COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD EXAMINES REPORT OF TURKEY ON OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ON CHILDREN AND ARMED CONFLICT

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the initial report of Turkey on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Presenting the report, Hasan Gogus, Director-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, emphasized the importance Turkey attributed to being before the Committee. This importance stemmed chiefly from two reasons. The first related to the value Turkey attached to the Convention and to its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The second reason was the importance they gave to dialogue with the Committee. Turning to the written responses submitted to the Committee, Mr. Gogus noted that the reservations they had made to the Convention stemmed from documents that lay at the very foundation of their country, namely their Constitution and the Lausanne Treaty. Also, their system was based on conscription at the age of 20 and thus avoided any grounds for the admission of children in their armed forces.

Mr. Gogus noted that plans to include matters relating to the Optional Protocol within the curriculum of the training courses offered to members of all segments of the judiciary had been developed. The Turkish police and military forces received adequate substantial training on human rights, including children’s rights. Teachers in military schools received adequate training and these schools were rigorously monitored. Children in these schools had effective access to complaint mechanisms. Children’s Rights Committees had been established in all 81 provinces and a Children’s Rights Monitoring Committee had been set up last year within the Turkish Grand National Assembly. These multifaceted reforms had begun having a positive impact on the day-to-day lives of their children, though they were fully aware that much more needed to be done.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Hatem Kotrane, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, said that the Committee had learnt that Turkey was intending to join the International Criminal Court and thus would gradually be completing its succession to international instruments. They had also learnt that the Government was very committed to taking the necessary criminal and disciplinary measures to remedy any excesses and that guidelines existed for child victims and that additional action would be taken in order to set up an independent human rights institution and a mediator for children. The Committee would note in its concluding observations that internal legislation should give more coverage to the various offences mentioned in the Optional Protocol. The Committee had also understood that children who had participated in armed groups might be brought to trial.

Other Committee Experts raised questions related to, among other things, children recruited in armed groups which were not part of the regular armed forces of the country; children in military schools and their curricula; the extraterritorial competences of the Turkish courts with regards to the prosecution of crimes committed by Turkish residents or nationals abroad or when Turkish children were used outside of Turkey; the identification of child asylum seekers that had been involved in armed conflict; arms exports to countries where children were involved in armed conflict; and training provided to Turkish peacekeepers.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Turkey towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 2 October.

The delegation of Turkey also included representatives from the Law Faculty of Baskent University, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of National Defence, the Agency for Social Services and Child Protection, the Chief of General Staff, the Gendarmerie General Command, the Radio and Television Supreme Council and the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 15 September, it will take up the combined third and fourth periodic report of the Philippines.

Report of Turkey

The initial report of Turkey (CRC/C/OPAC/TUR/1) under the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict says that according to the Turkish Constitution, “national service is the right and duty of every Turk. The manner in which this service shall be performed, or considered as performed, either in the Armed Forces or in public service shall be regulated by law”. In the Turkish Armed Forces, there is no staff below the age of 18 under the obligation of military service. Therefore, it should be emphasized at the outset that no problem exists regarding the implementation of the Optional Protocol. According to Turkish Law, the age of military service for every male starts on the first day of January of the year he reaches the age of 20, on the basis of the date of birth in the register of births, and ends on the first day of January of the year he reaches the age of 41. Under the existing legislation it is not possible for persons below the age of 18 to be recruited in the armed forces or involved in an armed conflict. Also, voluntary recruitment does not take place in practice due to the sufficiency of resources in respect of the compulsory military service.

Within the structure of and under the supervision of the Turkish Armed Forces, the
Military High Schools and the Non-Commissioned Officer Preparatory School are schools attended by students who might be regarded as children. Admission to these secondary education institutions is on a voluntary basis and subject to the consent of families. The minimum age of admission to these secondary schools of the Turkish Armed Forces is 13 years and the maximum age is 16. Students who study at these schools are not, in any way, under any military liability under the military legislation. They are not entrusted with any military service or duty, and therefore, are not considered as soldiers. They are not entitled to hold a military status, authority or rank. They do not belong to any military unit other than being a military school student. Therefore, these students cannot be considered as members of the armed forces within the scope of the Convention. Moreover, these schools use the courses and textbooks which are approved by the Instruction and Training Board of the Ministry of National Education and included in the curriculum of secondary education institutions. These students are allowed to leave the Turkish Armed Forces secondary school institutions at any time, if they so wish.

Presentation of Report

HASAN GOGUS, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, emphasized the importance Turkey attributed to being before the Committee. This importance stemmed chiefly from two reasons. The first related to the value Turkey attached to the Convention and to its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. As the first country in the world to have dedicated a national holiday to children, who represented the future, Turkey firmly believed that children’s rights occupied a very special place within the realm of human rights. They were also aware that the involvement of children in armed conflict was an issue that was so unique in its abhorrence that they had been among the first countries to sign the Optional Protocol.

The second reason was the importance they gave to dialogue with the Committee. The Turkish Government and the Committee were, within the context of the Convention and its Optional Protocols, two parties striving to attain the joint goal of building a better and safer future for their children, said Mr. Gogus. It was in such a spirit and understanding that they had come today to discuss their initial report to the Committee and the written responses they had provided to it.

The answers they had submitted to the Committee were the compilation and amalgamation of information gathered from numerous governmental institutions, said Mr. Gogus. They contained a gamut of numerical and statistical data, as well as detailed information on relevant segments of their national legislation and practices. While they also engendered responses that might not be perfect, such as the difficulty at this stage to withdraw their reservations to the Convention, they remained confident that they would present a more-than-adequate basis to conduct an in-depth dialogue with the Committee over the situation in Turkey, with regard to the area covered by the Optional Protocol.

Turning to the written responses submitted to the Committee, Mr. Gogus noted that the reservations they had made to the Convention stemmed from documents that lay at the very foundation of their country, namely their Constitution and the Lausanne Treaty. Also, their system was based on conscription at the age of 20 and thus avoided any ground for the admission of children in their armed forces.

Mr. Gogus also noted that plans to include matters relating to the Optional Protocol within the curriculum of the training courses offered to members of all segments of the judiciary had been developed. Also, the Turkish police and military forces received adequate substantial training on human rights, including children’s rights. Teachers in military schools received adequate training and these schools were rigorously monitored. Children in these schools had effective access to complaint mechanisms. Further, arms exports were subject to a number of safeguards.

In recent years, Turkey had made important strides in protecting and advancing children’s rights, said Mr. Gogus. Legal reforms in this context covered a vast area ranging from introducing the definition of “child” within their Penal Code, to the provision of health services to all children, regardless of whether they were within the purview of any social security agency or not.

To follow and review the developments in this field, Children’s Rights Committees had been established in all 81 provinces and a Children’s Rights Monitoring Committee had been set up last year within the Turkish Grand National Assembly. This parliamentary committee was, as Mr. Gogus understood it, a unique body in the whole world.

These multifaceted reforms had begun making a positive impact on the day-to-day lives of their children, though they were fully aware that much more needed to be done, said Mr. Gogus.

Questions by Experts

HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, said that the progress Turkey had made was visible in the report and the written responses provided to the Committee. The Committee had received very detailed written answers, which had filled the gaps of the many questions and issues the Committee had had after reviewing the report.

The legal constitutional system that had been set up in Turkey did meet the requirements of the Optional Protocol, noted Mr. Kotrane. The Committee had learnt the fact that it was simply legally impossible to recruit minors in the armed forces and that voluntary recruitment was also not possible under the age of 18. All of this was fully in line with the Optional Protocol.

But there was also the question of armed groups different from the regular armed forces of the country. Were there specific penal sanctions planned for cases of children recruited in such armed groups? Mentioning the so-called Village Forces that were armed and paid by the Government, Mr. Kotrane wondered if there were any children among these. What measures had been taken to ensure that no children were among them? What had been made to ensure that this was also the case within the PKK armed groups?

Mr. Kotrane also wondered whether Turkey had ratified the Rome Statute. The report mentioned that some measures of the Statute had been incorporated in the State’s legislation. Which were these? What happened with regards to crimes committed outside of the Turkish territory? Were there extraterritorial competences of the Turkish courts that allowed them to prosecute crimes committed by Turkish residents or nationals abroad or when Turkish children were used outside of Turkey?

Turning to the instructions given in military schools, was the Optional Protocol applied there, wondered Mr. Kotrane? Was the Convention taught to children in general and to children in military schools in particular?

Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, whether there was in Turkey a system of identifying child asylum seekers. Amongst the many refugees hosted by Turkey, were there any children that had been involved in armed conflict? What possibilities for rehabilitation services for such children existed in Turkey?

Was there any peace education provided to children in schools? How did the State Party raise awareness of the Optional Protocol to non-Turkish speaking children living in border areas, wondered another Expert.

Turning to the issue of children in military schools, one Expert wondered if these could be considered as reservists. Noting the military nature of these schools, what happened if an offence was committed in these schools? Who would be competent to deal with that case; would the case be sent to a military or civilian court? Also, the report noted that children in these schools, who were aged below 15, could not be considered as reservists. What happened to those aged between 15 and 18?

In connection with arms export, one Expert wondered whether Turkey could export weapons or not and what guarantees were provided in cases of countries where children were involved in armed conflict.

Turning to the reservations by Turkey on the Convention, Experts asked what steps Turkey had taken to the end of withdrawing their reservations.

Another Expert asked whether the contingents of the Turkish Army trained for peacekeeping missions were made aware of the Optional Protocol and were sensitized on how to deal when they got in contact with children involved in armed conflict in the field?

Turning to anti-personnel mines, one Expert said that it seemed that not much had been done in Turkey to limit or destroy anti-personnel mines. What was the current situation in Turkey in this regard?

Could the Optional Protocol be invoked by children? Could they lodge complaints if they considered that they had been victimized by the authorities? One expert mentioned the case of 40 children who were taking part in a march and who had been charged by police forces. To whom could children complain in case of acts committed by police forces against children? Would the police be prosecuted?

What measures was the State party taking to prevent children from getting involved in activities by armed groups? What rehabilitation or reinsertion programmes were there for children that had been involved in armed groups?

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said that some of the questions, such as the ones on landmines, were not linked to the Optional Protocol.

On the issue of arms export, the delegation indicated that, in order to obtain an export license one had to apply to the Ministry of Defence which asked for an opinion from the General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The latter looked at the binding international documents with regards to arms trade before issuing its opinion. Arms could thus not be exported to places where there were serious human rights violations, or where children were involved in conflict.

Regarding the Statute of Rome, the delegation said that Turkey was in fact not yet a party to the International Criminal Court. But Turkey had the intention to become a party to it once the national preparatory process was concluded. A committee had been organized within the office of the Prime Minister in this regard. The definition of crime against humanity was already included in the Turkish penal code.

On village guards, the delegation said that there was not a single child in them. These groups were not uncontrolled as they were under the control of the Governor. To become a village guard one had to have accomplished one’s military service and completed the age of 22.

On peacekeepers, the delegation said that all troops had a two month-long extensive training before their engagement. The training included international humanitarian law and human rights. There had not been a single complaint against Turkish peacekeepers to date.

Turning to children in military schools, the delegation said that there was no possibility for them to be mobilized in times of emergency. These students were not considered as army personnel, soldiers or combatants and were not under any military liability. They had no military duty and they could not be judged by military courts.

Students in military schools were given information on the Convention and the Optional Protocol in special seminars. The military personnel was also being taught law of armed conflict, including the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Very shortly they would issue a book on the law of armed conflict.

On sensitizing programmes and whether the State was collaborating with the media to bring the Optional Protocol to the public’s attention, the delegation said that the media was acting on its own in this respect. Stories on these issues would be triggered by the celebration of special days or commemorations, such as the Turkish national children’s day. In the week up to the celebration there were always many reports in the different media on the issue of children.

Turning to the question of whether the Optional Protocol was available in other languages, the delegation said that in Turkey the official language was Turkish and elementary education in Turkish was obligatory. They had however numerous ethnic groups living in Turkey and with more than 25 ethnicities, it was impossible to give Government services translated in all these languages. There was no communication problem that had been reported.

Children that had surrendered in counter terrorism efforts had been treated as children and were considered as innocent. Children between 12 and 15 were being dealt with by juvenile tribunals, whereas older ones were treated in the specially authorised tribunals.

On the case of the 40 children that had claimed to be assaulted by the police, the delegation said that non-governmental organizations had made statements that those children were not terrorists and that they had to be released. Turkey kept its reservation on this issue and was assessing the situation on a case-by-case basis. The children involved in the incident had been found out to be involved in arson and armed assault. One had to trust the findings of the judiciary and they could not rely only on the findings of the media and non-governmental organizations. For each law enforcement operation, police personnel were provided with special rules of engagement and a code of conduct. Even with such technical guidelines the possibility existed for problems and the Turkish Government would take all necessary measures, disciplinary, corrective, or criminal, with regard to any wrongdoing by the police.

On the status of Turkey’s extrajudicial competence, the delegation indicated that if a suspect of international crime was found in Turkey, there would be a criminal investigation and prosecution started. If the act was considered a violation of international law stemming from a treaty of which Turkey was a party of, Turkey would prosecute that crime. However, for crimes sanctioned only under Turkish national law, Turkey would have only a limited possibility for criminal prosecution.

On the reservations, the delegation said that as a principle these were not made permanently. If conditions were ripe for it, they could be re-evaluated, such as had been done with their reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in view of their candidacy to the European Union.

The delegation also indicated that when there was a contradiction between international law and domestic law in the field of human rights, the Constitution said that the international instrument prevailed over domestic law. Furthermore more recent and detailed laws in the mobilisation age had supremacy over the law that provided for the possibility of mobilization of children aged between 15 and 18 in military schools in cases of emergency.

On whether there was a law which sanctioned a group using children in armed conflicts, the delegation said that they did not have any specific provisions criminalizing and punishing such acts but there were sufficient enough pieces of legislation that could be used for this category of acts.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, HATEM KOTRANE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, thanked the delegation for the fruitful debate. It had been a very useful exchange. Today the Committee had learnt that Turkey was intending to join the International Criminal Court and thus would gradually be completing its succession to international instruments. They had also learnt that the Government was very committed to taking the necessary criminal and disciplinary measures to remedy any excesses and that guidelines existed for child victims and that additional action would be taken in order to set up an independent human rights institution and a mediator for children. The Committee would note in its concluding observations that internal legislation should give more coverage to the various offences mentioned in the Optional Protocol. The Committee had also understood that children who had participated in armed groups might be brought to trial. Otherwise, Turkey was certainly working along the lines of the Optional Protocol.

HASAN GOGUS, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conclusion, said that they had listened with keen interest and attention to the valuable comments, observations, recommendations, and to the constructive critical remarks made by the Committee. He emphasized once again Turkey’s strong commitment to further elevate the bar concerning children’s rights. This resolve stemmed chiefly from their wish to have their children enjoy the highest standards in all aspects and dimensions of their daily lives.

Today’s meeting had provided them with a significant additional insight with regard to fields of focus and priority within the context of the forthcoming steps they intended to take to further promote children’s rights. Turkey was well-aware of the room for improvement in implementation in the field of human rights. Upon their return in Turkey they would faithfully share with all the relevant authorities the discussions they had had today.



For use of the information media; not an official record


CRC09027E