Source:

Torture and ill-treatment in police detention remain grave concern [ID 14040]

"Torture and ill-treatment in police detention remained a grave concern. Although there were far fewer reports of the use of torture methods such as electric shocks, falaka (beatings on the soles of the feet) and suspension by the arms, there were regular reports of detainees being beaten, stripped naked, sexually harassed and denied adequate sleep, food, drink and use of the toilet.

One reason for the persistence of torture and ill-treatment in detention was the failure of law enforcement officials to follow prescribed procedures, including the duty to inform detainees of their rights and to allow access to legal counsel. Lawyers said that in some cases they were told by police officers that a detainee did not wish to see them without providing any evidence of this. Other contributing factors included inadequate documenting of torture and ill-treatment in medical reports, and the acceptance as evidence by courts of statements extracted under torture.

Disproportionate use of force by police during demonstrations was widespread. Television news programs regularly broadcast scenes of demonstrators being beaten, kicked and ill-treated by law enforcement officials. Groups particularly targeted during demonstrations included supporters of the political party DEHAP (Democratic People's Party), leftist parties, trade unionists, students and anti-war activists.

Of particular concern were the many allegations of people being abducted by plainclothes police and then tortured or ill-treated. These incidents of unrecorded detention were almost impossible to investigate and the perpetrators continued to enjoy impunity.
[...]"

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Torture and other Ill-treatment ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22804]

"Human rights organizations reported a rise in cases of torture and abuse during the year. In a July 5 report, Amnesty International (AI) noted that a "culture of impunity" allowed police and Jandarma to escape accountability for torture and enabled courts to disregard medical evidence of torture and accept as evidence statements allegedly extracted under torture.

The Ministry of Justice reported that it opened 45 torture cases during the year, involving 298 suspects and a total of 178 victims. The suspects comprised 263 police, 15 Jandarma, and 20 other public servants. The justice ministry reported that it opened 34 excessive force cases during the year, involving 65 suspects and 49 victims. The suspects comprised 56 police, seven Jandarma, and two other public servants.

According to the HRA and Mazlum-Der, there were 451 incidents of torture in the first six months of the year. The HRF reported that during the year 452 persons applied to HRF's centers for assistance. Of these, 248 cases involved torture or abuse inflicted during the year; the rest involved incidents that occurred previously. HRF stated that there were 10,449 credible reports of torture or abuse from 1990 to 2005. A number of human rights observers claimed that only a small percentage of detainees reported torture and abuse because they feared retaliation or believed that complaining was futile. 

In a July 5 report, the NGO Societal Legal Research Foundation discussed the circumstances of 34 torture complaints it received between March 2006 and February 28. The victims comprised 23 men, 10 women, and one transsexual individual. Thirty-three victims said they were tortured for political reasons. Methods allegedly used by officers included burning skin with cigarettes, squeezing testicles, administering electrical charges, beating with batons, using tear gas, and withholding food and water. Police officers were charged but not convicted in four of the cases. Investigation into the remaining 30 cases was ongoing.

The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and domestic human rights observers reported that, because detention periods were reduced to 24 hours in 2005, with prosecutorial discretion to extend the period to 48 hours, security officials for the most part eliminated more severe methods of torture and abuse, such as use of electric shocks, high-pressure cold water hoses, rape, beatings on the soles of the feet and genitalia, hanging by the arms, and burns. Instead, security officials mainly used methods that did not leave physical signs, including repeated slapping, exposing detainees to cold, stripping and blindfolding detainees, food and sleep deprivation, threatening detainees or their family members, dripping water on detainees' heads, isolation, and mock executions. 

Human rights activists, attorneys, and physicians who treated victims said that because of increased punishments for torture and abuse, police who engaged in these practices often did so outside of police detention centers to avoid detection.  

Human rights activists maintained that those arrested for ordinary crimes were as likely to suffer torture and mistreatment in detention as those arrested for political offenses such as speaking out against the government, although they were less likely to report abuse. Observers believed that security officials usually tortured political detainees to intimidate them and send a warning to others with similar political views. Authorities allegedly tortured some suspects to obtain confessions."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Electroshock Treatment (as of 2007) ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22976]

"

The NGO Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) announced that use of electroconvulsive or "shock" treatment without anesthesia was not practiced but that there remains no legal ban on the treatment method. In 2005 MDRI released a report stating that persons with mental disabilities in the country were subject to treatment "tantamount to torture." Following a two-year study, MDRI claimed the country lacked community-based support for mental patients and offered no alternative to state institutions where the mentally disabled were held separately from society in "prison-like incarceration."

In February a public prosecutor opened an investigation into reports of abuse at the Ekrem Tok Mental Hospital in Adana. The Ministry of Health and Adana Provincial Health Directorate also began investigations. The investigations were opened after Star TV aired a program that showed patients at the hospital complaining about electro-shock treatment, beatings, and abuse. According to the program, patients were subject to beatings and violence for performing religious prayers, for not eating, or for not cleaning their plates after a meal. Hurriyet reported that a patient died of a drug overdose in the facility in August 2006. Police arrested two staff members, Huseyin Hatipogul and Nusret Er, for mistreating patients.

"

Document(s): Open document

31.01.2008 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Ill-treatment on the rise in 2007 ("World Report 2008") [ID 23470]

"Ill-treatment appeared to be on the rise in 2007 and was regularly reported as occurring during arrest, outside places of official detention, and in the context of demonstrations, as well as in detention centers. This trend was further exacerbated by the passing in June of a new police law granting wide-ranging powers of stop and search. After the new law came into force, cases of police brutality were also reported in the context of the routine identity checks permitted in the new law. There were continuing reports of ill-treatment in prisons and, in January, conscientious objector Halil Savda was ill-treated at the Tekirdağ military barracks. "

Document(s): Open document

06.11.2007 - Source: European Commission

Downward trend in the number of reported cases of torture and illtreatment ("Turkey 2007 Progress Report [SEC(2007) 1436]") [ID 22351]

"The legislative safeguards introduced by the zero tolerance policy on torture continue to have positive effects. The downward trend in the number of reported cases of torture and illtreatment was confirmed. The reforms regarding access to lawyers have shown positive results (See access to justice). Turkey pursued its efforts to strengthen the system for the medical examination of alleged cases of abuse. The number of forensic medicine centres in Turkey has been increased, and the Council for Forensic Medicine started a project to strengthen the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol.*

However, cases of torture and ill-treatment are still being reported, especially during arrest and outside detention centres. There is no independent monitoring of places of detention by independent national bodies, pending the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture.

The use of statements obtained in the absence of legal counsel or which are not confirmed in front of a judge is prohibited by the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Court of Cassation ruled that the ban on the use of such statements does not apply retroactively. There are cases where lower Courts have not removed such evidence from the case file, although allegations of ill-treatment were made by the defendant.

There is a need to strengthen the independence of the Council for Forensic Medicine -which is under the Ministry of Justice- and to improve the overall quality of its medical reports. Furthermore, medical examinations sometimes take place in the presence of a law enforcement officer. Victims of torture and ill-treatment rely essentially on rehabilitation services provided by NGOs. This is partly due to the lack or inaccessibility of state-sponsored services for victims of torture and ill-treatment.

The fight against impunity of human rights violations remains an area of concern. There is a lack of prompt, impartial and independent investigation into allegations of human rights violations by members of security forces. Furthermore, judicial proceedings into allegations of torture and ill-treatment are often delayed by the lack of efficient trial procedures or abuse of such procedures.

Overall, the Turkish legal framework includes a comprehensive set of safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. However, cases still occur, especially before detention starts. The fight against impunity remains an area of concern. Turkey needs to investigate more thoroughly allegations that there have been human rights violations by members of the security forces.

[footnote: * Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, submitted to the United National Human Rights Commissioner for Human Rights, 9 August 1999]"

Document(s): Open document

28.09.2007 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Contribution on torture in Turkey, slight improvement of legal situation; yet number of legal aspects need to be dealt with; includes assessment of 2006-07 torture in Turkey ("Written contribution on Torture [HDIM.NGO/230/07]") [ID 21936]

Document(s): Report

07.2007 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Police Ill-treatment ("Human Rights Concerns in the Lead up to July Parliamentary Elections") [ID 24660]

"Reports of torture and ill-treatment remain much lower than in the 1990s, when torture was pandemic in police stations throughout Turkey, and especially in Turkey’s anti-terror units. As a result of legislative and other reforms that, among other things, shortened detention periods, abolished incommunicado detention, and allow all detainees, including those detained under the Anti-Terror Law, to consult with their lawyer from the first moments of detention, there has been a decrease in reports of torture and other ill-treatment. In fact, the greatest reduction has occurred in the anti-terror departments of police precincts.

Ill-treatment of detainees at the time of arrest and outside official places of detention remains a worrying and widely reported practice, however, especially for those apprehended on suspicion of committing ordinary crimes such as theft.

On June 2, 2007, a new law amending the Law on the Powers and Duties of the Police (Law no. 5681) was rushed through parliament. Among other provisions, the law greatly increases the authority of the police to stop and search individuals whom they suspect of committing crimes. While it is too early to evaluate the effect of the new law, these wide-ranging new stop and search powers raise concern because there is no mechanism for monitoring their application or preventing their abuse."

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2006 - Source: European Commission

Torture and ill-treatment (legal framework includes safeguards against torture and ill-treatment; human rights violations in the Southeast; problem of impunity) ("Turkey 2006 Progress Report") [ID 19019]

"With regard to torture and ill-treatment, a comprehensive legislative framework is in place. The downward trend has continued in the number of cases of torture and ill-treatment.

The reforms in detention procedures and detention periods have shown positive results on the ground. The regulation concerning the system for the medical examination of persons in police or gendarmerie custody complies with previous recommendations from the Committee on the Prevention of Torture.

However, implementing the legislative reforms undertaken in previous years remains a challenge. Cases of torture and ill-treatment are still being reported, in particular outside detention centres.

With respect to some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedures and of the Law on execution of sentences, the notification of a relative of the detained person and the right to access a lawyer are not uniformly applied. Furthermore, while the Code introduced provisions against the use of statements obtained under torture, concerns remain on statements obtained prior to the enactment of the Code. [...]

Concerns remain with regard to the confidentiality and quality of medical examinations. There is a need to further strengthen the independence of the Institute of Forensic Medicine Institute and to make further efforts to implement the Istanbul Protocol throughout the country. The Human Rights Boards have yet to assume a more prominent role in the on-site monitoring of law enforcement establishments. Since October 2005, the Boards carried out 992 visits to police stations and detention centres.

The human rights situation in the Southeast raises particular concerns following the violent disturbances that took place in several cities in March and April [...]. Over 550 people were detained as a result of these events, including over 200 children. The Diyarbakir Bar Association submitted more than 70 complaints of ill-treatment to the authorities. Subsequently, investigations were launched into 39 of these claims.

During the events in Diyarbakir, forensic examinations of detainees were carried out in places of detention. This contravenes the rules and the circulars issued by the Ministries of Justice and Health as well as the independence of the medical profession.

The new provisions introduced in June 2006 to amend the anti-terror law could undermine the fight against torture and ill-treatment [...].

Despite an increase in the number of convictions since 2003, the fight against impunity remains an area of concern.

Overall, the Turkish legal framework includes a comprehensive set of safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. Cases of torture and ill-treatment declined over the reporting period. However, concerns remain regarding cases outside detention centres, human rights violations in the Southeast and the problem of impunity."

Document(s): Open document

06.09.2006 - Source: BBC News

The country is reportedly still staging unfair trials under anti-terror laws; evidence extracted under torture is often used and some people are being held on remand for more than a decade ("Turkey 'unfair trials' condemned") [ID 17743]

Document(s): Open document

21.03.2006 - Source: UN Human Rights Council (formerly UN Commission on Human Rights)

Report on the current situation of illtreatment and detention in turkey ("Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak - Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur: Visits to Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Romania, the Russian Federation, Spain, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Venezuela [E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2]") [#47790],  [ID 15520]

for more detailed information please refer to the original document below

"312. According to information received from NGOs, the burden of proving that the detainee was subjected to torture or ill-treatment is still on the detainee. The detainee has to demonstrate conclusive proof that he or she was subjected to torture or ill-treatment. 313. The Government informed that according to Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code, statements obtained by the use of prohibited methods shall not be considered as evidence, even if the accused has given their consent. This issue is addressed in training activities of law enforcement agencies. As a safeguard against the use of evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, a new paragraph was added to Article 38 of the Constitution which provides that evidence obtained by prohibited means cannot be admitted in evidence. The accused person does not bear the burden of proving that the statement was obtained by prohibited means. 315. According to information received from NGOs, there has been no significant change in practice regarding the investigation of torture allegations. There are no specialized personnel employed to investigate torture allegations. The judiciary still appears unwilling to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment. 316. The Government informed that torture and ill-treatment are punishable by sentences of up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Accordingly, allegations of torture and ill-treatment are taken seriously and diligently by the judiciary at all stages of the investigation and trial process. The Government reported that the State Security Courts have been abolished. 319. The Government informed that according to Article 50 of the Criminal Code, commutations only apply to offences which are punishable by short term imprisonment of up to one year. Torture is an offence punishable by three to 15 years’ imprisonment and ill-treatment is an offence punishable by two to five years’ imprisonment. Accordingly, penalties for torture and ill-treatment cannot be commuted. According to Article 51 of the Criminal Code, suspensions can only be applied to sentences of imprisonment of up to two years. Accordingly, sentences imposed for torture cannot be suspended. Sentences imposed for ill-treatment cannot be suspended if they exceed two years’ imprisonment. Amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Code on 7 August 2003, stipulate that investigations and prosecutions for torture and ill-treatment must be treated as urgent matters and dealt with as priority cases. According to the amendments, cases related to these offences cannot be adjourned for a period of more than 30 days unless there are compelling reasons. These cases must also be dealt with during judicial holidays. The Government also reported that as of January 2003, it is no longer necessary to obtain prior administrative authorization before prosecuting public officials on charges of torture and ill-treatment. Furthermore, sentences imposed under Article 243 (torture) and Article 245 (ill-treatment) of the Criminal Code can no longer be converted into fines.  "

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Report on the situation of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46152],  [ID 15846]

for more detailed information please refer to the original document

"The law prohibits such practices; however, members of the security forces continued to torture, beat, and otherwise abuse persons regularly. Incidents of torture and abuse declined during the year but remained widespread. Courts rarely convicted security officials accused of torture and tended to issue light sentences when they did convict (see section 1.d.). According to the HRF, there were 657 credible cases of torture or abuse reported at its 5 national treatment centers through November. Of these, 180 cases involved torture or abuse inflicted during the year; the rest involved incidents that occurred previously. A number of human rightsobserversclaimed that only a small percentage of detainees reported torture and abuse because they feared retaliation or believed that complaining was futile."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Report on new programme to eradicate torture, in which provincial human rights bodies monitor local police stations (current situation in police stations, monitoring not yet consistent and countrywide, effectiveness of board visits, independence of police station visiting delegations) ("Turkey: First Steps Toward Independent Monitoring of Police Stations and Gendarmeries") [#45789],  [ID 14006]

Document(s): Open document

23.02.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Laut Studie von Amnesty International, Stiftung Pro Asyl und Holtfort-Stiftung werden unter Folter erpresste Geständnisse weiterhin vor Gerichten als Beweis zugelassen und tragen entscheidend zur Urteilsfindung bei ("Gutachten belegt: Erfolterte Geständnisse werden in der Türkei weiterhin als Beweis zugelassen") [#46931],  [ID 14007]

Document(s): Open document

21.12.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Possible risks for returnees because of German-Turkish exchange of information on criminal convictions; in recent years no information on cases of torture of deportees (in particular Kurdish political activists; expert opinion, in German) ("Stellungnahme vom 21.12.2005 an OVG Berlin - 6 B 8.04 -") [#41870],  [ID 14008]

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

Torture ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 14009]

for more detailed information seek out the original document at page 74

"6.19 The European Commission 2005 report stated:

“With regard to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, although reports of torture and ill-treatment are still frequent, the broad assessment of international and Turkish NGOs, as well as experts on the ground, such as lawyers and forensic doctors, is that incidence is diminishing. The President of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) stated in October 2004 that ‘it would be difficult to find a Council of Europe Member State with a more advanced set of provisions in this area’ while adding that, it is nevertheless ‘right to underline that Turkey needs to pursue vigorously its efforts to combat torture and other forms of ill-treatment’. In particular, further efforts are required to ensure full implementation of existing legislation and to reinforce the fight against impunity.” [71e] (p22)

6.20 The EC 2005 report also noted:

“As regards implementation, practice varies considerably throughout Turkey, although overall the situation continues to improve and both Bar Associations and NGOs confirm that reports of torture and ill-treatment are diminishing. According to these sources, severe forms of torture and ill-treatment are now rarely used and reports of ill-treatment in places of detention are less frequent than in the past. However, reports of ill-treatment outside of detention centres are still common, in particular, during the transportation of detainees, or in the context of demonstrations…Of the total complaints received by the Human Rights Presidency between October 2004 and March 2005 a significant proportion continue to relate to torture and ill-treatment. [71e] (p22-23) The government has remained committed to the fight against torture and ill-treatment, continuing to pursue a zero-tolerance policy towards torture. Nonetheless, on the ground, cases of torture and ill-treatment continue to be reported. Detainees are still not always made aware of their rights by the law enforcement bodies and prosecutors do not always promptly and adequately conduct investigations against public officials accused of torture. Continued efforts will be necessary to eradicate these methods, including the consistent imposition of appropriate sanctions on the perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment.” [71e] (p137)

6.21 As noted in the Amnesty International Turkey Memorandum of August 2005:

“Amnesty International has been greatly concerned about the issue of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by members of the security forces in Turkey for many years and sees this area as the testing ground for the reforms undertaken by the government. No issue more clearly illustrates the uneven impact of the reforms, the problems in their implementation and the need for further steps in order to eliminate the violations… Unfortunately, this is a challenge which the government still appears to be failing to meet. Torture and ill-treatment continues to be a widespread problem in Turkey. Amnesty International has raised its concerns regarding the statistics collected by the Human Rights Boards attached to the Prime Ministry but even these confirm that torture and ill-treatment continue to be a serious and widespread problem in Turkey… The repeated incidence of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey – despite the government’s programme – shows clearly that further measures are necessary in order to eradicate torture by state agents. The eradication of torture should be seen as the achievement of conditions in which torture and ill-treatment are extremely unlikely; they will occur, if at all, only in isolated cases; and if they do occur, there will be a reaction from the authorities which prevents the perpetrator from repeating the act, which satisfies conditions of justice and reparation, and which condemns the act in such a way that other public officials will be deterred from similar conduct. At the moment, this is far from the case in Turkey. The ‘zero tolerance for torture’ policy appears to be limited to legislative changes (such as increasing the punishment for individuals convicted of torture or allowing access of detainees to lawyers) and training given to police officers.” [12s] (Section on Concerns about continued torture and ill-treatment and impunity)

6.22 The AI 2005 Annual Report on Turkey noted that:

“Detention regulations that provided better protection for detainees led to an apparent reduction in the use of some torture techniques, such as suspension by the arms and falaka (beatings on the soles of the feet). However, the regulations were often not fully implemented. Torture and ill-treatment in police and gendarmerie custody continued to be a serious concern with cases of beatings, electric shock, stripping naked and death threats being reported. Torture methods which did not leave lasting marks on the detainee’s body were also widely reported. Deprivation of food, water and sleep and making detainees stand in uncomfortable positions continued to be reported, despite a circular from the Minister of the Interior prohibiting the use of such techniques. In addition, people were beaten during arrest, while being driven around or after being taken to a deserted place for questioning.” [12r]"

Document(s): Open document

28.09.2005 - Source: Guardian

Human rights abuses, torture and starvation reported in country's psychiatric institutions ("Torture claims threaten Turkey's bid to join EU") [#37074],  [ID 14549]

Document(s): Open document

20.09.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

On risk of arrest because of pending trial according to old Turkish Penal Code; situation concerning torture is not accurately described in German foreign office's report of May 2005 (expert opinion, in German) ("Stellungnahme vom 20.09.2005 an VG Sigmaringen - A 5 K 10656/04 -") [#38334],  [ID 14010]

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Amnesty International (AI) - Originaltitel: "Memorandum on AI's recommendations to the government to address human rights violations" ("Memorandum on AI's recommendations to the government to address human rights violations") [#38256],  [ID 14011]

"CONCERNS ABOUT CONTINUED TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT AND IMPUNITY
Amnesty International has been greatly concerned about the issue of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by members of the security forces in Turkey for many years and sees this area as the testing ground for the reforms undertaken by the government. No issue more clearly illustrates the uneven impact of the reforms, the problems in their implementation and the need for further steps in order to eliminate the violations. Amnesty International has warmly welcomed the “zero tolerance for torture” policy articulated by the government and the associated improvements made to detention and other regulations in order to improve the protection from torture and ill-treatment for detainees in police and gendarmerie custody. The organization is also heartened by the steps taken by the government in response to the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) to communicate to state officials the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, such as the circulars issued by the Ministry of the Interior to police stations urging them to respect detainee’s rights. The CPT in the report of its September 2003 visit to Turkey concluded that:
The legislative and regulatory framework necessary to combat effectively torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials has been put in place; the challenge now is to make sure that all of the provisions concerned are given full effect in practice. Unfortunately, this is a challenge which the government still appears to be failing to meet. Torture and ill-treatment continues to be a widespread problem in Turkey. Amnesty International has raised its concerns regarding the statistics collected by the Human Rights Boards attached to the Prime Ministry but even these confirm that torture and ill-treatment continue to be a serious and widespread problem in Turkey. According to these figures, 158 individuals complained of torture and ill-treatment to the Boards in 2004. This was the highest figure for any type of violation collected by the Boards in that year. Figures collected by independent non-governmental organizations also give a disturbing picture related to continued problems in this area. For example, the Human Rights Association (IHD) stated that it had documented 843 reports of torture and ill-treatment in 2004. The repeated incidence of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey – despite the government’s programme – shows clearly that further measures are necessary in order to eradicate torture by state agents. The eradication of torture should be seen as the achievement of conditions in which torture and ill-treatment are extremely unlikely; they will occur, if at all, only in isolated cases; and if they do occur, there will be a reaction from the authorities which prevents the perpetrator from repeating the act, which satisfies conditions of justice and reparation, and which condemns the act in such a way that other public officials will be deterred from similar conduct. At the moment, this is far from the case in Turkey. The “zero tolerance for torture” policy appears to be limited to legislative changes (such as increasing the punishment for individuals convicted of torture or allowing access of detainees to lawyers) and training given to police officers. Amnesty International believes that an effective policy of combating torture would require the following:
· Legislative and other safeguards including an independent body that will carry out regular and ad hoc unannounced visits to places of detention;
· Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; · The introduction of video and audio recording of all interviews of suspects in custody;
· Meaningful training of police, gendarmerie, judges and prosecutors regarding the legal changes and international standards, which comprises more than the issuing of circulars and directives;
· Clear guidelines to law enforcement officials – including a Code of Ethics – that would cover their responsibilities during interrogation and detention;
· The existence of clear sanctions for any law enforcement officials who may break such guidelines;
· Immediate and urgent impartial investigations into any allegations of violations of human rights by members of the security forces in accordance with the UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
· The development of an effective complaints mechanism able to carry out investigations into human rights violations;
· The urgent opening of criminal and disciplinary proceedings in relation to such violations with appropriate sanctions against anyone found responsible for these;
· The examination of the responsibility of commanding officers where law enforcement officials are alleged to have perpetrated serious human rights violations;
· The suspension from duty of officers under investigation for torture and serious ill-treatment and dismissal if found guilty;
· Compensation for and rehabilitation of the victims."

Document(s): Open document

31.07.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Report on the reform process; freedom of speech and freedom of press constricted by new turkish penal law; torture still common; health care; violence against women ("Länderkurzinfo der Koordinationsgruppe Türkei der deutschen Sektion") [#34626],  [ID 14012]

"Trotz Verbesserungen auf rechtlicher Ebene (u. a. Verkürzung der Dauer der Polizeihaft, Recht auf sofortigen Anwaltszugang für alle Festgenommenen) sind Folter und Misshandlungen noch immer weit verbreitet. Selbst das im Amt des Ministerpräsidenten angesiedelte Direktorium für Menschenrechte bestätigt, dass Folter und Misshandlungen ein schwerwiegendes und weitverbreitetes Problem sind. Nach seiner Statistik standen im Jahr 2004 Beschwerden wegen Folter mit 158 Personen an erster Stelle der Beschwerden. Die Zahlen der unabhängigen Menschenrechtsorganisationen lagen deutlich höher. Die Menschenrechtsstiftung der Türkei (TIHV) gab im Juni 2005 bekannt, dass im Jahr 2004 insgesamt 922 Personen bei der Stiftung einen Antrag auf kostenlose Behandlung von Beschwerden infolge von Folter gestellt haben, während es im Jahr 2003 insgesamt 925 Personen gewesen seien. Auch amnesty international erhält weiterhin kontinuierlich neue Informationen über Folterungen.

Der von der AKP-Regierung angekündigten Politik der „Null Toleranz“ gegenüber der Folter widersprechen Stellungnahmen türkischer Politiker, die von einem mangelnden Problembewusstsein gegenüber der Praxis der Folter zeugen. So erklärte der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan im Oktober 2004 vor der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats und bei Gesprächen mit Pressevertretern in Deutschland, es gäbe in seinem Land keinerlei Folter, weder systematische noch nicht systematische. Menschenrechtsorganisationen, die dies anzweifelten, bezeichnete er als "ideologisch verblendet“ und unterstellte ihnen, Beziehungen zu Terrororganisationen zu haben [4] .

Die Frage, ob die Folter in der Türkei „systematisch“ sei, hat auch im Zusammenhang mit dem EU-Kommissionsbericht vom Oktober 2004 Diskussionen ausgelöst. Eine solche Klassifizierung kann nur sinnvoll sein, wenn der Begriff zugleich konkret definiert wird. Der ehemalige Erweiterungskommissar Verheugen vertrat die Position, systematisch sei Folter nur, wenn sie von der Regierung angeordnet wird. Dies ist eine sehr enge und auch problematische Definition, da man die direkte Anordnung einer Regierung nur sehr selten wird nachweisen können. Die Menschenrechtsstiftung der Türkei berief sich in der Debatte um den Begriff auf folgende Definition: Systematisch sei Folter, wenn sie eine „administrative Praxis (ist), wenn trotz des Verbots von Folter und Misshandlungen die Vorgesetzten derartige Taten dulden, nichts in Richtung Bestrafung unternehmen, eine Wiederholung nicht verhindert wird oder wenn trotz einer hohen Anzahl von Beschwerden hochrangige Offizielle keine Ermittlungen zur Überprüfung der Richtigkeit einleiten oder den Beschwerdeführern keine Möglichkeit gegeben wird, ihre Beschwerde einer neutralen Gerichtsbarkeit vorzulegen“ [5]. Abgesehen von dem letzten Punkt – Folteropfer haben die Möglichkeit, sich vor Gericht zu beschweren, wenn auch unter großen Schwierigkeiten, oftmals in Form von Bedrohungen durch die Polizei, und meist mit geringem Erfolg – treffen diese Kriterien auf die Türkei noch immer zu: Folter ist weit verbreitet, trotz positiver Schritte auf gesetzlicher Ebene gibt es in der Praxis keine wirksamen Kontrollmechanismen, da die staatlichen regionalen und lokalen Menschenrechtskommissionen weder ausreichende Befugnis noch Expertise und teilweise scheinbar auch keine ausreichende Bereitschaft haben, um adäquate Untersuchungen durchzuführen, und da die direkt Verantwortlichen – die Leitungsebene der Polizei und die Staatsanwaltschaften – ihrer Aufgabe zur Verhinderung der Folter nicht nachkommen und dafür vom Staat bzw. der Justiz nicht zur Verantwortung gezogen werden.

Die Vorschriften zur Ingewahrsamnahme und Vernehmung durch Polizei und Gendarmerie werden nach Erkenntnissen von amnesty international in der Praxis vielfach nicht eingehalten. So werden Besuche von Anwälten oft verhindert, medizinische Untersuchungen von Festgenommenen werden entgegen den Vorschriften vielfach in Anwesenheit von Angehörigen der Sicherheitskräfte durchgeführt. In diesem Zusammenhang drückten türkische Menschenrechtsorganisationen ihre Besorgnis über den Mangel an Unabhängigkeit des Gerichtsmedizinischen Instituts aus, welches eine faktische Monopolstellung bei der Erstellung von Gutachten über erlittene Folter hat. Anlass für Kritik war die Ernennung von Dr. Nur Birgen zur Leiterin der Abteilung des Gerichtsmedizinischen Instituts, die für Gutachten über Folterfälle zuständig ist. Gegen Dr. Birgen wurden von der Türkischen Ärztekammer mehrfach Disziplinarstrafen verhängt, weil sie in Gutachten Folterspuren vertuscht hatte.

Die strengeren Vorschriften bezüglich der Polizeihaft haben die Praxis der Folter zwar nicht verhindert, aber dazu beigetragen, dass in letzter Zeit vorrangig Foltermethoden angewandt werden, die keine längerfristig nachweisbaren physischen Spuren hinterlassen. Methoden wie Bastonade, Aufhängen an den Armen und Elektroschocks kommen deutlich seltener zur Anwendung, verbreitet sind dagegen Schläge, Abspritzen mit kaltem Wasser unter Hochdruck, sexuelle Misshandlungen und Demütigungen, Drohungen mit Tod oder Vergewaltigung, Zwang zum langen Verharren in schmerzhaften Körperpositionen sowie Schlaf- und Nahrungsentzug.

Umgangen werden die Vorschriften auch durch zunehmend dokumentierte unregistrierte Festnahmen. Die Menschenrechtsstiftung der Türkei (TIHV) hat in ihrer Jahresstatistik für 2004 angegeben, dass von den 922 Antragstellern auf Behandlung 56 % erklärten, außerhalb regulärer Haft gefoltert worden zu sein [6] .

Neben dem neuen Strafgesetzbuch ist zum 1.6.2005 auch eine neue Strafprozessordnung in Kraft getreten, mit der mehrere zuvor eingeführte Verbesserungen des Schutzes von Festgenommenen rückgängig gemacht wurden. So muss, wer ohne richterliche Anordnung festgenommen wurde, nicht mehr sofort einem Staatsanwalt vorgeführt werden. Anwälten kann, wenn sie wegen bestimmter tStGB-Artikel strafrechtlich verfolgt werden oder deshalb gegen sie ermittelt wird, gem. Art. 151 tStPO n. F. verboten werden, ihre Klienten bei bestimmten Anklagepunkten zu vertreten oder diese in Haft aufzusuchen. Unter diesen tStGB-Artikeln sind auch die Nachfolgeartikel von Artt. 159, 169, 312 tStGB a. F. und Art. 7 ATG, die besonders häufig angewandt wurden, um Menschenrechtsaktivisten mit offensichtlich unbegründeten Anklagen in ihrer Arbeit zu behindern. Schließlich ist Art. 7 tStPO a. F. [7] entfernt worden, der vorschrieb, dass Ermittlungen und Anklagen bei Folter und Misshandlung prioritär zu behandeln seien und dass in derartigen Prozessen die Frist zwischen Verhandlungsterminen nicht mehr als 30 Tage betragen darf und die Verfahren auch während der Gerichtsferien fortgesetzt werden müssen. Diese Regelung war eine Reaktion darauf, dass Verfahren gegen mutmaßliche Folterer oft verschleppt und verzögert wurden, sodass viele Prozesse aufgrund der in der Türkei geltenden Verjährungsfristen auch bei laufendem Verfahren ohne Verurteilung zum Erliegen kamen. Auch die genannten Bestimmungen hatten dieses Problem nicht zufriedenstellend gelöst, jetzt gibt es jedoch überhaupt keine Regelungen mehr, um der gezielten Prozessverschleppung einen Riegel vorzuschieben.

All diese Faktoren tragen weiterhin zur weitgehenden Straflosigkeit von Folterern bei. Die Staatsanwälte ermitteln praktisch nie von sich aus, wenn sie, z. B. in Gerichtsverhandlungen, von Foltervorwürfen hören. Wenn von Betroffenen Anzeige wegen Folter erstattet wird, werden die Vorwürfe nicht adäquat und unparteiisch untersucht, und es ist schon schwierig, die Eröffnung eines Verfahrens zu erreichen. In einem hohen Prozentsatz von Klagen über Folter und Misshandlung, in denen Staatsanwälte entschieden haben, kein Verfahren einzuleiten, fand offenbar nur eine kurze Untersuchung statt, die sich gewöhnlich auf die Prüfung des Arztberichtes beschränkte. Schon das Europäische Antifolterkomitee hatte diese Praxis kritisiert. Die Problematik liegt darin, dass die während der Polizeihaft vorgeschriebenen ärztlichen Untersuchungen in vielen Fällen im Beisein der begleitenden Polizisten durchgeführt werden. Dies führt dazu, dass die Festgenommenen oftmals nicht ernsthaft untersucht werden und Angst haben, über erlittene Folter zu berichten. Ärzte werden von den Polizisten immer wieder unter Druck gesetzt, Folterspuren nicht zu dokumentieren. Andere Beweismittel wie z. B. Zeugenaussagen von Mitgefangenen werden von den Gerichten in der Regel ignoriert.

Die Angehörigen der Sicherheitskräfte bleiben auch bei einer Anklage wegen schwerwiegender Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Dienst, sogar dann, wenn Gerichtsverfahren gegen sie eingeleitet wurden. Polizeibeamte, die schwerer Menschenrechtsverletzungen wie „Verschwindenlassen“, außergerichtlicher Hinrichtung und Folter und Misshandlung angeklagt sind, wurden oft an andere Dienststellen versetzt und manchmal sogar befördert.

Wenn es überhaupt zur Verurteilung von Folterern kommt, sind die Urteile in der Regel der Schwere der Straftat nicht angemessen. Während die Opfer schwere Verletzungen erlitten, erhalten die Polizisten in der Regel nur minimale Strafen, die oft noch reduziert und/oder ausgesetzt werden – z. B. wegen guter Führung vor Gericht. Nur selten müssen Haftstrafen tatsächlich verbüßt werden. Wie gering auch das Interesse der Regierung an einer Aufklärung von Folterfällen ist, zeigt die Tatsache, dass der der Beteiligung an der Folterung von vier Personen im Jahr 2002 angeklagte Polizist Hanefi Karal nach Berichten seiner Anwälte zu dem Gerichtstermin am 29.06.2005 in Ankara nicht kommen konnte, weil er im Amt des Ministerpräsidenten Dienst tue [8] .

Auch wenn es inzwischen zahlreiche Beispiele gibt, in denen Angeklagte freigesprochen wurden, da keine anderen Beweismittel als unter Druck erlangte Geständnisse vorlagen, ist die Verwendung von unter Folter erpressten Aussagen oder Geständnissen nach Aussagen von Rechtsanwälten in der Türkei nach wie vor weit verbreitet,

Beispielsweise wurde Servet Özgün am 9.6.2005 vom Gericht für schwere Straftaten in Diyarbakir zu lebenslanger Haft nach § 125 tStGB verurteilt. Er hatte sich der Polizei gestellt, nachdem sein Bruder Mehmet Sait Özgün an einem von der PKK verübten Anschlag im Stadtteil Mardinkapı von Diyarbakir beteiligt gewesen und dabei getötet worden war. Servet Özgün war nach eigener Aussage selbst niemals Mitglied der PKK, hat aber unter Folter und Todesdrohungen bei der Polizei eine PKK-Mitgliedschaft und Beteiligung an dem Anschlag gestanden. Aus Angst vor den Drohungen hat er diese Aussage auch bei der ersten Vernehmung durch den Haftrichter bestätigt, in dem Gerichtsverfahren aber erklärt, seine Aussage sei auf Druck der Polizei zustande gekommen und entspreche nicht den Tatsachen. Nach Aussage seiner Rechtsanwältin Meral Danış-Beştaş wurde Servet Özgün ausschließlich aufgrund seiner in dem Verfahren zurückgezogenen Aussage bei der Polizei verurteilt, weitere Beweismittel hätten nicht vorgelegen.

Ein weiteres Beispiel ist das Verfahren gegen den aus Deutschland abgeschobenen Metin Kaplan. Ein wesentlicher Pfeiler der Anklage gegen ihn sind belastende Aussagen von ehemaligen Anhängern seiner Organisation, die selbst erklären, sie hätten diese Aussagen unter Folter gemacht. Über die erlittene Folter liegen in diesen Fällen auch ärztliche Atteste vor. Die Anwälte von Metin Kaplan haben in der Verhandlung vor dem Schwurgericht Istanbul am 4.4.2005 auf diesen Umstand hingewiesen, die ärztlichen Atteste vorgelegt und beantragt, die Belastungszeugen durch das Gericht anzuhören. Dieser Antrag wurde von dem Gericht zurückgewiesen mit der Begründung, die genannten Personen seien rechtskräftig verurteilt und ihre erneute Vernehmung würde keine neuen Erkenntnisse bringen.

Zur Gefahr der Folter nach Abschiebung: Während in den vergangen Jahren – bis ca. 2000 – mehrfach Kurden, selbst wenn sie nur auf sehr niedrigem Niveau politisch aktiv gewesen waren, nach ihrer Abschiebung in die Türkei festgenommen und gefoltert wurden, sind derartige Fälle in den letzten Jahren nicht mehr bekannt geworden. Im Falle von Personen, die von den türkischen Behörden verdächtigt werden, Mitglieder militanter politischer Organisationen zu sein, geht amnesty international aber nach wie vor von einer erheblichen Foltergefahr aus, vor allem wenn bei ihnen Kenntnisse über Organisationsstrukturen im Ausland oder in der Türkei vermutet werden. amnesty ist der Fall eines Kurden bekannt, der nach seiner Abschiebung im August 2004 drei Nächte lang in der Antiterrorabteilung der Polizei in Istanbul gefoltert und anschließend für drei Monate (bis zur ersten Gerichtsverhandlung) inhaftiert wurde, weil er der Verantwortung für einen Anschlag der PKK bezichtigt wurde – obwohl er in der gleichen Sache vor seiner Flucht nach Deutschland vom Gericht freigesprochen worden war."

Document(s): Open document

25.05.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Torture and illtreatment ("Annual Report 2005") [#32304],  [ID 14013]

"Neu eingeführte Haftbestimmungen, welche inhaftierten Personen einen verbesserten Schutz boten, führten offenbar zu einem Rückgang bestimmter Folterpraktiken, darunter das Aufhängen an den Armen und Schläge auf die Fußsohlen (falaka). Die neuen Bestimmungen wurden jedoch nicht in vollem Umfang umgesetzt, sodass Folterungen und Misshandlungen im Gewahrsam der Polizei und der Gendarmerie nach wie vor Anlass zu großer Sorge gaben. So wurden nach vorliegenden Meldungen Gefangene weiterhin mit Schlägen traktiert, Elektroschocks unterworfen, nackt ausgezogen und mit dem Tode bedroht.

Verbreitet wurde auch von Foltermethoden berichtet, die keine bleibenden körperlichen Spuren hinterlassen. Dazu zählten Schlafentzug und die Verweigerung von Wasser und Nahrung. Außerdem sollen Häftlinge gezwungen worden sein, über lange Zeiträume hinweg stehend in unbequemen Körperpositionen zu verharren. Das Innenministerium hatte alle diese Praktiken in einem Rundschreiben verboten. Dem Vernehmen nach wurden Personen auch weiterhin bei der Festnahme, in Polizeifahrzeugen oder während des Verhörs an abgelegenen Orten mit Schlägen traktiert.

Derya Aksakal wurde am 3. März Berichten zufolge in einen Kleinbus gezerrt, als sie in Istanbul zu Fuß unterwegs war. Man verband ihr nach eigenen Angaben die Augen, und sie wurde von drei maskierten Männern zu ihren politischen Aktivitäten befragt. Einen von ihnen konnte Derya Aksakal dennoch als einen ihr bekannten Polizeibeamten identifizieren. Die Männer sollen Zigaretten auf ihrem Körper ausgedrückt, ihr mit Vergewaltigung gedroht und sie einer Scheinhinrichtung unterzogen haben, bevor sie die Frau nach zwei Stunden wieder auf freien Fuß setzten.

Aydın Ay wurde am 27. Oktober wegen Diebstahlverdachts zur Polizeistation von Carşı in Trabzon gebracht. Nach seinen Schilderungen hat man ihn dort nackt ausgezogen, mit Elektroschocks gepeinigt und seine Hoden gequetscht, um ihn zu zwingen, Dokumente unbekannten Inhalts zu unterschreiben.

Ein großer Teil der Beschwerden über Misshandlungen galten dem exzessiven Gewalteinsatz der Sicherheitskräfte bei Demonstrationen. Ungeachtet eines Rundschreibens des Innenministeriums, das die Beamten anwies, keine unverhältnismäßige Gewalt anzuwenden, trafen weiterhin Berichte ein, denen zufolge Teilnehmer an Protestkundgebungen sogar noch nach der Festnahme geschlagen oder mit Pfefferspray besprüht worden sind."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

19.05.2005 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Torture, ill-treatment, police misconduct ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events of 2004)") [#32120],  [ID 14014]

"In 2004, the government further improved the legislation and regulations concerning detention conditions and the rights of detainees, in connection with the EU accession process. While the Turkish government and the European Commission asserted that torture was not systematic in Turkey anymore, it was still widespread and the government extended immunity to the police and gendarmerie accused of torture.

Turkish human rights organizations stated that the safeguards provided by the government were not always respected in practice by the security forces. Torture and ill-treatment occurred particularly in the southeast, but disadvantaged groups including the Roma and children in the poorer sections of bigger cities, including IDP children, were particularly vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment. Political detainees still risked torture and ill-treatment.

In 2004, over 5,800 persons were detained for “terrorist” crimes. The government declared a “zero-tolerance” policy on torture, but rejected any debate with human rights organizations on the issue, and reacted negatively to arguments and initiatives by these organizations.

Neither government nor NGO statistics are adequate to determine the frequency of torture in Turkey. While increased activity and visibility by the HRA and HRFT as well as better public awareness has resulted in better reporting of torture in recent years, it is believed that the most vulnerable groups are often discouraged from reporting torture, including by fear of retaliation. The HRA recorded 1,040 torture and ill-treatment complaints under detention, compared to 1,202 in 2003, while according to the government, the prosecutors launched cases against 2,395 security officers charged with torture and ill-treatment. In at least ten cases, prosecutors did not launch cases against the officers despite HRA efforts.

The new Penal Code increased the sentences for torture and ill-treatment, and the new regulations reinforced the safeguards against incommunicado detention. However, the HRA observed that most detainees were not able to access attorneys during pre-trial detention, and that the system of forensic examination of detainees before and after detention was not adequately working. The HRA observations were supported in a report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) published in June 2004. In addition, prosecutors and judges were still generally protective of the officers accused of torture and ill-treatment. While confessions extracted under torture still led to indictment and even conviction, torture allegations did not always lead to effective action by the judiciary."

Document(s): Open document

18.05.2005 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Law forsees stricter punishment against torturers - execution often fails ("Zur aktuellen Situation - Mai 2005 ") [#32420],  [ID 14015]

"... So sind deutlich härtere Strafe für Folterer vorgesehen. Da gegenwärtig noch viele Verfahren gegen mutmassliche Folterer mit Freispruch oder sehr milden Strafen enden oder die Verfahren ganz einfach verschleppt werden, ist abzuwarten, wie sich das neue Gesetz in der Praxis auswirken wird. Die Verschleppung der Prozesse führt in einigen Fällen dazu, dass die Verfahren eingestellt werden, weil die Zeitdauer für die Verfahren überschritten ist. Folterer bleiben straffrei. Diese Praxis dauert bis heute an."

Document(s): Open document

22.04.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

4 police officers acquitted of torture and rape of 2 teenage girls after massively delayed and grossly inadequate investigation and trial ("Justice denied to tortured teenage girls") [#31511],  [ID 14016]

Document(s): Open document

21.04.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Increasing risk that charges against police officers accused of torture and rape of 2 teenagers in detention will be dropped because of repeated delays in trial ("Protecting the torturers?") [#31484],  [ID 14017]

Document(s): Open document

03.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Torture and ill-treatment ("Anliegen in Europa und Zentralasien Juli-Dezember 2004: Türkei") [#32532],  [ID 14018]

"Einer der Gründe für die dringende Notwendigkeit von unabhängiger Beobachtung und Untersuchungsmechanismen wurde durch die Furore illustriert, die nach dem Besuch des damaligen EU-Erweiterungskommissars Günter Verheugen im September 2004 in der Türkei ausbrach. Es ging dabei um das Ausmaß von Folter in der Türkei und ob sie “systematisch” war oder nicht. Die von der Regierung als Beleg für eine Verbesserung der Situation zitierten Daten umfassten Klagen über Vorfälle von Folter und Misshandlung, welche die Menschenrechtskommissionen in den Provinzen und Kreisen erhalten hatten und die im Vergleich zu den von unabhängigen Menschenrechtsorganisationen gesammelten Zahlen sehr niedrig waren. Dennoch behauptete Ministerpräsident Tayyip Erdoğan bei einer Rede im Oktober 2004 zum Thema Folter in der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats kategorisch, dass es keine systematische Folter gebe. Er fuhr fort: “Jedoch diejenigen, die eine ideologische Einstellung haben, die sagen, dass es immer noch diese Art von Folter gibt, [...] das stammt von Leuten, die Beziehung zu Terrororganisationen haben. Ich möchte Ihnen dies zu Ihrer ausdrücklichen Information sagen.” Das Versäumnis der Regierung, das Ausmaß von Folter ausreichend zu untersuchen, lässt jede ihrer diesbezüglichen Behauptungen ohnehin zweifelhaft erscheinen. Der gegenstandslose Kommentar, der auf unabhängige Menschenrechtsgruppen abzielt, stellt jedoch darüber hinaus einen klaren Bruch der Verpflichtung der Türkei hinsichtlich der Erklärung der Vereinten Nationen über Menschenrechtsverteidiger dar.

Dennoch führten die Haftvorschriften, die aufgrund der Politik der Regierung für “Null Toleranz gegen Folter” besseren Schutz für Festgenommene bieten, zu einer erkennbaren Abnahme der Anwendung von solchen Foltermethoden wie Aufhängen an den Armen und der Falaka. Allerdings wurden diese Vorschriften wie das Recht auf einen Rechtsbeistand oft nicht angewendet und Fälle von Folter und Misshandlung von Personen im Gewahrsam der Polizei oder Gendarmerie blieben weiter ein ernsthaftes Problem.


Über Foltermethoden, die keine Spuren hinterlassen, wurde verbreitet berichtet. Trotz eines Rundschreibens des Innenministers, der das Verbot der Anwendung von Techniken wie Verweigerung von Essen, Schlaf und Toilettengang sowie den Zwang, in unbequemen Positionen zu stehen, darstellte, gab es weiterhin Berichte über derartige Praktiken. Darüber hinaus wurden Missbräuche auch außerhalb offizieller Haftorte durchgeführt. Dies beinhaltete Schläge und andere Misshandlungen von Personen während der Festnahme. Ferner kam es zu Entführungen, bei denen Personen in einem Fahrzeug herumgefahren oder an einem einsamen Ort zum Verhör gebracht wurden, ohne dass über diese Festnahmen irgendwelche Aufzeichnungen angefertigt wurden.

Ein großer Anteil der Beschwerden über Misshandlung stand in Zusammenhang mit dem Einsatz unverhältnismäßiger Gewalt durch die Sicherheitskräfte bei der Überwachung von Demonstrationen, darunter Schläge mit Knüppeln, der Gebrauch von Pfeffergas sowie der Einsatz von Hunden. Trotz eines Rundschreibens des Innenministers mit der Forderung, die Polizisten sollten sicherstellen, dass keine unverhältnismäßige Gewalt angewendet werde, gab es weiterhin Berichte über solche Vorfälle. Beispielhaft seien diesbezüglich die Demonstrationen, die in vielen Städten in der Türkei gegen die Nato-Konferenz in Istanbul vom 28.-29. Juni 2004 stattfanden, und gegen den Rat für Höhere Bildung am 6. November 2004 genannt. Diese Beschwerden wurden oft mit Gegenvorwürfen gegen die Beschwerdeführer wegen “Widerstands gegen einen Beamten mit Gewalt oder Drohungen” oder Verletzung des Gesetzes Nr. 2911 über Veranstaltungen oder Demonstrationen beantwortet."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Human rights organisation reports 918 credible cases of torture and mistreatment ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 14019]

"According to the HRF, there were 918 credible cases of torture and mistreatment reported at its 5 national treatment centers during the year. Human rights advocates claimed that hundreds of detainees were tortured during the year in the southeast, where the problem was particularly serious, but that only a small percentage of detainees reported torture and ill-treatment because they feared retaliation or believed that complaining was futile.

During the year, senior HRF and HRA officials stated that there had not been a significant change in the frequency of torture over previous years. However, officials at a number of HRA branch offices, including in the southeast, said they had observed a decline in the practice. A number of attorneys in the southeast and other regions also reported that torture and ill-treatment had become significantly less common. Observers reported that police demonstrated greater restraint in their treatment of detainees and protestors during the year due to legal reforms and government directives."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Methods of torture ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 14020]

"Human rights observers said that, because of reduced detention periods, security officials mainly used torture methods that did not leave physical traces, including repeated slapping, exposure to cold, stripping and blindfolding, food and sleep deprivation, threats to detainees or family members, dripping water on the head, squeezing of the testicles, and mock executions. They reported a continued reduction, compared with past years, in the use of methods such as electric shocks, high-pressure cold water hoses, beatings on the soles of the feet (falaka) and genitalia, hanging by the arms, and burns.

The HRA reported that women detainees were sometimes subject to rape, including vaginal and anal rape with truncheons, and sexual harassment. Female detainees sometimes faced sexual humiliation and, less frequently, more severe forms of sexual torture. After being forced to strip in front of male officers, female detainees were sometimes touched, insulted, and threatened with rape.

Human rights attorneys and physicians who treated victims said torture generally occurred during police or Jandarma detention before detainees appeared in court. Because arresting officers were responsible for interrogating suspects, they sometimes used torture to obtain a confession that would justify the arrest.

Treatment of those arrested for ordinary crimes reportedly differed from treatment of those arrested for political crimes. Observers said that security officials sometimes tortured political detainees to intimidate them and send a warning to others with similar political views."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Rarity of convictions and generally light sentences in torture cases contradicted the Government's official policy of zero tolerance for torture ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 14021]

"During the year, prosecutors opened trials against 2,395 security personnel on torture or ill-treatment charges. Through September, courts reached final verdicts in 625 torture and ill-treatment cases begun in previous years, convicting 345 defendants and acquitting 1,094. Seven security officers received short suspensions from duty during the year for ill-treatment.

Courts investigated many allegations of ill-treatment and torture by security forces; however, they rarely convicted or punished offenders. When courts did convict offenders, punishment generally was minimal; monetary fines did not keep pace with the rate of inflation, and sentences were sometimes suspended. The rarity of convictions and generally light sentences in torture cases contradicted the Government's official policy of zero tolerance for torture. Authorities typically also allowed officers accused of abuse to remain on duty and, in some cases, promoted them during their trial, which often took years.

Administrative and bureaucratic barriers impeded prosecutions and contributed to the low number of torture convictions. Under the law, courts could not convict unless a defendant attended at least one trial session. Police defendants sometimes failed to attend hearings in order to avoid conviction; prosecuting attorneys claimed courts failed to make serious attempts to locate such defendants, even in cases where the defendants received salary or pension checks at their home address.

In separate decisions in March and September, an Ankara court convicted five police defendants in the 1991 Birtan Altinbas death-in-detention case and sentenced them each to 4 years and 5 months in prison. The court acquitted five codefendants. In November, the High Court of Appeals overturned the verdict on the grounds that the sentences were too lenient, sending the case back to the lower court."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

New Penal Code provides increased punishment for torture ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 14022]

"In September, Parliament adopted a new Penal Code that provides increased punishment for torture. Under the new law, the sentence for most torture convictions is 3 to 12 years in prison. Previously, the maximum penalty was 8 years per victim, and most persons sentenced to jail terms received 2 years. The new Code also establishes higher penalties, including life imprisonment, for aggravated torture, and prison terms of up to 3 years for police who fail to report torture. The new Penal Code increases the maximum statute of limitations for torture cases and other felonies from 15 years to 30 years and allows for the statute to be suspended in certain circumstances. The law requires that trials, including appeals, be completed before the statute of limitations expires; otherwise, the trial ends without a verdict. The extension of the statute of limitations was expected to make it difficult for defendants in torture cases to avoid a verdict by delaying court proceedings."

Document(s): Open document

14.01.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Torture Prevention Group which provides legal aid to the victims of torture, closed by Izmir Bar Association; the closure appears to be in violation with Turkish Law on Legal Practice ("Closure of Torture Prevention Group shocking") [#28287],  [ID 14023]

Document(s): Open document

17.12.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Risk upon return for alleged member of PKK/Kongra-Gel; investigations by Turkish authorities very likely because of criminal conviction in Germany and because of press reports; on state of legal reforms, occurrence of torture still widespread in police custody (expert opinion, in German) ("Stellungnahme vom 17.12.2004 an VG Hamburg - 11 A 2003/99 -") [#28799],  [ID 14024]

Document(s): Open document

06.10.2004 - Source: European Commission

Measures for prevention of torture and ill-treatment ("Regular Report 2004 on Turkey´s progress towards accession") [#26161],  [ID 14025]

"With regard to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, most of the legislative and administrative framework required to combat torture and ill-treatment has been put in place since 2002, when the government declared its intention to pursue a zero-tolerance policy against torture. In accordance with various legislative amendments, pre-trial detention procedures have been aligned with European standards; sentences for torture and ill-treatment can no longer be suspended or converted into fines; and the requirement to obtain permission from superiors to open investigations against public officials has been lifted. Although many of the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Ill-treatment (CPT) and the relevant UN bodies have been acted upon, a number have still not been followed up by the Turkish authorities. Turkey still needs to pursue vigorously its efforts to combat torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials.

Recent measures include a further amendment to the Regulation on Apprehension, Detention and Statement Taking in January 2004, which strengthened the rights of detainees. Medical examinations of detained persons are now to be carried out without the presence of the security forces, except when the doctor requires otherwise and the custody register and the suspects’ rights form were improved. In October 2003 the Council of State clarified that detainees’ medical examination reports should not be copied to law enforcement officers. In April 2004 the Turkish Medical Association issued a guideline stating that disciplinary penalties should be brought against doctors who discriminate on the basis of gender, race, nationality, or for any other reason, during medical checks and treatment. Pocket-sized cards setting out a suspect’s rights, including his right to see a lawyer, have been distributed to police officers, who have been instructed to read the rights to a suspect immediately upon arrest. Enlarged versions of the cards have been displayed in police stations. The card also reminds police officers that breaching a suspect’s rights makes them liable for the financial compensation due. The new Penal Code increases sentences for perpetrators of torture and foresees life imprisonment in cases where the victim has died.

An April 2004 circular calls on all law enforcement officials to avoid methods that may engender allegations of ill-treatment of detained persons, such as sleep deprivation, prolonged standing and threats and blindfolding. In October 2003, a circular was issued instructing public prosecutors to carry out, in person, investigations regarding allegations of torture and ill-treatment, which should be considered as priority cases. The amendment to the Military Criminal Code and the Law on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of Military Courts in January 2004 aligned the detention procedures of the military courts with those of other courts.

The Government’s policy of zero tolerance and its serious efforts to implement the legislative reforms have led to a decline in instances of torture. In the first six months of 2004 the Turkish Human Rights Association received 692 complaints related to torture, a 29% decrease on the first six months of 2003. However, the number of complaints of torture outside of formal detention centres has increased considerably as compared with 2003. Of the total human rights violations claims received by the Human Rights Presidency between January and June 2004, a significant proportion related to “torture and ill-treatment”, indicating that such practice remains a problem."

Document(s): Open document

06.10.2004 - Source: European Commission

Fight against impunity in cases of torture ("Regular Report 2004 on Turkey´s progress towards accession") [#26161],  [ID 14026]

"As regards the fight against impunity, according to official statistics, of 2 454 law enforcement agents who were tried in 2003 in relation to allegations of torture or illtreatment, 1 357 were acquitted and of the 854 defendants that were convicted, 138 were imprisoned. In February 2004, the Minister of the Interior issued a circular aimed at ensuring the attendance of the accused at trials concerning torture or ill-treatment. In some cases, defendants had been able to avoid attending trial for many years, thus causing their cases to exceed the statute of limitation. Concerns remain that despite reforms prosecutors are not always promptly and adequately conducting investigations against public officials accused of torture.

In July 2004 the Court of Cassation overruled a judgement concerning the prison sentence given in 2002 to four policemen found guilty of torture on the grounds that the sanction (11 months and 20 days suspended prison sentence) did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence. Further to this decision a retrial of these policemen will take place."

Document(s): Open document

06.10.2004 - Source: European Commission

Government is seriously pursuing policy of zero tolerance against torture; however, numerous cases of ill-treatment including torture still continue to occur ("Regular Report 2004 on Turkey´s progress towards accession") [#26161],  [ID 14027]

"Following allegations of “systematic” torture in Turkey the Commission undertook a fact finding mission in September 2004 in order to carry out a further check on the situation vis-à-vis torture and ill-treatment in Turkey. This mission enabled the Commission to confirm that the Government is seriously pursuing its policy of zero tolerance in the fight against torture; however, numerous cases of ill-treatment including torture still continue to occur and further efforts will be required to eradicate such practices. The Turkish authorities could further tackle this problem through the establishment of a system of independent monitoring of detention facilities, in line with the recommendations of the UN and the CPT."

Document(s): Open document

06.10.2004 - Source: European Commission

Considerable improvement in detention facilities and in treatment of people in custody ("Regular Report 2004 on Turkey´s progress towards accession") [#26161],  [ID 14028]

"In March 2004 the CPT published its report, together with the response of the Turkish Government, following its field visits to the South and Southeast of Turkey in September 2003. The report notes a considerable improvement in detention facilities and in the treatment of people in custody. The use of torture methods such as suspension by the arms and electric shocks is now very rare, although in some police headquarters such methods were reported. Less detectable methods of torture or ill-treatment still occur.

Notwithstanding the January 2004 Regulation, there are still reports of detainees being seen by a doctor in the presence of enforcement officials without the prior request of the doctor. Moreover, the requirement to transmit the medical report to the authorities concerned, without providing copies to law enforcement officials, is also not always met.

In order to help address a lack of forensic experts trained in detecting torture and illtreatment, a project is currently underway to train 2 500 doctors who work in the western part of Turkey. The training is in accordance with the Forensic Medicine Institution’s “Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment” and the Istanbul Protocol. In order to improve the quality of medical examinations, the Forensic Medicine Institute has started to move forensic medicine examination rooms from courthouses to hospitals and health centres."

Document(s): Open document

04.10.2004 - Source: Kaya, Serafettin

Ongoing arrests and convictions of alleged supporters or members of PKK/KADEK; ongoing systematic use of torture during interrogations; claimant likely to be a suspect in spite of an acquittal in an earlier trial (expert opinion, in German) ("Stellungnahme vom 4.10.2004 an VG Gelsenkirchen - 14a K 6220/03.A -") [#27464],  [ID 14029]

Document(s):