COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS EXAMINES INITIAL REPORT OF TURKEY

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this morning concluded its consideration of the initial report of Turkey on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Presenting the report, Mehmet Ferden Çarikçi, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that there were over six million Turks living as migrant workers, mainly in Europe. Turkey had a strong tradition of responding to affected peoples in need without distinction. The landmark Law on Foreigners and International Protection had given a legal basis to the principle of non-refoulement, and had established the procedure relating to humanitarian residence permits and subsidiary protection mechanisms. Turkey was hosting 2.7 million Syrians, and around 300,000 Iraqis, making it the biggest refugee-hosting nation in the world. They were allowed to access the labour market, and were provided with food, health and education services as well as psychological support. The recent agreement between Turkey and the European Union was based only on humanitarian purposes. Its main goal was to prevent loss of lives, crush smuggling networks and replace irregular migration with regular migration.

During the dialogue, Experts noted that Turkey was facing an exceptional situation, and commended it for welcoming so many refugees from Syria. They asked a number of questions with regards to protection services provided to these refugees, both on the short and long term. They underlined the importance of shared responsibility and regional cooperation in tackling the issue, but raised a number of questions with regards to the recent agreement adopted with the European Union and efforts to combat human smuggling of migrants. Experts welcomed the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, but regretted the lack of reference to the Convention therein. Concerns were raised about removal centres and the situation of unaccompanied children. Committee Members requested information on support provided to Turkish citizens living abroad. They emphasized the leading role that Turkey could play in promoting the ratification of the Convention by more States, including host countries.

In concluding remarks, Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, regretted that the delegation had not had enough time to reply to the many questions asked, but commended the high level of responses provided nonetheless. The Committee would make recommendations to encourage Turkey to continue its efforts to improve the situation of migrants.

Mr. Çarikçi, in his concluding remarks, thanked the Members of the Committee for their comments and questions, which would be given due consideration by the Government. Turkey would keep on addressing challenges with courage, and would spare no efforts to reach higher standards.

The delegation of Turkey included representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Education, the Ombudsman’s Institution, as well as the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 22 April to close its twenty-fourth session.
Report

The initial report of Turkey can be read here: CMW/C/TUR/1.

Presentation of the Report

MEHMET FERDEN ÇARIKÇI, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presenting the report, expressed support for the work of the Committee and noted the need for more States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which 25 years after its adoption remained highly relevant. There were over six million Turks living as migrant workers, mainly in Europe, and taking care of their needs as well as supporting their return back home was a priority for Turkey. The fact that no European State and few Asian States had ratified the Convention meant that millions of migrant workers in those countries were deprived of the protection it provided. For its part, Turkey firmly upheld the principles of equality and human rights without discrimination, as enshrined in its Constitution. An ambitious human rights reform process was being conducted, including through the adoption of a set of Constitutional amendments and efforts to review legislation in line with Turkey’s international obligations and commitments. Civil society organizations were involved in this reform process.

The 2010 Constitutional amendments had contributed to strengthening the principle of equality and protecting human rights for all without discrimination. A number of judicial reform packages had been adopted to strengthen the independence, impartiality and efficiency of the judiciary. The Law on Foreigners and International Protection, enacted in 2013, had greatly contributed to filling the gap left by the absence of an asylum law in Turkey and harmonizing legislation with European Union law and with the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. The National Human Rights Institution of Turkey was established in 2012 and fulfilled the criteria of the Paris Principles, and application for status upgrade had been filed earlier in 2016. The Ombudsman’s Institution contributed to the promotion and protection of all human rights and would be reformed with a view to strengthen its efficiency in responding to individual complaints, including from foreigners. Numerous human rights training programmes for civil servants had been carried out. Moreover, awareness raising activities had been expanded to include students of all levels and civil society at large.

Turning to the specific issue of migrants, he noted that the world was undergoing an unprecedented period, with displacement at the highest level ever recorded. Turkey had a strong tradition of responding to affected peoples in need, without distinction. The landmark Law on Foreigners and International Protection, enacted in 2013, had established the Directorate General for Migration Management, which was in charge of implementing and coordinating policies and strategies on migration issues. The law had also given a legal basis to the principle of non-refoulement, and had established the procedure relating to humanitarian residence permit and subsidiary protection mechanisms. In addition to action plans and strategies designed for the implementation of this law, a comprehensive awareness-raising campaign had been conducted in order to facilitate its application. Workshops were also being arranged for academicians and members of civil society. A joint project had been conducted with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to harmonize migration management.

With regard to the situation of Syrians living in Turkey, the conflict in Syria had compelled 11 million people to flee their homes, among which 4.6 million had sought shelter in neighbouring countries. Turkey was maintaining an “open door” policy for Syrians and strictly complied with the principle of non-refoulement. Currently, Turkey was hosting 2.7 million Syrians, and around 300,000 Iraqis, making it the biggest refugee-hosting nation in the world. Around 270,000 Syrians were accommodated in 26 temporary protection centres and were provided with food, health and education services as well as psychological support. Syrians outside these centres also received free healthcare and education services. They had been allowed to access the labour market since January 2016. Additional schools, classrooms and teachers were needed to eliminate the gap in school enrolment of Syrian children in Turkey; international support had been below expected levels. The recent agreement between Turkey and the European Union, concluded on 18 March 2016, sought to completely stem irregular crossings in the Aegean, and was based only on humanitarian purposes. Its main goal was to prevent the loss of lives, crush smuggling networks and replace irregular migration with regular migration. This agreement had led to a dramatic decline in the number of daily arrivals to Greece.

Questions by the Experts

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, referred to sizable challenges faced by Turkey with regards to people on the move. Turkey was a country of origin, transit and destination, and the number of people arriving in Turkey had increased considerably. Around 2.8 million Syrians had sought refuge to Turkey, he noted. In comparison, only 260,000 Syrians had been accepted by European Union countries. One of the most important questions was on measures taken to prevent deaths of migrants, families and children in the Mediterranean Sea. What kind of statistics did Turkey have on this issue? What had been done to repatriate the bodies of those who had drowned? The Co-Rapporteur also asked a number of questions about detention and removal centres in Turkey, and statistics in that regard. Depravation of liberty of migrants or asylum seekers should be a last resort measure, he said. Was there specific accommodation for families and children in removal centres? What was the average period of detention in these removal centres before migrants were either expelled or regularized? What had been done to prevent abuse in these centres and prosecute perpetrators?

Turning to the bilateral agreement signed with the European Union, he asked what was happening to those sent back from Greece to Turkey. Could they apply for asylum in Turkey? Could they be expelled to their countries of origin, including Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq, or was the principle of non-refoulement prevailing? The Expert asked whether the Turkish Government was sure that this agreement did not violate the provisions of the Convention, and whether non-governmental organizations had been consulted during its negotiation. It seemed that the agreement focused on moving people from one place to another, but failed to provide long-term solutions or to address the root causes of migration. Without such an approach, it would not be possible to properly address this enormous challenge. It appeared that certain people with Iraqi or Afghan citizenships had been sent back to the Syria border without due process. There also appeared to have been violence at the border, he noted. Had any unaccompanied minors been expelled? Was the principle of the best interest of the child prevailing over migration policies? He asked whether temporary protection could be turned in a longer term status that included family reunification.

PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, fully agreed with the head of delegation that the Convention needed to be ratified by more receiving countries. He also noted that Turkey was a host, destination and transit country at the same time. In that regard, Turkey also had a responsibility to successfully implement the Convention, in order to give a good example to its European neighbours and encourage them to join the Convention. The Expert asked whether the Convention was directly applicable within Turkey’s national law, and how far had Turkey incorporated its dispositions. He welcomed efforts by Turkey to enable Syrian refugees to join the labour market, which made them migrant workers entitled to protection under the Convention. He then asked whether migrant workers were treated equally with other citizens in Turkey, whether they could join trade unions and whether they could receive employment benefits. What measures were in place to ensure birth registration for children of migrant workers? What measures and agreements with third countries had been adopted to avoid statelessness?

Referring to the system of sponsorship for fixed-term work permits, he expressed concerns about possibilities of abuses and risks of exploitation. Seasonal workers may perhaps get neglected sometimes, he noted, asking what measures existed to protect them. Turning to the high number of Turks abroad, specifically in Germany, he asked what specific programmes and support were provided for ensuring their welfare and the transmission of their social benefits. Mr. Kariyawasam noted the importance of debates and discussions on the implementation of the Convention, and regretted the fact that civil society organizations were not sufficiently consulted. He then asked whether Turkey would consider repealing reservations made to the Convention and ratifying additional International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions.

Turning to the first round of questions, Experts welcomed Turkey’s efforts for the promotion of the Convention and its commitment to migration issues at the international level.

Referring to the recent European Union-Turkey agreement, Experts asked how many persons had been sent back to Turkey so far, and what had happened of them.

Experts welcomed the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, which would set an example for other countries. The delegation was asked whether the law had been inspired by the provisions of the Convention, and whether the courts, when applying this law, could compare its provisions with the Convention. Was there any case law referring explicitly to the Convention? The law made a distinction between residence permit and work permit, an Expert noted, asking what would happen if a migrant had a valid work permit but not a residence permit.

With regards to foreign nationals detained in Turkey after committing a criminal offense, an Expert asked what measures had been taken to ensure due process safeguards, access to justice and to provide translation for those not speaking the language. Could they choose to serve their sentence in their country of origin?

An Expert asked whether Turkey would ratify additional international human rights instruments, including the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. An Expert noted that Turkey was implementing the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees with a geographical restriction that seemed discriminatory. Indeed, only European people could be considered refugees, while nationals of other countries were considered asylum seekers.

A Committee Expert asked whether the National Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman had visited places of detention of migrants, and whether migrant workers could file complaints to these mechanisms.

What efforts had been carried out to prevent and combat human trafficking?

With regards to gender equality, an Expert asked whether women were included in the design and implementation of migration policies, and asked whether the Government had data or statistics on the number of migrant women in the country.

Freedom of the media was very important for disseminating information on the rights of migrants, one Expert noted, asking what had been done to cooperate with media agencies in that regard.

An Expert asked what was being done to support the voluntary return of Turks living abroad, and what reasons usually motivated such a return.

Replies by the Delegation

Starting with the European Union-Turkey agreement, the delegation recalled that the principle of non-refoulement was strictly observed and insisted that no Syrians were forced to go back to Syria. The agreement sought to break the business model of the smugglers, and to provide migrants with an alternative to putting their lives at risk at sea. Since its adoption, the daily average of crossing in the Aegean, as well as the number of deaths at sea, had significantly decreased. More smugglers had been apprehended as well. Resettlement from Turkey would be realized with the cooperation of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). In order to provide for Syrians sent back to Turkey under this agreement, the Government had adopted a bylaw to grant them with temporary protection services. Turkey was determined to continue to offer protection to Syrians. It was regrettable that some countries, where migrants had been kept away with fences, had contributed to spreading false information about Turkey.

On cooperation with neighbouring countries, the delegation said that it was impossible for Turkey to cooperate or to have good relations with the current “Syrian regime” on this issue, given the violations it had committed against its own citizens, which had also contributed to the rise of the “Islamic State” group.

Turkey had adopted a number of measures to prevent and combat human trafficking, and had joined related international instruments. A bylaw on Combatting Human Trafficking and Protecting Victims had been adopted, and a Department for the Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking had been established. Turkey was providing victim support and voluntary and safe return programmes to the victims, in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration and local non-profit organizations. Multilingual helplines had been set up, and 182 victims had been saved since their establishment. Sexual exploitation of women was the most common sort of trafficking in the country, and most victims were from Eastern European countries.

On the issue of statelessness, a delegate said that children born in Turkey were under temporary protection and were registered as Syrians.

Those pending expulsion from Turkey via administrative decision were sent to removal centres, which were for the most part designed to accommodate their families. Food and health services were provided to them, and no unaccompanied children had ever been sent away.

Turkey was, together with Mexico, one of the main sponsors of a Human Rights Council resolution on birth registration.

Foreigners committing criminal offenses were provided free of charge interpretation and legal counsel. They had the possibility of appealing to domestic courts or to the European Court of Human Rights if they estimated that their rights had been violated.

If a residence permit ended before a working permit, the working permit was considered a residence permit until its expiration. There were no sponsorship agreements for fixed-term working permits in Turkey. The Ministry of Labour would impose very severe sanctions to employers abusing the current system.

Turkey had signed bilateral agreements to ensure that Turks living in European countries enjoyed almost the same rights as European citizens. The transfer of pensions was enabled by these agreements.

Consular services provided legal counsel and civil services to Turkish migrants abroad. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs closely monitored the situation of Turkish citizens abroad, and gave them all necessary support in cases of emergencies or natural disasters. To provide more efficient and faster services, Turkey had facilitated online consular services. A 2012 law brought modifications allowing every Turkish citizen living abroad to participate in elections from consular agencies they were registered to. Citizens could also vote at custom border gates.

Migration was indispensable and closely linked to development, the delegation said. Migrants made significant contributions to the development of their host country. Many Turks had made significant contributions to the development of Germany. Jewish immigrants to Turkey had made significant contributions to the development of Turkey. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda called for inclusive societies and partnerships, a delegate noted, recalling Turkey’s active advocacy for the inclusion of migration during the negotiations for the Agenda.

On border control, operations had been conducted by Turkey’s law enforcement to dismantle migrant smuggling networks. As of today, the Turkish coast guard had rescued 23,643 migrants at sea.

With regards to the identification of the dead and autopsy procedures, a delegate said that the identity of a body was done by a team of experts in the presence of a judge. There was no difference to the identification procedure whether the victim was a foreigner or a citizen.

On international human rights instruments, the delegation said that an internal evaluation was continuing regarding the ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. Turkey had signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure in 2012, and had completed most of the stages for its ratification. The adoption of the ratification law had been postponed due to Parliamentarian elections. Turkey was a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention with geographical restrictions, a delegate said. Despite this clause, all the needs of Syrian refugees were met in Turkey. The ratification of the European Union Social Charter would be finalized soon, the delegation said. Turkey would seize this opportunity to lift some reservations made to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Turkey had ratified nine International Labour Organization conventions about migrants’ rights.

There was no separate definition in the legislation for seasonal workers. They had the same rights and obligations as Turkish citizens. Some seasonal workers underwent a simplified assessment when working in the tourist sector.

Turkey was cooperating with the International Labour Organization to combat child labour through strong control networks. If the Government came across allegations of child labour in the textile sector, it would take action immediately.

The Government was cooperating with academicians and non-governmental organizations on migration issues, through the Migration Policies Board.

Turkey’s policy for Turkish citizens abroad was based on voluntary return. Turkey had double taxation treaties with third countries for those with dual citizenship. Upon their return to Turkey, access to the social security system, retirement and free healthcare services was very easy. The climate conditions, high quality healthcare services, and good living conditions were the reasons why many Turkish citizens chose to return to Turkey.

The Ombudsman was a very new institution dealing with complaints both from nationals and foreigners. The Chief Ombudsman was elected by Parliament, and was fully independent. The Ombudsman was responsible for submitting recommendations, and had received more than 1,000 cases since the beginning of the year. Complaints from foreigners had mostly concerned visa, citizenship and permit issues, as well as refusal of asylum seeker status, the conditions in removal centres and family reunification. The Ombudsman had also visited camps where Syrian people were accommodated, as well as removal centres. The Government was trying to raise awareness on the Ombudsman with a view to increase the number of applications submitted to it. The National Human Rights Institution was not only a monitoring body, it also received complaints. While the National Human Rights Institution could initiate investigations, the Ombudsman could only act upon requests.

Regarding administrative detention and removal centres, a delegate said that people under the deportation procedure could be placed in administrative detention in case there was a risk that the person would flee. This detention procedure was not a penal sentence. The Law on Foreigners and International Protection ensured that services were provided in removal centres, including free meals and hygiene equipment. Before they were admitted to removal centres, foreigners had a health examination. Those in removal centres had access to legal counsel, and were given the right to meet with visitors and consular services of their countries of origin. The capacity of removal centres had been increased, and new facilities would be built. Children remained with their families, a delegate said, noting that removal centres had playground facilities. The best interest of the child was kept in mind for dealing with unaccompanied migrant children, who were under the authority of the Ministry of Family and Social Affairs.

The new Law on Foreigners and International Protection ensured that foreigners and migrants were in harmony within the society, and had equal access to the labour market and social mechanisms. The law aimed for “harmonization” rather than “assimilation” or “integration”. A harmonization strategy was being developed in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration, in line with the European Union and international approaches. Implementation tools would be designed for the development and application of this strategy. Activities would specifically address harmonization with Syrian refugees, including Turkish language courses and the creation of community centres.

Regulations on temporary protection had not foreseen a limit date. Family reunification possibilities were provided to Syrian refugees.

Education services were provided to foreigners without discrimination. Syrian and Iraqi citizens had the same right to education as other foreigners. Formal, non-formal and open education was provided. There were 333,000 Syrian students and 10,551 Iraqi students in Turkey. They were given education in their mother tongue, and efforts were made to bridge the education gap they had faced as a result of the conflict. The Ministry of Education cooperated with non-governmental organizations on education. Financial support was provided to voluntary teachers. There was no gender discrimination in education.

Questions by the Experts

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, appreciated the delegation’s efforts to answer most of the questions raised by the Committee Members. He welcomed the decrease in the number of deaths at sea, but noted that the numbers remained very worrying. He underlined the importance of international cooperation to prevent these deaths, and encouraged concerned countries to carry out search and rescue operations. He asked whether there had been international cooperation to contact family members of those who had died at sea. He noted that there was a maximum period of detention in the law, but asked what was the situation in removal centres in practice. Had lawyers providing legal aid in removal centres been trained on asylum law, refugee law and on the provisions of the Convention? He noted that accommodation was prepared for children in removal centres, but asked whether families could instead be placed in dedicated open centres. What was the procedure for unaccompanied minors? Continuing, he asked a number of questions with regard to work permits, and requirements to obtain them.

PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, regretted that the Law on Foreigners and International Protection did not draw more on the Convention, and asked what efforts were being made to disseminate information on the Convention inside and outside of the country. He asked what efforts were made to prevent gender-based violence in refugee camps. He regretted the lack of data with regard to regular migration. The Expert noted that some recruitment agencies hired migrant workers without permit in order to avoid paying financial contributions, and asked what was being done to prevent this practice. Trafficking remained an issue, he said. While taking action against the traffickers, State parties sometimes took action against the victims also. What was being done by Turkey to protect those victims?

An Expert asked whether foreigners could appeal the decision to place them in removal centres.

Another Committee Member asked whether employment agencies were regulated in law and in practice.

With regards to Turkish persons living abroad, an Expert asked how many of them lived in Sub-Saharan Africa, and what were their occupations there.

The delegation was asked additional questions relating to the composition, mandate and independence of the National Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman.

An Expert asked the total amount of financial humanitarian aid provided to Turkey for dealing with the current issues it was facing.

Replies by the Delegation

The head of delegation regretted that migration was often associated with security and cultural identity threats, and assured that Turkey was committed to combat such stigmatization.

Reports in the press that Turkey had opened fire against Syrians trying to cross the border were false, the delegate said.

Strong efforts had been made for the strengthening of the National Human Rights Institution’s capacities and funding.

Turkey was using forensic techniques and cooperating with Interpol for the identification of dead migrants.

A law sought to prevent and combat violence and discrimination against women. There was no charge applied to the victims, nor was there any discrimination based on their nationality.

The Penal Code did not contain a specific prosecution of the victims of human smuggling.

Foreigners under temporary protection were registered for a period of at least six months, and provided with a certificate that allowed them to join the labour market. They were equal to Turkish citizens as regards labour law obligations.

One single authority under the Ministry of Labour was in charge with inspecting recruitment agencies.

Turkish contractors used to live in Libya, but their number had decreased due to the situation there. Turkey was witnessing an increasing number of its nationals living in African countries.

Concluding Remarks

PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Turkey, regretted that the delegation had not had enough time to reply to the many questions asked, but commended the high level of responses provided nonetheless. The Committee would make recommendations to encourage Turkey to continue its efforts to improve the situation of migrants. The Committee would look at positive aspects, and would also refer to areas where improvements could be made.

MEHMET FERDEN ÇARIKÇI, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Members of the Committee for their comments and questions, which would be given due consideration by the Government. Turkey would keep on addressing challenges with courage, and would spare no efforts to reach higher standards. He expressed special gratitude to the Secretariat of the Committee and to interpreters.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW16/006E