Türkei nimmt durch Beitritt eines Protokolls zum Anti-Folter-Pakt der UN an
Programm teil, das nationalen und internationalen Beobachtern den Zugang zu
Polizeistationen garantiert; Empfehlungen zur Umsetzung des Programms 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 http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/
turkey0306/turkey0306.pdf March 2006 No. (1) Turkey: First Steps Toward
Independent Monitoring of Police Stations and Gendarmeries Human Rights Watch
Briefing Paper March 6, 2006
Summary.........................................................................................................................................
1 Introduction: Sustaining Improvement
.....................................................................................
2 The current situation in the police stations: legal safeguards not fully
implemented......... 5 Police Station Monitoring Not Yet Consistent and
Countrywide......................................... 8 Effectiveness of Board
Visits
....................................................................................................
10 Standards and
Methodologies...............................................................................................
10 Scheduling and Targeting Visits
...........................................................................................
11 Cooperation of the Police and
Gendarmerie......................................................................
13 Independence of Police Station Visiting Delegations
........................................................... 14 The Role of the
Governors
...................................................................................................
14 Uneven Participation of Bar and Medical
Associations.................................................... 15 Involving
NGOs.....................................................................................................................
16
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................
18 Appendix
......................................................................................................................................
20 Summary Independent police station visiting is increasingly recognized
worldwide as a safeguard for detainees and a protection against abuse. In
Turkey such visiting is an innovation. Notwithstanding great improvements in
combating torture and ill-treatment, the Turkish government has acknowledged
the need for and the usefulness of police station monitoring by signing the
Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture (OPCAT) in
September 2005. The OPCAT sets forth a detailed and rigorous system of
independent international and national monitoring of prisons with the aim of
preventing torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. At least as an
interim measure before systems based on the OPCAT are established, the network
of provincial human rights boards (coordinated by the Human Rights Presidency
of the Prime Minister's Office) are ready and willing to monitor police
stations and gendarmeries, and some have already begun making effective visits.
As the involvement of human rights boards expands towards countrywide coverage,
there is a clear need for boards to work to high common standards, to set
themselves a pace of monitoring work that will provide a reasonable frequency
of visits, and to overcome an evident reluctance to carry out visits
unannounced and in response to reports of ill- treatment in their province.
Provincial governors' close identification with the boards may help to
establish the boards in the early stages of their monitoring activities, but
already there have been instances where it has undermined the perceived or
actual independence of a visiting delegation. In the longer term, the
independence of monitoring activities should be enhanced, and the involvement
of Turkey's most respected nationwide human rights nongovernmental organizatons
(NGOs), even in a consultative capacity, may significantly promote credibility
and trust. Reporting of the boards' visiting activities is as yet limited, but
the Human Rights Presidency has committed itself to detailed reporting in the
near future. Rolling out an interim independent monitoring system based on the
human rights boards could ensure that the high standards observed in some
police units are applied consistently throughout the country. 1 Introduction:
Sustaining Improvement On September 16, 2005, Turkey signed the Optional
Protocol to the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), thereby committing to participate in
"a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and
national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order
to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment."1 The signing of the protocol is a very welcome step that
acknowledges the need for better supervision of places of detention. From 1997
onwards the Turkish government introduced a series of reforms to protect
detainees against torture and ill-treatment. The shortening of detention
periods and the abolition of incommunicado detention dramatically reduced the
number and gravity of incidents of torture in police stations and gendarmeries.
However, there are still reports of ill-treatment, mainly in the form of
beating, slapping, kicking, insults, and threats. These occur particularly
where police or gendarmes ignore, bend or "forget" rules about detention
periods, registration of detainees, informing detainees of their legal rights,
access to legal counsel, and health checks.2 These are problems that can be
tackled by better supervision. In recent briefing papers and letters,3 Human
Rights Watch suggested three forms of supervision which might improve law
enforcement agencies' compliance with safeguards against torture and ill-
treatment: 1) Effective routine internal supervision of police stations and
gendarmeries by provincial governors, sub-governors, and prosecutors. These
visits are already 1 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted December 18,
2002; opened for signature, ratification and accession from February 4, 2003),
Article 1. 2 There are also reports that, in order to escape the controls now
in place in police stations, police officers abduct detainees and ill-treat
them away from recognized detention centers, e.g. in police cars, on vacant
ground, or in unpopulated areas beyond city limits. This is a dangerous
pattern, with very real risks of unregistered detainees dying or being
"disappeared," and must be addressed by the Interior Ministry. 3 See Human
Rights Watch Briefing Paper, "Eradicating Torture in Turkey`s Police Stations;
Analysis and Recommendations," September 2004, available online at http:/
/ www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/turkey/2004/torture/; and "Turkey: Enhanced
Police Station Monitoring will Prevent Torture," Human Rights Watch Letter to
Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gül, April 2005, available online at http://
hrw.org/ english/docs/2005/04/22/turkey10543.htm. 2 happening in some
provinces, but since they are not publicly reported, the extent and
effectiveness of this supervision is unknown.4 2) Rapid response from the
justice, interior, and prime ministries to individual allegations of torture,
including sending ministry inspectors. Interior ministry inspectors were sent
to investigate the beating of demonstrators in Istanbul on March 6, 2005, but
Human Rights Watch is not aware of any similar high-level response to any
allegation of ill- treatment in police stations over the past year. 3) Visiting
of police stations and gendarmeries by an independent monitoring body. There
have been important advances in independent monitoring over the past year, and
the purpose of this report is to examine the extent and effectiveness of police
station visiting by provincial and local human rights boards. By signing the
OPCAT the Turkish government undertook to establish a system of independent
visiting of places of detention within twelve months of signature being
ratified by parliament. In practice, there may be a delay of much more than a
year before systems under the protocol are up and working.5 Meanwhile,
allegations of ill-treatment continue to emerge from Turkey's police stations,
as a consequence of law enforcement agencies' non-compliance with legal
safeguards (see below). There is a need for independent police station
monitoring now. For however long it takes to establish a system of independent
police station monitoring in line with the OPCAT, the network of provincial
human rights boards coordinated by the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime
Minister's Office can provide a valuable transitional solution. Human rights
boards are reasonably well suited to the temporary function of independent
police station monitoring. The boards were presented to the public mainly as a
body for handling complaints. However, their implementing 4 In its December 8,
2005 report on its March 2004 visit to Turkey the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture emphasized once again the importance of the "compliance
monitoring procedure." The CPT visited twenty-one police stations and
gendarmeries, and found that most of them had been occasionally visited by
prosecutors. The CPT noted that the visits were not frequent (two to three
times a year) and "mostly involved perusal of the custody register and a brief
tour of the premises." As an example of what might be called an unprobing
approach, it describes how two prosecutors visited seven police facilities in
Gaziantep on March 12, 2004, but apparently interviewed no detainees. At the
time they made their visits, nine children were held at the Juveniles
Department. The CPT's recommendation on this matter was that "More robust on-
the-spot checks of law enforcement establishments are required." (CPT/Inf
(2005) 18) Paragraph 21. 5 The protocol does not come into force until ratified
by twenty states, and there are currently thirteen ratifications. There may be
a delay before the Turkish parliament ratifies, and even if the protocol is in
force by that time, the Turkish government is still entitled (by means of a
declaration under Article 24) to postpone complying with its commitments for up
to three years. 3 legislation and regulation authorizes them to visit places of
detention,6 and the composition of the boards (a mix of government officials,
representatives of professional bodies, and representatives of NGOs) offers a
degree of independence. From their role during this transitional period, the
boards may also be able to feed experience and ideas into the design and
construction of any future national police station visiting system.7 The Human
Rights Presidency has said that it hopes to establish a reporting system for
police station visits in the near future, but as yet there is no detailed
information about the frequency, methods or findings of the visits. Human
Rights Watch contacted members of all eighty-one provincial boards between June
and September 2005 in order to gain a clearer picture of how, where and how
often visits were being made. Another goal was to establish whether, within the
work of the boards, bar associations and medical associations (the professional
bodies with the most direct interest in making visiting effective) were willing
and able to taken the lead on police station visiting, and whether they felt
there were any structural obstacles that might prevent the boards from making
effective visits. Human Rights Watch interviewed the assistant governors who
chair the provincial human rights boards, as well as the medical association
representatives and bar association representatives serving on human rights
boards. Most members of bar and medical associations interviewed were helpful
and open, and willing to share their experiences of working with human rights
boards. Governors and assistant governors (with one or two exceptions), were
similarly helpful and willing to share information. 6 Regulation on the
foundation, duties and working principles of provincial and local human rights
boards, published in the Official Gazette, November 23, 2003. See article 12,
paragraphs f, h, and i. 7 The European Commission's 2005 Regular Report on
Turkey's progress toward EU membership stated: "A number of provincial Human
Rights Boards have begun to carry out unannounced visits to places of detention
in a number of provinces. Although a positive development, NGOs have raised
doubts about the independence of such monitoring and of the Human Rights Boards
in general ... Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that this monitoring will
represent a first step towards establishing fully independent monitoring as
recommended by the CPT and the UN." The boards may be suited to police station
monitoring notwithstanding that they have failed to impress with their
performance in dealing with complaints. They do not have the investigative
powers, expertise or sanctions necessary to pursue complaints of human rights
violations--and even if they did, they would be no more than a duplication of
the judicial process. For a critique of the boards' handling of complaints, see
the report of the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary- General on
human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, on her 2004 visit to Turkey (E/ CN.4/2005/
101/Add.3, 18 January 2005), paras 41-51. 4 The current situation in the police
stations: legal safeguards not fully implemented The contacts made by Human
Rights Watch for this survey provided an opportunity to gather bar
associations' views on police compliance nationwide with legal and procedural
safeguards for detainees, particularly since the introduction of the new
criminal procedure code in June 2005. The picture as presented is of generally
good compliance with safeguards, marred by poor performance in some police
units in some areas. Bar representatives throughout Turkey were unanimous that
police compliance with detention procedures had improved considerably since the
end of the 1990s. All confirmed that police rarely held detainees in excess of
the four-day maximum detention period, for example. No bar representative
suggested that there was systematic obstruction of lawyers' access to their
clients, but lawyers from many provinces said that they are not always granted
access during the whole of the interrogation, but rather that access was
sometimes delayed until the time when the detainee signed a statement.8 Several
bar association representatives complained that once the lawyer arrived, the
process of interrogation and taking a statement tended to become rushed and
confused to such an extent that it interfered with the lawyer's ability to
assist in their client's defense. Van bar representative Murat Timur recounted
the case of a group of eighty students from Van Yüzyil University, detained in
early June, whose lawyers were initially denied access, and held a series of
six press conferences in protest before they finally were admitted to their
clients. Moreover, the following examples of allegations of ill-treatment arose
when police denied detainees access to legal counsel. Remzi Temel, detained for
thirty-six hours under the Anti-Terror Law on May 18, 2005, claimed that police
at Ankara police headquarters insulted and beat him when he asked for access to
legal counsel.9 Haci Çetin, detained on May 26 at Çukurca police headquarters
in Hakkari province, reported that he was stripped of his clothes, beaten, and
threatened with rape and murder while in custody.10 Shepherds Reat Bozkurt and
Mustafa Takiran, detained at Doubeyazit 8 Human rights watch telephone
interviews with Zekeriya Aydin, president of the Batman bar association, June
21, 2005; Ankara bar association representative Süleyman Çetin, July 27, 2005;
Gaziantep bar association representative Cahit imek, July 6, 2005; Giresun bar
association representative Ahmet Türksal, July 13, 2005; Kayseri bar
association representative Uur Altun, July 12, 2005; and Van bar association
representative Murat Timur, June 21, 2005. 9 Yildizer, Ö. "Asilsiz ihbar
skandal baskin" ("Scandalous raid after groundless allegation"), Evrensel
(Universal) (Istanbul), May 22, 2005. 10 Human Rights Foundation of Turkey,
April-May-June 2005 bulletin. 5 gendarmerie headquarters in Ari province on
July 20, reported that they were beaten and held for two days without access to
counsel, and they subsequently received medical certificates from the local
hospital documenting injuries.11 Bar representatives stated that gendarmes more
commonly delayed and obstructed access than police. For example, the
representative of Erzincan bar association said that in June 2005 gendarmes
denied him access to a client they were holding on the grounds that it was
after 5 p.m. and therefore "after business hours."12 Representatives from
Adana, Tokat and Nide bar associations said that although they had access to
their clients, police did not provide a suitable room where they could meet
clients within the sight, but not hearing, of the police. One lawyer described
having to meet with his client in the police station kitchen.13 Other
complaints about non-implementation of safeguards that were mentioned by bar
representatives included police officers and gendarmes in Kocaeli, Sivas and
Van provinces sometimes improperly registering detainees, or registering them
some hours after their actual time of detention.14 This potentially dangerous
abuse not only extends the detention period, but means that for a period of
hours detainees are effectively "disappeared." Detainees' right to notify their
families is generally respected by police in western Turkey, but in the eastern
provinces of Ari, Bingöl and Van, bar representatives mentioned that police
cannot be relied upon to permit notification of relatives.15 Several bar
representatives reported that gendarmes are less dependable than the police in
this matter. Gendarmes' failure to notify relatives was reported from western
provinces such as Afyonkarahisar as well as Erzincan.16 11 "Sürü bainda
gözaltina alinan çobanlara ikence iddiasi" ("Torture allegation of shepherds
detained from their flocks"), Özgür Gündem (Free Agenda) (Istanbul), July 22,
2005. 12 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Erzincan bar association
representative Talip Nayir, July 12, 2005. 13 Human Rights Watch telephone
interviews with Adana bar association representative Fatma Kaymaz Son, July 25,
2005, Tokat bar association representative Nedim Baaran, August 15, 2005, and
Nide bar association representative Ali Altin, August 23, 2005. 14 Human Rights
Watch telephone interviews with Kocaeli bar association representative Mehmet
Akay, July 27, 2005; and Sivas bar association representative Hasan Huseyin
Yildiz, July 14, 2005; 15 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Ari bar
association representative Mahmut Kaçan, June 28, 2005; Bingöl bar association
representative Abdullah Kaldik, June 21, 2005; and Van bar association
representative Murat Timur, June 21, 2005. 16 Human Rights Watch telephone
interviews with Afyonkarahisar bar association representative Fatih Özsoy,
August 17, 2005; and Erzincan bar association representative Talip Nayir, July
12, 2005. 6 Several lawyers affirmed that respect for detained children's
rights was good, and three spoke approvingly of the scrupulous operation of the
police children's bureaus in Diyarbakir, Trabzon and anliurfa.17 There are
exceptions to this positive picture, however. Human Rights Watch was told of an
occasion when gendarmes in Erzincan province interrogated a minor and obtained
a statement before referring the child to the prosecutor--and this, though ill-
treatment was not alleged, was a clear breach of detention procedures.18 Van
bar association representative Murat Timur mentioned irregularities in police
procedure surrounding the alleged beating of minor T.K., detained on September
22, 2004, at the children's bureau of Van police headquarters. Police were
present in the room during his medical examination, and consequently open
wounds allegedly caused by the beating were not recorded. Murat Timur noticed
traces of blood on his client's clothing during interrogation at the
prosecutor's office, and had T.K. examined a second time. Three police officers
were subsequently charged with ill- treating him.19 17 Human Rights Watch
telephone interviews with Diyarbakir bar association representative Kasim
Alpkaya, June 16, 2005; Trabzon bar association representative Ömer Faruk
Altinta, June 17, 2005; and anliurfa bar association representative Devrim
Polat Divri, June 22, 2005. 18 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with
Erzincan bar association representative Talip Nayir, July 12, 2005. 19 Human
Rights Watch telephone interview with Van bar association representative Murat
Timur, June 21, 2005. 7 Police Station Monitoring Not Yet Consistent and
Countrywide By the second half of 2004 the Human Rights Presidency was already
reporting that monitoring visits by human rights boards had begun,20 and at
this writing monitoring is happening in around half of all provinces--Human
Rights Watch's interviews indicated that by September 2005 thirty-one of the
eighty-one provincial human rights boards had visited police and gendarme
stations, (see Appendix 1) with another ten reported to be about to begin
visits that month.21 In a small number of provinces, however, information given
by governors to the effect that visiting was frequent and regular was
contradicted by bar or medical association representatives who could recall no
visits having been carried out. Governors sometimes fail to distinguish between
their own internal visits and visits by the human rights boards, and this may
explain the discrepancy. The Human Rights Presidency recently started regularly
recording police station visits in its quarterly activity reports, but the
presidency also made no distinction between internal visits (by governors and
prosecutors) and visits by human rights boards.22 The Presidency intends to
list internal visits and board visits separately in future reports.23
Representatives of boards in provinces where there had been no visits often
seemed to feel that visiting a police station other than on the basis of a
personal complaint was unnecessary, inappropriate, or even beyond the boards'
competence. Indeed, the most common explanation board members gave for not
using boards' powers of inspection 20 Babakanlik nsan Haklari Bakanlii, "l Ve
lçe nsan Haklari Kurullari, Temmuz-Aralik 2004 Faaliyet Raporu" (Human Rights
Presidency of the Prime Ministry, "Provincial and Local Human Rights Boards,
July- December 2004 Activity Report"). 21 Human Rights Watch contacted
representatives from all 81 provincial human rights boards, but did not make
contact with the 849 local human rights boards established in each town
district ( ilçe ) and chaired by the local governor ( kaymakam ). There is no
information to suggest that local boards are engaged in police station
visiting. It seems unlikely that small communities would be able to provide
their board with sufficient personnel or expertise to carry out meaningful
monitoring activities. More importantly, a board in a small town setting would
be unlikely to be sufficiently distanced from the state and security force
authorities to carry out proper supervision. 22 For example, the Human Rights
Presidency's April-June 2005 activity report states that 122 visits were made
in that province--54 to gendarmeries and 68 to police stations. The Izmir board
carried out no visits during that period. On September 9, 2005, Human Rights
Presidency representative Mehmet Altunta told Human Rights Watch that the 122
visits were carried out by governors and prosecutors. 23 Human Rights Watch
telephone interview with Mehmet Altunta of the Human Rights Presidency,
September 9, 2005. 8 was that there had been no complaints upon which they
could act.24 Many board members were not even aware that the human rights
boards are entitled to carry out announced visits, ad hoc (unannounced) visits,
or visits in response to media or other reports of ill-treatment in a
particular unit. 24 The most consistently reported item of feedback was that
boards received few complaints, and that the few that were received were
usually "irrelevant." Examples given were applications about electricity
supply, water shortages, or complaints on issues about which courts had already
given judgments. 9 Effectiveness of Board Visits Police station visiting by
civilians is new for Turkey, and a break with the traditional relationship
between state security forces and the public in which supervision was strictly
a one-way street. The only precedents for the visiting now being conducted by
human rights boards were visits conducted by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture (CPT) from 1990 onwards, and the visits made by Dr. Sema
Pikinsüt from 1998 to 2000 when she was president of the Turkish Parliamentary
Human Rights Commission. Both these mechanisms, operating at a time when
torture was pandemic, discovered victims and instruments of torture. On two
occasions Dr. Pikinsüt located secret interrogation rooms, and attempted to
initiate prosecutions of alleged torturers. In the current improved climate,
one would not expect boards to produce a similar level of findings, but if
visits are to have an impact on patterns of ill-treatment, it is essential that
they are sufficiently frequent, determined and inquisitive. The general
impression gained by Human Rights Watch's research was that while supervisory
visits are still very much at the experimental stage, delegates are taking
their responsibilities seriously and want to make this form of monitoring work.
But with little institutional experience to draw on, or obvious models
elsewhere in public life on which to base their efforts, board members are
going to have to be prepared to be bold, learn fast, and share experience.
Standards and Methodologies The Human Rights Presidency has circulated to
boards translations of a section of the Istanbul Protocol25 concerning police
station visits, but Human Rights Watch's research suggests a diversity of
approaches being taken by human rights boards, and a highly variable standard
of monitoring. Several board representatives said that they wanted guidance on
how to carry out visits, including a checklist of criteria, with clear advice
down to the level of how much space, ventilation, or light a detainee should
have, and what nutrition or hygiene arrangements are acceptable. Others are
independently devising their own methodologies, such as the Izmir board, which
in August established a Prison and Detention Unit Monitoring Group and
developed an eight-point training program for police station monitors in
collaboration with Izmir University, and the Mardin human rights board, which
has developed its own seventeen-point checklist for police station visits.26 25
United Nations, Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and
Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment , submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, August 9, 1999. 26 T.C. zmir Valilii l nsan Haklari Kurulu Cezaevi ve
Gözalti Birimleri zleme Grubu 22.08.2005 Tarihli Toplanti Raporu (Report of the
22.08.2005 meeting of the Prison and Police Detention Unit Monitoring Group of
10 Representatives of provincial human rights boards described to Human Rights
Watch visits they had undertaken, and in three cases passed on copies of visit
reports. Some visits were little more than a courtesy call, while others were
comparatively searching. Out of the thirty-one provincial human rights boards
that had conducted visits as of September 2005, sixteen had conducted
unannounced as well as announced visits. Some delegations used the custody book
as a valuable supervision resource. In an unannounced visit in the summer of
2005 the Malatya board, for example, interviewed three detainees and compared
the detainees' accounts of their admission with the details appearing in the
custody book.27 Another delegation that examined a custody book reminded the
security forces that they must enter the hour, and not just the date, of
detention and discharge. Examining the custody book should be standard
practice-- even if there are no detainees at the time of the visit, the custody
book may reveal poor standards of record keeping, or a suspicious pattern in
which detainees consistently decline legal assistance. Scheduling and Targeting
Visits There are 1,570 police stations in Turkey,28 and the total number of
detention units including gendarmeries is probably more than twice that.
Several governors told Human Rights Watch that they were each responsible for
more than fifty police and gendarmerie posts. As police station monitoring is
new, most boards had carried out no more than one or two visits. If the eighty-
one boards are to provide effective supervision they will have to introduce a
regular program of visits that, while not imposing a crushing time burden on
busy board members, ensures that every unit can expect a visit with reasonable
frequency. Boards should be alert to what is happening in police stations in
their provinces, and respond to developments with visits when appropriate. For
example, press reports of complaints of ill-treatment are a sign that there may
be a pattern of abuse in the police stations in question, and it would be quite
appropriate for the board to make a visit to look at practices in that unit,
not to rule on the specific incident--which is the business of the judicial
system--but to examine police practices in that unit. Unfortunately, many board
representatives expressed reluctance to make visits other than on the basis of
a formal complaint. In July a former detainee, Cemil Bilgili, held a press
conference the Izmir Governorate Provincial Human Rights Board of the Republic
of Turkey), and Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Mardin bar
president and representative Mehmet Nuri Özgün, September 9, 2005. 27 Human
Rights Watch telephone interview with bar association representative (name
withheld) July 6, 2005. 28 "Karakollarin yarisi kapaniyor" ("Half of police
stations will close"), Milliyet (Nationhood) (Istanbul), February 26, 2002. 11
complaining that he had been insulted and beaten at Çalayan police station in
Istanbul.29 When Human Rights Watch asked the deputy governor of Istanbul
whether the Istanbul human rights board was considering visiting Çalayan police
station in the light of Bilgili's public complaint, the assistant governor
stated that they could not visit since Bilgili had made no complaint to the
board.30 Similarly, any police unit where there is a death or serious injury in
custody deserves close attention from monitoring bodies, quite aside from any
judicial investigation that may be under way, but the response from boards has
not been systematic. For example, Murat Yavuzer died on the night of June 1,
2005, while detained at Salik police station in Diyarbakir for alleged theft.31
The police's account is that Murat Yavuzer made a noose of his clothing and
committed suicide. As of September, Diyarbakir provincial human rights board
had carried out no visits to Salik police station, or to any other police
station or gendarmerie. It is no coincidence that one of the very few alleged
incidents of torture emerging from police stations in recent months were in
Ordu province, where monitoring visits have not yet been conducted. On October
2, 2005, four juveniles aged between fifteen and seventeen, and an eighteen-
year-old man, reported that police officers at Ordu police headquarters had
beaten them, stripped them naked and squeezed their testicles. They also stated
that police officers threatened to rape them and to photograph them naked. The
juveniles were not immediately referred to the prosecutor or permitted access
to a lawyer. Three of the juveniles later received medical reports consistent
with their allegations. In another case in Ordu, on October 28 an adult
detainee was taken from Ordu police headquarters to hospital for emergency
treatment for a heart condition. He reported that he and a fellow detainee had
been severely beaten by police. It is not known whether the Ordu governor was
carrying out monitoring visits in accordance with the 1999 circular issued by
the Prime Minister's office, but the Ordu bar association and medical
association representatives told Human Rights Watch that the provincial human
rights board had conducted no police station visits.32 In February 2006 the
public prosecution office in Ordu gave a decision not to prosecute police
officers in connection with the allegations made by the four juveniles and
adult detained on October 2, 2005. 29 Info-Türk Bulletin No. 323, Brussels,
July 2005. 30 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Istanbul assistant
governor Mehmet Seyman, August 4, 2005. 31 Akin A. "Sabikali genç gözaltinda
pantolonu ile kendini asti" ("Youth with criminal record hangs himself with his
trousers"), Zaman (Time) (Istanbul), June 6, 2005. 32 "Ordu'da Neler Oluyor?"
("What is Happening in Ordu?"), Evrensel (Universal) (Istanbul), October 24,
2005. 12 Cooperation of the Police and Gendarmerie It appears that law
enforcement personnel in most cases cooperated well with visiting board
delegations, though there were some problems. In Kahramanmara, board members
expressed an interest in visiting a prison, but the governor insisted that they
should first seek permission from the prison prosecutor.33 In anliurfa, when a
human rights board delegation went to the provincial gendarmerie command in
June they were bodysearched in what appeared to be a hostile manner, and the
delegation decided not to proceed with the visit.34 When the representative of
the Denizli medical association attended Denizli prison with the chairman of
the bar association and a psychiatrist in order to investigate a complaint made
by a prisoner, gendarmes found a scalpel blade in his wallet, whereupon the
prison prosecutor launched an investigation against the doctor on possible
charge of smuggling a weapon into a prison. The investigation resulted in a
decision not to prosecute, but the board did not intervene on the doctor's
behalf when he was summoned to give a statement. Disaffected by the experience,
the doctor has not since attended board meetings, and told Human Rights Watch,
"it made me regret that I got involved in the board in the first place."35 33
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Kahramanmara bar association
representative Serpil Çeçen, July 26, 2005. 34 Human Rights Watch telephone
interview with Devrim Polat Divri, bar association representative to anliurfa
provincial human rights board, June 22, 2005. 35 Human Rights Watch telephone
interview with Halil Mihçi, Denizli Medical Association representative to the
Denizli provincial human rights board, August 3, 2005. 13 Independence of
Police Station Visiting Delegations The Role of the Governors Several board
members interviewed drew attention to the boards' lack of independence from the
office of the governor, which is in effect a police authority: governors are
responsible for policing in their province, and police and gendarmerie chiefs
are answerable to the governor. Yet governors are also a dominating presence on
the human rights boards: in practice they appoint most of the members,36 and-
- such is the power of their position in the provincial landscape--they can
also advance or retard the career of any civil servant serving on a human
rights board. In some provinces, board members were extremely pessimistic about
the boards' potential for action, and even about the motivation for
establishing the boards. One bar association representative had stopped
attending meetings because "the boards look as if they were just set up to
comply with the law and regulations ... the fact that a public servant chairs
its meetings is clearly a handicap."37 A second bar association representative
said that in his view the boards were a dead letter, and "would never be able
to do anything constructive while under the governors' authority."38 Another
said that his board "is not democratic because some representatives are really
scared to talk in front of the assistant governor. If you go to small towns,
the anti-democratic atmosphere is even worse."39 Several governors and
assistant governors who spoke to Human Rights Watch quite frankly admitted that
their own highly influential position conflicted with the basic aim of the
human rights boards. Two assistant governors, for example, suggested that
boards should be recruited by public advertisement and meet in the absence of
the governor.40 Another assistant governor and a governor separately suggested
boards are powerless to act unless they conform to the governor's agenda.41
Several delegates also pointed out 36 Regulation on the foundation, duties and
working principles of provincial and local human rights boards, published in
the Official Gazette, November 23, 2003, Article 5. 37 E-mail communication to
Human Rights Watch from bar association representative, name withheld, July 20,
2005. 38 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Tekirda bar representative
Sava Kayan, June 22, 2005. 39 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with bar
association representative, name withheld, June 14, 2005. 40 Human Rights Watch
telephone interview with Balikesir assistant governor Sadik kizler, July 28,
2005. 41 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with and with governor, name
withheld, and assistant governor, name withheld, August 23, 2005; The latter
colourfully summed up the situation with the proverb "at sahibine göre kiner"
(the horse neighs according to its owner). 14 that since boards have no
dedicated secretariat, premises or funds, they are utterly dependent on the
goodwill and cooperation of the office of the governor for these facilities. 42
The representative of the Van bar association mentioned that he had offered to
lead some visits to checkpoints and police stations in 2004, but since the
assistant governor had not provided transport, the visits never took place.43
In most of the visits described by board members, delegations included
representatives from bar and medical associations, but governors or assistant
governors were usually also present. As one assistant governor pointed out, the
inclusion of the governor on visiting delegations may, in the early days, open
doors that would otherwise remain closed to delegations, and demonstrates the
state's commitment to this form of supervision.44 However, as time goes on the
need to show convincing independence will weigh more heavily, and the ultimate
aim should be that the governors will stand back, endorsing the authority of
the visitors where necessary, but not participating in or reporting on actual
visits. Moreover, close involvement of governors obviously presents potential
problems in organizing unannounced visits. One bar association representative
told of one supposedly surprise visit that was met by a formal police welcome
that suggested they had been expecting the delegation's arrival.45 The more
convincingly independent the make-up of human rights board delegations, the
more effective their monitoring will be. Unless they stand well outside the
chain of command and influence running from the interior ministry through
governors to police and gendarmerie chiefs, delegations are unlikely to ask
difficult questions, insist on access, and reliably record negative findings.
Certainly any detainees interviewed during a visit will be aware of the
relationship between the police and the governor, and will be inhibited if the
delegation cannot show persuasive signs of independence. Uneven Participation
of Bar and Medical Associations In its monitoring duties, the boards' claim to
independence relies heavily on the participation of the bar and medical
association representatives who are best qualified in terms of independence (as
well as professional expertise and interest) to lead and support the board's
monitoring activities. Although bar and medical associations have an automatic
right to be represented on provincial human rights boards, they do not always
42 Regulation on the foundation, duties and working principles of provincial
and local human rights boards, published in the Official Gazette, November 23,
2003, Article 15. 43 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Murat Timur,
London, June 21, 2005. 44 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Sadik
kizkez, July 28, 2005. 45 Human Rights Watch telephone interview, name
withheld, July 12, 2005. 15 participate. In Kütahya the medical association did
not take up its seat because neither the provincial board nor the medical
association was aware that the association was supposed to be represented.46 In
summer 2005 the medical association took up its seat on the board and began to
attend meetings. The Ankara medical association is currently not participating
on their provincial board because they were not satisfied that their
contributions were reflected in the proceedings of the board.47 The Adiyaman
bar association told Human Rights Watch that it had not been attending board
meetings because its representative had repeatedly turned up for meetings only
to find them cancelled at the last moment. The Adiyaman bar association has
since revised this stance, and in response to the increased interest in the
monitoring role of the boards, now intends to attend to attend meetings in
order to participate in police station visiting.48 Board members warned that
even bar and medical association representatives are not necessarily beyond the
governor's influence. If the medical association representative is employed in
a local state hospital, for example, it may be difficult for them to propose or
participate in challenging visits to police stations which may be embarrassing
for the governor, who can affect their professional life in various ways. The
response of a medical association board member to a question from Human Rights
Watch about the independence of the boards illustrates the pressure that
governors can bring to bear on even the more independent members of the
commission: "I may be a member of the medical chamber, but I am a state
employee, and right now I am responding to your questions [conscious that I am]
a state employee."49 Involving NGOs Several board members, including an
assistant governor, mentioned that the credibility and independence of the
boards would be strengthened if the two national human rights organizations,
the Human Rights Association (HRA) and Mazlum-Der, were to serve on the
boards.50 Currently, the HRA and Mazlum-Der do not participate in any
activities of the human rights boards. They have various reservations about
serving on the boards, but in 46 Human Rights Watch telephone interview, name
withheld, August 17, 2005. 47 E-mail communication to Human Rights Watch from
Ali Gököz, July 12, 2005, and Human Rights Watch telephone interview with
Gököz, July 14. 48 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with M. Nazim Pekta,
June 29, 2005. 49 Human Rights Watch interview, name withheld, July 14, 2005.
50 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Hasan Hüseyin Yildiz, July 14,
2005; Sivas assistant governor Nurtaç Arslan, July 13, 2005; and Tekirda bar
association representative Sava Kayan, June 22, 2005 16 particular they are
unwilling to participate in the process of adjudicating on individual
complaints of human rights violations. The HRA and Mazlum-Der do not feel that
the boards are a fair tribunal (for various reasons, including their lack of
independence). The HRA and Mazlum-Der cannot risk having their status as human
rights organizations used to legitimize decisions which wrongfully exculpate
state officials. However, Ayhan Bilgen, president of Mazlum-Der, said that his
organization "would definitely like to assist the boards in monitoring police
stations, on a consultative basis."51 HRA president Yusuf Alata stated that his
organization would be "very willing to participate in any truly independent
human rights institution established according to the Paris principles, but not
with these boards, who have no separate budget, and no powers. However, we
would be willing to participate in police station visiting on a consultative
basis if invited."52 The HRA and Mazlum-Der could contribute local knowledge,
knowledge of international standards and experience of monitoring and reporting
human rights violations. Even more importantly, their participation would
encourage the human rights board delegations towards greater independence from
the provincial governor, and thereby increase the credibility of the boards
with the outside world, detainees and victims of ill-treatment. Closed
institutions of all kinds present a risk of the psychological, physical and
sexual abuse which were so long pandemic in police stations in Turkey.
Following a visit to Saray Rehabilitation Center, a psychiatric institution in
Ankara, in January 2005, the human rights commission of the Turkish Grand
National Assembly reported that it had discovered children tied to their beds
and imprisoned naked in cold rooms. A report by Mental Disability Rights
International (MDRI) in September53 suggested that such ill- treatment and
neglect may be widespread in psychiatric hospitals. MDRI's report described,
for example, how children were subjected to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),
and had their hands and feet bound to their beds for long periods. MDRI
recommends that Turkey should move from an institution-based to a community-
based model of care for people with disabilities. In the meantime, its report
urges that institutions should be opened up to public oversight, and that an
independent human rights monitoring agency should be created to inspect
institutions holding psychiatric patients and minors, and report publicly. 51
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Ayhan Bilgen, September 9, 2005. 52
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Yusuf Alata, September 9, 2005. 53
Behind Closed Doors: Human Rights Abuses in the Psychiatric Facilities,
Orphanages and Rehabilitation Centers of Turkey / Kapali Kapilar Ardinda:
Psikiyatri Kurumlari, Türkiye'nin Rehabilitasyon Merkezleri ve Yetimhanelerinde
Yaanan nsan Haklari , Mental Disability Rights International, September 28,
2005. 17 Conclusions Police station visiting by human rights boards is a
valuable addition to the existing safeguards against torture and ill-treatment.
An innovation in Turkey, independent police station visiting is increasingly
recognized worldwide as a safeguard for detainees, and a protection against
abuse. The Turkish government has acknowledged the need for and the usefulness
of police station monitoring by signing the Optional Protocol to the United
Nations Torture Convention in September 2005. At least as an interim measure
before protocol-based systems are established, human rights boards are ready
and willing to monitor police stations and gendarmeries, and some have already
begun to carry out effective visits. Less than half of boards have yet carried
out visits, and remaining boards should be encouraged to make a start on this
work. Many boards are holding back from carrying out ad hoc visits, believing
that they should not intrude on gendarmerie or police premises unless a victim
of a human rights violation has made a formal complaint. Such complaints are
rare, and certainly do not match the frequency of allegations of ill-
treatment. Boards must set themselves a pace of visiting that will provide a
reasonable frequency of visits. As well as carrying out random unannounced and
announced visits, boards should be alert to reports of ill-treatment in their
province, and respond accordingly. Provincial governors' close identification
with the boards may help to establish the boards in the early stages of their
monitoring activities, but could in the longer term undermine the independence
of visiting delegations. The independence of delegations must soon be enhanced
­ in particular, by providing dedicated resources, by governors standing well
back from the monitoring process, and by the inclusion of HRA or Mazlum-Der
representatives, acting on a consultancy basis if necessary. Delegations,
currently working out their own working and training methods, are keen to
receive information and training about how to carry out their duties properly,
by ensuring that places of interrogation and detention are run in conformity
with international standards. Reporting of the boards' visiting activities is
as yet limited, but the Human Rights Presidency has committed itself to
detailed reporting in the near future. Human Rights Watch's recommendations to
the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Minister's Office: · Encourage
provincial human rights boards countrywide to participate in police station
monitoring. · Enhance the independence of police station monitoring by
provincial human rights boards by: · Encouraging bar and medical chamber
delegates to take the lead in monitoring activities; 18 · Providing boards with
a budget and resources sufficient to conduct their monitoring activities
independent of the provincial governor's office; · Encouraging human rights
NGOs such as Mazlum-Der and the Human Rights Association to assist boards in
visiting as consultants. · Begin posting information about police stations and
gendarmeries visited, including dates and composition of delegations, on the
Human Rights Presidency's website. · Begin posting the findings of monitoring
delegations in the form of quarterly reports containing meaningfully detailed
information on methods, findings and recommendations. · Work with the Council
of Europe, and particularly the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture, to support the training of police station visitors, in particular by
developing inspection criteria based on international human rights provision of
simple training materials. 19 Appendix Appendix: Visits to police stations
carried out by provincial human rights boards (by September 2005) Province
Visiting details Adana July 2005 Aksaray last visit more than a year prior to
September 2005 Antalya June 2005 Aydin last visit four or five months prior to
September 2005 Bartin last visit early 2005 Batman last visit March 2005 Bolu
last visit more than eighteen months prior to September 2005 Burdur July 2005
Çanakkale May 2005 Cankiri last visit some eighteen months prior to September
2005 Çorum June and July 2005 Düzce last visit three or four months prior to
September 2005 Elazi June 2005 Gaziantep last visit some two years prior to
September 2005 Giresun last visit some two years prior to September 2005 Idir
visit carried out in 2005 Isparta last visit three months prior to September
2005 Karabük July 2005 Karaman visited July 2005 Kayseri August 2005 Kilis June
2005 20 Kirikkale June 2005 Malatya June 2005 Mardin last visit early 2005
Mersin June 2005 Nevehir August 2005 anliurfa May 2005 Sinop last visit more
than a year prior to September 2005 Sivas last visit some two years prior to
September 2005 Trabzon July 2005 Tokat last visit a year prior to September
2005 21 Pressemitteilung zum Bericht http://hrw.org/german/docs/2006/03/06/
turkey12765.htm Home Pressemitteilungen Publikationen Spenden Über uns
Länderinformationen Afrika Asien Europa und Zentralasien Naher Osten/Nordafrika
Nord- und Südamerika USA Globale Themen Waffen Kinderrechte Frauenrechte
Flüchtlinge Internationale Justiz Gefängnisse AIDS/HIV Mehr... Kommentare
Kampagnen Buchverkauf Filmfestival Foto-Essays Kontakt RSS Türkei: Um Folter zu
bekämpfen, müssen Polizeistationen überwacht werden EU-Troika sollte
Fortschritte erkennen, aber auf weitere Verbesserungen drängen (Wien, 6. März
2006) Um Folter in der Türkei zu bekämpfen, müssen lokale Polizeistationen
überwacht werden. Ein neues Programm, bei dem Menschenrechtsgruppen
entsprechende Einrichtungen kontrollieren, kann zwar ein entscheidender Schritt
im Kampf gegen Folter sein. Jedoch müssen die Kontrollmechanismen weiter
ausgebaut und unabhängiger werden, fordert Human Rights Watch in einem Bericht
, der noch vor dem am 8. März stattfindenden EU-Außenministertreffen mit der
Türkei veröffentlicht wird. Diese Besuche der Menschenrechtsausschüsse sind ein
effektives Werkzeug im Kampf gegen Folter in der Türkei. Häftlinge werden immer
noch gefoltert bzw. misshandelt, obwohl es bereits wichtige Schutzmechanismen
gibt. Regelmäßige, nicht angekündigte Besuche von unabhängigen Kontrolleuren
können sicherstellen, dass diese Schutzmechanismen in der Praxis auch umgesetzt
werden. Holly Cartner, Direktorin der Europa- und Zentralasienabteilung von
Human Rights Watch Druckversion Auch verfügbar in Zu diesem Thema Turkey: First
Steps Toward Independent Monitoring of Police Stations and Gendarmeries Zum
Eintragen in die HRW Email Liste Spenden Seit Anfang letzten Jahres
kontrolliert ein landesweites Netz regionaler Menschenrechtsausschüsse - unter
der Ägide des Premierministers - örtliche Polizeistationen. Sowohl angekündigte
als auch spontane Besuche sollen sicherstellen, dass die Schutzmechanismen
gegen Folter und Misshandlung von Häftlingen umgesetzt werden. Bis zum Ende des
Jahres 2005 waren in 31 von 81 türkischen Provinzen Polizeistationen
kontrolliert worden. "Diese Besuche der Menschenrechtsausschüsse sind ein
effektives Werkzeug im Kampf gegen Folter in der Türkei", meint Holly Cartner,
Direktorin der Europa- und Zentralasienabteilung von Human Rights Watch.
"Häftlinge werden immer noch gefoltert bzw. misshandelt, obwohl es bereits
wichtige Schutzmechanismen gibt. Regelmäßige, nicht angekündigte Besuche von
unabhängigen Kontrolleuren können sicherstellen, dass diese Schutzmechanismen
in der Praxis auch umgesetzt werden." In einem neuen Bericht bewertet Human
Rights Watch die Arbeit der Kontrollteams, die in 81 Provinzen Interviews mit
Ärzten, Richtern und Regierungsbeamten führte. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass es
sowohl Fortschritte als auch Probleme gibt. Während einige
Menschenrechtsausschüsse bereits einen positiven Einfluss ausüben, konnte das
volle Potential des Kontrollsystems noch nicht umgesetzt werden. Die
Kontrollausschüsse bestehen aus Regierungsbeamten, Vertretern von
Berufsverbänden und Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen. Erstmals sind auch
"normale" Bürger wie Ärzte oder Anwälte involviert, um Sicherheitskräfte zu
überwachen. Dieses Netzwerk kann wesentlich dazu beitragen, dass Folter in der
Türkei ein Ende gesetzt wird - zumal dann, wenn es mit den bereits bestehenden
Antiterrormaßnahmen kombiniert wird. Mehr als die Hälfte der 81 regionalen
Ausschüsse haben jedoch noch keine Kontrollbesuche bei den Polizeistationen
durchgeführt - oder die abgestatteten Besuche waren nicht gründlich genug.
Andere Ausschüsse weigerten sich, Besuche durchzuführen, solange nicht eine
formelle Beschwerde eines Folteropfers vorlag. Außerdem berichteten nur wenige
Ausschüsse öffentlich über Häufigkeit, Methode und Ergebnis der
Kontrollbesuche. Der überwältigende Einfluss, den regionale Regierungsbeamte
auf diesen Prozess ausgeübt haben, stellt die Unabhängigkeit der Ausschüsse in
Frage. Andererseits nehmen die meisten der den Ausschüssen angehörenden Ärzte
und Anwälte ihre Verantwortung sehr ernst und engagieren sich dafür, dass
dieses System als effektives Werkzeug im Kampf gegen Folter funktioniert. Mit
dem Anstieg der Kontrollbesuche durch die Ausschüsse müssen jedoch die Behörden
sicherstellen, dass alle Delegierte die bestmögliche Ausbildung und
Unterstützung bekommen, um ihr Mandat erfüllen zu können. "Das Kontrollsystem
ist ein wichtiger Anfang, doch es ist noch nicht perfekt", so Holly Cartner.
"Jetzt müssen die Ausschüsse unabhängig werden und ihre Kontrollen ausbauen."
Über Jahrzehnte war Folter durch die Polizei in der Türkei weit verbreitet -
vor allem in den türkischen Antiterror-Einheiten. Folter mit Todesfolge fand
Mitte der 90er Jahre ihren Höhepunkt. Sexuelle Übergriffe auf männliche,
weibliche und jugendliche Häftlinge waren an der Tagesordnung, der Zugang zu
den Verhörräumen für Zivilisten undenkbar. Ohne regelmäßige, unabhängige
Kontrollen und ohne strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Misshandlung konnte Folter
florieren. Die einzigen Gremien, die Zugang zu den türkischen Polizeistationen
hatten, waren das Europäische Komitee zur Verhinderung von Folter sowie die
Menschenrechtskommission des türkischen Parlaments. Sie konnten nach ihren
Besuchen bedeutende medizinische Beweise für Folter vorweisen. Darüber hinaus
fanden sie geheime Verhandlungszimmer und Folterwerkzeuge. In den vergangenen
Jahren hat die türkische Regierung unzählige Reformen veranlasst, um Häftlinge
vor Folter und Misshandlungen zu schützen. Es wurden einige Gesetze
verabschiedet, so zum Beispiel die Verkürzung der Haft, die Abschaffung der
Isolationshaft und das Recht aller Häftlinge (einschließlich der unter
Terrorverdacht stehenden) auf einen Anwalt. Dank dieser Reformen sind die
Meldungen über Folter und tödliche Folterungen während der Haft in den letzten
Jahren erheblich gesunken. Trotz alledem gibt es aber immer noch Berichte über
Misshandlung und Folter, die häufig vorfallen, wenn Polizisten die
Schutzmaßnahmen missachten. Human Rights Watch berichtet, dass ein effektives
Kontrollsystem erheblich zum weiteren Rückgang von Folter und Misshandlung
beitragen könnte und betont, dass diejenigen, die sich nicht an die
Vorschriften halten, verantwortlich gemacht werden sollten. Im vergangenen Jahr
übernahm die türkische Regierung zwei bedeutende Schritte zur Öffnung der
Polizeistationen für unabhängige Kontrollen. Zuerst wurde das
Fakultativprotokoll der UN-Konvention gegen Folter unterzeichnet. Dadurch
verpflichtete man sich, ein "System von regelmäßigen Kontrollbesuchen in
Haftanstalten durch unabhängige internationale und nationale Gremien zu
errichten, um Folter und andere grausame, unmenschliche oder erniedrigende
Behandlungen oder Bestrafungen zu verhindern." Dies signalisierte, dass die
Regierung den Bedarf an unabhängigen Kontrollen in Haftanstalten befürwortet.
Die vollständige Umsetzung könnte jedoch einige Jahre in Anspruch nehmen.
Darüber hinaus begann das landesweite Netzwerk von Menschenrechtsausschüssen
mit den Kontrollbesuchen. Dies ist eine Übergangslösung, bis ein dauerhaftes
Kontrollsystem gegründet werden kann, das auf den Verpflichtungen des
Fakultativprotokolls basiert. Das Kontrollsystem der Menschenrechtsausschüsse
befindet sich immer noch in der Probephase. Es sind zusätzliche Schritte
notwendig, um das volle Potential im Kampf gegen Folter ausspielen zu können.
Human Rights Watch hat der türkischen Regierung einige Empfehlungen vorgelegt.
Um die Unabhängigkeit der Ausschüsse zu erhöhen, sollte die Regierung
Delegierte aus Rechtsanwalts- und Ärzteverbänden ermutigen, die
Kontrollaktivitäten zu leiten und die Ausschüsse mit Informationen zu versorgen
- und zwar unabhängig von regionalen Regierungsbeamten, die für die
Provinzpolizei verantwortlich sind. Weiter sollte die Regierung
Menschenrechtsorganisationen (wie z. B. Mazlum-Der und die Human Rights
Association) einladen, die Ausschüsse zu beraten und sie bei ihren Besuchen zu
unterstützen. Home | Pressemitteilungen | Publikationen | Wir über uns |
Informationen zu Ländern | Globale Themen | Kampagnen | Spenden | Unterstützer
werden | Buchverkauf | Filmfestival | Suche | Kontakt | Datenschutz © Copyright
2004, Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299
USA