Human Rights Watch on Turkey

[ozgurluk at xs4all.nl]

From: Press Agency Ozgurluk <ozgurluk at xs4all.nl>

TURKEY
Torture and Mistreatment In Pre-trial
Detention By Anti-terror Police

March 1997, Vol. 9, No. 4 (D)

SUMMARY

This report documents a pattern of torture according to
internationally recognized definitions of the term and
mistreatment of security detainees by the Anti-Terror
Branch (Teror’le Mucadele Subesi) of the Security
Directorate of Turkey’s Ministry of the Interior. While
criminal suspects also face the prospect of torture and
maltreatment at the hands of the regular police,
Turkey’s anti-terror police have become infamous both
within the country and outside of Turkey for the
widespread use of such practices against detainees
accused of political crimes, both violent and
non-violent. The Anti-Terror Branch deals with offenses
that fall under the 1991 Anti-Terror Law and/or under
the jurisdiction of state security courts; the term
“security detainee” is used for individuals held for
any period of time in the preceding two circumstances.
International bodies have condemned this force, as well
as the practice of torture in Turkey. The Council of
Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)
did so in a December 1992 “Public Statement.” Four
years later, in another “Public Statement,” the CPT
stated that the maltreatment of seven suspects at the
Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Police headquarters,
“must rank among the most flagrant examples of torture
encountered by CPT delegations in Turkey.” In November
1993, the United Nations Committee Against Torture even
went so far as to warn that “certain departments”
within the Interior Ministry were becoming a “State
within a State.”

Security detainees held for alleged crimes under the
jurisdiction of state security courts suffer a
wide-range of abuses and de jure are exempted from many
of the most important due process protections
introduced by a 1992 amendment to Turkey’s Code of
Criminal Procedure (CMUK), Law No. 3842. That law
reduced periods of detention and guaranteed and
improved access to a lawyer for criminal suspects.
Under Article 30 of Law No. 3842, however, security
detainees held in “collective crimes,” i.e those
committed by three or more persons, can still be kept
in police detention for fifteen days without access to
a lawyer or arraignment before a magistrate; under the
State of Emergency Law, which is presently in force in
nine provinces in southeastern Turkey where a conflict
rages between government security forces and the
outlawed Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK), that
detention period can be doubled. In a December 18,
1996, decision, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled that Turkey had not only violated the provision
of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibiting
torture, but had also violated Article 5(3), the right
to “be brought promptly before a judge.” That case
dealt with a Turkish citizen held in detention for
fourteen days and tortured by anti-terror police.

While in detention, numerous methods of torture are
used to gain a confession, information, or often simply
to punish those who oppose the state. The most
frequently employed methods which often are used in
combination include the following: hanging by the arms
in a variety of positions; electric shock; falaka, or
the beating of the soles of the feet; spraying with
high-pressure water; beatings; death threats or threat
of sexual abuse; squeezing of testicles or breasts;
isolation; stripping the suspect naked. Detainees are
also often blindfolded, sometimes isolated, not fed
properly or given the opportunity to wash or use the
toilet, and kept in cramped quarters. Such actions
violate numerous domestic laws and international
treaties to which Turkey is party: Article 17 of the
Turkish Constitution forbidding torture; Article 135/a
of Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK), which applies to
all detainees, forbidding the use of torture techniques
and invalidating testimony or confessions gathered
under such conditions; the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights; and the U.N. Convention
against Torture. Under Article 90 of the Turkish
Constitution, treaties signed by Turkey have the force
of domestic law.

Torture by the anti-terror unit is neither spontaneous
nor rogue. This unit has methodically incorporated
torture and abuse into its daily operations, utilizing
special equipment, including special straps to bind
detainees, high pressure hoses, racks for suspending
suspects by their arms, and instruments to apply
electric shock. As international and local scrutiny of
torture in Turkey has increased, the anti-terror unit’s
methods have become more sophisticated. Torture methods
are constantly updated and improved to inflict pain but
to avoid marks or bruises that can be documented by
human rights groups within Turkey or state forensic
doctors filling out mandatory detention medical
reports. Sometimes, police pressure doctors to fill out
false reports. Often security detainees are tortured
intensively during the first few days of their
incarceration and then allowed to recover for a longer
period of time and even given rudimentary food and
medical care so that evidence of abuse fades before the
victim is brought before a magistrate or prosecutor.

The Human Rights Foundation of Turkey-HRFT (Turkiye
Insan Haklar Vakf), a professional, non-governmental
human rights monitoring organization that also operates
treatment centers for victims of torture in Turkey’s
four largest cities, has documented 124 deaths from
torture and ill-treatment in prison or in pre-trial
police custody from January 1, 1991 - September 12,
1995. Most of the deceased were security detainees. In
addition, during the same period some 98 persons have
disappeared while believed to be in police custody or
under mysterious circumstances; some of their bodies
were later discovered bearing signs of torture. The
HRFT reports that between September 12, 1980 and
September 12, 1995, a total of 445 individuals
including the 124 cited above died under torture while
in police detention or in prison.

Since the 1980 coup, security forces in Turkey have
increasingly attracted personnel from supporters of far
right, extreme nationalist, or fundamentalist political
parties and groups. Police with such views are
extremely hostile to left-wing ideologies and/or
Kurdish nationalist ideas, the very beliefs with which
most security detainees who report suffering torture
are associated. Human Rights Watch found a widespread
perception that the police are politically-biased in
the discharge of their official duties and may be more
inclined to abusive behavior towards such detainees.

The depth of such improper links between ultra-rightist
militants and security forces were exposed in November
1996 when the head of the Istanbul police academy was
accidentally killed while traveling in a gun-laden car
along with an ultra-rightist militant implicated in
seven political killings and wanted by Interpol and a
women alleged to have links to organized crime. A
parliamentarian who is also a Kurdish tribal leader and
commander of a pro-state village guard militia was
injured in the accident. There have been earlier
indications of this connection, however. A report
released in the fall of 1995 by the then junior
coalition partner Republican People’s Party (CHP)
indicated that nearly 48 percent of Turkey’s provincial
security directors had either extreme nationalist or
fundamentalist backgrounds. In September 1996, a
leading Istanbul daily reported that the General Staff
Headquarters had issued a directive ordering security
forces not to wear or make signs or symbols connected
with ultra-nationalist groups. In the summer of 1994,
Sevket Kazan, the present Justice Minister from the
Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), charged that “special
team members” were recruited from a far right
nationalist party, MHP.

The Turkish coalition government that was in power from
1991-95 True Path Party (Do gru Yol Partisi-DYP)/Social
Democratic Populist Party (Sosyal Demokrat Halká
Parti-SHP)/Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk
Partisi-CHP) took some steps, albeit imperfect, to
address the problem. That government denounced the
practice at the highest level (though never admitted
its widespread nature), prosecuted a small number of
officers for torture, changed Turkey’s code of criminal
procedure to give criminal suspects more legal
protection, and appointed a State Minister for Human
Rights who openly and vocally condemned human rights
abuses. Notwithstanding these initiatives, however, the
Anti-Terror Branch of the Interior Ministry’s Security
Directorate as well as other police units continues to
torture and maltreat large numbers of security
detainees who pass through their hands.

There are several reasons why government efforts
failed. While legal proceedings are sometimes
instituted against police for alleged abuse and
torture, the overall number of such actions is small
relative to the problem, and proceedings are
problematic. The HRFT reports that the government has
acknowledged that seventy out of the 445 individuals
who the HRFT believes died as a result of torture or
police abuse between September 12, 1980-September 12,
1995 in fact died of torture. Of the above cases
prosecuted, twenty-six ended in a successful
conviction, while in six the court ruled that the death
did occur as a result of torture but released the
officers for lack of evidence. Thirty cases are still
in progress. According to the U.S. State Department’s
1996 Country Report,

Prosecutions of police or security officers increased
somewhat. However, the climate of impunity reflected in
the relatively small number of convictions probably
remains the single largest obstacle to reducing these
troubling human rights abuses.

In its December 1996 “Public Statement on Turkey,” the
CPT called on the Turkish government to review
sentences passed against police charged with torture or
maltreatment to determine whether the punishments were
proportional to the crime in view of amending the law
to increase punishments for future cases. Under a law
stemming from the Ottoman period, police and other
civil servants cannot be brought to trial for
malfeasance unless a Provincial Administrative Council
chaired by the state-appointed provincial governor
gives its approval. Such approval has been rarely given
in the State of Emergency region where many abuses
occur.

When trials are launched, they drag on. Police are
rarely arrested when they face criminal charges, and
under the 1991 Anti-Terror Law, anti-terror police
cannot be remanded into custody if charged and their
legal fees are paid by the state. In April 1996, murder
charges were brought against eleven police for the
January 1996 murder in custody of journalist Metin
Goktepe; since that time the court has held only two
hearings, and none of the police have been remanded
into custody. When sentences are handed out, they are
usually lenient. In one case in 1996, two policemen
convicted of beating and maltreating a twelve-year-old
child had their sentence commuted to a fine of
TL750,000, about eight U.S. dollars at the time.

Turkish elected officials and nongovernmental groups
(NGOs), expert international bodies such as the Council
of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and
the United Nations Committee Against Torture, and
international NGOs like Human Rights Watch/Helsinki and
Amnesty International have repeatedly called upon the
government of Turkey to take specific actions to end
torture, such as limiting periods of incommunicado
detention, providing immediate, independent medical
examination of detained persons, and prosecuting in
larger numbers police suspected of torture. Some
actions have been carried out, many have not. But
torture continues. Either the government is unable to
stop the practice because is does not fully control its
security apparatus, or it does not wish to do so
because it views the “tough” methods of the security
forces as an important asset in the fight against the
PKK and various radical armed opposition groups. A 1995
report issued by the Republican People’s Party (CHP),
then junior partner in the ruling coalition, bitterly
complained that the government did not have full
control over security forces, a charged echoed in 1996
by the former State Minister for Human Rights Adnan
Ekmen, who complained that he was unable to investigate
abuses because of interference by security forces.
Public prosecutors, who de jure have wide-ranging
oversight powers over police during a criminal
investigation, do not seem to make full use of them,
especially in cases involving security detainees.

In October 1996, the current Welfare/DYP coalition
government of Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan
announced a plan to reduce detention periods for
security detainees and in November 1996 submitted such
a bill to parliament. It has still not passed, however.
On November 29, 1996, the Ministry of Interior
announced that its officials would conduct surprise
inspections of police stations to determine if the
treatment of detainees corresponded with established
procedures. A week later, at a press conference in
London, Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller announced that,
“Our government has decided to take a series of
measures in order to totally eliminate in practice the
crime of torture, which as a matter of fact is
forbidden by our laws....We courageously take up the
Committee’s [CPT] findings and if they prove true, we
identify the responsible and punish them.” It is still
too early, however, to determine what the outcome will
be of any of these efforts or whether they will lead to
the elimination or reduction of torture and abuse by
police.


RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of Turkey:

Disband the anti-terror forces. Officers who have been
implicated in human rights abuses should be dismissed
from the police and tried for crimes;

Work toward passing the bill introduced on November 27,
1996, reducing periods of detention to a maximum of ten
days for security detainees from the present maximum of
thirty. Introduce into the bill, however, “guaranteed,
immediate, right to meet in private with a lawyer” for
all detainees throughout the period of their detention
and trial. Abolish Article 31 from Law No. 3842, which
removes many Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK)
protections from detainees charged with crimes under
the jurisdiction of state security courts;

In line with the recommendation contained in the United
Nations “Report of the Committee against Torture,” of
February 1994, create a “national machinery to combat
torture.” Such a “machinery” would be part of the
Justice Ministry and command independent prosecutors
with access to all police facilities and detention
centers in the country. Its head would have ministerial
rank;

Grant access to all police/pre-trial detention centers
and prison facilities to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on
Torture;

Implement all recommendations in Council of Europe’s
Committee for the Prevention of Torture [CPT] “Public
Statement on Turkey” of December 6, 1996, including
reviewing past sentences of officers convicted under
Articles 243 of the penal code (obtaining confessions
by torture or inhuman treatment) and 245 (ill-treatment
by law officers) to determine if both articles need to
be amended to strengthen sentences in future cases and
instituting necessary measures to enable forensic
doctors performing mandatory pre/post examinations of
detainees to work uninfluenced by outside pressure;

Present a bill to the Turkish parliament amending State
of Emergency Decree No. 285 so that public prosecutors
not the provincial administrative council chaired by
the Emergency Rule Governor, who is also ex officio in
charge of police forces has the sole authority to
initiate prosecution of security forces alleged to have
violated the law. Such approval has been infrequent in
the past;

Present a bill to the Turkish parliament abolishing the
Temporary Law on the Procedure for Investigation of
Civil Servants [Memurin Muhakemat Hakk nda Kanunu
Muvakkat), so that public prosecutors have the direct
responsibility and authority to investigate and
prosecute malfeasance by civil servants, including by
security force members;

Present a bill to the Turkish parliament abolishing
Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and any other laws or
decrees that punish peaceful free expression;

Allow access to international humanitarian
organizations;

As promised by Foreign Minister Ciller, make public the
most recent CPT report on Turkey when it becomes
available and continue to make public such reports in
the future;

To the Council of Europe:

Under Article 57 of the European Convention of Human
Rights, call on Turkey to show how domestic laws
“ensure the effective implementation of any of the
provisions of this Convention;”

The Parliamentary Assembly should issue a statement
condemning the practice of torture and link the Turkish
government’s ongoing failure to realize completely and
fully CPT recommendations to possible punitive measures
such as the exclusion of Turkish parliamentarians from
the Assembly;

To the European Union:

Raise the issues of torture and police impunity during
official meetings with the Turkish government;

Provide funding for the training of forensic
pathologists both in the government and in NGO
organizations in Turkey;

The European Commission, the European Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament must use
political dialogue with Turkey, provided for in the
EU-Turkey Customs Union and the Barcelona Process, to
condemn the widespread practice of torture throughout
Turkey and urge for the implementation of practical and
legislative changes as outlined by the CPT;

The European Commission, the European Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament must clearly
state that only a sincere effort by Turkey in practical
as well as in legal terms to combat the practice of
torture would provide tangible proof of Ankara’s
willingness to take steps towards closer ties with the
EU;

To the U.S. Government:

End all military sales and security aid to Turkey until
such time as Turkey no longer engages in a pattern of
gross human rights violations, as required by section
502B of the Foreign Assistance Act or give concrete
reasons why such a measure should not be implemented;

Raise the issues of torture and police impunity in
meetings with the Turkish government;

Call on the Turkish government to provide a detailed
list of police prosecuted for abuse;

To the Organization on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE):

In line with the 1990 Copenhagen Document, the OSCE
Permanent Council and the Chairman-in-Office should
reaffirm that the prevention of torture is a priority
matter of the OSCE and publicly condemn the widespread
practice of torture in Turkey;

The OSCE Permanent Council and the Chairman-in-Office
should urge Turkey to implement the recommendations
outlined by the CPT and ask the Turkish government to
keep the OSCE informed about its efforts in this
regard;

The OSCE should institute a public reporting procedure
according to which member states provide information on
their compliance with these OSCE principles;

To the United Nations Human Rights Commission:

Urge the government of Turkey to adopt all the
recommendations made to it in this report;

To the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture:

Conduct a fact-finding mission to Turkey and issue a
public report on the mission’s findings.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND

SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

TECHNIQUES OF ABUSE

INTERVIEWS WITH DETAINEES

TURKISH GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES TO STOP TORTURE
     Under the DYP/SHP Coalition Government, 1991-1995
     Why DYP/SHP Efforts Failed to End Torture New
     Initiative by the Welfare/DYP Coalition
     Government, November 1996

ALLEGATIONS OF LINKS BETWEEN SECURITY FORCES AND
EXTREME RIGHT-WING GROUPS

DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
     Turkish Constitution
     Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CMUK) Turkish
     Penal Code (Turk Ceza Kanunu)
     State Security Courts and the 1991 Anti-Terror Law
     (Law No. 3713)

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

STATE HARASSMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF
TURKEY TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION CENTERS

APPENDIX
     Summary of Interviews with Detainees

Human Rights Watch      March 1997      Vol. 9, No. 4



-- 
Press-Agency Ozgurluk: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk
Turkey Contra-Guerrilla-State: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk/contrind/
Searchable Database: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk/ml.html
KURTULUS HAFTALIK SIYASI GAZETE: http://www.kurtulus.com