop in Şemdinli, in Hakkari province, killing
Mehmet Zahir Korkmaz. Local people who were present
in the vicinity at the time of the bombing chased
men seen running from the bookshop, and caught two
members of the gendarmerie intelligence service,
together with a former PKK member, near the scene of
the crime. The men were in possession of bombs,
including a bomb identical to that used in the
attack and other incriminating evidence. The two
gendarmes and the third man were arrested and
charged with the bombing and murder. That same day,
another gendarmerie unit opened fire on the
bystanders who had captured the alleged bombers,
killing civilian Ali Yılmaz. After some delay, the
commander of that unit was also arrested and charged
with the shooting death.
After the incident, as described below, military
commanders and the security force establishment
quickly moved to block any serious investigation
into whether or not senior officers had helped plan
the bombing, and by doing so, appeared to confirm
the original allegation that some segments of the
military had been involved in/or supported the
attack. The Office of the Chief of General Staff
also blocked judicial examination of three local
military figures who were, it was claimed, in a key
position to provide information on the killing: the
Hakkari Provincial Gendarmerie Commander, the
Hakkari Mountain Commando Brigade Commander and the
Van Public Security Commander. The Office of the
Chief of General Staff refused permission for the
military authorities to investigate their
responsibility into the incident.
The bombing in Şemdinli was only one of a series of
such attacks that had occurred in the province.
Fourteen bombs had exploded in Hakkari province in
the two months prior to the attack on the bookshop,
including a 150 kg car bomb near Şemdinli
gendarmerie headquarters on November 1. This bomb
wounded six soldiers, three police, and sixteen
civilians, and severely damaged surrounding
buildings, but caused no fatalities.
Preliminary evidence about the bombings in Şemdinli
and other parts of Hakkari province suggested that
members of the military may have been planting bombs
in order to disrupt the atmosphere of relative calm
in southeastern Turkey, and provoke renewed conflict
in the region.
In late February, Sabri Uzun, Director of the Police
Security Intelligence Bureau, raised concern about
possible military involvement in the bombings in
Şemdinli when he was questioned by a parliamentary
commission. He indicated in coded but quite clear
terms that the November 1 explosion had possibly
been the work of people within the security forces,
and expressed doubt that the gendarmes indicted for
the bookshop attack could have been in Şemdinli
without the knowledge of higher ranking officials,
as claimed. Within a month Sabri Uzun was removed
from his post. This administrative sanction appears
to be an attempt to intimidate any other public
officials who might be considering providing
information to the parliamentary commission, or
offering testimony in the Şemdinli prosecutions.
On March 3, 2006, the prosecutor in the Şemdinli
bombing case, Mr Ferhat Sarıkaya, issued an
indictment, in which he also proposed that further
investigations be carried out to determine whether
senior military officers had ordered the attack on
the bookshop. The indictment suggested that a motive
for the original killing may have been “[t]o bring
the local [Kurdish] population to a state where it
can be lured with ease into action … then
exaggerating this threat beyond its true level, in
order to prepare the way for violent measures by the
state and to permit emergency rule to take
precedence over the administrative system in the
region … permitting security chaos in the region to
be used to apply pressure on the political
authority, and thereby … to frustrate Turkey’s
fundamental political directions—the modernizing
project, the EU process—and to protect the power and
place of the core political/bureaucratic governing
elite.” The indictment also referred by name to a
general who had reportedly described one of the
alleged perpetrators as “a good offıcer.” On March
20, the Office of the Chief of General Staff issued
a statement that the indictment was “political …
aiming to undermine the Turkish Armed Forces and the
fight against terror,” and made a complaint against
the prosecutor. By April 21, the High Council of
Judges and Prosecutors had taken Prosecutor Sarıkaya
off the case, removed him from his job, and stripped
him of his status as a lawyer for “abuse of his duty
and exceeding his authority.”
The 2005 EU Regular Report on Turkey’s progress
toward EU membership, prepared by the Commission in
consultation with your government as part of the
accession partnership, clearly indicates that the
High Council of Judges and Prosecutors is not
reliably independent from political influence. The
speed with which the Council took action against
Prosecutor Sarıkaya was unprecedented and raises
serious concern that the Council was used to block
any investigation into responsibility for the
bombing. The decision is reminiscent of the 2001
firing and expulsion of prosecutor Sacit Kayasu, who
indicted General Kenan Evren for staging the 1980
military coup.
The United Nations’ Guidelines on the Role of
Prosecutors states that prosecutors must “give due
attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by
public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of
power, grave violations of human rights and other
crimes recognized by international law” and must be
permitted “to perform their professional functions
without intimidation, hindrance, harassment,
improper interference or unjustified exposure to
civil, penal or other liability.”
This violation of the independence of the judiciary
and the accompanying interferences in the
investigation reveal the true extent of the
military’s enduring influence, and the continuing
impunity that exists for abuses committed by members
of the Turkish Army and those who work with it.
We urge you to ensure the immediate re-instatement
of the Van prosecutor Ferhat Sarikaya, and the
restoration of his status as a lawyer.
Disproportionate use of force and disregard for the
right to life
There has been a shocking increase in the use of
lethal force by police dealing with protestors in
the southeast in the last year. Since November 2005
police have killed nineteen people in demonstrations
and disturbances. In the past, Human Rights Watch
has raised concern with your and previous
governments about the disproportionate use of force
by security forces in Turkey. However, for the most
part, we were referring to incidents in which police
beat demonstrators. Recently, law enforcement bodies
have resorted increasingly to lethal force and shown
little regard for Turkish citizens’ right to life.
By so doing, they have conducted themselves in a
manner that runs directly counter to policies
proposed by the government to increase respect for
fundamental rights.
The March violence in Diyarbakır
On March 23, a long-awaited milestone in respect for
minorities was achieved when two local private
television stations and one private radio station
began Kurdish-language broadcasts. This achievement
was a significant victory for the non-violent
pursuit of recognition for minority language rights,
and an important challenge not only to the state’s
traditional model of the republic, but also to the
PKK’s methods. The following day security forces and
PKK militants clashed near Bingöl, and fourteen PKK
fighters were killed. On March 29, members of the
public—and in particular male youths—attending the
funerals of the PKK militants, clashed violently
with police, throwing stones and petrol bombs. In
street battles that took place in Diyarbakır over
the next days, the police fired bullets, gas
grenades, and stones at the rioters, killing eight
civilians. Ten people died in all and some, such as
78-year-old Halit Söğüt, beaten to death, were
clearly bystanders. Three of the dead were children:
nine-year-old Abdullah Duran, eight-year-old Ismail
Erkek and six-year-old Enes Ata. (A bullet fired by
police during similar disturbances in Batman also
killed three-year-old Fatih Tekin on March 31.)
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and
Firearms state that “In the dispersal of violent
assemblies, law enforcement officials may use
firearms only when less dangerous means are not
practicable and only to the minimum extent
necessary. Law enforcement officials shall not use
firearms in such cases except in self-defence or
defence of others against the imminent threat of
death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration
of a particularly serious crime involving grave
threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a
danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent
his or her escape, and only when less extreme means
are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any
event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only
be made when strictly unavoidable in order to
protect life.” The Basic Principles also state that
“whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is
unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall
exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion
to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate
objective to be achieved” and that they should
“minimize damage and injury, and respect and
preserve human life.”
It is clear that the police were confronted with
large and angry crowds, some of whom became violent.
According to the Diyarbakır governor’s office, 199
police officers were injured in the melee. However,
there are serious questions as to whether the police
in Diyarbakır could have used less extreme means to
control the crowd, or done more to minimize the
threat of injury or death. We are therefore
concerned that the force used may have been
excessive and disproportionate, in violation of
international standards.
Turkish police possess the necessary equipment and
skills to manage demonstrations and disturbances
without resorting to lethal force, and have done so
on many occasions in recent years. Yet since
November 2005 they have repeatedly used live
ammunition against demonstrators, or used weapons
designed to limit injuries (such as pepper gas
launchers) in a manner that has produced serious
trauma and death. News footage also showed police
officers using catapults to shoot stones into crowds
of demonstrators in Diyarbakır.
According to the Basic Principles, your government
is responsible for ensuring that “arbitrary or
abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement
officials is punished as a criminal offence under
their law.” The Principles also state that
“Governments and law enforcement agencies shall
ensure that superior officers are held responsible
if they know, or should have known, that law
enforcement officials under their command are
resorting, or have resorted, to the unlawful use of
force and firearms, and they did not take all
measures in their power to prevent, suppress or
report such use.”
Despite these obligations, your government has
repeatedly failed to confront the security forces’
reckless use of violence and hold accountable those
who are responsible through administrative and
criminal penalties. Not only has the government
failed to penalize those who commit such violations,
you have not even condemned the sudden increase in
the use of lethal force. Instead your statement in
the days following the deaths that “[t]he security
forces will intervene against the pawns of
terrorism, no matter if they are children or women"
appeared to excuse the security forces from any
responsibility even for the four children they had
killed. Your government’s failure to do condemn the
use of excessive force and hold accountable those
who have violated international policing standards
contributes to the atmosphere of impunity for law
enforcement that prevails in Turkey and increases
the likelihood that there will be further such
violations.
We urge you to initiate an urgent inquiry into the
recent rise in the use of lethal and
disproportionate force, which has cost nineteen
lives in the past seven months. We also call on your
government to take steps to ensure disciplinary
punishment, and where appropriate criminal
prosecution, of officers found responsible for
unlawful killings or woundings, or encouraging or by
their negligence permitting other officers to commit
unlawful killings or woundings. We believe that you
can make a personal contribution to halting this
dangerous trend by making a public statement
reminding police officers of their duty to protect
human life wherever possible.
Torture and ill-treatment in Diyarbakır
During the March violence in Diyarbakır, policed
detained hundreds of people, many of whom have
alleged they were ill-treated during detention.
Between March 28 and April 5, police detained 551
people, 199 of them minors. On April 4, lawyer
Cengiz Analay, chief of the Diyarbakır Bar
Children’s Rights Centre, said that 95 percent of
the children they had represented during those days
had made allegations of torture or ill-treatment,
including being made to sing the national anthem
while being beaten, being stripped of their clothes,
hosed with cold water, and deprived of food and then
offered bread that had been spat on.
The Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights
Association interviewed A.T., a fourteen-year old
boy, on April 3, 2006. He said: “I was detained on
March 29. About fifteen police beat me with
truncheons. My right arm was broken, but they
dragged me in that condition for about 100 metres,
and then took me to the sports hall of the Security
Directorate... They beat me with truncheons, refused
permission for me to use the toilet, and made me
constantly stand and sit... In the morning at 3:00
am they made me go to sleep, and then woke me up at
5:00 and beat me with truncheons again.” F.K., a
forty-six year old woman, gave the following account
on April 5, 2006: “On March 28 I went to collect my
daughter from school. While going to the Koşuyolu
district, police stopped me, insisting that I had
been throwing stones. Giving me no opportunity to
respond, they beat me and detained me. They first
took me to the sports hall at the Security
Directorate, and then to the Anti-Terror Branch.
They constantly beat, cursed and insulted me ...
They hit me, struck me with truncheons on every part
of my body (my back, my arm, my legs, but especially
my head). I felt constantly nauseous from the blows
I received... they gave me one meal in three days
but I could not eat it... a policewoman pulled my
hair.” She also described perfunctory medical
examinations at which police insisted on being
present.
The physical abuse of demonstrators detained in
Diyarbakır at the time of the disturbances
flagrantly violated international and Turkish law
and was completely at odds with your government’s
declared policy of zero tolerance of torture.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly stressed the
importance of effective supervision of police
stations, and the need for a firm and quick
response, including both administrative and criminal
sanctions as appropriate, when allegations of
torture arise (see for example our letter to Deputy
Prime Minister Gul of April 22, 2005). The
Diyarbakır provincial human rights board made no
effort to supervise the detention centers during the
March violence, even though there was clearly a
heightened risk of torture. In fact, the board has
never carried out any police station visits. What is
more, to our knowledge, the Interior Ministry has
not conducted an investigation into how and why the
system of safeguards against torture and
ill-treatment broke down so badly during the March
violence in Diyarbakır.
Although to date prosecutors in Diyarbakır have
opened thirty-four investigations into allegations
of torture and ill-treatment during the March
disturbances, there is reason to be concerned that
these investigations may not lead to a proper
accountability process. As the European Union’s 2005
Regular Report points out “prosecutors still do not
conduct timely and effective investigations against
those accused of torture … Convictions are rare and
the courts appear to be unable or unwilling to
impose appropriate sanctions on those committing
these crimes.” It is important that a political
signal is sent that impunity for ill-treatment and
torture will not longer be tolerated. We believe
that your government could send a powerful message
of its unwavering commitment to end torture in
Turkey if it were to dispatch representatives of the
Interior Ministry to conduct an investigation and
make a public accounting of what led to law
enforcement bodies to revert to old practices of
ill-treatment and torture during the events in
Diyarbakir.
Human Rights Watch urges you to initiate an urgent
inquiry, through the Human Rights Presidency, into
the circumstances of the outbreak of torture in
Diyarbakır in March, and to ensure disciplinary
punishment, and where appropriate criminal
prosecution, of officers found responsible for
torture or ill-treatment, or for encouraging, or by
their negligence permitting other officers to
inflict torture or ill-treatment.
Indiscriminate violence by armed opposition groups
Human Rights Watch is well aware that armed
opposition groups such as the PKK and the Kurdistan
Freedom Falcons (TAK) have been more active in
recent months, and that they have carried out
indiscriminate or targeted attacks on civilians,
killing more than twenty in the past year. TAK was
linked to the bomb attack in the tourist centre of
Kuşadası that killed five civilians in July 2005.
TAK claimed responsibility for a bomb that exploded
in an internet café near a branch of Bayrampaşa
Police Headquarters in Istanbul on February 9, 2006.
Café owner Zafer Işık died and fifteen people
including three children were wounded. On May 3,
2006, twenty-one people, including eleven children,
were wounded when a bomb exploded in Hakkari.
Authorities in the region blamed the PKK for the
attack; it has not denied responsibility. On April 2
demonstrators in Istanbul threw Molotov cocktails at
a city bus, causing a crash that killed passengers
Zulbiye Karasu, Sinem Ozkan, and Sibel Ozkan.
Last week, Human Rights Watch also publicly
condemned the attack on the Council of State judges,
and the killing of Judge Mustafa Yücel Özbilgin, by
an assassin who stated that he had acted “in
revenge” for a controversial decision by a Council
of State chamber in October 2005 that upheld the
city governor’s refusal to promote a teacher seen
wearing a headscarf while off-duty. (A copy of Human
Rights Watch’s press release is attached) Turkey’s
ban on headscarves infringes upon women’s right to
religious freedom, but Human Rights Watch has made
clear that such rights can never be legitimately
defended through violent attacks against civilian
authorities.
These attacks suggest that the leaders of these
armed groups may also be keen to destroy the reform
process and may believe that they benefit from
ongoing conflict. Progress in human rights since
2000 has brought modest but significant improvements
in respect for the rights of minorities, and the
leaders of such groups may feel that these new
policies are undermining their raison d’etre.
These attacks on civilians violate international
humanitarian law and reveal a callous disregard for
human life. Human Rights Watch strongly condemns
such attacks on civilians and calls for the arrest
and prosecution of perpetrators of such attacks in
free and fair trials consistent with international
law.
While violence against civilians by armed militants
must be condemned, it cannot justify the grave
abuses committed by state officials, or excuse the
government’s failure to bring to justice those
officials who have perpetrated such abuses.
Proposed Anti Terror Law amendments
As noted above, Ibrahim Güçlü, Zeynel Abidin Özalp,
and Ahmet Sedat Oğur are accused of “making
propaganda for the PKK” in violation of the
Anti-Terror Law. This case underscores the
problematic way that Turkey currently enforces its
Anti-Terror Law to restrict internationally
protected rights and also raises concern about
proposed amendments to that law, which are currently
under consideration by the Turkish Grand National
Assembly.
Article 6 of the draft Law on Some Amendments to the
Anti-Terror Law states that “Anyone who makes
propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organization or
its aims, shall be punished by a term of
imprisonment of from one to three years.”(Emphasis
added) As soon as the draft became public, human
rights groups expressed concern that people with no
connection to illegal armed political organizations
might be imprisoned and branded as “terrorists”
because some element of their peaceful and lawful
demands happened to coincide with demands made by
illegal armed groups. The arrests of Güçlü, Özalp,
and Oğur under anti-terror legislation for nothing
more than attempting a protest walk suggests these
fears are fully justified, and that police and
judicial authorities are indeed gearing up to
characterize non-violent protest as terrorism.
Proposed Anti-Terror Law amendments would also
restrict a detainee’s right to notify kin of his
detention, and permit judges and prosecutors to
delay a detainee’s access to legal counsel for
twenty-four hours. These measures threaten to undo
the primary human rights achievement of your
administration – progress in the fight against
torture.
For at least a quarter of a century the Republic of
Turkey had a well-documented record of systematic
and widespread torture. Its laws and regulations
encouraged torture and protected torturers. Reforms
adopted since 1997 have established important
safeguards that contributed to a significant
reduction in torture. The most effective measure in
combating the abuse was the complete abolition of
incommunicado detention in 2003, and recognition of
the right to legal counsel for all detainees from
the first moment of detention. Thereafter, the
reduction in torture was so dramatic that it seemed
realistic to hope that with the help of independent
monitoring of police stations to ensure broad
implementation of these safeguards, torture could
soon be entirely eliminated in Turkey (see our March
6 report Turkey: First Steps Toward Independent
Monitoring of Police Stations and Gendarmeries).
It should be noted that in the reports of torture
from Diyarbakır in March, police held detainees
under the Anti-Terror Law, and tortured or
ill-treated them mainly within the first twenty-four
hours. The outbreak of abuse in Diyarbakır alone is
a strong and timely argument against the proposed
twenty-four hour delay in access to legal counsel.
Many governments are following the worldwide fashion
to erode safeguards for detainees. Human Rights
Watch has criticized this tendency in the United
States, Europe and elsewhere. To date, Turkey’s
reforms have run counter to this trend. The benefits
for Turkish citizens have been considerable:
detainees are no longer being beaten to death at the
rate of one a week, as was the case in the
mid-1990s, and as a by-product, substantial
political advantages have accrued, including the
start of EU candidacy negotiations.
During its campaign for improved access to legal
counsel and other safeguards against torture, the
human rights movement (including the Turkish
Parliamentary Human Rights Commission under the
leadership of Dr Piskinsut) presented a huge amount
of evidence—ranging from instruments of torture
recovered from police stations to medical evidence,
and the testimony of hundreds of Turkish citizens
–men, women and young children—who had been tortured
or convicted to long terms of imprisonment on the
basis of testimony extracted under torture—that made
abundantly clear that such safeguards were
necessary.
By contrast Human Rights Watch has not seen any
evidence to justify the suspension of access to
legal counsel—certainly the Justice Ministry’s
reasoning for the amendments published in the draft
law makes no effort to justify this dangerous step.
The Interior and Justice Ministries must not be
allowed to discard such significant safeguards that
were only so recently achieved, on the basis of
unsubstantiated claims from the security forces that
allowing detainees to talk to a lawyer will somehow
threaten the fight against terrorism.
We urge you to ensure that the draft Law on Some
Amendments to the Anti-Terror Law is not passed in
its current form, and that the Ministry of Justice
withdraws in particular the provisions relating to
propaganda in article 6, and the restrictions to
detainees’ right to inform relatives and receive
legal counsel in article 9.
Human Rights Watch understands how difficult it is
for your government to challenge many of the
policies, practices and abuses raised in this
letter, since they are often justified in the name
of national unity, territorial integrity and the
fight against terror, and backed by forces with an
extensive power network in the state apparatus and
the media. However, an irresolute stance from the
government may jeopardize the important human rights
progress that has been made.
We therefore believe that it is time for you to make
a major public statement affirming your and your
party’s commitment to the reforms of the past years,
and presenting a picture of how the rights and
freedoms at the heart of the program benefit Turkish
citizens. The reform process that your government
helped to further is at a crucial juncture. Whether
there will be further progress in human rights
protection or a return to the widespread and
systematic violations of the 1980s and 1990s depends
in large part on your leadership.
Sincerely,
Holly Cartner
Executive Director
Europe and Central Asia Division
Human Rights Watch
Cc:
Ambassador Nabi Şensoy, Embassy of the Republic of
Turkey
Mr Abdullah Gul, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign
Minister and State Minister with responsibility for
human rights
Mr Cemil, Cicek, Justice Minister, Ankara
Mr. Abdulkadir Aksu, Interior Minister, Ankara
Mustafa Taşkesen, Human Rights Presidency, Office of
the Prime Minister
Committee for the Prevention of Torture
Mr. Martin Harvey, Acting Head of Turkey Unit,
European Commission
Ambassador Hansjörg Kretschmer, E.U. representation
in Ankara
Ms. Aslıgül Üğdül, Director for Political Affairs,
Avrupa Birliği Genel Sekreterliği, Ankara
hrw org
Southeastern Turkey:
North Kurdistan (
Kurdistan-Turkey) wikipedia
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 