COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES REVIEW OF TURKEY

The Committee against Torture this morning concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of Turkey on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Kaan Esener, Minister Plenipotentiary and Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said the fight against torture and ill-treatment was a priority item on the Government’s agenda. Turkey viewed torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as acts that could never be justified and the legal framework and Turkey’s zero tolerance policy against torture were having the desired impact on the ground. The European Committee even said the Turkish Government’s resolve was “an example that other Governments might usefully follow”. Nonetheless, the Turkish Government was determined to pursue the reform process.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, Committee Expert Alessio Bruni noted that Turkish detention facilities were monitored by an impressive list of senior officials, but wondered what follow-up measures had been taken with regards to the findings. The Rapporteur asked the delegation to comment on information suggesting that torture and serious ill-treatment were ongoing in Turkey, especially in non-official detention places, in spite of the Government’s zero tolerance policy. The delegation was also asked to elaborate on the extension of custody for persons arrested under charges of terrorism and on the lapse of time between the arrest of a suspect and his or her registration.

Felice Gaer, the Co-Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, noted with concern that the 2005 law had been amended to restrict the right to free legal aid to specific groups and that terror suspects detained under the anti-terror legislation could be denied counselling to facilitate interrogation. Ms. Gaer further wished to know what mechanisms were in place to monitor pre-trial detentions, why there were so few shelters for women and girl victims, what the rate of domestic violence was, and whether steps had been taken to curb the forced virginity testing in rape and prostitution cases.

Other members of the Committee then raised a number of issues and questions, including whether Turkey would keep the geographical limitations in its Asylum Law, what Turkey had undertaken regarding sexual exploitation of women by State agents, and how the construction of shelters for victims of human trafficking was going. Experts also wished to know how Turkey attempted to eliminate impunity for inter-cultural violence, how it dealt with torture and inhuman treatment against persons with disabilities, and why Turkey maintained its reservation to article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The delegation of Turkey also included other representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. The consideration of the report was carried out over two meetings.

As one of the 147 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Turkey is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes this afternoon at 3 a.m. it will start its consideration of the combined second to fifth periodic report of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Report of Turkey

The third periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/3) notes that since its previous report Turkey has continued to pursue a comprehensive reform process aimed at the protection and promotion of human rights. A series of legal reforms have been carried out in a short span of time, including amendments to the Constitution and a complete overhaul of basic laws. The most important amendment to the Constitution concerns Article 90, where it is stated that international agreements on fundamental rights and freedoms prevail in case of conflict with national laws. Adoption of the new Civil Code, the new Penal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code has effectively consolidated the constitutional amendments. Within this framework, the fight against torture and ill-treatment has been a priority item on the Government’s agenda, as highlighted by the Government’s adoption of a policy of “zero tolerance for torture”. Another major step has been recorded with the abolishment of the State Security Courts in 2004. The offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts were put under the jurisdiction of the new heavy penal courts. The new Penal Code has introduced higher penalties for aggravated forms of torture, giving due account to the serious consequences of such conduct. It furthermore explicitly bans reduction of sentences, should the offence be committed by negligence.

Another significant step forward in the implementation of Turkey’s policy against torture and ill-treatment has been the signing of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 14 September 2005. The ratification process is under way. Once ratified, the implementation of this Protocol will also contribute to Turkey’s policy of zero tolerance of torture. Also, modernization programs for detention facilities and interview rooms have been put in place to ensure the physical integrity of suspects against self-harm and to prevent possible human rights violations and groundless allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Out of 2,888 custody and interview rooms in police units, 2,341 have been improved and projects to modernize the remaining 547 are underway. Human rights education also remains very important in the training activities of various institutions of the Turkish Armed Forces, with particular importance attached to human rights education in the refresher training of high-ranking officers. Turkey’s resolve also manifests in its transparent and close cooperation with leading international mechanisms of human rights and the extension of a standing invitation to the thematic Special Procedures.

Presentation of Report

KAAN ESENER, Minister Plenipotentiary and Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said a moratorium on the death penalty had been in place since 1984 and capital punishment had been abolished in 2001. Turkey was now party not only to the European Convention on Human Rights’ Protocol No. 6, on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, but also to Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which abolished the death penalty at times of war.

The adoption of the new Civil Code, the new Penal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code had effectively consolidated the constitutional amendments, Mr. Esener went on to say. Most recently, as a result of the constitutional amendment package adopted in 2010, human rights and fundamental freedoms had been further expanded, and the constitutional system had been brought in line with Turkey’s international obligations. The amendments had eliminated several shortcomings, referred to in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and enabled the implementation of recommendations of regional and international monitoring bodies.

The recent constitutional reform brought several improvements such as positive discrimination as a constitutional right for persons requiring social protection such as children, the elderly and disabled. It also strengthened the constitutional guarantees on children's rights by improving access to adequate protection and care and safeguarding the principle of the best interests of the child, and it established the right of petition as a constitutional right. Other improvements were the elimination of the constitutional obstacle that had prevented the establishment of an Ombudsman, the introduction of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, and the constitutional guarantee which prevented civilians from being tried at military courts, except in time of war.

In addition to the constitutional referendum, Turkey’s Law against Terrorism had been amended in 2010 to ensure that all child suspects, without distinction as to age, would be tried under the same regime in the relevant juvenile courts. According to new amendments, minors who attended illegal meetings and demonstrations, or who distributed propaganda material for outlawed organizations, could not be tried on charges of terrorism in assize courts. Moreover, the new law reduced the penalties applied to children accused of terrorism-related offences such as membership of a terrorist organization or disseminating terrorist propaganda material.

The fight against torture and ill-treatment was a priority item on the Government’s agenda. Turkey was committed to preventing and eradicating torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, while viewing them as acts that could never be justified. The success of Turkey’s zero tolerance policy, its legal reforms, and the regulatory framework on torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents had been acknowledged by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Turkey’s achievements in this regard had also been acknowledged by civil society organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey.

The legal framework and Turkey’s zero tolerance policy against torture were having the desired impact on the ground, Mr. Esener asserted. The European Committee now even cited Turkey’s progress as an example to third countries, saying the Turkish Government’s resolve was “an example that other Governments might usefully follow”.

Nonetheless, the Turkish Government was determined to pursue the reform process. With this understanding, another major step had been recorded in 2004 with the abolishment of the State Security Courts. The offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts were put under the jurisdiction of the new heavy penal courts.

The Turkish Penal Code had also been changed entirely, taking into account the views and recommendations of various stakeholders including academia, non-governmental organizations and bar associations. The new Penal Code put special emphasis on the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms. It stipulated that perpetrators of torture should be sentenced to 3 to 12 years of imprisonment. Should the torture be committed in the form of sexual harassment, the perpetrators shall be sentenced to 10 to 15 years.

Turkey’s determination had also found its reflection in the close cooperation with treaty bodies and United Nations human rights special mechanisms. Turkey was party to all international human rights treaties and had a standing invitation to the thematic Special Procedures since 2001. Visits, recommendations and appeals of the Special Procedures, including by the Special Rapporteur on torture, were given serious consideration. In 2006, the Working Group on arbitrary detention, as well as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, had visited Turkey.

Mr. Esener reiterated Turkey’s willingness to benefit from cooperation with the Committee. Much remained to be done, but Turkey had the resolve to tackle any remaining issues.

Questions by Experts

ALESSIO BRUNI, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, said that, according to article 90 of the amended Constitution, international instruments had priority over domestic legislation if they were in conflict with the latter. Did this mean that courts could directly invoke the Convention against Torture as a legal reference in cases of conflict with domestic laws, Mr. Bruni wondered, also asking whether there were any examples of court decisions referring to the Convention. The Rapporteur also asked for information on how members of the torture monitoring mechanisms were being selected and whether the Paris Principles had been taken into account.

The Rapporteur asked the delegation to elaborate on the extension of custody for persons arrested under charges of terrorism. Also, under these circumstances, could there be any abrogation of the right to be notified of the charges and the right to access to a lawyer and a doctor?

The Rapporteur went on to say that the Committee had received information which suggested that torture and serious ill-treatment were ongoing in Turkey, especially in non-official detention places, in spite of the Government’s zero tolerance policy. Could the delegation comment on this?

Mr. Bruni wished to know how doctors were appointed and whether there had been cases of medical examinations with interrogation. These questions needed clarification as medical evidence of torture and other ill-treatment was often not documented and police remained present during the examination of suspects, according to reports by Amnesty International.

The Rapporteur asked how detention facilities coped with detainees with mental disorders, whether such detainees were separated from others or whether contact was inevitable, and what training was given to staff who dealt with such detainees.

Mr. Bruni also asked whether the Istanbul Protocol was included in the training curriculum, pointing out that inspectors of detention places should be aware of this Protocol which provided guidance on how to detect and deal with forms of torture that were not simply visible.

Mr. Bruni noted that Turkey’s detention facilities were monitored by an impressive list of senior officials from various organs. But what follow-up measures had been taken with regards to the findings, and could the delegation provide detailed information on the most recent inspections of places of detention and the action which had been taken subsequently. The delegation was also asked to comment on information provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) according to which Turkey had no independent monitoring of places of detention.

Also in terms of detention, the Rapporteur asked how the issue of overcrowding was dealt with, whether information could be given on the number of detainees compared to the prison capacity, and whether meetings between detainees and their lawyers were really confidential, in contrast to NGO reports.

It appeared from the report that only 19 persons had appealed decisions of expulsions between 2005 and 2008. Could the delegation comment on this, also informing the Committee to which countries these persons had been expelled to, and provide updated statistics?

It further appeared that 35 criminal investigations had been opened against 432 state officials for torture and ill-treatment, but none of these seemed to have been sanctioned. Did this mean that all of these claims were based on non-existent proof, Mr. Bruni asked.

Mr. Bruni also noted that the exception of the statute of limitations was addressed to the aggravation of the crime, and not to the crime itself. The latter would however be a more efficient preventive measure as any public official would know that he could never escape the consequences of committing torture.

The Rapporteur asked about the lapse of time between the arrest of a suspect and his or her registration, pointing out that people were particularly vulnerable to torture and other forms of ill-treatment during this time.

Other questions included whether the Provincial and Sub-provincial Human Rights Boards always needed to announce their visits to places of detention or not, how allegations of torture and extra-judicial killings - which apparently still existed in Turkey - were being investigated, how the independence of the Government-appointed Ombudsman was ensured, and what obstacles existed to making written notifications of charges to detained persons.

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, noted with concern that the 2005 law had been amended to restrict the right to free legal aid to specific groups. Also of concern was that terror suspects detained under the law to fight terror could be denied counselling to facilitate interrogation.

Ms. Gaer was also concerned that new legislation had been used to protect public officials and deter victims from complaining about torture. This was aggravated by the fact that Turkey lacked an independent monitoring system and did not recognize medical examinations other than those conducted by Government-affiliated institutions.

The Committee had also been inundated with reports from people saying they were victims of police brutality and it had received information on a specific case where a person had died in police custody, while CCTV had allegedly not been working. Could the delegation comment on this?

On the issue of legal safeguards, Ms. Gaer said apparently a person was informed of his or her rights only once the danger his or her escape had been averted. But when was that the case, and could it not be used to inform people in custody of their rights in a delayed manner, the Rapporteur wondered.

The Co-Rapporteur also wished to know what mechanisms were in place to monitor pre-trial detentions, why there were so few shelters for women and girl victims, what the rate of domestic violence was, and whether steps had been taken to curb the forced virginity testing in rape and prostitution cases. Ms. Gaer also wished to know what efforts had been made to investigate the disappearances of Cypriots, what steps had been taken to investigate the disappearances of Turkish citizens during detention, whether any progress had been made regarding the 88 cases of disappearances which reportedly remained to be resolved, and whether there was data on honour killings, preferably broken down by ethnicity.

Other Committee members then raised a number of issues and asked a number of questions, pertaining to, among other things, the asylum law. On this topic, the delegation was asked whether Turkey would keep the geographical limitations in its asylum law and whether it introduced subsidiary protection.

Experts also referred to reports by women organizations, especially such of Kurdish women, who had experienced sexual exploitation by State agents, and asked what Turkey had been undertaking in that regard.

In terms of trafficking, a Committee member noted that Turkey was both a destination and a transit country, wondering how the construction of shelters was going and whether there would be public support to the 157 hotlines. The expert also wished to know how many cases of human trafficking had been brought to the courts, what the sentences had been, and what measures were in place to protect victims.

Another Expert hoped that the establishment of a preventive mechanism based on the Paris Principles would soon be a reality. Committee members also asked how impunity for inter-cultural violence could be eliminated, how Turkey dealt with torture and inhuman treatment against persons with disabilities, why Turkey maintained its reservation to article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and whether Turkey was willing to accept unrecognized religious minorities.

Response of Turkey

KAAN ESENER, Minister Plenipotentiary and Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said all criticism of this Committee was taken as part of a constructive dialogue which could help Turkey understand in which areas it must better itself.

With regards to questions on article 90 of the Constitution, Mr. Esener said by virtue of this article, a judge may chose not to apply a specific article of the current legislation if he deemed it conflicting with international human rights standards. Turkey was trying, through training, to provide guidance to judges to apply this more often. In fact, the whole of the judicial system of more than 10,000 judges had received human rights training, in cooperation with the Council of Europe and other institutions. The Istanbul Protocol in particular was also included in the training curricula for the gendarmerie and police. Considered as a useful guide, it was taken up by police training centres and other institutions.

Turkey took very seriously the allegations regarding legal safeguards for places other than detention facilities. The Government’s recent measures in this regard included crowd control, which facilitated the identification of police officers, and training activities aimed at avoiding the disproportionate use of force by the police.

As to the Optional Protocol Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a broad-spectrum discussion was ongoing in Turkey, including with civil society, to make sure that a national preventive mechanism would be established in accordance with the Paris Principles. A draft law was currently before the Parliament. The national human rights institution to be established would be in charge of implementing Turkey's obligations under the Optional Protocol, Mr. Esener said.

Turning to police custody beyond four days, Mr. Esener said Turkish legislation had explicit provisions regarding the notification of custody, obliging law enforcement officials to provide that information in writing whenever possible, or orally.

Clarifying whether suspects and detainees were examined in presence of the police, Mr. Esener said the police was not supposed to be present during medical examinations according to Turkish legislation. However, if a doctor felt unsafe in the presence of a suspect, police officers might be requested to be in the room, but not so close that they could infringe the doctor-patient confidentiality.

Turkey had five rehabilitation centres within penitentiary institutions for detainees with psychiatric problems. Detainees with mental disorders which did not affect their legal capacity were incarcerated there, but kept apart from other detainees. Nonetheless, it was true that Turkey faced a general problem regarding detention, notably in terms of overcrowding.

Mr. Esener said it was not correct that there were no independent bodies that monitored human rights violations and Turkish detention facilities. The most important independent body of this kind was the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights, whose reports were closely examined.

Human rights boards and human rights defenders had the possibility to visit prisons with prior notification. In addition, with the signing of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the forthcoming establishment of a national preventive mechanism, this could provide further improvement.

It must be acknowledged that Turkey had been unable to find a solution to the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. Turkey did not have framework legislation on how to deal with these groups of people. In fact, a 2009 judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, dealing with two refugees who had illegally reached Turkey and had to put up with ill-treatment and repatriation, showed well the problems that Turkey was facing in this regard. However, the Ministry of Interior had immediately taken action following this judgement and had been able to solve some problems without needing to amend legislation. Currently, three draft laws were ready to be sent to Parliament. One of these dealt solely with refugees and asylum seekers, the second with foreigners, and the third with refugees and asylum seekers as a whole. Hopefully, these three laws would bring about a big shift in Turkey’s way of dealing with refugees and asylum seekers.

In terms of prosecuting torturers, the total number of persons for whom disciplinary action had been taken between February 2005 and April 2010 was 191. During the same period of time, 265 judicial actions had been taken for torture.

To fight impunity for law enforcement officials who had committed acts of torture, measures were being implemented to ensure impartial and thorough investigations leading to fair trials. This was a common problem, but Turkey was working on it.

Detainees complaining about torture or ill-treatment were not automatically transferred to another institution, Mr. Esener went on to say, explaining that some detainees did not want this as they could lose proximity to friends and family. However, detainees claiming to have been victims of torture or ill-treatment were entitled to be moved to another detention facility if they so wished.

As to the statute of limitation, the maximum statute of limitation for crimes was up to 40 years in Turkey, for crimes against humanity and acts of torture. But, if needed, this could change. Recording in police centers operated on a 24 hour basis, although not all police centers were equipped with this as of today.

As to detentions for over 10 years, Turkey was assuming the responsibility for this problem. The Government was aware of this problem and would fix it, although it remained unclear when this huge problem could be sufficiently addressed.

Commenting on the Committee’s question on how the Government-appointed Ombudsman could be independent, Mr. Esener wondered where this information came from. He added that this was simply not true and that information received by non-governmental organizations must always be verified. The ombudsman was elected by Parliament by secret voting.

As to police requests to see identity cards, and whether this was arbitrarily used for discrimination, Turkey was probably not the only country where identity controls were taking place and requests to see identification cards were legitimate for security purposes, particularly in the case of Turkey, a country committed to fighting terrorism.

The Committee was right to note that Turkey was one of the busiest clients of the European Court of Human Rights. However, most of the examples mentioned by the Committee dated back to the 1990s. The Turkish Government was not proud of this, but it could probably be best explained by the fact that Turkey sought scrutiny, feedback and guidance for improvement. The reform packages passed between 2001 and 2004 had all been prepared by taking up the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to see what was systematically going wrong in Turkey. However, there had been a decline in judgments under the right to life and not to be victim of torture. Also, the severity of judgments had sharply decreased, highlighting that Turkey was steadily advancing in its course.

Turning to issues raised in relation to the Forensic Medical Institute, and why examinations from other doctors were not admitted, Mr. Esener said current legislation did not say that medical examinations of suspects or detainees could only be conducted by that institute. However, the Forensic Medical Institute was Turkey’s most able institution in the field and thus most doctors worked with it.

Mr. Esener said Turkey was dealing with expulsions on a daily basis, but expulsion procedures were never conducted without the agreement of the European Court of Human Rights.

There had been a series of questions about violence against women, be it in police custody or in the home. Turkey in fact had an issue with this, but the Government was trying to find solutions to this, acknowledging the problem and identifying priority areas. As such, train-the-trainer training on the role of police in preventing domestic violence had been conducted between April and May 2010 and other programmes would follow until the end of this year. Turkey was working closely with the European Union on a project for women exposed to violence. In addition, 8 shelters for women had been built and 54 municipality-managed shelters were available, Mr. Esener said, also pointing to the General Directorate for Social Affairs and the Statute of Women who continued working on this issue.

As to why the training provided to over 3,000 doctors had not also included judges and prosecutors, the information received by the delegation suggested that they had also been able to attend that training. This training had been coordinated by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health.

On the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and how Turkey respected its obligations under that instrument, Mr. Esener said an action plan had been prepared by the Government to meet its obligations. While more detail on this action plan was not available, Mr. Esener could say that it would be in place in due course.

With regards to the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and the constitutional safeguards for its independence and impartiality, the Turkish Ministry of Justice had presented its proposal to the Venice Commission only two weeks ago. The Venice Commission had commended Turkey on its proposal and asserted that it would support Turkey in its endeavors.

Speaking about the new anti-terror law, Mr. Esener said children had been put outside of the remits of this law, putting the severity of children’s actions to a normal stage. Nonetheless, there were currently 41 children between 15 and 18 waiting for their trial to be heard.

The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus had made major strides on missing persons but it was an unsubstantiated myth that any persons had gone missing in Turkey.

Responding to comments of the Committee about a transvestite who had allegedly been beaten by the police, Mr. Esener said he had looked into this issue with the Ankara sub-police center. According to their information, a car had not stopped at a police control and five transgender persons had attempted to flee. They had been arrested and brought to the police station but, after interrogation, they had been released on the next day.

Further Comments and Questions by Committee Experts

ALESSIO BRUNI, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, said he was glad to hear that the torture prevention mechanism would be established in consultation with civil society and in accordance with the Paris Principles. The Rapporteur also appreciated that arrested persons or detainees were always notified in writing or, when this was not possible, orally. However, what obstacles could there be to give the information in written form, Mr. Bruni wondered. Another question that remained open was whether detainees in at-risk-situations, such as before transferral to another prison following complaints of torture, were offered medical examinations after their interrogation.

With regards to places of detention, the Rapporteur remained concerned that States parties generally listed the visits to detention facilities but did not provide the results. It was good to hear that human rights defenders could visit detention facilities, as the Committee so far had had the impression that there were serious obstacles to this. In contrast, it remained to be clarified whether meetings between detainees and their lawyers took place at places that allowed confidentiality. According to reports by non-governmental organizations this was often not the case.

FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Turkey, felt that many questions had been addressed but that several big issues still remained to be answered. The list was long and notably included a lack of data and information on expulsions, trial duration, access to detention records and compensation.

Ms. Gaer then returned to cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Some incidents were in fact old. However, in spite of this, and despite the delegation’s apparent objection to discussing these cases, the lack of information on the follow-up was problematic. For example, the Timurtas case about disappearances in South-East Turkey, which the delegation said was a myth, was very important with regards to fighting impunity. The Co-Rapporteur asked the delegation to comment on investigations into the Cyprus case at the European Court of Human Rights. Another Expert said that it was not quite clear what should be understood by “liberal” judges, as mentioned by the delegation.

Experts said Turkey had a good approach with regards to minorities. However, it was insufficient to refer to what Turkey had said to other United Nations bodies. Since there may be inhuman treatment of minorities, this Committee was also concerned by this issue.

Experts also drew attention to ongoing reports by women who said they had been victims of sexual violence and had difficulties to access to reparation. Also, there seemed to be no explicit punishment of corporal punishment in some educational facilities, although corporal punishment of children should be punished in all settings.

An Expert was happy to know that there was a focus on violence against women. There were many different ways of approaching this, including monitoring and training, but awareness raising and changing attitudes were lengthy processes that must be complemented by ensuring accountability. As up to one out of three Turkish women may be abused, according to numerous reports, it would also be interesting to know how many men had been sentenced.

Experts also came back to a number of issues and questions that had been raised earlier, including Turkey’s reservation to article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which could be applied to separate entities within the Turkish State, and measures taken regarding missing persons, which did not only mean meetings, but also formal prosecutions in this area.

Committee members also asked whether there were any plans to address the reported lack of medical doctors, what the restrictions of access were to national prisons, whether concrete cases could be given in this regard, and whether investigations had been conducted on asylum seekers who had allegedly drowned on 23 April 2008.

Experts also noted a number of positive achievements Turkey had made, including the training of 10,000 judges and prosecutors, which was very impressive, an important step in the implementation of article 90 and could be used in many contexts.

Committee members once again underscored the importance of tackling impunity, whether there was a standardized procedure for family members to know the status of detainees, and whether more information could be given about the legal framework regulating the access of medical personnel to detention facilities.

Response by Delegation

Responding to some of the additional questions raised, the Turkish delegation confirmed that the presence of law enforcement officials during medical examinations was illegal, unless requested by the medical doctor, and that medical examination was provided after interrogation.

Solitary confinement was not applied like in Hollywood films, Mr. Esener insisted. Rather, detainees were deprived of certain privileges such as limiting social interactions. But the confinement area was not very different from other places and detainees were never prevented from appealing to legal measures. In fact, judges even visited detainees in solitary confinement.

As to the 300+ lockup places needing further improvement, the delegation said these lockups were regularly monitored and great efforts were made to improve them. Latest information confirmed that 95 per cent of gendarmerie lockups, or about 2,000 places, met acceptable standards, and that 30 per cent of these were equipped with cameras.

In terms of ethnic statistics, the delegation understood that this was not asked by the Committee for discriminatory purposes, but, for apparent reasons, the Government did not collect ethnic data and could thus not give any information on that.

Mr. Esener clarified that it was not with regards to the Timurtas case that he had spoken about a myth. That case had been off the agenda for a while, but further information on this would be provided to the Committee, if possible.

It went without saying that Turkey was working to expand the capacities of the Forensic Medical Institute, Mr. Esener reassured the Committee.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT10/026E