Turkish Barbarity continues-UState

[newsdesk_aps_nl at apsf.aps.nl]

From: newsdesk_aps_nl at apsf.aps.nl (newsdesk at aps.nl)
Subject: Turkish Barbarity continues-UState department part 2


US STATE DEPARTMENT HUMAN RIGHTS COUNTRY REPORT-1994

part two

                                               TURKEY

  b.  Disappearance

Disappearances continued to occur in 1993, while, with one exception,
those reported in 1992 and earlier remained unsolved.  Some disappeared
after witnesses reported they had been taken into custody by security
forces.  In some of these  cases, the person's body was later discovered, as
happened in the disappearance of Ferhat Tepe (see Section 1.a.).  Ayse
Malkac, a correspondent working in Ozgur Gundem's Istanbul bureau,
disappeared midmorning on August 7 after leaving her office and has not
been seen since.  Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen her being detained in the
street by plainclothes police officers, but local authorities denied taking
Malkac into custody.  Human rights groups, journalists, and others alleged
the complicity of security forces in this and other disappearances.
PKK terrorists continued their frequent abductions of local villagers,
teachers, religious figures, and officials in the southeast, many of whose
bodies were later discovered.  The PKK expanded its kidnaping activities to
include foreign tourists.  Several Western tourists were kidnaped during
the summer but eventually released unharmed, after periods of captivity
ranging from 2 to 5 weeks.

     c.  Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading          Treatment or
Punishment

Despite the Constitution's ban on torture, Turkey's accession to the U.N.
and European Conventions Against Torture, and the public pledges of
successive governments to do away with torture, the practice continued.
Human rights attorneys and physicians who treat victims of torture state
that most persons charged with, or merely suspected of, political crimes
suffer torture, usually during periods of incommunicado detention in
police stations and Jandarma headquarters before they are brought before
a court.
Anecdotal evidence suggested that the implementation of the CMUK
facilitated more immediate attorney access to those arrested for common
crimes.  However, human rights groups have not yet ascertained a related
decrease in allegations of torture.  The U.S.-based Helsinki Watch advised
that its reports indicated that torture continued to be used in police
interrogation centers against about half of ordinary criminal suspects.
CMUK does not apply to those detained under the Anti-Terror Law.  The HRF
reported that there was no indication either of the amelioration of
treatment of those charged under the Anti-Terror Law or of an overall
decrease in the incidence of torture in 1993.
Human rights observers report that the system whereby the arresting
police officer is also responsible for interrogating the suspect is
conducive to torture because the officer seeks to obtain a confession
that would justify the arrest.  According to those familiar with Turkish
police operations, in petty criminal cases, the arresting officer is
responsible for following up on the case, whereas in major cases such as
murder and political or terrorism-related crimes, "desks" responsible for
the area in question are responsible for the interrogation.
Credible reports from former detainees and professionals who rehabilitate
victims state that commonly employed methods of torture include:  high-
pressure cold water hoses, electric shocks, beating of the genitalia,
hanging by the arms, blindfolding, sleep deprivation, deprivation of
clothing, systematic beatings, and vaginal and anal rape with truncheons
and, in some instances, gun barrels.  HRA offices have also reported the
use by police of tiny cells in which detainees are incarcerated for periods
up to 10 hours to coerce confessions.  Within the last 2 months of 1993,
the HRF received three reports from former detainees who say they have
been taken to a deserted construction site and tortured there.
Nilufer Koc, an interpreter who has lived in Germany for the past 20 years,
was detained in Sirnak province while accompanying a German delegation in
Turkey.  She claimed that her torture included being hung by handcuffs
from a hook for 2 hours, repeatedly hosed with cold water while naked,
beaten, grabbed by the hair and having her head hit against the wall, and a
weapon held against her forehead and told to make a last wish.  Security
forces believed her to be involved in PKK activities and wanted information
about the activities of the PKK in Germany.  After her release, Koc returned
to Germany.  The Turkish Government denied there was a problem.
Although the Government asserted that medical examinations occur once
during detention and a second time before either arraignment or release,
former detainees asserted that some  medical examinations took place too
long after the event to allow any definitive findings, some examinations
were cursory, and some were done in the presence of police officials.
Human rights groups reported that some doctors were occasionally under
pressure to submit false or misleading medical certificates, denying
evidence of torture.  According to the HRF, practice varies widely; in some
cases proper examinations are conducted, and in others doctors sign off
on papers handed to them.
Authorities do not consistently investigate allegations of such abuses, and
perpetrators are rarely sanctioned.  Credible sources in the human rights
and legal communities estimate that judicial authorities investigate only
about one-half of the formal complaints involving torture and prosecute
only a small fraction of those.  Lawyers report harassment and threats
for taking on torture cases, for example, anonymous telephone calls
threatening they will suffer the same fate as Metin Can (see Section 1.a.).

In one case, however, five policemen charged in a 1986 torture case which
occurred in the Sebin Karahisar township of Giresun on the Black Sea
coast were sentenced by the Giresun criminal court to terms ranging from
10 months to 6 years and 8 months.  Two officers were acquitted.  The
Court of Appeals upheld the sentences, leaving the convicted policemen no
further legal recourse.

More typically, if law enforcement officers are convicted of torture, the
sentences tend to be light, as was the case with three policemen convicted
in March by the Ankara criminal court.  Each received a 3-month prison
sentence and was suspended from duty for 3 months.  In many instances,
cases drag on for years.  Nazli Top, a nurse (pregnant at the time) who
alleged she was tortured and raped with a truncheon during 10 days of
detention in April 1992 before police released her without charge, filed
criminal charges against her alleged torturers, but the case has yet to
come to trial.
Under the Anti-Terror Law, officials accused of torture or other
mistreatment may stay on the job while under investigation and, if
convicted, may only be suspended.  Special provincial administrative boards,
rather than regular courts, decide whether to prosecute such cases, and
suspects' legal fees are paid by their employing agencies.  Under the state
of emergency, any lawsuit directed at government authorities must be
approved by the regional governor, which rarely happens, preventing legal
pursuit of torture allegations.
As Turkey has recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human
Rights, Turks may file applications alleging violations of the European
Convention on Human Rights with the European Human Rights Commission,
and several have done so.

On December 15, 1992, the Council of Europe's Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CPT) issued an unprecedented public statement concerning Turkey, noting
that torture and other forms of severe ill-treatment of persons in police
custody remained widespread, that such methods were applied to both
ordinary criminal suspects and persons held under antiterrorism
provisions, and that torture was a deep-rooted problem.  In both the Ankara
Police Headquarters and the Diyarbakir Police Headquarters, the CPT
reported finding furniture and equipment consistent with detainees'
reports of how they were tortured.  The CPT recommended several actions
it considered necessary for the Government to take to deal with the
problem and emphasized that legislative measures alone would not be
sufficient to eradicate the phenomenon of torture.
On November 19, 1993, the United Nations Committee on Torture called on
Turkey to end what it called the systematic torture of prisoners.  "The
Committee remains concerned at the number and substance of the
allegations of torture received, which confirm the existence and
systematic character of the practice of torture."  The Government
contested the accuracy of the report and stated that events were taken
out of context and many examples were unconfirmed.

The CMUK, which went into effect on December 1, 1992, appeared to
improve attorney access to detainees, but its efficacy in decreasing
incidents of torture cannot yet be ascertained.  Human rights groups
criticized the CMUK because its allowable, maximum, prearraignment
detention periods still exceed Council of Europe maximums, it codified two
different classes of suspects with different rights, and the arresting
officer had the power to determine whether or not the CMUK applied.

Besides CMUK, the Government did not appear to implement any other major
initiatives that could contribute to a reduction of abuse.  In November the
Government introduced amendments to the Anti-Terror Law that would,
among other things, broaden the definition of terrorism and increase the
permissible length of incommunicado prearraignment detention.  As of the
end of the year, the bill was still pending in the Parliament's joint Justice-
Interior committee.

As of September, 158 applications claiming torture, maltreatment, or
arbitrary detention had been filed with the parliamentary Human Rights
Commission (since its September 1991 inception), and the Commission had
written to the public prosecutors in the provinces on each case, as well to
the governor's office or that of the security directorate general for that
province.  It is unclear to what extent the Commission has followed up on
these cases.  The HRF's torture rehabilitation centers in Ankara, Izmir, and
Istanbul reported that, within the first 6 months of 1993 they had received
a total of 172 applications for treatment.


Prison conditions--and prison reform--remained an important issue in 1993.
Prompted by a number of prisoner escapes, as well as hunger strikes by
prisoners protesting conditions, the Government in February prepared a
prison reform bill.  As of the end of the year, the bill remained with the
Justice Ministry and had not yet been formally submitted to Parliament.

Furthermore, while the incidence of torture in prisons has decreased in the
last few years, there are continued reports of torture.

     d.  Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

In order to take a person into custody, a prosecutor must issue a detention
order, except in limited circumstances, as when a person is caught in the
act of committing a crime.  The detention period for those charged with
common, individual crimes is 24 hours.  Those detained for common,
collective crimes may be held for 4 days, and the detention period may be
extended for an additional 4 days.  Under the CMUK, suspects are entitled
to immediate access to an attorney and may meet and confer with the
attorney at any time.  In practice, attorney access under the CMUK improved
for detainees charged with common crimes.
Persons detained for individual crimes which fall under the Anti-Terror Law
must be brought before a judge within 48 hours, while those charged with
crimes of a collective, political, or conspiratorial nature may be detained
up to 15 days in most of the country and up to 30 days in the 10
southeastern provinces under a state of emergency.  There is no
guaranteed attorney access under law.  The decision concerning access to
counsel in such cases is left to the independent prosecutor, who routinely
denies access, usually with the explanation that it would prejudice an
ongoing investigation.  The Justice and Interior Ministries generally have
not intervened in prosecutors' decisions or police actions denying access
to counsel.  Although the Constitution specifies the right of detainees to
request speedy arraignment and trial, judges have ordered a significant
number of persons detained indeterminately, sometimes for years.  While
many cases involved persons accused of violent crimes, it is not uncommon
for those accused of nonviolent political crimes to be kept in custody
until the conclusion of their trials.



By law, a detainee's next of kin must be notified "in the shortest time" after
arrest.  Once formally charged by the prosecutor, a detainee is arraigned
by a judge and allowed to retain a lawyer.  After arraignment, the judge
may release the accused if he presents an appropriate guarantee, such as
bail, or order him detained if the court determines that he is likely to flee
the jurisdiction or destroy evidence.

The detention of large numbers of people occurred on several occasions
in 1993, including the demonstrations on August 14 and 15 in Digor, Kars
province, and Malazgirt, Mus province (see Section 1.a.).  In most such cases,
the majority of detainees are subsequently released without charges being
filed.

In the southeast there were several mass roundups of ethnic Kurds in the
wake of a crime.  For example, after a night watchman was killed in Adana in
August, within 24 hours, police arrested large numbers of ethnic Kurds
(estimates range up to 500).  Police charged them under the Anti-Terror Law
so the CMUK did not apply, enabling police to hold them in incommunicado
detention for 15 days without access to a judge or lawyer (though they
were released earlier).  Some detainees alleged they were tortured.  All
were subsequently released without being charged.
There is no external exile, and Turkey's internal exile law was repealed in
1987.  In 1990, however, under decree 430, the Government granted the
southeast regional governor the authority to "remove from the region,"
for a period not to exceed the duration of the state of emergency, citizens
under his administration whose activities (whether voluntary or forced)
"give an impression that they are prone to disturb general security and
public order."  Although there were no known instances of the use of this
broad authority in 1993, human rights monitors and residents of towns in
the southeast report credibly that officials continued to rely on
"administrative
transfers" to remove government employees thought liable to "create
trouble."


--- APS (Newsdesk)