Military, Police and Intelligence in Turkey: Recent Transformations and Needs for Reform

TESEV DEMOCRATIZATION Program POLICY REPORT SERIES

SECURITY SECTOR 4

Biriz Berksoy

Bankalar Caddesi Minerva Han, No:2, Kat: 3 34420 Karaköy ‹stanbul T +90 212 292 89 03 F +90 212 292 90 46 DEMOKRATİKLEŞME www.tesev.org.tr ISBN 978-605-5332-42-6 PROGRAMI Military, Police and Intelligence in Turkey: Recent Transformations and Needs for Reform

Biriz Berksoy Military, Police and Intelligence in Turkey: Recent Transformations and Needs for Reform

Türkiye Ekonomik ve Bankalar Cad. Minerva Han Sosyal Etüdler Vakf› No: 2 Kat: 3 Turkish Economic and Karaköy 34420, İstanbul Social Studies Foundation Tel: +90 212 292 89 03 PBX Fax: +90 212 292 90 46 Demokratikleşme Program› [email protected] Democratization Program www.tesev.org.tr

Authored by: Publication Identity Design: Rauf Kösemen Biriz Berksoy Cover Design: Banu Yılmaz Ocak Page Layout: Gülderen Rençber Erbaş Translated from Turkish original by: Coordination: Sibel Doğan Parrot Eğitim Bilişim ve Danışmanlik Production Coordination: Nergis Korkmaz

Edited by: Emily Brown Cooledge Toker

Prepared for Publication by: Zeynep Başer, Neriman Çavdar

TESEV PUBLICATIONS

ISBN 978-605-5332-42-6

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced electronically or mechanically (photocopy, storage of records or information, etc.) without the permission of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV).

All views and opinions appearing in this publication belong to the author and may be partially or completely against the institutional views of TESEV.

TESEV would like to extend its thanks to the Chrest Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, Kingdom of the Netherlands Istanbul Consulate Matra Program, Swedish International Develop- ment Cooperation Agency and the TESEV High Advisory Board for their contributions with regard to the publication and promotion of this report. TESEV Democratization Program would like to extend its thanks to Lou Anne Jensen for her feedback during the preparation of the English version of this report. Table of Contents

TESEV PREFACE, 5

INTRODUCTION, 7

THE MILITARY AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS, 11 The Position of the Army Among State Institutions and the Ongoing Problem of Military Autonomy, 11 Chief of General Staff, 11 The Supreme Military Council, 12 The Military Judiciary, 13 Civilian Democratic Oversight of the Military and Related Obstacles, 17 Parliamentary Oversight of the Military, 17 Oversight of the Military by Extra-parliamentary Institutions, 18 The General Command of the Gendarmerie, the Coast Guard Command and Problems They Contain as Policing Agencies, 22 The Village Guard System and Related Problems, 25 Compulsory Military Service, Violations of Rights and Militarization, 26

THE POLICE ORGANIZATION, 30 Legal Regulations that Extend the Discretionary Power of the Police, 30 The Authority of the Police to Use Firearms, 31 Gatherings and Demonstrations Act and the Regulation of Rapid Action Units, 32 Police Intervention in Everyday Life, 33 Police Sub-Culture, New Strategies of Policing, and Police-Society Relations, 38 Police Violence, the Policy of Impunity and Inadequate Oversight, 42

THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, 47

IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION: THE NEED FOR DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE AREA OF “SECURITY” IN CONSIDERING VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, 53

REFERENCES, 59 4 METU LGBT KCK IHD MIT MGK HSYK CHP /Ak AKP Abbreviations YÖK YAŞ TSKGV TIHV PVSK PKK OYAK GCG EU UN TMK TIB OSCE CMK CGC ECtHR TBMM RTÜK TCK

Party Turkish Armed Forces Support Foundation ( Foundation Support Forces Turkish Armed National Intelligence ( Agency Council ( National Security ( Technical University East Middle Gay,Lesbian, Transgender Bisexual, ( Union Communities Kurdish ( Association Human Rights ( Prosecutors Judges and of Council Supreme ( Command of the Gendarmerie General Justice and Development Party ( Party Development and Justice Republican People’s Party ( Republican People’s Party ( Command Guard Coast Supreme Military Council ( Supreme Military Rights Human of Court European Higher Education Council ( United Nations Anti-Terrorism ( Law Turkey of Foundation ( Rights Human ( Telecommunications Directorate ( Turkish Code Penal ( Law Duties and Powers Police ( Worker’s Party Kurdistan Pension FundMilitary ( in Europe Cooperation and for Security Organization Union European Criminal Procedure Code ( Code Procedure Criminal Turkish Grand National Assembly ( Assembly Turkish National Grand Television and Radio of ( Board Higher Türk Ceza Kanunu) Ceza Türk Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu) Ordu Yardımlaşma Kurumu) Yardımlaşma Ordu Sahil Güvenlik Komutanlığı Güvenlik Sahil Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu) Partiya Karkar Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Öğretim Yüksek Yüksek Askeri Şura) Askeri Yüksek Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi İnsan Hakları Derneği Hakları İnsan Koma Civakên Kurdistan Civakên Koma Milli Istihbarat Teşkilatı Istihbarat Milli Polis Vazife ve Salahiyet Kanunu) Salahiyet ve Vazife Polis Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi Kalkınma ve Adalet Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Teknik Doğu Orta Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı İletişim Telekomünikasyon Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Millet Büyük Türkiye Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı Hakları İnsan Türkiye Radyo Televizyon Üst Kurulu) Üst Televizyon Radyo Jandarma Genel Komutanlığı Genel Jandarma ên Kurdistan Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Güçlendirme Vakfı) Güçlendirme Kuvvetleri Silahlı Türk Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu) Yüksek Savcılar ve Hakimler ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) obstacles that prevent the establishment of this of establishment the prevent that obstacles of however, anumber be to seems there In reality the political rationality. of” “liberalization the on emphasis its by democracy” “contemporary inherited the from differed –which democracy” “advanced for the perspectives of part as defined was restructuring of goal this program government and declaration election In A institutions. these of mentality the also but politics, civilian with relationship intelligence and judiciary agencies their and police, military, the of structure organizational the only not problematizes perspective restructuring This bureaucracy. security the of restructuring the in part, referendum,include, 2010 the of aftermath in the especially manifest became which in play Party) ( Development Party and Justice ruling the of effects transformative The excluded. once was it which from sphere public the redefine to seeks which and years, in recent spectrum political the of center the to moved has which –amovement identity Islamic an with movement apolitical of Internally, attempts is the it role. important an have played globalization by about forcriteria Turkey, brought opportunities well as as membership (EU) Union European the Externally, factors. internal and external both by affected was regime tutelage the end to transformation This system. multi-party the of establishment the following 1950s in the systematized was CHP) and ( People’s Party Republican the of rule one-party during being the into come informally had which regime, tutelage military old age the end to Turkey undergoing atransformation is currently Mahçupyan, Etyen TESEV Preface TESEV Consultant TESEV - AK -AK Partisi Kalkınma ve Adalet Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi k Party’s 2011 2011 Party’s , blocking of the system, coupled with new crises. crises. new with coupled system, the of blocking a but in nothing result will practices Such fail. to bound are threats ideological old-school combat to developed were that state the of practices old-school through groups new these of demands crushing at the attempts Intimes, such speech. free and assembly to rights their of use full demand movements new These held. through they traditional, once ideological streotypes understood be longer no can they that extent the to in today’s Turkey, have transformed movements social is that, show clearly demonstrations Park Gezi the What democracy” perspective. perspective. democracy” “advanced the downplayed that understanding asecurity of prevalence the of indicative have been protests the to reaction government’s the as well as protestors, the on police the of intervention unpropotional heavy-handed, The for layout. prepared being was thisreport of version English the as May 2013 in late started that Protests Park Gezi the with manifest became recently affairs of state Such power. political the of programs the contradicts that bureaucracy independent de facto other, the on and relatively democracy”; “advanced of thisimagery from government the by deviation hand, a one is on result The transform. to seeks it that bureaucracy very the on rely to has government country, the the of problems entrenched the however,challenge, solving in governing is that and critical most The mindset. their of transformation that hinder constituency the its and Party AK the of assumptions and perceptions conservative the and cadres, bureaucrat the among resistance the are obstacles these Among democracy”. “advanced implementations by the security implementations by the security

5 6 security institutions in this context; most prominent of of prominent most in thiscontext; institutions security the all address that reports comprehensive published in Turkey. transformation TESEV years In recent democratic the of elements main the of one as bureaucracy security the of reform the regards TESEV steps. reform the undertake to obstacles mental in overcoming its difficulty has or way out, easy for the opts or inadequate, remains government the should it criticizing while efforts, reform progressive in its government the supporting involves process reform the accelerate and assist to efforts in its society, civil the of task the In thiscontext, informed. are practices those which from norms the and practices security the shaping both in control maintain and of responsibility full take should and bureaucracy; security the of autonomy the limit to act should experiences; past all from learn and examine to need authorities civilian the Ak the thistask, undertaking In government. the on falls basis, legal legitimate law, of a rule with democratic on based system astate of constitution the towards steps necessary the take to responsibility the that is clear it in all, All Party government and and government Party oversight of security sector reforms. reforms. sector security of oversight and reinforcement the for both aresource as serve will it that society; civil the and makers decision the both for areference as serve will thisreport that We hope democracy. and security of area issue in the society and police on focus that upcoming research TESEV’s of beginning the marks for it TESEV to importance particular of is organization police the on study the of section The violations”. rights human committed frequently of prevention for the and problems these of solution for the both necessary changes institutional and legal the “present to seeks and institutions, these within oversight” democratic civilian mechanisms,demilitarization, accountability and of in terms problems existing “identify to in order organization and the intelligence agencies holistically police the military, the examines Berksoy In thisstudy in thisfield. study thorough Berksoy’s Biriz public the to we present now scopes, limited 2008. Almanak are Türkiye 2005which Subsequent to a variety of researches with with researches of avariety to Subsequent Almanak Türkiye Türkiye Almanak and politics has been curbed to a substantial extent. extent. asubstantial to curbed been has politics in role active its and regulations institutional and legal various of enactment the through this process in weakened been coup, has military 1980 by reinforced and coup military 1960 the after acquired been had which institutions, state the among military the of 1). Box status see dominant the Thus, information (for transformed moretheir organizational structure Kurulu ( Prosecutors Judges and of Council Supreme the as such judiciary the within military the of pillars as acting Institutions courts. in civilian attempts coup military prosecute to possible legally it making by courts in civilian tried be to started coup amilitary out carry to attempts subsequent the and coup 1980 for the responsible those limited, been has judiciary military the of scope The abolished. been have military for the reserved institutions of variety demilitarized, been memberships and has instructure a its limited, been has MGK the of power the this regard, In acquis. (EU) Union European with harmonization of process the of framework the within thisprocess of part ( 1 dissolution. Güvenlik Kurulu reinforced Council through ( the National Security in Turkey, regime tutelage military the 2000s, Since the Introduction Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi Kalkınma ve Adalet Justice and Development Party”]. Birikim Party”]. Development and Justice the of Policies Police The Emergency’”: of ‘State the of Permanence the and Organization Police the in Technique Governmental Oriented ‘Security’ the of Manifestation The State’, ‘Security the of Emergence [“The Politikaları” Polis AKP’nin Hal’: ‘Olağanüstü Süreklileşen ve Tezahürleri Teşkilatındaki Polis Tekniğinin Yönetim Eksenli ‘Güvenlik’ Çıkışı, Ortaya Devleti’nin “‘Güvenlik (2012). B. Berksoy, see, information more For , HSYK) and the Constitutional Court have found Court Constitutional the and , HSYK) 1 The Justice and Development Party Party Development and Justice The , MGK), has entered into a process of of aprocess into entered has , MGK), Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Yüksek Savcılar ve Hakimler , AKP) has guided a large alarge guided has , AKP) , 276, p.75-88. , 276, Milli Milli regime. The purpose of this report is to identify identify is to thisreport of purpose The regime. tutelage military the of remnants the as prevail partly and decade; last in the experienced transformation the within shaped have been partly institutions Turkey. “security” the regarding problems The in institutions “security” the of problems the evaluate in Turkey, to democratization aims thisreport of process the of perspective the Within prevailed as the remnants of the military tutelage regime. tutelage of the military the remnants prevailed as have and decade; partly in the last experienced transformation within shaped the partly have been institutions “security” in Turkey. the institutions regarding “security” problems The ofTurkey, the evaluatethe problems to aims this report Within of democratization the in perspective of the process 2 organization. police the and judiciary the encompassing transformation structural abroad of foundation the laid modifications institutional and legal other Kanunu, ( Law Duties and Powers Mücadele Kanunu Anti-Terrorism in the made were changes ( Law Muhakemesi Kanunu ( Code Procedure Criminal the and TCK) Turkish Anew ( military. Code Penal the to limited not was in thisperiod place took which transformation However, institutional and legal the falls outside the scope of this report. this of scope the outside falls analysis including the Justice and Development Party aregime regard, this in and form state the in place took which transformation structural the of evaluation An PVSK) at various times. These and many many and These times. various at PVSK) 2

, TMK) in 2006, and in the Police Police in the and in 2006, , TMK) , CMK) were enacted in 2005, in 2005, enacted were , CMK) Polis Vazife ve Salahiyet Salahiyet ve Vazife Polis Türk Ceza Kanunu Ceza Türk Ceza Ceza Terörle Terörle ,

7 8 frequently committed human rights violations. rights human committed frequently of prevention for the and problems these of solution for the both necessary changes institutional and legal the present to and agencies, intelligence other with ( Organization Intelligence National the and organization police the military, the of context the within oversight mechanisms, accountability and democratic civilian existing problems in termsof demilitarization, 3 amendments to the laws on theamendments Higher Education the With renewed. not were Secretariat the of members military retired 53 the of 20 of contracts the and the headsof and some MGK departments to advisor chief Secretary, General the as appointed were civilians amendments, the with accordance In regulation. new the by narrowed were Secretariat General the of authority and duties the and abolished was MGK the of Secretariat General the of regulation secret The month. every of instead months two every once held be to are Council the of meetings minister, the prime and deputy the to MGK the of secretary general the from transferred was MGK the of decisions the with in line applications monitoring” and “co-ordinating of responsibility The MGK. the of secretary general of position the hold to civilian a for possible it rendered in2003 Council Security of the National Secretariat Council General and made in theamendments Law on National Security The MGK.” the of decisions the to consideration “give priority of instead “evaluate” shall Ministers of Council the that away in such changed was 118 Article of wording The affairs. in political interference military’s the for instrument dominant isthe which (MGK), Council Security National the of members civilian of number the increased in 2001 Constitution of the 118 amendmentThe made to Article tutelage regimethe military EU harmonization process andhave been key of in the importance disintegration of BOX Constitutional 1: the of andlegal amendments that part were out as carried asker_sivil__hale_akay.pdf www.hyd.org.tr/staticfiles/files/ from 03.10.2012, Evaluation for Retrieved the period 2000-2011.” Turkey: An in Relations “Civil-Military (2011). Akay, H. See 2000-2011” period the for Evaluation Turkey: An in Relations “Civil-Military entitled article Akay’s Hale from compiled is shared hereby Information MIT) together together MIT) Teşkilatı, İstihbarat Milli . 3 Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) Prosecutors and Judges of Council Supreme the as such judiciary the within prop military’s the as acting institutions the of structures The courts. in civilian tried be to likewise are order constitutional the against crimes and duties military to respect with personnel military by committed crimes to limited was judiciary military the referendum, 2010 In the court. in acivilian tried be will Law Criminal Military the in to referred crimes commit who civilians peace, of in times that stipulated amendment legal the In 2006, abolished. were institutions these to members military appointing for provisions the respectively, 2005, and in 2004 Kurulu, RTÜK) Television ( and Radio of Board YÖK Kurumu, Öğretim (Yüksek Council 4 mainly to the political power. political the to mainly transferred was Document Policy Security National the preparing of year, task same the In the abolished. were disorder public of in cases forces military of intervention the regulating protocols EMASYA the in 2010, Again trials. Balyoz and Ergenekon 1980, 12 September in the tried being currently are structure, state in the gangs paramilitary the as well as coups, attempted and out carried who those Both (YAŞ). Council Military Supreme the by taken decisions dismissal for justice seek to individuals allow to made were amendments legal necessary the and transformed were Court Constitutional the and policing. The monitoring and oversight of the military military the of oversight and monitoring The policing. of scope the within gendarmerie the of use the and system service military compulsory the as such life; everyday of militarization cultureand militaristic the expand to continues practices of variety a time same the at and constant; is largely military the of position privileged and autonomous The follows: as briefly summarized be can report in the out set institutions these regarding ongoing issues The major Publications. TESEV Istanbul, Operations”. and Structure New Prosecutors in Turkey: Roundtable Discussion on Its and Judges of Council High “The (2012). TESEV. see, also please HSYK the on information more For Radyo Televizyon Üst Üst Televizyon Radyo and the) and Higher 4

5 National Intelligence Agency dated 1983, the and Services Intelligence State on Law the MIT, by the of regulated jurisdiction and powers The (UN). Nations United the by developed Principles Paris the of part indispensible -an criterion independence the of deprived have been organization police for the mechanisms oversight and accountability planned and existing all and maintained; been has police the by out carried violations rights human regarding impunity of policy Moreover, the strategies. these of parts important have constituted techniques policing aggressive and violent and cameras, security through surveillance continuous basis, alegal acquired has communication of wire-tapping implemented: have been strategies policing preventive intelligence-based this approach, with In line acrime. commit to individual’s potential the on but committed, acrime of penalization the on not is based, logic “security” new This “risks”. of prevention seeks that logic a“security” on based are strategies new These brittle. thinand become has prison the and individual the between line the 2000s, in the practice into put have which been strategies policing the of because Furthermore, violence. police of solidification for the ground convenient have created times in various PVSK the to and in 2006 TMK the to made amendments The surfaced. have also problems new recently concern, of have been long organization police the concerning problems many While service. during military committed violations rights human the as well as strategies military implemented the to in relation and oversight fiscal of in terms especially limited; is extremely judiciary and institutions extra-parliamentary by the parliament, of protecting citizens’ rights, especially those of of those especially rights, citizens’ protecting of in terms dangerous consequences to lead could it that Intelligence Agency]. No. 18210, 3 November 1983. 1983. 3November 18210, No. Agency]. Intelligence 2937 on State Intelligence and National Services No. [Law Kanunu” Teşkilatı İstihbarat Milli ve Hizmetleri İstihbarat Devlet sayılı “2937 (1983). Gazette. Official 5 is so wide wide is so achieve civilian democratic oversight of the Police Police the of oversight democratic civilian achieve to necessary mechanisms, institutional establish to steps the discusses and life; in daily intervene to authority the has it since organization Police the by implemented the strategies violations; assesses rights human to leads which legislation legal the evaluates Police the on chapter second The addressed. are oversight democratic civilian effective to military the subject to necessary changes institutional and chapter, legal the first In the chapters. main three in Turkey law of rule in democratic afully establish to taken be should that steps the discusses and problems these reviews report The democratization. of in terms problematic remains regime tutelage military the of dissolution the with began that transformation the that reveal in thisreport detail in more discussed be will that issues other and These intelligence agencies. and organization police the military, the within used are taxes citizens’ the how monitor to impossible It remains in 2012. intelligence and security defense, the regarding administrations public the of reports of disclosure public the of regulation with and law the to amendments through both preserved largely been has institutions these of audit transparent and effective an to However, institutions. barriers public the of oversight democratic in the gains significant brought has which in 2010 adopted was Act Audit A new recourse. of means no with community international the and public the from concealed be to documents and information of kinds for all possible it making “national security,” of concept vague the on based remains secret” “state of definition The provided. is data collected of protection onlythe right; human afundamental as protected is not data personal of “confidentiality” the Protection, Data Personal on Law Draft the and Constitution In the 2012. February in government the of decisions political in the judiciary the of intervention the after reinforced further was review judicial against agency for the provided protection the worryingly, more and proposed, been has regulation restrictive No dissidents. political

9 10 the greatest responsibility falls on the Turkish government. falls responsibility the greatest law, of state democratic a envisioning and democratization Without doubt, of problems of these overcoming in the task problems of democratization and envisioninga and democratization of problems overcoming these of task in the doubt, Without problems. these overcome to report in the proposed solutions the of necessity the to and MIT the and force police the military, the to related ongoing problems the of severity the to attention draw to intends report the examples, these on Based violations. rights human regarding particularly report; in the detected problems the of representative are that cases current select on focuses report the of chapter conclusive final, The institutions. these of oversight democratic civilian of formation for the mayuseful which be mechanisms institutional the to is drawn attention In addition, rights. of violations and exceeding power have way that for the paved the agencies, intelligence other and MIT the regarding changes legislative and regulations legal those addresses mainly this chapter research, of scarcity the to Due agencies. intelligence the on focuses chapter third The organization. democratizing the practices of the state institutions. institutions. state the of practices the democratizing in ineffective be to bound will comprehensive, how matter no changes, structural and legal Otherwise, sentenced. are and review judicial to subjected are violations rights human commit who officials public ensure that to determined be should and holistically; state the of strategies the envision should principles, these on based institutions; security the of sub-culture the and sphere social the both govern discourses related and principles these ensuring that In addition, decision work towards makers should also democracy. of principles on based be should problems these overcome to introduced be will that governments future and government current the both by policies Therefore, decade. last in the implemented policies government the by shaped been have also problems these of part however, time, same asignificant At the form. state militaristic and regime tutelage military the of remnants are report in the identified problems strategic and institutional legal, current the of part asignificant that account into taken be should it Turkish the on In thiscontext, government. falls responsibility law, of greatest the state democratic violations committed by the Gendarmerie and the the and Gendarmerie the by committed violations rights human investigate to established be will which Commission” Oversight Enforcement “Law the and Center Evaluation Rights Human Gendarmerie established The organization. and tasks military its of in terms Staff General of Chief the of Office the to is attached it that fact the to due is limited chiefs administrative by Gendarmerie the of oversight civilian the and regime; ademocratic of viewpoint the from is problematic organizations military are which Command Guard Coast the and Gendarmerie the of Command General the by Third, policing procurement. arms of limitation and policies defense of development control, budget of areas in the military the of oversight democratic civilian is insufficient there hence, limited; extremely remains institutions parliamentary extra- and by parliamentary the military of oversight and monitoring Second, impartiality. and impossible toof independence applythe principles it make system judiciary military the of features the of judge. Some natural of principle the and trial to right fair and equal an of principle the undermines courts, civil the alongside operates judiciary, which military The ways. in some present is still politics in intervene to it enables that military the of position autonomous the First, follows. as stated briefly be can issues These it. of oversight democratic civilian and state the of structure in the military the of position the Turkey, of in terms plague still problems specifically serious many that etc.),see we can legislation, of supremacy the and powers of separation the oversight, democratic civilian rights, human (rule law, of inalienable democracy parliamentary Today, of principles the we examine when Institutions Related and Military The Chief of General Staff General Chief of A O accountable to the elected Minister of National National of Minister elected the to accountable and is subordinate Staff General of Chief the is that democracy in aparliamentary rule Tahaby “the Parla, stated As administration. the of institutions other the and Defense National of Ministry the vis-a-vis Staff General of Chief the of Office the of position is the thisheading under addressed problems the of first The S T autonomous position in the field of education. of field in the position autonomous and aprivileged has military the above, the of all to In addition proceedings. judicial independent and effective to subject not are service during military violations rights human The reasons. other or political religious, to due or objector aconscientious as service military the to object who those of violated are rights which through aprocess it with brings culture and amilitarist in spreading role important an plays service military compulsory Fifth, guards. new of deployment the with 2000s late in the fortified been has it contrary, the on abolished; been not has system this drawbacks, its Despite violations. rights human severe and violence of level ahigh to leads and region the of people the among divisions causes problem, Kurdish the deepens system guard village the Fourth, insufficient. rendered therefore are and organizationpolice not are autonomous institutions tate P he utonomy ngoing P osition A the of I nstitutions roblem M of

and A rmy ilitary the mong

11 12 the Ministry of National Defense to an auxiliary role. auxiliary of an National to Defense the Ministry Chief in ofposition Staff General adirecting while degrading of the the Office places structure valid, this hierarchical of by 1961still and the Constitution Having established been Defense.” 6 containing a “defect of authority and responsibility.” and authority a“defect of containing as thisstructure defines Bayramoğlu Defense. National of Ministry the with equal aposition holds he away that in such Minister Prime the to accountable is Staff General of Turkish Chief the Constitution, to facilitate coordination. This situation is at odds with with isodds at situation This coordination. facilitate to assigned been rather has projections, military-related and execution their policies, defense of making for the authorized be to is supposed Ministry,which such, the financial services including account enquiries.” account including services financial and services; infrastructure and settlements estate, real construction, services; health services; industry war requirements; logistical and tools weapons, of provision war; and peace of in times soldiers of Recruitment determined Staff: by the Chief of General be to programs and priorities principles, the with line “in follows: is as 1325, in Law defined Ministry, as the of duties the of part Alarge thisstructure. reinforces no. 1325) (Law also Defense National of Ministry the of Law Organization President. the by but Ministers, of Council the by not is appointed Staff General Accordingly, role. of Chief the auxiliary an to Defense National of Ministry the degrading while position in adirecting Staff General of Chief the of Office the places structure thishierarchical valid, still and 1961 of Constitution the by established Having been 7 8 Turkey]. [Constitutions in Anayasalar T. Türkiye’de (2002). Parla, [ Ordu Türkiye’de Parti Bir (eds.), Bir İnsel Zümre, A. and Bayramoğlu A. In Politics]. and [Military Siyaset” ve “Asker (2009). A. Bayramoğlu, National Defense]. No. 13572, 7 August 1970. 7August 13572, No. Defense]. National of Ministry the of Organization and Duties the on 1325 No [Law Kanun” Hakkında Teşkilatı ve Görev Bakanlığı Savunma Milli sayılı (1970).“1325 Gazette. Official See 69. Turkey ]. Istanbul: Birikim Publications, (4th edition), p. (4th edition), Publications, Birikim Istanbul: ]. 6 However, according to Article 117 of the the of 117 However, Article to according İstanbul: İletişim Publications, p. 87. Publications, İletişim İstanbul: An Estate, A Party, The Army in in Army The AParty, Estate, An 8 As As 7

11 who is elected and therefore expected to hold a hold to expected therefore and is elected who Defense, National of Minister the by held not but Staff, General of Chief the by held are powers many council, Minister. Prime the the Within represent to authority the lacks and protocol state in the Staff General of Chief the by is preceded Defense National of Minister including military coups. military including part, their on intervention of form way for any the paves and in politics intervene directly to military the enables article This Constitution.” its by proclaimed Turkey, of Republic the Turkish and the homeland as protect and guard is to Forces Armed the of role “the 35, Article to according in force, because is still and in 1961 enacted Law, was which Service Internal the of 35 by Article solidified been autonomous position has of the Chief of General Staff. General of Chief the of Office the over inspection and oversight of authority no has Defense National of Ministry the Furthermore, same area. for the authority to entitled be also should area for an the principle that the agency/institution accountable 10 9 government. elected the facing issues important the of many regarding decisions independent make to have authority who the officers military of composed is 1612, No. Law by defined are functions and structure organizational whose council, the of majority The Council ( Supreme Military the of processes decision-making and organization the to is related structure state in the military the of position the to regard with problem Another Council Supreme Military The space for the Office of the Chief of General Staff. General of Chief the of Office for the space autonomous a created broad has structure authority

Council]. No. 14257, 26 July 1972 July 26 14257, No. Council]. Military Supreme the of Duties and Establishment the on 1612 No. [Law Kanun” Hakkında Görevleri ve Kuruluş Şuranın Askeri Yüksek sayılı “1612 (1972). Gazette. Official ibid (2009). A. Bayramoğlu, Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac (eds.), İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In Dimension.” Military and Institutional Forces: Armed Turkish “The (2010). Akay, H. , Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 106. Publications, TESEV , Istanbul: Yüksek Askeri Şura Askeri Yüksek ., p. 69. 9 Such institutional and an . , YAŞ). 11 10 The The This This independent issues. decisions manyabout important make to in aposition are officers military President, the by precluded unless Therefore, President. the by approved and signed is then which decision the determines Minister Prime the of vote the tie, a of law, the to according in case and in attendance, those of majority absolute the by made are Decisions 14 13 12 However, position. of thisamendment alack to due except of expulsion retirement promotion and types for all available became review judicial to recourse 125 of the Constitution, amendment to Article 2010 the With allowed. if published are proceedings meeting though public, the by evaluation critical any preventing prohibited, are decisions or discussions any of dissemination law, the and 8of disclosure the Article to According afterwards. is provided transparency little very and public, the to YAŞ the of closed are Meetings necessary. deem Defense National of Minister The or Staff Minister,Prime General of Chief the the which Forces Armed the to related issues other and Forces, Armed the regarding drafts regulation and rules laws, important of revision and drafting the Forces, Armed the of objectives and agenda main the formulating Staff, General of Chief the of Office the by prepared Concept Strategic Military the of revision and formation the include which issues on agencies related to feedback providing and echelon; command military in the dismissals and retirements YAŞ promotions, the deciding of include duties The meeting. emergency for an council the convene and meeting next for the adate set to as well as Minister Prime the represent to authority the has Staff General of Chief the example, For position. authorized and competent

Özçer, A., ibid Özçer, A., egemenlik-alani.htm. http://www.taraf.com.tr/akin-ozcer/makale-askerin- Taraf. Military]. the of Dominion [The Alanı” Egemenlik 4). “Askerin Aug. (2012, Özçer, A. See Publications, p. 33. Oversight and Democratic Sector Security (eds.), Almanac İnsel Turkey A. 2006-2008: Bayramoğlu, A. In Branch”. Executive “The (2010). M. Erdal, 12 . Retrieved from, from, Retrieved , Istanbul: TESEV TESEV , Istanbul: 13

14 22 21 20 19 18 17 asked to retire from his/her position. his/her from retire to asked or dismissed be he/she can process what through and grounds what on as such issues addressing regulations clear any contain not does it Staff, General of Chief the appointing of process the delineates clearly Constitution the that fact the Despite decisions. retirement and expulsion regarding position privileged a has Staff General of Chief the officers, military other to regard with In addition, limited. review judicial leaving issues, other on decisions to apply not does 16 15 other within mechanism judicial separate is no there Since trial. equal and afair to have right should the citizens All existence. very its is, in fact, judiciary military the with problem greatest The 1982. of Constitution the of 145 Article on based line judiciary continued to has form and aConstitution second 1961 the by established was courts, disciplinary military and courts military of astring over presides judiciary, which military The judiciary. military the to relates structure state in the position military’s the to respect with problems of chain Another Judiciary Military The judiciary or by the public. the by or judiciary the by government, the by for inspection allow not does which astructure council, in the made decisions the over authority adecisive has echelon command military The accountability. or transparency of principles the with way in compatible no are processes decision-making the and Council the of structure

Problems, Solutions.” Publications, p. TESEV Istanbul: 15. Turkey: Questions, in Sector “Security (2010). Akay, H. rapport_2012_en.pdf, p. 10. rapport_2012_en.pdf, enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/tr_ Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ 25.09.2012, Report. European Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey See control.” civilian appropriate ensure to reformed the legal basisparticularly for promotions, need to be Council, Military Supreme the of powers and composition the on provisions legal “The follows: Turkey as for Report Progress 2012 YAŞ the in the regarding reforms The European Commission the addressed necessary 16 15 In short, the the In short,

13 14 some moves toward improvement. Crimes committed committed Crimes improvement. toward moves some have provided 2010 since made amendments legal and constitutional the that noted be should it At thispoint, their solution. towards taken be to steps necessary the and this area in problems numerous the address we should future, near in the abolished be not will judiciary military the that Taking possibility high the account into abolished. be should judiciary military the Therefore, military. the within mechanism judicial aseparate be not should there groups, occupational the Military Judges by Law No. 6318 No. Law by Judges Military the jurisdiction of military courts also during periods of of periods during also courts military of jurisdiction the limits Article the of paragraph second The event.” in any courts civil the before heard be shall functioning its and order constitutional state, the of security the against crimes regarding Cases duties. and service military to related offences for or personnel military other against them by committed offences for offences, military for personnel military follows: as isformulated sentence, first the after article, this of paragraph first the this, to respect With military. the of members to granted oversight judicial from immunity the undermining courts, military of jurisdiction the from removed were crimes These functioning”. its and order constitutional the state, the of security the against “Crimes like: the and coup in amilitary involved military the of members to relates 145 Article to amendment 18 17 Military Courts by Law No. 6000 No. Law by Courts Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the on 353 No. Law to 2010, 12, September on held referendum the by Constitution the of 145 Article to made amendments of aseries by implemented were improvements Some BOX 2: Legislative Improvements Judiciary in the Military Laws]. No. 28312, 3 June 2012 3June 28312, No. Laws]. Certain and Law Military of Amendment the on Law [The Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanunlarda Bazı İle Kanunu “Askerlik (2012). Gazette. Official 2010 June 30 27627, No. Decrees]. and Laws Certain and Code Procedure Criminal and Courts Military of Establishment the of Amendment the on Law [The Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kararnamelerde Hükmünde Kanun ve Kanun Bazı ile Kanunu Usulü Yargılama ve Kuruluşu Mahkemeler “Askeri (2010). Gazette. Official “These courts shall have jurisdiction to try try to have jurisdiction shall courts “These . . 17 and to Law No. 357 on on 357 No. Law to and 18 . The first . The

establishment of military courts. Before the the Before courts. military of establishment in the officers military of participation the to related is jurisdiction military in the improvement A further judges. and courts of the problems regarding the independence of military solution the towards taken been has step a progressive Hence, text. Constitutional the from removed law) was by prescribed be also shall functions, judicial from apart service military of requirements the regarding serve, of commanderjudges under which the and they office military between (Relations Article the of sentence 19 from the 3 portion law” martial “under the Byremoving wartime.” except courts, military in tried be not shall “Civilians that stating by law martial from the Article. the from service” military of requirements “the and tenure, of security judges’ and courts the independence of to guarantee were restricted laws these to applied be to criteria the amendment, this of aresult As serve. they which under commander of office the and prosecutors military between relations and judges, military of status personnel the to relating matters organs, judicial military the of functions the and organization the on laws in the applied be to criteria the to 145, Article of paragraph last the to made was amendment Another trial. afair to right the ensuring and judges natural their to civilians consigning of terms in developments important very are These wartime. to limited isclearly courts military of jurisdiction administrative records - an application which violated violated which application -an records administrative through prosecutors judges and military of promotion The courts. in military cases hear to forbidden are officers military the and criteria these among from is removed service” military of requirements “the tenure; of security judges’ and limited are bodies to the independence of courts judicial military for the legislation in the specified are which criteria the time; in war except courts, in military tried be cannot personnel non-military courts; civilian before tried be to are thisorder” of functioning and order constitutional State, the of security the “against Administrative Court. Court. Administrative Military Supreme the and Court Supreme Military the regarding constitution the of 157 and 156 Articles to made also were amendments Similar 19 In line with this change, the last last the change, this with In line who are not qualified as judges as qualified not are who rd paragraph, the the paragraph, portion was removed removed was portion BOX 2: Legislative Improvements Judiciary in the Military of these problems pertains to the authority of the the of authority the to pertains problems these of important most The persist. Oversight, still Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac entitled study in the in detail Kardaş by analyzed were that judiciary military the to related problems many better, for the changes However, these all despite 2). Box see information, more (for legislation in the basis judges haveof foundalegal of tenure the security and independence of the courts the of principles the while terminated, is also tenure– of security the and independence the of principles the numbered E. 2006/105, numbered and 2009 8October dated Court Constitutional the of ruling the with In line Constitution. the of 145 Article to made were amendments above-mentioned law, this the With improvements. partial other to led has 6318 No. Law of passing the by Judges Military on 357 No. Law to made amendments of A series 5). 2through (Articles Law the to amendments the through prevented was courts military of establishment in the judges as qualified not are who officers 21 20 trial. afair to right the violated and courts in these tried were who individuals among insecurity created in trials judges, as qualified not are who officers, military of participation the states, Kardaş Ümit As admirals. or generals two and judges military three of consisted admirals, and generals of trials the hears which Staff, General of Office the under established courts military the while Courts, Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the on 353 No. Law 2of Article by mandated as officer, military one and judges military two of consisted courts military 6000, No. Law by amendments establishment of the military officer judge whose whose judge officer military the of establishment of connection the to according name its in established was court amilitary which institution military the of chief or commander “the to given was judges issue record administrative officer of the military and arrange to authority the Judges, Military the on 357 No. Law of 12 article (B) of paragraph in 08.10.2009, dated Court Constitutional the of decision the Before Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 65. p. 65. Publications, TESEV Istanbul: Oversight and Democratic Sector Security 2006-2008: (eds.), Almanac İnsel Turkey A. Bayramoğlu, A. In Judiciary.” “Military Ü. (2009). Kardaş, 20 21 The participation of military military of participation The Article 12 of the Law No. 357 No. Law the of 12 Article

tenure of judges was established. was judges of tenure of the and security the independence of the courts of principles the of basis legal the amendment, this With dismissed.” be not shall judges Military suggestions. or recommendations make or notes circular them send not may and power judicial of exercise the to relating judges or courts to instructions or orders may give individual or officer authority, organ, No judges. of tenure of the and security of the independence of the courts principles the with in accordance duties their discharge shall judges “Military provisions: following the includes now and revised was Act the of 37 Article repealed the In addition, terminated. –was judges of tenure the and independence the of principles the violated which application -an prosecutors and judges military of promotion in the account into records administrative 22 prosecutors. military deputy and prosecutors military assistant to records administrative issue to able are prosecutors military only and courts military under serve who prosecutors military and judges military to record administrative of granting the abolished amendment The revised. was superiors” and documents “registry entitled 23 Courts, Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the regarding 353 No. Law 9of judge. Article to According natural of principle the of violation the to amounts which duties, and service military to related crimes person, military and military another against person amilitary by committed crimes try to courts military

judges and concluded their abolition. and courts of independence the of guarantee the and constitution the to contrary were regulations two these that determined was it 2009, in Court Constitutional the of decision the With with.” work they judges the of superior administrative first the as determined were judges “senior paragraph, same the 1of No. Subparagraph organized.” be will record administrative donem24/yil01/ss248.pdf http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/ 2012: May 22 dated and 6318 No. Law the of preamble the See Courts]. No. 11541, 26 October 1963. October 26 11541, No. Courts]. Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the on 353 No. [Law Kanunu” Usulü Yargılama ve Kuruluşu Mahkemeler Askerî sayılı “353 (1963). Gazette. Official 23 “unless indicated to the contrary [elsewhere] contrary the to “unless indicated 22 Thus, the practice of taking of practice the Thus, .

15 16 and casts suspicion on their impartiality. casts and of judges, judges the independence eliminates over military allows control theexercise government undue to authority judges. This appoint to military authority oversee and the of National has by thethat fact the Defense Minister compromised is also judiciary of the military Independence 25 military interests and needs. and interests military undermine or discipline military disrupt directly which activities as regulated be should Kardaş, by stated and,as defined clearly be should crime military a constitutes what In thissense, crime. military a be maytruly not crime task-related and a service because aproblem remains still in thisArticle duties” and service military to “related However, criterion the jurisdiction. courts’ military of expansion the prevented thus and zones military in committed have they been that grounds the on courts military the to persons military by committed crimes many of referral the prevented has Law the from zones” military “in phrase the of removal duties.”The and service military to related crimes (…) persons or military against commit they crimes the and persons military by crimes military to relating cases legal hear shall courts law,in the military 24 has been violated. been has “natural judge” of principle the and courts military the of jurisdiction in the included are personnel military by committed offenses criminal this regulation, With problem. asimilar to leading personnel, military other against personnel by military committed crimes the with deal to judiciary military the authorizes article same The discipline. violate not do that offenses for any jurisdiction natural in their tried be to personnel military allow thisway will definition

Kardaş, Ü., ibid Kardaş, Publications, p. 66-67. Security Sector and Democratic Oversight and Democratic Sector Security (eds.), Almanac İnsel Turkey A. 2006-2008: Bayramoğlu, A. In Jurisdiction.” “Military Ü. (2009). Kardaş, , p. 69. 25 24 Delineating the the Delineating . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: action or to cancel the processing of a document if he he if adocument of processing the cancel to or action disciplinary determine to investigation, an conduct to whether on decides Defense National of Minister the 29, 25 and Articles to this, according with In line investigation.” for an permission obtain to need is a there whether establish to Defense National of Ministry the by is appointed judge the in question than senior more inspector justice amilitary place, taking events from is obtained above the about information commit jurisdiction, concerning or military they that crimes duty, and individual or title their suit not do that acts regarding or or duty during their or of judges because military by committed crimes concerning made are complaints law, same “[I]f the of 23 Article to according Furthermore, Republic. the of President the of Minister, Prime approval the the with and Defense National of Minister the by signed decree ajoint on judges is based military of appointment Judges, the Military on 357 No. Law of 16 Article to According impartiality. their on suspicion casts judges, eliminates the independence of judges and military over control undue exercise to government the allows authority This judges. military oversee and appoint to authority the has Defense National of Minister the that fact the by compromised also is judiciary military the of independence the Moreover independence. judiciary of principle the with comply not does trial, afair to right the undermines which regulation, This Staff. General of Chief the of Office the of request direct the upon or commands force the of proposal upon Defense National of Ministry the by abolished and established be can courts since judges insecure, military leaves and practices arbitrary allows bureaucracy, military the by abolished be to courts allows which regulation, This Courts. Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the on 353, No. Law 1of Article of paragraph second in the out set jurisdiction for change in the procedure the and courts military the of abolishment and establishment is the judiciary military the to related problem Another 26

Kardaş, Ü Kardaş, p. 65. p. ,. ibid, 26 remains the same. the remains authority however, decision-making the effect, into put be not could complaints and notifications which specified 23 Article in 2012, 6318 No. Law 28 27 abolishing these institutions. by terminated be should jurisdiction of duality this that It follows persons. civilian includes also that amandate has it that body, means which military condition a be concerned member that of a the person is no there service, military perform to obligation the However, from arising in disputes authorities. civilian by out carried have been actions and acts such if even service, military to relating or personnel military involving actions and acts administrative from arising disputes of supervision judicial for the appeals of court last and first is the Court Administrative Military High the Constitution, the of 157 Article to according example, For trial. fair of principle the violate institutions these judges function, military which in circumstances the regarding and in thissense Both procedures. trial different to subjected be to citizens law, the different before causing position equal having from an citizens prevent itself judiciary military the and institutions These judiciary. in the duality the deepen which of both Court, Administrative Military High the and Appeals of Court Military the as such institutions of presence is the judiciary military the regarding addressed be to issue last The pressures. political to vulnerable judges further makes and of judgesensure the independence impartiality and to impossible it makes situation This investigation. for the permission grant to necessary it deem not does

Some Other Laws]. No. 28312, 3 June 2012. 3June 28312, No. Laws]. Other Some and Service Military on Law the of Amendment the for Law [The Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanunlarda Bazı İle Kanunu “Askerlik (2012). Gazette. Official colonels. for set age retirement the 60, of age the at retire judges colonel while Constitution the of 140 Article in 65 as determined is judges for age retirement The injustice. causes 357 no. Law the of 21 Article in officers military for set limit age the with accordance in judges military of retirement the that Ü. (ibid) Kardaş, 27 As a result of the amendments made in made amendments the of aresult As . p. 65. In addition, Kardaş points out out points Kardaş addition, In . p. 65. 28 and draft laws in the context of defense policy by the the by policy defense of context in the laws draft and bills of assessment the through ways: oversight limited extremely in three power supervisory its exercises parliament The any,if military. the of oversight have to little, appears parliament the structure, current any, oversight of the military. have to if little, appears the parliament structure, the current procurement. However,supervision limiting and of arms in policy, legislativesecurity activities, budget control, the and role in the formation development and and of defense it should governs; hence, play and active an the and citizens the of executive the branch government abridge between as the democratic to paradigm, serves the parliament According O M the institutions. non-parliamentary and by parliamentary military the of oversight existing address will section This powers. these of abuse check to in order oversight democratic civilian to subject be such, must and, as force use to authority the hold police and military The C 30 29 procurement. arms of limiting and supervision the and control budget activities, policy, legislative security and defense of development and formation in the role active an play should hence, governs; it and citizens the and government the of branch executive the between a bridge as serves parliament the paradigm, democratic the to According Oversight the of Military Parliamentary qua non of democratic oversight. democratic of qua non is asine process oversight in an participation effective D ivilian

bstacles Problems, Solutions.” Publications, p. TESEV Istanbul: 15. Turkey: Questions, in Sector “Security (2010). Akay, H. Publications, p. 12-24. World the and Turkey Sector: Security the of Oversight (eds.). Democratic Ş. Sayın Ü. Dülger, Cizre, Paker, M. C. In Reform.” Its and Sector Security the for Oversight Parliamentary of Relevance The Guidance: and P. “Oversight Fluri, (2005). See ilitary R and emocratic O . Istanbul: TESEV-DCAF TESEV-DCAF . Istanbul: 29 elated In other words, its words, its In other 30 However, in the versight of

17 18 33 regulation, thisparliamentary with comply not does Commission Defense on, National the later arises issue legal a that event in the to referred be can it that so archived commissions,are the of work the of bylaw, taken minutes, the of 33 Article with in accordance although, because, oversight democratic of criteria the meet not does General Assembly.General the to sent are commission, in the they examination the bylaw. After Parliamentary the of grounds legal the to according examination their to is limited task commission, the whose to delivered are (Parliament) Assembly Turkish the of National Grand Presidency the to submitted are which military the and defense civil defense, security, national to related proposals and bills Draft supervision. its or budget policy, the defense the of determination in the role no plays commission the as is ineffective, Commission Defense National the of means by out carried mechanism oversight first The investigations. parliamentary and interpellation inquiries, interrogation, general debates,written parliamentary and oral through conducted oversight Commission; and Budget and Planning the by out carried oversight and Commission; control budget Defense National 32 31 investigated. not are projects and programs the and Assembly General in the and Commission in the both However, onlybroadly is budget revised the Commission. Budget and Planning the by Defense National of Ministry the of budgets the of auditing the is parliament the of mechanism oversight second The their enactment processes. enactment their and laws draft and proposals evaluating critically from the Ministry of National Defense, nor the Planning and and Planning the nor Defense, National of Ministry the

Akyeşilmen, N. ( N. Akyeşilmen, Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac (eds.), İnsel A. Turkey.” of Bayramoğlu, A. In Assembly National Grand the “Legislation: (2010). N. Akyeşilmen, Turkey 2012 Progress Report Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey European .See expenditure military of terms in mechanism oversight alimited has parliament the that stated is it the European Commission, this issue is and addressed also Democratic Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2005: Turkey Almanac (ed.), Cizre Turkey.” of Ü. In Assembly National (2006)“Grand A. Yıldız, 32 . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 16. p. 16. Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: thus preventing the public and researchers researchers and public the preventing thus ibid 31 However, this limited supervision However, supervision thislimited of of Report Progress 2012 Turkey In p. 15. ), , Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 15. Publications, TESEV , Istanbul: 33 Neither Neither . not tabled and ignor and tabled not than often more are they hence and questions written to answers prompt provide not does parliament the ineffective; is extremely this mechanism However, press. in the appear frequently that matters current to in reference usually questioning, written is here listed oversight of method used commonly most The demands. investigation parliamentary inquiries, and interpellation debates, parliamentary general as well as parliament, the of members the by ministers to related presented questions written and is oral mechanism oversight parliamentary third The oversight. substantive any to subject being without initiative own its on Defense National of Ministry the of budget the determines and space autonomous an acquired has Staff General of Chief the of Office the personnel, specialist civilian of lack the to due that, It follows budget. the evaluate critically and audit can that personnel specialist civilian of composed are Commission Budget 34 ( Council Supervisory State the of jurisdiction the outside left been has military the because problematic and limited is also institutions extra-parliamentary by military the of Oversight Institutions parliamentary by Extra- Oversight the of Military outside the jurisdiction of the President of the the of President the of jurisdiction the outside likewise are foundations and associations affiliates, its and military the of activities the Therefore, Council. Supervisory State the of jurisdiction the outside are organs judicial its all and However, Forces Armed the foundations. and associations welfare public as well as levels, unionsall at labor and associations employers’ institutions, public of statute in the organizations institutions organizations, and professional public all of inspections and investigations, inquiries, all conduct to Republic, the of President the of request the upon established, was Council Supervisory Kurumu ( Ombudsman the of Institution the by oversight cursory onlyto is subjected and

See Yıldız, A. ibid A. Yıldız, See ) and the Court of Auditors ( Auditors of Court the ) and p. 21-25; Akyeşilmen, N., ibid N., Akyeşilmen, , p. 21-25; ed. 34 Devlet Denetleme Kurulu Kamu Denetçiliği Denetçiliği Kamu Sayıştay ). The State State ). The , p. 18, 19. , p. 18, ) 37 36 35 the of properties and expenditures revenues, to related accounts Assembly, all National Grand Turkish the of behalf on auditing, with charged be shall Court Audit “the Constitution, the of 160 Article to According increase. to continue problems the 2012, August since15 books the on been has Auditors of Court the by prepared Intelligence” and Security Defense, of Administrations Public the to Belonging Properties State the of Auditing the of aResult As Prepared Public the to Reports the of Announcement the of Regulation “the subsequently and in 2010 adopted was Auditors of Court the on Law new a Although Auditors. of Court the to regard with made have been amendments of anumber years, in recent that fact the despite problematic, and limited equally is Auditors of Court the by military the of Oversight Republic. of Auditors. the Court and Ombudsman oversight of by the the Institution cursory only to is Council and subjected Supervisory State the of jurisdiction the outside left been has the military problematic because and limited is also institutions parliamentary by extra- Oversight of the military institution’s activities uninspected. activities institution’s the of all almost leave to as so is worded character” “of military exclusively Akay, statement by vague the out of the competence of the institution.” the of competence the of out are character military exclusively of are which Forces Turkish the of Military transactions “the Ombudsman, the of Institution the on 6328 No. Law 5of Article to According for inspection. authority limited extremely

Ombudsman]. No. 28338, 29 June 2012 June 29 28338, No. Ombudsman]. the of Institution the on Law [The Kanunu” Kurumu Denetçiliği “Kamu (2012). Gazette. Official org.tr/staticfiles/files/asker_sivil__hale_akay.pdf www.hyd. from 03.10.2012, Retrieved 2000-2011].” period the for Evaluation Turkey: An in Relations [Civil-Military Değerlendirme” Bir İlişkin Dönemine 2000-2011 İlişkileri: Asker-Sivil “Türkiye’de (2011). Akay, H. Problems, Solutions.” Publications, p.8. TESEV Istanbul: Turkey: Questions, in Sector “Security (2010). Akay, H. 35 The Institution of the Ombudsman has an an has Ombudsman the of Institution The 37 . 36 As stated stated As . secrecy required by national defense.” national by required secrecy of principles the with in accordance law by regulated be shall Forces Armed the of in possession property state Assembly, Turkish of the of National behalf on Grand for auditing, procedure “[T]he Constitution: the of 160 Article from removed was provision following the 2004, In “confidential.” as classified and in 2006 adopted aregulation through manner, notably most transparent in anon- revised were for auditing procedures However, the Parliament. of request the upon institutions public all of accounts and acts the audit to authorized was Auditors of Court the in 2003, enacted Auditors, of Court the on 832 No. Law to amendment the judgment.” inquiry,With of and auditing in matters law by it of required exercising functions the with and officials, responsible the of accounts and acts the on decisions final making with budgets, subsidiary and general by financed departments government 39 38 Pension Fund ( Military the as such institutions all, of First unresolved. issues additional many left has and expected, was as military, the of audit the regarding accountability and transparency of principles the implemented not However, has law 2010. thisnew 3 December as late as adopted was auditing of implementation the for allows and amendments these covers 6085) which No. (Law Auditors of Court the to applicable Law A new Committee. Petitions of aabsence demand by the Parliamentary in the Auditors of Court the of jurisdiction the outside Vakfı Güçlendirme Kuvvetleri Silahlı ( Foundation Support Forces Turkishthe Armed

Thesis, Police Academy. 2011. Academy. Police Thesis, Master’s Unpublished Auditors]. of Court the by Forces Armed Turkish the of Auditting of A Case SecurityField: the of Oversight [Democratic Örneği” Denetimi Sayıştay Kuvvetlerinin Silahlı Türk Denetimi: Demokratik Alanının “Güvenlik (2011). M. Işın, subject: the on written thesis amaster’s addresses Kemal Here, Auditors. of Court the by TAFSF the of oversight the for base legal the of existence the about adiscussion for p. 29-32 ibid. L., Kemal, See Publications, p. 11-16. TESEV Spending]. Istanbul: Military Monitoring of Problems Ongoing the and Accounts of Court Turkish the on Law New The Weak: Remains Will Parliamentary [The Sorunu Denetimi Harcamaların Askeri Yasasında Yeni Sayıştay İradesi: Meclis Kalan Zayıf (2012). L. Kemal, 39 Second, despite the fact that a de facto facto ade that fact the despite Second, Ordu Yardımlaşma Kurumu Yardımlaşma Ordu , TSKGV) still remain remain still , TSKGV) 38 , OYAK) and Türk Türk

19 20 41 40 in practice. compatibility effect outcome target- the measure to auditors for the possible however, institutions; is not it these of properties the audit to Auditors of Court for the is possible it Hence, Command). Guard Coast the and Gendarmerie the of Command General the Defense, National of MIT, Council, Ministry the Security National the of Secretariat General the Affairs, Foreign of Ministry the to (this applies services critical fulfill they that grounds the on plan” a“strategic prepare to obliged being not institutions some to relates problem third The losses. for potential account and assess to impossible it making audit, performance a of context the within determined operations of results the and objectives the of compatibility the measuring of is that Auditors of Court the by wielded power only the that It follows purchases. and expenditures of necessity the assess to able be not is, it will as Auditors, of Court The appropriateness. of inspection an conduct and objectives the of feasibility the question to able be not would it away that in such limited was Auditors of Court the of authority the amendments, these of aresult as ineffective; auditing rendered enacted was it before law the to made amendment the light, to came public the of interest the against asituation if action legal initiate to authorized were auditors and expected was audit

Kemal, L., ibid. L., Kemal, through a regulation.] Finally, the provision which stipulates stipulates which provision the Finally, aregulation.] through audit the of scope the within audited administration public the with opinion of differences the solve to obligation the of independence of the audit was destroyed by the introduction the of way, principle the same the [In authorities. public public and administrations to the opinions given by the by made regulations the to contrary areport form cannot Court the that stipulated which regulation the by damaged was Auditors of Court the of independence the addition, In cancelled. were systems control internal assess to and way efficient and economic effective, an in used are resources public the if determine to and administrations public of statements and reports financial of accuracy and reliability the on opinion an give to Auditors of Court the of powers the Court), Constitutional the by cancelled partly later was (that ammendment this With 2012.). July 12 28351, No. Law]. of Force the in Decrees and Laws Certain Amending on 6353 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kararnamelerde Hükmünde Kanun ve Kanun Bazı sayılı “6353 (2012). Gazette. (Official 2012 in enacted was that law the to ammendment an with limited further was Auditors of Court ibid L., Kemal, ., p. 28, 29. The oversight executed by the the by executed oversight The 29. ., p. 28, , p. 20-23. 40

by executed oversight the of efficiency and independence the of terms in problem agreat constitutes 2012 July in made law the in change the that emphasizes report Report Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey decision of the see ConstitutionalEuropean Court, also criticisms regarding the amendment made before the For Say%C4%B1%C5%9 FtayAYMiptal_BasinDuyuru.pdf. from http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Editor/ 10.01.2012, Retrieved Court]. Constitutional the of Rule the and Report) Auditors of Court (The Weak’ Remains Will Parliamentary ‘The Report TESEV Release: [Press Kararı” Yasası Sayıştay Mahkemesi’nin Anayasa ve Raporu (Sayıştay) İradesi’ Meclis Kalan ‘Zayıf Duyurusu: “Basın htm haber/yargi-meclis-e-gasp-ettigi-yetkisini-geri-verdi. http://taraf.com.tr/ from, Retrieved authority]. exhorted yetkisini geri verdi” Parliament’s restored [Judgement ettiği gasp Meclis’e 2). “Yargı Jan. (2013, N. Naynaşın, See applicable. be will force in law the only that way a such in decisions judicial in and audit the of conduct the in departments other by taken decisions and oversight of terms in binding being from prevented also was Auditors of Court the of department any by taken decision any the in administration were question removed. In addition, from 2persons and Auditors of Court the from 3persons of consisting acommittee by made decision the to according upon acted be shall it unlawful be to found are given arrangementadministrative in or question the opinions the if audit, an of conduct the during that stipulates opinions arrangement stated and the provision which the and administrations public the by made etc. circulars communiqués, regulations, the to contrary prepared be cannot areport that stipulates which provision the aresult, As Auditors. of Court the of independence the removed the amendmentswhich put more limitations on Inadministrations. addition, the court’s decision also public the to related assets and expenses income, of procedures of lawfulness the assess to as well as of public and administrations statements reports financial of accuracy and reliability the oversee to systems, control internal way, assess to efficient and economic effective, an in used are resources public if determine to Auditors of Court the for possible rendered was it decision, this after However, law. the in remained institutions commission of three before persons being sent to public a by evaluated be shall reports audit draft the that provision the and authorities public of place the in audit propriety conduct not should Auditors of Court the that the Constitutional Court, the provision which stipulate of decision the of a result As 27, 2012. December on court the of decision the by canceled been have amendments these of part important an Court, Constitutional the to CHP the of application the of aresult as However, kamuoyu-aciklamasi-1587h.htm. org.tr/sayistay-kanununda-degisiklik-teklifi-hakkinda- Auditors]. Retrieved 27.10.2012 from http://www.sayder. of Court of Law the modify to request the regarding statement [Public Açıklaması” Kamuoyu Hakkında Teklifi Değişiklik Kanunu’nda “Sayıştay (2012). Association. Auditors of Court The See Auditors. of Court The on 6085 No. Law to added also was persons three of commission a by evaluated be shall reports audit draft the that . Also see TESEV Democratization Program. (2013). (2013). Program. Democratization TESEV see . Also . The . The intelligence agencies. the and police, the military, the of in terms especially accountability and of transparency principles the actualize not do regulation Clearly, and thislaw to. put are taxes their use what discover to public the for before, as possible, be not will it that means This public. the to disclosed be etc.) not should quantities used, are they how and where (their location, property state and fund” “discretionary the through obtained properties the on both information of deal great a regulation, the 5of Article to according In addition, results. its and process the to regards with made maybeinstitutions, the decision of confidentiality the of properties the to related aproceeding of event In the public. the to announced be should information remaining the and made be can redactions of round another meeting, the After board. the by redacted have been property state to related matters include which parts those and disclosure the prohibits law the in which the cases of confidentiality,principles after the with in compliance Parliament the to presented be should report the Thereafter, board. the and Auditors of Court the of department related the to then compliance of theconfidentiality, principles with and in itself administration public audited the to sent be first should report the regulation, the to According public. the from concealed extent, agreat to be, can findings report away that in such worded was however, thisdevelopment, regulation the Despite 43 audited. be to administrations public the among Industry Defense for the Undersecretary exempt previously the included 2012, August since 15 effect in been has which regulation, The public. the with reports the of sharing the to relates issue fourth The 42

See See Official Gazette].No. 28385, 15 August 2012. August 15 28385, Gazette].No. Official Administrations of Defense, and Intelligence, Security Public the to Belonging Properties State of Auditing of aResult As Prepared Reports the of Announcement Public the on Regulation [The Yönetmelik” İlişkin Duyurulmasına Kamuoyuna Raporların Hazırlanan Sonucunda Denetimi Mallarının Devlet Ait İdarelerine Kamu ilgili ile İstihbarat ve Güvenlik “Savunma, (2012). Gazette. Official Auditors. of Court the Küpü” [Government Institutions are still secretive]. For Taraf. (2012, Aug. 16). “Devlet Kurumları Hâlâ Sır Sır Hâlâ Kurumları “Devlet 16). Aug. (2012, 43 42

monopoly on “security” and “defense” and knowledge. “security” on monopoly military’s the break ultimately and knowledge military technical analyze critically to necessary information have would the they that such process, supervision and inspection in the involved be to actors civil cause change would This Institution. Ombudsman the the Stateinstitutions Audit such Institution as and extra-parliamentary by Commission, and Defense National the as such bodies through parliament, implemented, should monitored be the by both be to strategies defense regarding those especially 45 44 military should equally be subject to civilian to besubject should oversight. equally military in the implemented tactics and made the strategies and decisions oversight,the civilian For sufficient insufficient. budget and oversight is regulations of legal in terms only organizations extra-parliamentary by and parliament by the supervision of institutional the military Ensuring National Defense. of Minister the by planned be should Staff General of Chief the of Office the by prepared currently are that “programs” and Towards “policy” thisgoal, oversight. civilian to subject be equally should military in the implemented tactics and strategies the and made decisions the oversight, civilian sufficient For is insufficient. oversight budget and regulations legal organizations only in terms of extra-parliamentary by and parliament the by military the of supervision ensuring institutional that Finally, noted be should it

National Defense]. No. 13572, 7 August 1970. 7August 13572, No. Defense]. National of Ministry the of Organization and Duties the on 1325 No [Law Kanun” Hakkında Teşkilatı ve Görev Bakanlığı Savunma Milli sayılı (1970). “1325 Gazette. Official See L. Kemal, see regulation, the discussions made the after of adoption the vii. Oversight Democratic Almanac Turkey 2006-2008: Security Sector and (eds.), İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In “Foreword.” (2010). Paker, C. 44 In addition, all military decisions, In addition, military all , Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. Publications, TESEV , Istanbul: , ibid , p. 23-27. 45

21 22 they should in should they practice. their overas mandate the gendarmerie not use able to the administrative structure, authoritiesare the current policing that agencies, and within as serve institutions two Guard Command is that these the and Coast Gendarmerie main Command the problemof General the regarding The G specified by the Office of the Chief of General Staff. Staff. General of Chief the of Office the by specified those and regulations and laws military the by required tasks the fulfill to needed those as such tasks military perform to services; legal related provide and committed in to crimes relation judicial tasks perform to centers; detention and for prisons protection external provide to offenses; of commission the prevent to measures necessary the implement and take to smuggling; investigate up and follow prevent, to security; and order, public safety protect and preserve ensure, to as such tasks administrative perform Law, the 7of to are in Article delineated obligations, C responsibilities of the gendarmerie. the duties and prescribes the Gendarmerie of Authority and Duties Organization, the on Law The independent providingcommittee oversight. is no there and bounds delineated legally its exceeds that power uses gendarmerie The in practice. should they as gendarmerie the over mandate their use to able not are authorities administrative the structure, current the within that and agencies, policing as serve institutions two (CGC) these is that Command Guard (GCG) Coast the and Gendarmerie the of Command General the regarding problem main The C T 46 G he ontain P and ommand endarmerie

Gendarmerie]. No.17985, 12 March 1983. March 12 No.17985, Gendarmerie]. Duties, andEstablishment, of Authorities the the on 2803 No. [Law Kanunu” Yetkileri ve Görev Teşkilat, Jandarma sayılı “2803 (1983). Gazette. Official C eneral as P olicing C , the the of ommand roblems T G oast A gencies 46 These These hey uard 48 49 prepared by the Council of Europe. of Council the by prepared Ethics Police of Code European the of framework system, personnel training personnel education, system, and it answers organizational form, the registration promotion and tasks, order, military public of and in terms while safety regarding duties its as well as tasks its fulfilling of in terms Interior the of Ministry the to responsible is GCG The problematic. is also gendarmerie the of oversight civilian and administration The Interior. the of Ministry the to attached organization civilian a into transformed be or activities policing day-to-day the gendarmerie should either withdraw from Therefore, responsibilities. police for day-to-day unfit them renders training military This service. military compulsory their fulfill who persons of and “enemy” and “war” of concepts the around training undergo who personnel gendarmerie of military The consists GCG. the of responsibility the under was area surface recently, Until Turkey’s force. of 91% police is no there where areas or municipalities district and province the of boundaries the outside areas the namely police, the of purview the outside falls which is that responsibility of area gendarmerie’s the 10, Article to According 47

Aksoy, M. ibid M. Aksoy, Publications, p. 101. Oversight and Democratic Sector Security (ed Ü. In Cizre Gendarmerie.” the of Command “General (2006). L. Kemal, p. 213. Oversight and Democratic (eds.), Almanacİnsel Turkey 2006-2008: Security Sector A. Bayramoğlu, A. In “Gendarmerie.” (2010). M. Aksoy, articles in Milliyet. in articles the See Union. European the of framework the within toGendarmerie convertthe gendarmerie to “rural police” the of Command General the and Interior of Ministry the both by made preparation the reported News baglaniyor. com.tr/Gundem/2012/03/05/jandarma-icisleri-bakanina- of Interior].Ministry the to attached being is Gendarmerie [The Bağlanıyor” Sabah. gundemdetay/04.06.2012/1549220/default.htm polisi/gundem/ jandarmanin-yerine-kir http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/ from, Retrieved Gendarmerie]. the of Instead Police [Rural Polisi” Kır 48 (2012, Mar. 5). “Jandarma İçişleri Bakanlığına Bakanlığına İçişleri 5). Mar. “Jandarma (2012, This requirement is underlined within the the within underlined is requirement This . p. 174. (2012, June 4). “Jandarmanın Yerine Yerine 4). “Jandarmanın June (2012, Retrieved from, http://www.sabah. . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: .), Almanac Turkey 2005: 2005: Turkey .), Almanac 49

. Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: and and 47 52 51 50 cease. protocol the of framework the within out carried activities the that mean not does protocol the of repeal official the out, However, points Akay area. the as unit in Command Forces Land highest the to agencies policing all attached and authorities, administrative of request the without affairs in civilian action take to authority the military the granted and July 1997 in adopted was protocol now-abolished The protocol. EMASYA the of abolition 2010 February is the date to thisissue on amendments important few the of One of locations deployment. assign and punishment, disciplinary distribute gendarmerie, the oversee to have authority the governors district and governors provincial legislation, the to According practices. questionable some them with have brought limitations structural These Interior. the of Ministry the to than military the to linked means that the gendarmerie is much more strongly which necessary, it finds Staff General of Chief the of Office the when or wartime, and law, mobilization during martial commands force the to subordinate It becomes Staff. General of Chief the of Office the to due to resistance on the part of the gendarmerie. the of part the on resistance to due be should they as exercised be cannot powers these 2002, from reports Council’s Ankara Administration Public the and 2001 from Services Security of Teşkilatı ( Organization’s Planning State the operations and raids which are carried out by the the by out carried are which raids and operations tosearches, conduct the gendarmerie the authority Izmirgranted and Konya Ankara, including provinces

asker_sivil__hale_akay.pdf. 03.10.2012, from www.hyd.org.tr/staticfiles/files/ Evaluation for Retrieved the period 2000-2011.” Turkey: An in Relations “Civil-Military (2011). Akay, H. ibid M., Aksoy, Akay, ibid. p. H., 20; Gendarmerie]. No.17985, 12 March 1983 March 12 No.17985, Gendarmerie]. Duties, andEstablishment, of Jurisdiction the the on 2803 No. [Law Kanunu” Yetkileri ve Görev Teşkilat, Jandarma sayılı “2803 (1983). Gazette. Official See ) Special Commission Report on the Efficiency Efficiency the on Report Commission ) Special 52 In fact, in 2006 the governors of 40 40 of governors the in 2006 In fact, 50 However, as indicated by by However, indicated as , p. 174, 175. , p. 174, Devlet Planlama Planlama Devlet . 51 continued after the protocol was abolished. was protocol the after continued 53 June 2008. and 2007 November telecommunications throughout Turkey between of means by made communications of details all obtain to Ankara of Court Criminal High 11th the from permission received GCG The tapping. wire- of case in the occurred problem same The police 55 54

– Turkish Edition – Turkish Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey [ Gözetim Demokratik ve Sektörü Güvenlik 2006-2008: Türkiye (eds.), Almanak İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In Functions]. Three Meanings, Three [EMASYA: işlev” üç anlam, Üç “EMASYA: (2009). A. Bayramoğlu, Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac (eds.), İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In “Gendarmerie.” (2010). M. Aksoy, See time. of period arestricted in problems and the civilian authorities were authorized to solve the problem without the need to implement the protocol solved 27185 No. Gazette Official the in Enforcement Law andOperations on Relations the and between Gendarmerie in and Security Public andDistricts, Sub-Districts Order Provinces, in Authority of Use the and Duties Security and Gendarmerie of Execution the on 2009, 30, March dated 2009/14809, No. Regulation the and Gendarmerie the of Authority and Duties, Organization, the on Regulation the of Amendment the on 2009, 30, March dated 2009/14808, No. Regulation of publication The 2009. March in regulations two to amendments making by solved was problem The police. the to responsibility its transferred not has and regions the of boundaries withdrawn from the provincial and municipal district not has gendarmerie The police. the and gendarmerie the between authority transfer would which protocols permission regarding this issue and refused to sign the granting for authority facto de the as acted GCG However, enforcement unit to governors governors. and district law which to belong regions which of determination the left Law Administration Provincial The areas. duty of determination of process the in manifest been had which that exceeded power this because gendarmerie, the and police the of task the of determination of problems ibid Akay, H., Susurluk, Ergenekon and Semdinli - denied trials was by covert government revealed operationsas by the many in and torture and murders unsolved in involved was -which (JITEM) Unit Anti-Terrorism and Intelligence of the the After establishment Gendarmerie 03.07.2005. on adopted 5397 No. Law with judge the of permission the toauthority wiretap within the area of IntelligenceGendarmerie gained the Agency officially ibid M., Aksoy, MIT. See the and police the to given was permission same the period, same the In 53 and it has been discovered that this practice thispractice that discovered been has it and . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 176, 178. p. 176, Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: . Another important change eliminated the the eliminated change important . Another ]. Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 204. Publications, TESEV Istanbul: ]. 55 Therefore, from Therefore, , p. 179. The The , p. 179. responsibility with Almanac Almanac 54

23 24 in the daily of life citizens. interfere to the authority rights has since the gendarmerie of human new in independent the field body of experts of a democratic oversight the establishment to process, of the civilianbeyond part administrative chiefs, as Oversight of the gendarmerie, however, should extend 56 the gendarmerie. Its inefficiency is evident from the the from is evident inefficiency Its gendarmerie. the regarding complaints evaluate to in GCG order the of established was Center The mechanism. oversight impartial and effective an as serve cannot requirement, it is not autonomous therefore as and this meet not does 2003, April 27 Center, established Evaluation and Examination Violations Rights Human Gendarmerie The citizens. of life daily in the interfere to authority the has gendarmerie sincethe rights human of field in the experts of body independent new a of establishment the to process, oversight democratic civilian the of part as chiefs, administrative beyond however, gendarmerie, extend the of should Oversight gendarmerie. the of oversight direct with them provide and chiefs administrative the of authorities the establish firmly should regulation This gendarmerie. the of powers the narrows amendment is which needed and expressly limits alegal that is clear it Gendarmerie, the of Authority and Duties Organization, the on Law the including and based, is also EMASYAprotocol the which Law, on Administration Provincial the of 11/D Article

Turkey 2012 Progress Report Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey Commission’s Turkey See European Report. Progress 2012 European the in made also was Gendarmerie the over control civilian inadequate of criticism A similar Agency and the Intelligence Agencies”. underaddressed the heading “National Intelligence be will life” private of “confidentiality the of protection institutions that intelligence collect and for the forlegislation oversight/monitoring democratic of the the in present be must that Elements p. 106. Publications, Oversight and Democratic Sector Security (ed Ü. In Cizre Command.” in question. See Kemal, (2006). L. “Gendarmerie General law the of regulation legal the of part integral an become the military, the Intelligence Gendarmerie Agency has .), Almanac Turkey 2005: 2005: Turkey .), Almanac 56 . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: within . the body body the effective oversight. effective execute to able be will branch, executive the of scope the within established thisinstitution, saythat to possible the concerned. personnel punishment of in the resulted these of onlytwo but 2010, in center the to made were applications following: 235 58 57 CGC Forces. Naval the to is attached it wartime in while in peacetime, Interior the of Ministry the of part as functions CGC The areas. marine and waters inland shores, all of supervision for the responsible to the gendarmerie is and parallel which operates CGC, the of oversight is insufficient there Likewise, from the Ministry of the Interior. the of Ministry the from members of composed be primarily will commission the 2012, in April Parliament the of Assembly the of President to the Harmonization Commission presented report EU the from and renewal, of law, process is in the which draft the from both However, understood as program. EU pre-accession the of context in the Gendarmerie” Turkish for the and System Police National Complaints Law Enforcement Commission Complaints and “Independent titled project atwinning of framework the within in preparations engages Interior the of Ministry Towards police. the thisend, the and gendarmerie the by both committed violations rights human against filed complaints and notifications investigate to established be will which institution another is Commission” Oversight Enforcement “Law The imperative. their out carry to assurance and authority sufficient with equipped and rights human of field in the working organizations of representatives elected of composed be should Center the oversight, effective

donem24/1_584.pdf. www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/abuyum/belge/faaliyet/ http:// from 09.28.2012, Retrieved 1/584. No. 11). Apr. (2012 pdf http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/1/1-0584.September 2012. the Enforcement Commission Oversight Law]. 28 to Preamble and Draft [The Gerekçesi” ve Tasarısı Kanunu Komisyonu Gözetim (2012).“Kolluk Ministry Prime of Office Regulations, and Laws of Directorate General See pdf. http://istifhane.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jgk-2010. from 16.09.2012, Retrieved Report]. Annual [2010 Raporu” Faaliyet yılı “2010 (2010). Command. General Gendarmerie ; see European TBMM Union Compliance Commission. 57 To ensure efficient and and To ensure efficient 58 Hence, it is not is not it Hence, issue. this on progress limited very been has there that out pointed report Commission’s Progress European 2011 63 62 61 60 59 thisorganization. and Guard Coast the of integration the and organization civilian single a by control border into look to established was plan action management” border “integrated an in 2003, Therefore, sharing. power by created tension dissipate and area’s forces the police demilitarize to borders the on deployed be will which EU countries, other of the cross-bordermanagement with integrated system organization, acivilian of establishment the stipulates EU the acquis, Schengen the of framework the Within Turkish Personnel. the regarding Forces Armed 926 No. Law and Service Internal Military concerning 211, No. Law to according duties their perform and personnel considered are personnel tomilitary be and the maritime police. maritime the and CGC the between exist gendarmerie the and police the between those to similar nature, dual tensions its to and coordination at border checkpoints. border at coordination and which will responsible be for inter-agency cooperation for Administration cadres Border personnel Authority the of establishment the with along release, in apress Management Coordination on April,2012 18 Committee Border Integrated the of establishment the announced Interior the of Ministry The policing. of demilitarization the of in terms development apositive be will realized,

Democratic Oversight Democratic (eds.), Almanacİnsel Turkey 2006-2008: Security Sector and A. Bayramoğlu, A. In “Gendarmerie.” (2010). M. Aksoy, See Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 141. p. 141. Publications, TESEV Oversight,Democratic Istanbul: Almanac Turkey 2006-2008: Security Sector and (eds.), İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In Dimension.” Military and Institutional Forces: Armed Turkish “The (2010). Akay, H. p. 141. ibid.Akay, p. H. rapport_2011_en.pdf. enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2011/package/tr_ Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ 18.09.2012, Report European Commission. (2011). Progress 2011 Turkey Icisleri.Gov.Tr/Default.Icisleri_2.Aspx?Id=7498. www. from 18.09.2012, Retrieved 2012/40. No: Release, Management Plan Closing Action Ceremony], Press Border [Integrated Töreni Kapanış Planı Eylem Yönetimi Sınır Turkey. of Entegre (2012). Interior of Ministry The 63 . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 185. Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: 60 61 This change, This if 62 However, the 59 Due Due . R people of the region through violence. through region the of people the over control exercise to way, state the allows it in this state; the of extension an into Kurdish families some turns and region in the Kurdishthe people divides system guard village the out, points Kurban As bear arms only in their own villages. own in only their arms bear to authorized were chiefs administrative by employed guards village voluntary while in operations, participated and employment of village their oversaw to the commanderanswered of the gendarmerie which guards” “provisional village villagers, of arming the on based system, the Within PKK. the against military the of fight in the serve and means militaristic through Kurdish the problem solve to established was guards, village voluntary and provisional of comprised system, guard village the 1985, March 26 on 3175 No. Law by Law Village the to made amendment the With Gendarmerie. the of extension an is which system guard village the of maintenance the is military the of mechanisms policing the regarding addressed be should that problem important Another T 66 64 65 mistreatment, harassment and rape. and harassment mistreatment, murder, as such torture, violations rights human involvingserious incidents in many involved have been guards village the Murders, Political Unsolved on Commission Investigation Parliamentary the and Association Rights Human the by prepared reports the to feature, according this dominant V he elated

Political Killings [ Raporu Komisyonu Araştırma Cinayetleri Siyasi Meçhul Faili koy_koruculari_ozel_raporu.pdf http://www.ihd.org.tr/images/pdf/ocak_1990_mart_2009_ from 14.11.2012, Retrieved 2009.” March and 1990 January between Guards Village the by Perpetrated Violations Rights Human the on Report Special “The (2009). D., ibid. Kurban, Kurban, D., ibid Kurban, Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey (eds.), Almanac İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, A. In Policy.” a‘Security’ as System Guard “Village D. (2010). Kurban, Parliamentary Research Commission Report on Unsolved on Unsolved Report Commission Research Parliamentary illage G . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 203-205. Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: P roblems ]. Istanbul: Gizlisaklı Publishers. Gizlisaklı Istanbul: ]. . p. 209-210. p. 207. See Human Rights Association. Association. Rights Human See p. 207. uard S ystem and TBMM F. TBMM (2005). ; Erdoğ, 64 66

65 As Kurban Kurban As In addition to to In addition

25 26 71 70 69 68 recruitment of new village guards continues. guards village new of recruitment Council of Ministers on 9January, 2008. on Ministers of Council by the for adopted the new regulation confidentiality of anotice issued and 70.000) almost numbered (the guards guards existing village additional May, 60.000 of recruitment the 2007, authorizing 27 on 5673 No. Law passed doing so, government the However, of instead system. guard village the abolish Turkish the that recommend UN state the EU and the their capacity as policing agents. policing as capacity their in acrime have foundto committed are who guards of dismissal the regarding aprovision contain not 67 rights. human on based regime ademocratic establish to in order abolished be should therefore and violations, rights human serious to leads and violence of level ahigh of use the to rise gives region, the of people the among division causes Kurdish the problem, deepens system, This Regulation Guards Village the notes, further

Turkey 2012 Progress Report (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey of the village See guards system. European Commission. abolition the towards taken were steps no that recorded Turkey of Report the Progress 2012 European Commission D., ibid., Kurban, tr/haber_detay.asp?haberID=96 http://www.idil.gov. from, Retrieved Recruited]. be will Guards Village [Temporary Yapılacaktır” Alımı Korucusu Köy “Geçici (2012). Governorship. Idil asp?ID=147,; from, http://www.hasankeyf.gov.tr/haber/haberdetay. Retrieved guards]. village of recruitment the regarding [Announcement duyuru” ilgili ile alımı korucusu men=2, rd=co42f4db68f23406c6cecf84a7ebbofe&msgn=299&ek midyat.gov.tr/goster.php?yazilim=adnan&anid=164&boa http://www. from, Retrieved below]. written Midyat of villages the in recruited be will guards village of number specified [The yapılacaktır” alımı korucusu köy geçici sayıda belirtilen köylerde yazılı aşağıda bağlı ilçesine “Midyat (2012). Governorship. Midyat see example For D. ibid. Kurban, 2000. 1July 24096, No. Guards]. Village of [Regulation Yönetmeliği” Korucuları “Köy (2000). Gazette. Official ; Hasan Keyf Governorship. (2011). “Geçici “Geçici (2011). Governorship. Keyf ; Hasan , p. 207. p . 208-210. 71 , accessed 29.01.2013. , accessed 68 . For these reasons, reasons, these For 69 The The 67 70 does does M V Article 318 of the Turkish the of 318 Code. Penal Article on based service” military from public “alienating the of grounds the on and Code Criminal Military the of 88 and 87 Articles on based “disobeying orders” of grounds the on court/prison of unending cycle in an stuck and process criminal the into drawn have Ülke been Murat Osman Savda and Halil Bal, Tarhan, like Mehmet Mehmet people Many reasons. political and religious conscientious, to due service military the oppose who people of rights the violates and culturein society, militarist violent and pro-war a of expansion the to contributes both that practice -a service military compulsory to subject are 20 of age By Turkish the have who reached citizens law, male all C 73 72 treatment. degrading to more once subjected and reports “defected” issued then were gay judged be were to who Those means. degrading other through evidence provide to or examination an undergo to forced have been service military the out carry to want not do gay who men Many M ompulsory iolations R of

ilitarization Article 318 of the TCK should be abolished. be should TCK the of 318 Article and decriminalized be should service”, military from public the “alienating as defined actions, these area, this in expression of freedom full ensure to order In 1119993. iste_4_yargi_paketi_kck_tutuklularina_tahliye_yolu- Retrieved from, http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/ detainees]. KCK of Eviction the Way for The Package: Judicial 4. the is [Here yolu” tahliye tutuklularına Radikal See fines. criminal to actions these for provided years three to months six from ranging period imprisonment the converts it 318, Article to according actions criminal of scope the within taken and service” military from decriminalize the defined actions as“alienating the public not does Package” Reform Judicial Fourth “The as known Laws Certain of Amendment the on Law the and Rights Human of Context the in Expression of Freedom While p. 273-290. Publications. İletişim Istanbul: Experiences]. Conscientious Objection-Intellectual Resources and Reels: the in [Sand Deneyimler ve Kaynaklar Red-Düşünsel Vicdani Kum: (eds.), Çarklardaki Üsterci C. and Çınar Ö. H. In Murat]. Osman of Case the and Law International the in Objection [Conscientious Davası” Ülke Murat Osman ve Red Vicdani Hukukta “Uluslararası (2008). K. Boyle, See Hegemonik Erkekliğin Yeniden İnşası” [Rotten Report and and Report [Rotten İnşası” Yeniden Erkekliğin Hegemonik Türkiye’de ve Raporu “Çürük (2008). A. Biricik, See . (2013, Feb. 5).“İşte 4. Yargı Paketi: KCK KCK Paketi: Yargı 4. 5).“İşte Feb. . (2013, ilitary S

ights and 73 ervice As underscored As 72 , 77 right and Article 318 of the TCK should be abolished. be TCK should the of 318 Article and right ahuman as recognized be should well, as obligations service civil of option the excludes objection,” which “total or obligations, service civil of option the includes “conscientious objection,” to which right the 76 75 74 President of the Parliament the to 2012 March, 20 on presented was which barracks in the soldiers of deaths suspicious the regarding questioning Yılmaz,written to responding İsmet Defense National of Minister The wards’. ‘disciplinary as to referred in places especially soldiers on perpetrated order, violence acourt and without superiors military by imposed imprisonment of penalties deaths, suspicious as categorized be can violations these of majority The service. military compulsory the during committed have also violations rights Human rights. human of violations to leads service military Turkey’s of rejection the by compulsory initiated process criminal the Rights, Human of Court Turkey”European the vs. of “Ülke the decision by serve for other religious or political reasons. political or religious for other serve to wish not do who those or objectors, contentious of rights the recognize not does which country only is the Europe, Turkey of Turkey Council in the that out points on Report Commission’s Progress European 2012 to make themselves unfit for military service.” for military unfit themselves make to “trying lives their have lost people 1.602 while suicide” have “committed people 2.221 years, 22 last in the

haklari/138345-22-yilda-2221-asker-intihar-etti. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/insan- Years]. 22 in Suicide Committed have Soldiers [2221 Etti” İntihar Asker 2221 Yılda “22 15). May . (2012, Bianet Özdal Üçer and Hüsamettin Zenderlioğlu. Hüsamettin and Üçer Özdal MPs Party Democracy and Peace the by Parliament the of President the to presented was questioning written The Experiences]. Istanbul: İletişim Publication, p. 143-152. Publication, İletişim Istanbul: Experiences]. Conscientious Objection-Intellectual Resources and Reels: the in [Sand Deneyimler ve Kaynaklar Red-Düşünsel Vicdani Kum: (eds.), Çarklardaki Üsterci C. Çınar, Ö.In H. Turkey]. in Masculinity Hegemonic of Reconstruction the Report European Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey v. Turkey, 39437/98. No: Country (2006) (ECtHR) Rights Human of Court European . 76 , told his interlocutors that that his interlocutors , told 74 75 The The 77 As such, As

military courts rather than High Criminal Courts Courts Criminal High than rather courts military the that fact the life,and to right the of violation wards’. ‘disciplinary as to referred in places especially soldiers order,without acourt on violence perpetrated and superiors military by imposed imprisonment of penalties deaths, suspicious as categorized be can violations these of majority The service. military compulsory the during committed rights violations been haveHuman also Balıkçı. Sevag and Eren Özel of cases in the seen be can as deaths, these of nature the to as doubts strong are there that ongoing from cases as well up, as opened being cases the of However, many from is evident it 78 militarizm/140717-sevag-davasinin-takipcisiyiz. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/ Balıkçı]. Sevag of Trial the following are [We Takipçisiyiz” html sevag-balikcinin-olumunde-agaoglu-kusurlu-h11638. http://www.demokrathaber.net/guncel/ from, Retrieved Balıkçı]. Sevag of murder the for culpable is [Ağaoğlu Kusurlu” Ağaoğlu Ölümünde Balıkçı’nın 7). “Sevag Haber Demokrat See Court. Military Command is currently being held in Diyarbakir 2 Diyarbakir in held being currently is trial The conduct. wrongful for responsible was Ağaoğlu that found Command Forces Land the of report expert’s deliberately but while joking around.” However, the “not killed was he that claimed authorities Military unit. military his in serving also was who aprivate of rifle the from abullet by Kozluk, Batman, in duty military on while 2011 24, April on killed was Balıkçı, Sevag cinayetindeki-yalanlar-h7687.html. www.demokrathaber.net/guncel/er-eren-ozel- http:// from, Retrieved Özel]. Eren Private of Murder the about Lies [The yalanlar” cinayetindeki Özel Eren =19&action=online php?news_code=1332159368&year=2012&month=03&day Birgün Alevi?]. and Kurdish was he because just murdered Özel Eren [Was öldürüldü?” mi için olduğu Alevi ve Kürt Özel “Eren 19). (March S. Kılıç, See intentional. been have might death the that suspicion was There guard. stood he whom with Aktaş, Ahmet to belonged which rifle infantry G-3 the from abullet by killed was Özel Eren that Court, Criminal Military Gaziantep in place took which trial, the in out found was it but suicide a death his declared first officials military The Battalion. Mechanized first the brigade, armored fifth the of part as Maraş in duty military on while 2011 on died Özel Eren 78 . (2012, Sep. 18). “Sevag Davasının Davasının “Sevag 18). Sep. . (2012, Bianet .; Covering up wrongful deaths exacerbates the the exacerbates deaths up wrongful Covering . Retrieved from, http://www.birgun.net/mobile. from, . Retrieved Demokrat Haber. (2012, Mar. 19). “Er “Er 19). Mar. (2012, Haber. ; Demokrat nd Air Force Force Air . (2012, July July . (2012,

27 28 in what are referred to as “discipline wards.” as to referred are in what is common mistreatment and torture systematic that Commission Human indicate Rights Parliamentary the to delivered petitions 22 2012, of beginning the at In addition, rights. human of violations on the decision of a judge are in independent an court based not are and oversight judicial to subject not are 81 79 ECtHR, the of decisions many in However, stated imprisonment. of as penalties execute to authority the granted are supervisors military Penalties, and Offenses Discipline and Trial Procedure Courts, Disciplinary of Establishment the on 477 No. Law of 38 Article and Code Penal Military the on 1632 No. Law of 165 Article to According service. military compulsory during the problem order likewise are a without court asuperiors serious military by imposed imprisonment of Penalties process. trial impartial independent, an of possibility the negates judge and natural of principle the of violation the to leads trials these handle 80

See Radikal See oversight. judicial administrative to military the opens it however, soldiers; the to “disko”, as given known penalty, room” confinement the abolish not does Package” Reform Judicial Fourth “The as known Laws Certain of Amendment the on Law the and Rights Human of Context asker-haklari-tbmmdeydi http://bianet.org/bianet/insan-haklari/135559-from, Retrieved Parliament]. the visited Initiative Rights [Soldier TBMM’deydi” Hakları “Asker 19). Jan. . (2012, Bianet askerhaklari.com/rapor.pdf www. from 27.10.2012, Retrieved Duty]. Military during Report- Experienced ofRights Rights Violations Soldier’s [2012 İhlalleri” Hak Yaşanan Sırasında Askerlik Raporu-Zorunlu Hakları “Asker (2012). Initiative]. Rights [Soldier’s Girişimi Hakları Asker also See the ECtHR (see footnote 80). Therefore, in order to to order in Therefore, 80). (see footnote ECtHR the by underlined as rights human of aviolation constitute ajudge by administered court independent an in given not are which penalties of kinds these that, beyond However, courts. civil the to granted be must audit to authority the assurance, legal adequate ensure to order In guarantee. alegal provide to enough is amendment this that say to possible not is it Therefore, trial. afair to right the and judges of independence the and judge natural of principles the of terms in structure a problematic is system justice military the above, detail in discussed As Pulatlı v. Turkey Pulatlı (2011) Ersin (ECtHR) Rights Human of Court European . (2013, Feb. 5). Feb. . (2013, , No: 38665/07. , No: . Freedom of Expression in the the in Expression of . Freedom . 80 those penalties which which penalties those 79 81 2011. October, 12 on ward in adisciplinary torture of result a as died and in Cyprus service doing his military was Kantar, who Uğur Private involves incident such One 83 82 Council of Ministers on 3January, 2012. on Ministers of Council the of decision the with in accordance year academic 2012-2013 the of as schedules lesson weekly education Education’s of secondary Ministry in the courses common the from removed was course The education. secondary of militarization in the akey role played and coup 1980 the after curriculum the to added was which course Information” Security “National the of removal is the development positive One institutions. educational in civilian curriculum the over influence undue exerts military the that noted be also It should courts. in civilian tried be should cases these and cases in such initiated be should prosecution and investigation of process To mistreatment. effective thisend, and an torture prevent to implemented be should measures effective imprisonment should and abolished be on recruits of penalties impose to authority superiors’ military in addition, judiciary; military in the not judge and natural of principle the with in accordance courts civil by handled be should military in the deaths suspicious Yılmaz above, İsmet Defense National

askerhaklari.com/rapor.pdf. www. from 27.10.2012, Retrieved Duty]. Military during Report- Experienced ofRights Rights Violations Soldier’s [2012 İhlalleri” Hak Yaşanan Sırasında Askerlik Raporu-Zorunlu Hakları “Asker (2012). Initiative]. Rights [Soldier’s Girişimi Hakları Asker again See default.htm. tarih-oluyor/gundem/gundemdetay/23.06.2012/1557503/ Retrieved from, http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/-disko-lar- [Soldier WingsOluyor” are Becoming Disciplinary History]. Milliyet example, for See, to “sentence.” authority superiors’ abolition of the military the regarding press the in appeared reports news Some abolished. be should to punishment impose superiors military the of authority the violations, rights human prevent milli-guvenli-dersi-yerine-secmeli-ders-geliyor/gundem/ Classes]. Retrieved from, http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/ Elective by Replaced be to Classes Security [National “Milli Güvenlik Dersi Yerine Seçmeli Ders Geliyor” Milliyet. See 2012. January 25 on repealed also was Directive Information Security National The 82 Given the vast numbers cited by the Minister of of Minister the by cited numbers vast the Given . (2012, Jun. 23). “Diskolar Tarih “Diskolar 23). Jun. . (2012, 83 (2012, April 20). 20). April (2012, However, the 85 84 the documentary. the watch students all that demanding schools to letter a sent Directorates Education National District the 2009 in January Culture, of and Directorate Provincial the and Education of Ministry the through country the across schools all to distributed was documentary the Issue, Armenian the on Turkish perspective official the promote to in June 2008 Staff General of Chief the of Office the by Produced Question.” Armenian the of Inner Face Yellow The Bride: “The documentary the of screening the involves intervention curriculum of example One means. of variety a through institutions educational civilian direct to capacity the retains Staff General of Chief the of Office oversight. Taking into account the fact that that Taking fact the oversight. account into ( Council Education Higher the to authority any grant not do (graduate) Academies Military on 3563 No. Law (undergraduate) and Colleges Military on 4566 No. Law and is conditional Education of Ministry the by oversight education, secondary regarding regulation Turkish In the Forces’ education. Armed military of oversight civilian exclude military the within levels higher graduate and at education undergraduate and secondary to related regulations and laws The future. near in the revised be to is expected and review under is currently Secretariat of the National Security Council. Security National the of Secretariat General the from representative one includes Staff, whileGeneral the National Education Council of Chief the of Office the by selected representative one include law by must Board Inter-university the and Board Supervisory Education Higher force, the in Act Education Higher the to according In addition, Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Öğretim Yüksek

18. Problems, Solutions.” Publications, p. TESEV Istanbul: Turkey: Questions, in Sector “Security (2010). Akay, H. mahkeme-irkci-sari-gelin-belgeselini-engellemedi. http://www.bianet.org/bianet/azinliklar/123571- from, Retrieved Documentary]. Bride’ ‘Yellow Racist the Block Not Did Court [The Engellemedi” Belgeselini Gelin’ ‘Sarı Irkçı “Mahkeme 20). Jul. . (2010, Bianet gundemdetay/20.04.2012/1530700/default.htm. 84

, YÖK) for supervision and and for supervision , YÖK) 85 This law law This educational boards. boards. educational civilian in the included longer no be should Staff General of Chief the of Office the from representatives Furthermore, education. of militarization a allow to not as so education civilian on Staff General of Chief the of influence the as well as this field, in autonomy military’s the eliminates away that such in oversight civilian to subject be should Forces Armed Turkish the within education secondary that It follows apparatus. state in the position privileged military’s the of evidence is further oversight, from schools military exempting YÖK, by thisregulation scrutiny to subjected are in Turkey and universities autonomous not are

29 30 inevitably bringing about aggressive policing techniques. this stigmatization the whole to extend society,occasionally “potential and groups and as neighborhoods criminals” over society. Moreover, stigmatize some strategies these absolute control establish to the allow police many cases, of “risk”,concept both violate the right of privacy and, in on the anew logicinto “security” around practice centered put policing strategies Preventive intelligence-based and policing techniques. aggressive about bringing inevitably society, whole the to thisstigmatization extend occasionally and criminals” “potential as groups and neighborhoods some stigmatize Moreover, strategies society. these over control absolute establish to police the allow cases in many and privacy of right the violate both “risk”, of concept the on centered logic “security” anew around practice into put strategies policing intelligence-based and Preventive strategies. policing of part significant atroublingly be to continues it years, in recent application of frequency and degree, form, of in terms differed has violence police although ( Turkey of Foundation Rights IHD) Human the and ( Association Humanthe Rights as such organizations of reports annual The privacy. of right the and torture of prohibition life,the to right the of violations as such violations rights human numerous to have led problems These years. in recent introduced regulations with form final their taken have organization police the concerning problems current control”, “democratic the of and many “autonomy” of in Turkey problems had always has military the While Organization Police The TİHV) indicate that that indicate Vakfı, TİHV) Hakları İnsan Türkiye İnsan Hakları Derneği, Derneği, Hakları İnsan P D the L first twenty-four hours, other restrictions on the right right the on restrictions other hours, twenty-four first during the alawyer Anti-Terrorismto the access Act addition, denying under the regulation detained those In duties. their out carrying of methods the negotiate to space autonomous of deal agreat with police the provides available publicly not are units these of activities the define which regulations the that fact The Department. Intelligence the and Operations Special of Department the as such organization, the of units for some regulations the of disclosure of lack is the regulations legal the concerning problem Another violations. rights human and violence police of prevention for the necessary restrictions to subject not are telecommunication monitor to and decency”; and morality public of rules the to “contrary is which behavior prevent to documents; identity citizen’s check as well as frisk and police); stop to riot of part the on (especially force use to firearms; use to police the of authorities the detail, more in below explained be will As regulations. recent with reinforcedthe police’sbeen power has discretionary of nature unrestricted This police. the of authorities many to in relation restricted is not police the of power discretionary the that fact is the regulations legal the from arising problem primary The impunity. of problem the and society; and police the between relationship the and new policing strategies, sub-culture, police police; the of power discretionary the extend that regulations legal headings: three under examined be will problems These egal olice iscretionary P R

egulations that ower the of E xtend

United Nations in 1990, stipulates that there must be be must there that stipulates in 1990, Nations United the by adopted Officials Enforcement Law by Firearms and Force of Use the on Principles Basic the 9of Article areas.” vital “not targeting as such specified, are situation sanctioned in the firearms of use the regarding criteria another. of Moreover, life the or life further no officer’s the towards directed threat is no there where in cases even defendants or suspects of apprehension for the firearms use to authorized have been police the thisamendment, to According purpose.” for that proportional extent the and in progress, is crime the while he/she is where apprehended cases in suspect the capture to in or order apprehended; or captured be detain, to adecision warrant, arrest is an there for whom individuals capture c) to in order resistance, such breaking to proportional and of objective the force, with material and using physical way of by bodily ineffective rendered be cannot which “b) resistance vis-a-vis firearms use to entitled were police the that assert to 16 werethe PVSK combined and amended under Article 6of Article Additional and 16 June 2,On 2007, Article unimpeded. firearms carry to authority police leaving concern, thisserious address to neglected in 2007 PVSK the to and in 2006 TMK the to made However, possible. amendments the as much as restricted be should therefore and life to right the of violations of likelihood the increases significantly firearms use to police the of authority The 3713. No. Anti-Terrorism ( Law Kanunu Selahiyet ve Vazife ( Law Duties and Powers Police the are question in governing authority the laws main two The firearms. use to police’s authority the of regulation concerns here addressed be to issue first The the of Police Authority The to Use Firearms process. judicial the over dominance establish to police the below, allow explained be will as established, been has police judicial no that fact the lawyer, and defense acompulsory to Terörle Mücadele Kanunu , PVSK) No. 2559 and the the and 2559 No. , PVSK) , TMK) , TMK) Polis Polis “In operations executed against a terrorist aterrorist against executed operations “In reads and in 1996 law the to added was which TMK, the 2of Article is Additional for concern cause Another ground. the on experience by proven been also has life to right the of violation the of likelihood the increases regulation legal current the that fact violence and human rights violations. human violence and police of prevention the for necessary restrictions to subject not are decency”;and monitor telecommunication to and behavior of public morality which the is rules “contrary to citizen’s check as documents; preventwell identity to (especially of riot police); on the part frisk and as stop to force use to firearms; use to of authorities the police The 87 86 her own life or those of others.” of those or life own her his/ to imminent threat an of case in only the firearms to resort to allowed are agencies policing norms, “according international norms: to international the emphasizes also TİHV by prepared 5681 No. Law on report The firearms. their use legitimately to police for the life” to threat “imminent an case, deadly incidents still occur. still incidents deadly case, IzmirLimontepe in the and,as firearms police’s of use of aresult as lives their lost people 115 2011, and 2007

report. this of section “Results” the in detail more in evaluated is Izmir Limontepe, of case The p.14. kaynagi-yasa-mi.htm, http://www.taraf.com.tr/haber/polis-siddetinin- Taraf Law?] the Violence Police of Cause the [Is mı” Yasa Kaynağı Şiddetinin “Polis 20). Aug. (2012, A. Koçer,M. See incident. this of aresult as life his lost Barlak Emrah apasser-by. wounded slightly and legs, the in others the stomach, the in Barlak Emrah wounded and fire opened officers police the of one commotion, the During fining. about officers police two the and men the between out broke argument an and car police aparked hit they vehicle, their in were relatives their of one and Barlak Erhan brother his Barlak, Emrah while 2012, 12, August On migration. forced of aresult as city the to came who people Kurdish by Izmir, inhabited of town the in neighborhood impoverished an is Limontepe php?AEkinci-YAElAEnda-PVSK-Azel-Raporu. Retrieved from http://www.tihv.org.tr/index. 19.09.2012, Ankara. Raporu, Özel PVSK Yılında İkinci Turkey]. (2009). of Foundation Rights [Human Vakfı Hakları İnsan Türkiye 86 87 In Turkey, between In other words, the words, the In other . Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved

31 32 90 89 constitution which defines the right to life, to right the defines which constitution the of 17 Law to contrary was it that grounds the this amendment unconstitutional annulled and it on June, 2006 with much with more dangerousJune, 2006 wording 29 on reinstated was article the thisruling, Despite firearms. of use for the necessity” “by criteria the lacked it and suspect the against implemented be to methods possible other of mention no was there that grounds found the amendmentfurther unconstitutional on the and “intention” word the of ambiguity the underlined It also agencies. policing the of part the on force lethal of use the warranting not kind, perhaps any of mayarms but be firearms be to need not do suspect” the by used be to “intended weapons the that 88 weapons.” use to fornoncompliance to thesurrender call intention and their of in case ineffectual, perpetrators the render to targets the against hesitation, without and directly firearms, use to authorized are agencies policing of officials organization,

Terrorism]. No. 26232, 18 July 2006 July 18 26232, No. Terrorism]. of Prevention the on Law the Amending on 5532 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Mücadele Terörle sayılı “5532 (2006). Gazette. Official 2001 amendments are unconstitutional]. 19 January 24292, some that premise the on Notification, Identity on Law the of Amendment the and Instruments Other and Anti-Terrorism Act,Strong Ration Law, Firearms, Knives the Administration, Provincial the on 4178 No. Law the Annul to 1999/1 No. Decision Court Constitutional [The Karar” sayılı 1999/1 Dair İptaline Gerekçesiyle Olduğu Aykırı Anayasaya Maddelerinin Bazı (4178 Sayılı) Kanunun Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Bildirme Kimlik ve Kanun Hakkında Aletler Diğer ile Bıçaklar ve Silahlar Ateşli Kanun, İlişkin Edileceklere İaşe Kazanından Er Tayın Kanunu, Kuvvetli Kanunu, Mücadele Terörle Kanunu, İdaresi “İl (2001). Gazette. Official 1996. 22747, No. 4September Notification]. Identity on Law the of Amendment the and Instruments Other and Knives the Anti-Terrorism Act,Strong Ration Law, Firearms, Administration, Provincial the on 4178 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Bildirme Kimlik ve Kanun Hakkında Aletler Diğer ile Bıçaklar ve Silahlar Ateşli Kanun, İlişkin Edileceklere İaşe Kazanından Er Tayın Kanunu, Kuvvetli Kanunu, Mücadele Terörle Kanunu, “4178 İdaresi İl (1996). sayılı Gazette. Official . 88 The Court of Constitution found of Constitution Court The . 89 stating stating 90 : which is entirely unregulated and unlimited. and unregulated is entirely which –adecision used be to force of degree the determine to have authority the scene the at chiefs police the and groups; disperse to deployed are Units Action Rapid illegal, declared have which been At gatherings limited. congregate and demonstrate can arbitrarily be to group any of right the and ease, with prohibited be to Kurdish in the geography held gatherings similar and celebrations Newroz wording allows This notification.” in the specified purpose the “deviate[s] situation the if for instance from unlawful, will declared gatherings be demonstrations and which under circumstances vague of anumber lists 2911 No. Law of 23 Article unlawful. declared be easily can that demonstrations and gatherings at violence of levels high use to them allows explicitly force use to officers police of authority unconstrained The Units Action Rapid of Regulation the and Act Demonstrations Gatherings and civilians. on firing when areas” vital target “not officers police that condition further the with and life” to threat “imminent on conditional made be should laws two in these granted kill”. authority The “shoot to to authority an to amount regulations these Therefore, force. lethal exert to for police sufficient be would for “surrender” call the to noncompliance the that means which arms, use to intention or for “surrender” call the to noncompliance of case in firearms use to authorized now are officials Police 91 violence to disperse crowds. The Regulation of Rapid Rapid of Regulation The crowds. disperse to violence physical of level ahigh and cannons water pressure gas, tear to resort Units Action Rapid the 2009, and in 2008 year, May Day the at celebrations and every nearly celebrations Newroz during the observed action. collective unlawful an into turned has which event social a disperse or prevent or neutralize to order in weapons,... or force material force, bodily of use follows: as force” of “use defines Regulation the 4of Article 1982. December [Police Rapid Unit Action Regulation]. No. 30 17914, Yönetmeliği” Kuvvet Çevik “Polis (1982). Gazette. Official 91 As As

should likewise be terminated. be likewise should health, human to harmful be to proven been has and since2007 people 11 of death the to led has which gas, pepper of use this, the with In line force. use to officers police of authority the limiting regulation the to criteria specific including by illegal made be should force excessive of use the situation, the correct 92 concept.” wide is force avery of use The force. use to how or force of use the officers, the of authority the restricting clauses no are “there problem: this acknowledged officer police Units Action Rapid author, the by a conducted interviews the of In one recrimination. legal of fear without and independently act to police the have allowed regulations Weak thorax. or head the as such regions, critical of inviolableness absolute the as such integrity bodily of limits the and health human of protection for the restrictions any to subject force of use is the nor specified, is not “beating” into turn cannot force the that principle the but suspects” to apprehendidentified proportions necessary in mayused be “[F]orce that is stipulated it regulation the of 27 In Article situations. in these inflict can police force of degree the to limits lacks Units Action unlimited. and entirely unregulated –adecision which is beused to of force degree the determine have to scene the authority disperse groups; at the chiefs the police and deployed are to illegal, Rapid ActionUnits which gatherings declared At have been 93

Society and Science and Society 1960]. Turkey in After Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of aManifestation as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası 1960 Alt-kültürü: Polis Olarak Tezahürü Bir Stratejilerinin “Devlet (2009). B. Berksoy, month=04&day=12 actuels_index.php?news_code=1334230650&year=2012& http://www.birgun.net/ from, Retrieved Police?]. the Hurt Spray Pepper the Doesn’t [Why Vermez?” Birgün . (2010, Apr. 12). “Biber Gazı Polise Neden Zarar Zarar Neden Polise Gazı “Biber 12). Apr. . (2010, . , vol. 114, p.127. 114, , vol. 93 The criteria for criteria The

92 To To or vehicle, based entirely on their subjective subjective their on entirely based vehicle, or individual’s belongings the as well as person, any on asearch conduct to authority the given are police the defined, is not doubt” To “reasonable that extent the stopped”. vehicle in the or person danger the causing on belonging other any or weapon a exits there that doubt having on reasonable others and himself/herself to harm any prevent to measures necessary take can police “the thisparagraph, to According problem. same the contains also paragraph sixth “impression.” The and “experience” subjective his on own completely grounds” “reasonable of presence the base to is able officer police a that instead to, stating refers grounds” “reasonable what of indication any contain not does paragraph This circumstances.” prevailing the from gets he impression the and officer police the of experience the on based ground, is areasonable there that provided individual an stop to authority the exercise can police “[T]he thisarticle, of paragraph second the to 2June 2007.According on 5681 No. Law by formulated was card, individual’s identity an demand and frisk and stop to authority police regulating 4A, Article materialize. easily may violence police in which circumstances enable manner. they intrusive Therefore, unnecessarily an in hence and arbitrarily, lives everyday in individuals’ intervention police for regular allow which provisions problematic contain also PVSK the of 11 and 4A Article Police Intervention in Everyday Life removed. be should police power of the extending the discretionary statements vague and limited; and reviewed be should illegal a as gatheringcharacterizing demonstration and hence in an unnecessarily intrusivemanner. in unnecessarily an hence arbitrarily, lives in everyday individuals’ intervention and police for allow regular of the PVSK Some articles

33 34 perspective of society’s order.” society’s of perspective the from attitudes unacceptable shameful and possess those and who manners and morals general against by “those who behave committed actions prohibit certain ofprevent the citizenry,to madeand onappeal the part authorized,even are is if there no complaint police or The 94 violence. of incidents fatal into turned police the by out carried interventions arbitrary Ete, in which Feyzullah of that like cases, have there been In addition, individuals. certain over domination police to lead to shown been has However, thisauthority regulation. the of purpose the constitutes largely intervention police arbitrary for potential then, the aproblem constituting from Far checks. I.D perform and vehicles or individuals stop to created by allowing the police unrestricted authority “uneasiness” the through crime prevent preemptively is to thisregulation of aim stated the Therefore, crime.” intended the performing against deterrence sufficient provides identified be she will or he acrime, shecommits or he if that awareness The scene. that at acrime committing from person that prevents check card identity an of means by identity aperson’s of recording the law; in comparative stated “As follows: is as article for the provided ground legal The crime. prevents a demand such of threat the that expectation the with card, identity his her or present individual an that demand to police the of authority the defines article the of remainder The discretion. 95

Nov. 23). “Polis Tekmesi Öldürdü” [Police Kick Killed]. Killed]. Kick [Police Öldürdü” Tekmesi “Polis Nov. 23). Milliyet in Reported police. the of one by chest the in a kick of aresult as life his lost Ete and Avcılar in park a in sitting while friends his and Ete Feyzullah to up came that team police civil the between out broke A discussion gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/yil01/ss1437m.htm Deputy, and Three Deputies], 2/1037: http://www.tbmm. Commission of Uzun, Report Selami Parliamentary Sivas Justice and Offer the of Powers and Duties Police on Law the Amending Law [The Raporu” Komisyonu Adalet ve Teklifi Kanun Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Salahiyet ve Vazife Polis Milletvekilinin; 3 ve Uzun Selami Milletvekili Sivas “TBMM See 95 To prevent this authority from turning into turning into from To thisauthority prevent 94 . . (2007, 97 96 over the population at large, at population the over attitude moralistic organization its to likewise extend police the dominates which sub-culture conservative the allowed order.” has regulation society’s This of perspective the from attitudes unacceptable and shameful possess who those and manners and morals general behave against who “those by committed actions certain prohibit and prevent to citizenry, the of part the on made appeal or complaint is no there if even authorized, are police the Article, the of paragraph first In the PVSK. of 11 Article to is related regulations legal the with problem Another defined. clearly be should doubt” “reasonable and grounds” “reasonable terms the and restricted be must it domination, and abuse of a means unwarranted attention. unwarranted and thisunwanted of end receiving the on is often community, for instance, (LGBT) transgender gay, lesbian, The and groups. bisexual, social certain harass and stigmatize, marginalize, to police conservative culture, should be removed from the the from removed be culture, should conservative this of grounds the on groups many of criminalization the of likelihood the increase and police the of power discretionary the manners,” extend and which morals general “against as such statements vague

rapport_2012_en.pdf enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/tr_ Report See European Commission. (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey citizens. LGBT for effect discriminatory asimilar have Law and“offenses the Misdemeanor against public morality” and “exhibitionism” regarding TCK of articles the that Commission’s Turkey pointed Report Progress 2012 out insan_haklari_raporu_2008.pdf kaosgl.com/resim/KaosGL/Yayinlar/lgbt_bireylerin_ http://www. from 06.10.2012, Retrieved Individuals]. LGBTT of Rights Human the on [Report Raporu” Hakları İnsan Bireylerin “LGBTT (2008). Platform. Rights LGBTT Science and Society 1960]. Turkey After in Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of Manifestation a as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası 1960 Alt-kültürü: Polis Olarak Tezahürü Bir Stratejilerinin “Devlet (2009). B. Berksoy, See guncel/agun.html. Retrieved from, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/11/23/ . Retrieved 25.09.2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/ from 25.09.2012, . Retrieved TCK, p. 29. p. TCK, 97 To thisproblem, address 96 paving the way for the way for pavingthe the . The European European . The , vol. 114, p. 98-130. 114, , vol. 98 crime. of absence in the even months three monitoring of telecommunications for of a period the allows statements in “preventive” these term the of usage Procedure.” The Criminal of Code the (a), (b) 1, subparagraphs (c) and of 250, paragraph art. under crimes of commission the preventing of purpose above,... for the paragraph the under described duties the of fulfillment the with relation “in permissible that monitoringstatement of telecommunications is further the contains paragraph second security.” The nation,and theorder constitutional general and territory its with State the of integrity indivisible the to relating measures protective and preventive take Police… “The reads article the of paragraph first The thisarticle. by granted authority of use the over oversight of lack is the second the and action, “preventative” as measure the claim to police’s isability the these of one unchecked; render unlimited the authorization and article in the However, factors invalid. two legally be to is held article in the stated procedures and principles the violates that telecommunications of monitoring Any measure. the to for resorting justification with along information personal state must writ the ajudge, by that and decreed be must monitor to permission that stipulating applied, be to procedures the defines clearly article The society. of domination and control police enable further which regulations the monitoring of telecommunications, contains addresses that PVSK the 7of Article additional The molestation. as such persons other of rights the violates question in behavior the in which cases to limited be should intervene to police the of authority the and article determined by law that one representative from MIT, the MIT, the from representative one that law by determined It was request. upon courts the and prosecutors as well as units gendarmerie and police intelligence, the with recorded and identified information the share to obliged recording of telecommunication from one center. TIB is and wiretapping the execute to established was Presidency ( the PVSK Telecommunications in 2005, Communication to made amendment the with that noted be also It should Telekominikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı, Telekominikasyon 98 Since the Since the TIB) TIB) 99 Democratic Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac in issue this regarding ascandal narrated Aksoy happened. in fact has which Turkey of tapped, whole be can the that fact is the thisarticle of conclusion logical the committed, acrime of detection the is not concern activities, it has been decided through the letter No. No. letter the through decided been has it activities, bombing in used be to bombs activating in used are phones GSM because especially and activities, of stages election and decipher the planning and preparatory connection with the presidential and parliamentary in out carried be may that incidents provocative prevent to undergoing, is country the that process democratic the and people the of property and life the order, public and enforcement law its state, the of security indivisible unity, constitutional order and general the disrupt to aim that organizations terrorist of strategies the advance in establish to order ‘In follows: as was Court Criminal High 11th the by decision “The (p:179-180): quoted was 25.04.2007 dated court criminal high the of 2007/2084 No. verdict printed the article, same the of footnote 47th the in Additionally, p. 180. Oversight and Democratic (eds.), Almanacİnsel Turkey 2006-2008: Security Sector A. Bayramoğlu, A. In “Gendarmerie.” (2010). M. Aksoy, permanently violating the right to privacy. to right the violating permanently and fully routine, become had practice this that 2007, and in November made been also had decision asimilar 2007, that 25, –April 26 January period the for made been previously 2007, had 25, – July 25 April period the for Court the by made decision the that clear It became Security. of Directorate General the of Department Intelligence the to delivered and obtained be to were TIB) Başkanlığı, İletişim ( Directorate Telecommunications telecommunications throughout Turkey from the of means by made communication of details all that ruled had Ankara of Court Criminal High 11th the that revealed It was place. took ascandal as described be to come could that adevelopment 2008 In June Publications, p. 20. TESEV Turkey.” in Press Istanbul: the of Freedom and Media Independent on Constraints Economic and Legal Political, The Power: of Wheels the in “Caught (2012). C. Sözeri D. and Kurban, See Ministers.) of Council the by appointed members seven of selection the in role no has parliament The autonomy. financial and administrative has BTK BTK]. Kurumu, İletişim ve Teknolojileri [Bilgi Information and Communication Technologies Authority the in is (TIB institution. the in be will Command General Gendarmerie the and Security of Directorate General : . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: Telekomünikasyon 99

35 36 “potential criminals.” of the thestatus whole to society regulation, that reduces anotherproblematic contains 5of the PVSK Article 100 body which is independent of the executive branch. executive the of is independent which body a by conducted be can oversight that so established, be should parliament in the investigation of commission hoc ad an least, very At the this authority. misuse of the against guarantee asufficient constitute not does branch executive the and institution ministry.” However, the relevant within the oversight by appointed inspectors and Security of Directorate superiors, by the General hierarchical inspected be shall thisarticle of framework the within “activities of oversight that states Article the of paragraph ninth the oversight, of problem the to regard With

House of the Parliament of Norway, Oslo, p. 77-87. p. 77-87. Oslo, Norway, of Parliament the of House ofOversight Intelligence Agencies.” Oslo: Publishing for Practice Best and Standards Legal Accountable: Intelligence “Making (2005). I. Leigh, and H. Born, see, For of the intelligence-gathering standards processes added). (emphasis court” relevant the by 2007, 25, April dated 2007/2084, No. verdict Printed months…’ Telecommunications Directorate for the three next the from on-line obtained be will information fax DATA and over cable communications of records detailed that 5397, No. Law with accordance in decided, […] been It has details of recording the for request the accept to decided been has it out, carry to about be may they that action of prevention the and militants of organizations, of terrorist the apprehensionsurveillance the for individuals, against evidence constitute not will that away in agencies, intelligence by exclusively used be can they that so recorded be to details all for obligatory is the As organizations. conclusion has been reached that it these for success in result will area this in inefficiency that and made be recordings detailed and interceptions surveillance, technical that important is it successful, be is clear that for operationsagainst these organizations to it and possible whenever them realize and plans out carry continuously activities organizations conducting terrorist illegal that understood It is possible. as soon as examined electronically be should and Directorate should be obtained calls, foreign including months, three next the for records detailed No. 5397, that Law via amended No. 2559, Law 7 on Article Additional with line in 2007, 25, April dated 88854, on-line from on-line the Telecommunication 100 data of individuals. of data any of recording indiscriminate and comprehensive prohibits which Rights, Human on Convention European the 8of Article as well as privacy to individual’s the right violates clearly regulation This system. data the into them enter and volunteers the except article in the indicated people those all of photographs the take to authority the police the gives Moreover, article the fingerprints. of recording for the adefendant nor asuspect considered have be not to do individuals thisarticle, to According detained.” are d) foundnecessary, if country the entering a foreigner as or Turkishacquiring for asylum citizenship, apply d) for apply d) officer, security private or agency policing specialized or general officer, apolice as all of c)first employed are passport, substituting document or passport licence, driver’s licence, firearms a b) receive to a) volunteers, who apply are those of fingerprints the collect can police “The reads: article The criminals.” “potential of status the to society whole the reduce which provisions namely regulation, problematic another contains PVSK the 5of Article 101 Department and Department of Intelligence. Ertan Ertan Intelligence. of Department and Department Operations Special the of functions the defining regulations the access to possible is not it that of theunits organization arekept such confidential, the of some of regulations the is that problem Another photographs. and fingerprints record to forced be shecan or he before acrime of accused be individual an that requires it away that in such amended be

30566/04. Kingdom v. United the Marper S. and (2008) (ECtHR) Rights Human of Court European See interests.” private and public competing the between balance afair strike to “failed indiscriminately”; and awide-range in data personal of retention “The decision: the in used were statements following The “suspects.” as defined invididuals of information DNA and fingerprints the record to able was Kingdom United the decision, the of date the At individuals. of privacy the for respect ensure to amended be legislation the that and life private the of privacy the of principle the violate profiles, DNA and fingerprints including UK, the in databases that ruled decision The 2008. December 4 on Rights Human of Court European the of decision England” Against Marple and “S. the by proven was This 101 Therefore, this regulation should should thisregulation Therefore, , No: 30562/04 and and 30562/04 , No: 104 103 102 “Top Secret,” as classified are Operations Special Police the of regulations the Oversight Democratic and Sector 2005: Security Turkey in Almanac Operation” Special of Department “The entitled in his article Beşe, the Public Prosecutor. Public the of orders judicial the to in compliance investigated be might they that so incidents the of prosecutor public the notify to required were police the Instead, reports. in their crime the defining from prohibited were police the in 2005, power into came Procedure Criminal of Code new the When 2005. until this authority of basis the on process judicial the direct legally and fezleke, as known reports police in the acrime define to authority the granted was police the Procedure, Criminal of Code former the of 156 Article to According attention. requires likewise judiciary and police the between relationship The inspection. public to open be should police the to related regulations all thissituation, ameliorate To operate. can police the in which space autonomous up opening an and public the to accessible not process. judicial the dominate to continues reports) of (law fezleke as hukuku to referred been has such, what As indictments. of contents the determine continuing to and amendments legal these by abiding not police the to regard with raised been has criticism of deal A great

on Students]. Arrested Report [The Raporu Öğrenciler Tutuklu (2012). Students]. Arrested for Initiative [Solidarity İnsiyatifi Dayanışma Birikim Network’]. Sticky and -‘Flexible Police the and Regime Judicial Exceptional Kozağaçlı: Selcuk Association Lawyers Contemporary the of President the with Interview [An Ağ’” Bir Yapışkan ve Polis-‘Elastik ve Rejimi Yargı Olağanüstü Söyleşi: ile Kozağaçlı Selçuk Başkanı Genel Derneği Hukukçular T. “Çağdaş (2012). Bora, 25832, 1 June 2005, Article 6. Article 2005, 1June 25832, No. Gazette]. Official Police, Judicial the of [Regulation Yönetmeliği” “Adli Kolluk (2005). Gazette. Official See 119. p. Oversight and Democratic Sector Security 2005: Turkey (ed.), Cizre Almanac Ümit In Operation.” Special of Department “The (2006). E. Beşe, 104 One step that can be taken to ameliorate ameliorate to taken be can that step One , 273, p. 31; Tutuklu Öğrencilerle Öğrencilerle Tutuklu p. 31; , 273, 103 Retrieved 23.09.2012, from bianet. Retrieved 23.09.2012,

allowing the police to easily easily to police the allowing . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: 102 meaning that they are are they that meaning , has pointed out that that out pointed , has

reports) dominate to the judicial process. continues (law hukuku” of “fezleke as to referred such, been what has As indictments. of contents the determine to continuing and not amendments abidingpolice by legal these the withto raised regard been of criticism deal has A great Security. of Directorate General the and Interior the of Ministry the of reactions the to due annulled have sincebeen amendments these in 2005, in thisdirection taken were steps some that fact the Despite implement. they strategies the and power centers bureaucratic and political the from police for the isolation relative bring also would amendment The organization. police in the superiors their with than rather prosecutors the with obtained information the share will police the and police’s superiors the become will prosecutors police”, “judicial for establishing amendment this of aresult as because thisstep take to It is important Justice. of Ministry the to responsible investigations) conducting with tasked officers (those police” “judicial the make is to situation the fezleke hukuku to enforce this amendment in order to eliminate 106 105

tutulmasi_saptirma_carpitma-1078779 www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/cengiz_candar/akil_ Distortion].Deflection, Radikal Reason, of Abdication [The Çarpıtma” Saptırma, docx org/files/doc_files/../TÖDİ_tutuklu_öğrenciler_raporu. Bora, T. (ibid.), p. 31, 32. T. p. 31, (ibid.), Bora, tr/haber.php?haberno=134660. Judicial Police] the in back [A step adım” geri “‘Adlikolluk’ta Nov. 18). (2004, Radikal. abandoned. was law the in provision this of inclusion the Security, of Directorate the of opposition the and government the within opinion of differences of account on However, added. be to was purposes” task for Justice of Ministry the to attached and found is Office the Chief PublicProsecutor’s where in places purposes regulatory for Interior of Ministry the to attached autonomous judicial police unit which is is established “an provision the 2005, in force into came which 5271, No. Act Procedure Criminal of preparation the In Çandar, C. (2012, Feb. 15). “Akıl Tutulması, Tutulması, “Akıl 15). Feb. (2012, C. ; Çandar, 105 However, it can be said that it is essential is essential it that However, said be can it . 106 Retrieved from, http://www.radikal.com. . Retrieved . Retrieved from, http:// from, . Retrieved .

37 38 108 107 post-1980 in the sub-culture police dominant the addressed thisreport of study, author the In another and implementation. interpretation their effects sub-culture police waysin which the also but is exercised, way power in what and whom against determines which strategies of content the only not is it practices; police of part unmediated an be cannot implemented However, strategies organization. the into police the systematically introduced strategies policing on life,depends in everyday crystallize will regulations legal the by granted authority the How P S P violence. police to subject are sentences, lighter carry which theft, as such crimes, for petty detained are who those of many However, that show years. studies five least, of, at sentence aprison carrying crimes committing of suspected are who those to limited further been has lawyer defense acompulsory to right the 2006, in 5560 No. Law by Procedure Criminal of Code the to made amendment the with In addition, possible. hours 24 first the within torture of infliction makes It addressed. be to problem significant is another Law Anti-Terrorism the of 10 in Article custody of hours 24 first during the counsel legal to access of denial The apprehension and detention processes. in violence police of instances in the reduction a to lead well very could custody into brought are they as soon as lawyer defense compulsory olice olice S trategies

Toronto Press, p. 115-137. p. 115-137. Press, Toronto Police the of Politics The (2010). R. Reiner, See values. these to according developed policing the regarding rules non-formal and socialize to order in practices their on reflect servants civil which and forces police the in dominant are which codes social and norms values, dominant as defined be can sub-culture Police turkey1208tuweb.pdf, p. 24. org/sites/default/files/related_material/ http://www.hrw. from 14.11.2012, Turkey.”in Retrieved against Tackling Barriers Accountability Police Violence against Ranks “Closing (2008). Watch. Rights Human See 107 -S Granting all suspects the right to a to right the suspects all Granting ub ociety -C of ulture P R olicing elations , N . Toronto: University of of University . Toronto: ew 108 and

identity other “Sunni than identity Turk”. whilerationality having ethnic/religious an adaptthethat new they to economic cannot the fact line to due who live below the poverty those and trade and unions, leftists political cultures, and identities their of recognition official groups seeking the ethnic-sectarian comprise enemies” “internal positionof the to who reduced Those are apparatus. state the guard whom it must against enemies” “internal creates and social struggles criminalizes dominant sub-culture police The 109 “Sunni Turk”. than other identity havingethnic/religious while an rationality economic new the to adapt cannot they that fact the to due line poverty the below live who those unions, and trade and leftists political cultures, and identities their of recognition official seeking groups ethnic-sectarian the comprise enemies” “internal of position the to reduced are who Those apparatus. state the guard must it whom against enemies” “internal creates and struggles social criminalizes sub-culture police dominant the In thiscontext, state. the of prevalence ensuring the of goal primary the with undertones, militarist and racist of consisting nationalist, conservative considered be could play at discourses main the that out pointed and organization police

Society and Science and Society 1960]. Turkey After in Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of aManifestation as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası Bir Tezahürü Polis Alt-kültürü: 1960 Stratejilerinin Olarak “Devlet (2009). B. Berksoy, See research. the for evaluated were 2005 in force police the of members the with author the by conducted interviews and Security, of Directorate General the by 1995 in published first was which Dergisi Polis of volumes the of number acertain Assistance, Social and Association Officers Police Turkey Retired the by 1980s the in published Polis magazine monthly the of volumes of number A certain 109 , vol. 114, p. 99. p. 99. 114, , vol. 111 criminal impulses. criminal of actualization the facilitate which “opportunities” and in settings intervention on focuses that approach policing anew it with brings rationality This opportunity. the seize they when “criminals” become criminals” “potential that and crimes, commit to individuals cause to sufficient are theory, in selfishness, and greed that suggests further plan The materialized. are they before incidents/crimes prevent to police the expects public the that argues 2013, and 2009 between in action put be to proposed 112 110 individuals. and institutions various with cooperation of systems develop to nature, and deterrent of applications with which is compatible infrastructure information system technology-supported of model anew create to country, the across approach “community policing” the order, public of institutionalize to realm the to policing tostreets, adapt the concept of intelligence-oriented the dominate to is necessary it possible, prevention According to thein plan, order to render such costs. reduce and efficiency and productivity increase to aimed that plan” “strategic a prepare to started institutions public other all with along Security of Directorate General the onwards, thislaw, of 2005 from adoption the Following in 2003. adopted Law Control and Management Financial Public the with began which process -a “risks” of prevention the on based strategies policing “pre-crime” with mid-2000s the towards have combined characteristics sub-cultural These June 2007, also contain traces of this understanding: thisunderstanding: of traces contain June 2007, also 2 on adopted was which PVSK, the amending 5681 No.

General Directorate of Security, ibid. Security, of Directorate General Stratejik_Plani.pdf, p. 15, 16. p. 15, Stratejik_Plani.pdf, gov.tr/indirilendosyalar/emniyet_genel_mudurlugu_ http://www.egm. from 25.09.2012, Retrieved 2009-2013.” Plan “Strategic (2008). Security. of Directorate General It is obvious that the the that It isobvious eliminated... and prevented public order, threats against the protect to necessity the of framework the Within General Directorate of Security, ibid Security, of Directorate General 112 The legal grounds provided for the Law Law for the provided grounds legal The 111 public security must be be must security public 110 This plan, that was was that plan, This , p. 41. , p. 40, 41. , p. 40, potential to do so. do to potential of his/herbasis commission of acrime but of his/her possiblemakes the of not penalization aperson on the the notion of “dangerousness” in which the punitive area What is inis dominant here question position to granted 113 crime and installed have been cameras surveillance MOBESE 2005, after intelligence; of collection the facilitate to in order regulations legal the to made were that additions above-mentioned the follows: as are these of important most The organization. police in the out carried havechanges been structural and legal thisstrategy, with In accordance “dangerousness” of notion the to granted position dominant is the here is in question what Therefore, commission of a crime but of his/her potential to do so. do to potential his/her of but acrime of commission his/her of basis the on not aperson of penalization the possible makes which area punitive the 114

prevention ofprevention threats. of necessity the forth brings developments social and economic to according changes that security of concept The realm… pre-crime in the powers modern and new …[t]he need police re-addressed be also should former the therefore, and prevention crime of field in the adopted regulations basic the to iscomplementary police the of authorities and tasks preventive the determines that legislation gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/yil01/ss1437m.htm Justice Commission Report”, http://www.tbmm. 2/1037: the and MPs 3other and Uzun Selami MP Sivas by TBMM of Powers and Duties Police on Law the on bill “The See Police - ‘Flexible and Sticky Network’]. Birikim Network’]. Sticky and -‘Flexible Police the and Regime Judicial Exceptional Kozağaçlı: Selcuk Association Lawyers President of the Contemporary the with Interview [An Ağ’” Bir Yapışkan ve Polis-‘Elastik ve Rejimi Yargı Olağanüstü Söyleşi: ile Kozağaçlı Selçuk Başkanı Genel Derneği Hukukçular “Çağdaş (2012). Law].Disproportionate Birikim Coercion: Violence, A A Disproportionate Legal and Students against Violence Police on Aydın Oya Lawyer [A Talk with Hukuk” Oransız Şiddet, Oransız Söyleşi: Üzerine Baskılar Hukuki ve Şiddeti Polis Yönelik Öğrencilere Aydın’la T. Oya “Avukat (2011). Bora, See added ). ). 113

, 261, p. 55, 56; Bora, T. Bora, 56; p. 55, , 261, . ( emphasis emphasis , 273, p.35. p.35. , 273, 114 in in

39 40 115 Crimes.” Order Public against Police the of Strategy the of Empowerment and Development for the “Project the under ( Lightning “opportunities,” of Trust ( advantage taking from criminals” “potential deter to and strategies “preventive policing” intelligence-based implement to In order organization.” that of amember being without B.B.][terrorist, organization for an “making of propaganda grounds the on opposition in the for individuals process criminal long a initiate and in particular protests in social intervene to police for the legal it rendered in 2006 Law Anti-Terrorism the 7of Article to made amendments Turkish new the the of and Code 220 Penal Article during thisperiod. forefront the to come them,has with relations good developing by citizens “ideal” from police the to intelligence of flow ensure aconsistent to aims which strategy, “community policing” The “criminalof profiles”. establishment the and country the across place take that incidents the of analyses crime making crimes, of inventory anumerical of construction the accelerated have projects (also2005).These since effect into come have Project” Center Analysis “Crime the and Project” Order “Public the streets; the over “authority” visible more achieve to police the allowing time, in short increased been has officers police of number the Likewise, operation. into put been has uploaded, is POL-NET, information personal all which into called adatabase and prepared; havemaps been everyday life, have been implemented within the the within implemented life,have been everyday in interventions police of frequency the increase

Police Policies of AKP]. Birikim AKP]. of Policies Police The Emergency’: of ‘State a Constant and Force Police the within Axis ‘Security’ the of Manifestations State,’ Security Emergence [‘The Politikaları” Polis AKP’nin Hal’: ‘Olağanüstü Süreklileşen ve Tezahürleri Teşkilatındaki Polis Tekniğinin Yönetim Eksenli ‘Güvenlik’ Çıkışı, Ortaya Devleti’nin “‘Güvenlik (2012). B. Berksoy, see force, police the of transformation strategic and structural the ibid Security, of Directorate General Yıldırım ) Teams were deployed in 2007 ) Teams in 2007 deployed were 115 Performance criteria, which criteria, Performance , 276, p.75-88. p.75-88. , 276, , p. 42. For a review of of a review For , p. 42. and the the and Güven) intervention within the framework of “crime maps” “crime of maps” framework the within intervention police intensive to subject have groups, been activist and dissident politically people, Alevi Roma people, migration, forced of aresult as city the to came who Kurds of mostly consist which neighborhoods, These crimes. order public and terrorism of source the being of accused police, the by blockaded and blacklisted have line been poverty the below living people of Additionally, neighborhoods some area. punitive the to drawn and blacklisted be can a“risk” deemed individuals whereby hand, ameans other the on and “deterrence,” occurs frequently through control establish to committed violence, police where hand, incidents into,one the on turned have protests social sub-culture, police existing the with strategies these of combination the of a result As pacified. being with faced and criminal” “potential a of position the to is reduced individual each In thisway, citizen. every and each of information personal access and record easily to possible it have changes made strategic and structural These units. established recently these through particularly but in general organization 116

Stratejik_Plani.pdf, p. 72-77. Stratejik_Plani.pdf, egm.gov.tr/indirilendosyalar/emniyet_genel_mudurlugu_ http://www. from 25.09.2012, Retrieved 2009-2013.” Plan “Strategic (2008). Security. of Directorate General see, istifhane.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jgk-2010.pdf. Also http:// from 16.09.2012, Retrieved Report]. Annual [2010 Raporu” Faaliyet yılı “2010 (2010). Command. order to earn points, seeGeneral Gendarmerie in techniques policing aggressive to resorting police the of likelihood the increases which system, scoring the For scoring. this on based apromotion receive or position same the in remain and apprehended suspect the of crime alleged the on depending points receive police Birikim Turkey], Neo-liberal in Poverty of Policing the and Crime against [Fight Zaptiyesi” Yoksulluğun Türkiye’de Neo-liberal ve Mücadele “Suçla (2012). Z. Gönen, puanlari-1090827; www.radikal.com.tr/radikal2/polisin_molotof_ Radikal Police]. the of Ratings [Molotov Puanları” Molotof “Polisin 10). June (2012, A. İnsel See (or performance). bonus through circumstances promotions, appointments, etc.) not on their holidays, tickets, concert (gold, motivation material a on dependent be would police the of success the criteria, performance the of application the to According , 273, p. 55. According to this system, the the system, this to According p. 55. , 273, 116 . Retrieved from, http:// from, . Retrieved can be regarded as a case in point. acase as regarded be can strategies should be abolished and the principles of of principles the and abolished be should strategies policing “preventive” and performance-based Authority ( Authority Bureau Services Preventive Beyoğlu in the fire police of aresult as Okey’s murder Festus strategy. policing alegitimate becomes means any by them eliminating a“threat,” of position the to reduced are individuals Since criminalized groups. certain of control police intense to subjection and criminalization to leads government the of policies macro with in accordance “criminal and “crime profiles” of maps” Construction intervention. police intrusive to lead detection, early emphasizing by “elimination threat” of the and “risk on focus their prevention” justify which strategies”, policing “Preventive sub-culture. police the also but police the by implemented being strategies the only not transforming in lies associated violations rights human consequent numerous, the and results such preventing key to The stations. police outside especially continued, has beating as mostly implemented mistreatment and torture while increased, has firearms of police-use of aresult as deaths of number the in thiscontext, organizations, rights human 117 “criminaland profiles.” 118

Society and Science and Society 1960]. Turkey After in Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of aManifestation as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası Bir Tezahürü Polis Alt-kültürü: 1960 Stratejilerinin Olarak “Devlet (2009). B. Berksoy, University; Binghamton Thesis, PhD Unpublished 1990s”, Late the since Turkey in Poor Urban the of Criminalization and Police Order Public Izmir The Crime: of Politics “Neoliberal (2011). Z. Gönen, p. 48-56; (ibid). Z. Gönen, See adalet. org/bianet/biamag/134802-festus-okey-davasi-ve- http://bianet. from, . Retrieved Bianet Justice]. and case Okey [Festus Adalet” ve Davası Okey 17). “Festus Dec. S. Korkmaz, (2011, katiline_4_yil_hapis_cezasi-1072364.; http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/festus_okeyin_ from, Retrieved Okey]. Festus of killer the to Sentence [4-Year Cezası” 4Yıl Hapis Katiline Okey’in “Festus Radikal. See criminals.” among out stand east the from citizens and people “Black that testimony prosecution his in Okey, stated killed who Yıldız, Cengiz Beyoğlu Önleyici Hizmetler Büro Amirliği Büro Hizmetler Önleyici Beyoğlu 117 According to the reports of of reports the to According 118 Therefore, the the Therefore, , vol. 114, p. 98-130. 114, , vol. (2011, Dec. 13). Dec. (2011, ) academic institutions working in the field of human human of field in the working institutions academic of members faculty by or scale, international and national both at havethat recognition organizationsof non-governmental representatives by given be should courses rights Human problem.” a“terror of existence the and “Turkey’s as unique conditions” such police the by voiced frequently excuses contain not does it a way that in such structured be should courses rights in human used discourse the and care, great with selected be should Schools Vocational Police and seminars conferences and in held the Police Academy in In thisvein, training. speakers police from removed be should rhetoric militaristic the legitimizing and state the of perpetuity focusing the on discourses discriminatory and Ethnic nationalist role. significant have aparticularly 1992, since schools in police given have which been courses, rights” “human the and outside police stations. police outside continued, especially has beating mostly as implemented mistreatment and while torture increased, has of firearms of police-use aresult as of deaths the number this context, rights organizations, of in human the reports to According essential. In this respect, police training in general training police In thisrespect, essential. is likewise sub-culture police the Transformation of training. police from excised be should strategies these 119

devoid of intellect and as enemies of the police” (p. 47). (p. police” the of enemies as and intellect of devoid as activists participation, political of form usual the outside as movements mass the sees still view of point dominant the that means approach theoretical this on based police the Today, training disgust. of asense with even and suspicion with masses the approached which time the of rulers’ the of viewpoint power-based and elitist the reflected approach Crowds Bon’s “Le following: Birikim Management’], ‘Crowd or Protests Social for Police the of Training aPsychologist: as [Police Yönetimi’” ‘Kalabalık da ya Eğitimi Olaylar Toplumsal Polisin Polis: olarak Psikolog “Bir (2012). A. Uysal, see movements, mass regarding police the of training the and protests social in police the by to resorted violence the between relationship the For , 273, p.41-47. Uysal wrote the the wrote Uysal p.41-47. , 273, 119

41 42 O I international law: law: international with in accordance is understood “impunity” 120 impunity” of a“policy of may one speak that systemic so become inadequately. has This prosecuted or prosecuted not either are crimes committing of accused officers that fact the to traced be also can police the by committed frequently violence of levels high and rights human of violations Recurring P relationship. the supervisor-officer including organization, in the relationships all shape to extended be should rights human of principles Finally, curriculum. the the of part comprise should Turkey on ECtHR the of decisions and courses, these through overcome be should officers police individual of mindset the in biases discrimination religious and Ethnic violations. rights human justify not does which in away is determined courses these of content the that confidence establish will This rights. for human struggle in the involved are who persons independent by run be should is,courses that the rights; mpunity olice versight

ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about about truth the know to right inalienable the ensure to suffered; injuries the for reparation receive they that ensure to and remedies effective with victims provide to punished; duly and tried prosecuted, are responsibility criminal of suspected those that ensuring by justice, of area in the particularly perpetrators, the of in respect measures appropriate take to violations; investigate to obligations their meet to States by a failure from arises Impunity material/turkey1208tuweb.pdf. from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_ 14.11.2012, Turkey.” in Retrieved Violence Police Tackling against Barriers Accountability against Ranks “Closing (2008). Watch. Rights Human Publications; TESEV Istanbul: Forces.” Security of Violations Turkeyin and Impunity “Overcoming (2011). S. Işık, and M. Atılgan, See V 120 with regard to police infractions, in which in which infractions, police to regard with iolence I , and nadequate , the P olicy of

“permission.” of is the system of impunity policy possible that makes element the first The 657 on State Officials, the permission for the dismissal dismissal for the permission the Officials, State on 657 No. Law of 138 and 137 Moreover, Articles to according officers. police accused the in favor of process judicial the of interruption an enabling violations, rights human of prosecution and for investigation authorization administrative necessitates prosecution the of preference This torture. of crime the define which 95, and 94 Articles on than rather injury”, “intentional defines which TCK, of 86 Article on based cases mistreatment and torture of investigation the out carries below, prosecution discussed the be Moreover, will as in effect. is still incidents these of prosecution and investigation the prevents which permission of system The levels. various at ways and in various committed are misconduct of practices and power of abuse However, violence, police officials. public against initiated cases mistreatment and torture of prosecution and investigation for the sought be not will “permission for prosecution” that law, the to stipulating added was provision further a 4778, No. Law to in 2003 introduced amendments the of aresult As permission. grant should serve they which under institution the of chief administrative highest the duties, their of course in the commit they crimes for the officers public of prosecution for the that stipulates Employees, Public Other and Officials Public of Prosecution the on in 1999, enacted “permission.” of 4483, No. Law system is the impunity of policy the possible makes that element first The 121 nizkor/impu/principles.html. Retrieved 27.09.2012, from http://www.derechos.org/ Impunity, Combat to Action through Rights Human of Set of and Promotion for Principles Updated the Protection 8). Feb. (2005, (UNCHR). Rights Human on Commission ibid, S., Işık, and M. Atılgan, prevent a recurrence of violations. of arecurrence prevent to steps necessary other take to and violations; p. 9. See United Nations Nations United See p. 9. 121 Justice” tackles thisissue. tackles Justice” against “Closing Ranks Watchentitled Rights Human the of report The prosecutors. public judges and of attitudes biased the and proceedings, trial and investigations flawed of comprised are impunity of policy the possible make that factors important Other possible. made be should process prosecution investigation/ during the officer police the of dismissal the and Officials State on 657 No. Law and 4483 No. Law to amendments making by eliminated be should in question permission of system The 122 * impunity. of problem the exacerbate to cases, many proven, in been has prosecution and investigation of process during the posts their hold violations rights human serious of accused officers police the that fact The chiefs. administrative by granted be should prosecution of process in the officials public of records; they do not pursue witness accounts or crime crime or accounts witness pursue not do they records; in detention contradictions investigate or statements their take not do allegations, to subject are who officers interrogate not do still today prosecutors cases, in many this evaluation, to According prevalent. still are practices these that cases examplary current on based determined Watch Rights Human The investigation. of lines meaningful any pursue to areluctance been had there examinations medical and and conducted hadbeen forensic flawed foundthat they prosecutions; in the sought witnesses or evidence no with inadequate, and superficial been have frequently police involving the mistreatment alleged or deaths into investigations that concluded and in 1999 cases 50 investigated Rights Human of Commission European the

Turkey 2012 Progress Report Progress 2012 Turkey forces.the See security European Commission. (2012). by violations rights human for impunity of policy the of European Commission drew to attention the continuation the of Report Progress Turkey 2012 turkey1208tuweb.pdf. org/sites/default/files/related_material/ http://www.hrw. from 14.11.2012, Turkey.”in Retrieved against Tackling Barriers Accountability Police Violence against Ranks “Closing (2008). Watch. Rights Human Atılgan, M. and Işık, S. ibid S. Işık, and M. Atılgan, 122 . p. 19. According to the report, report, the to According *

recognized by the courts. Lastly, amendments should should amendments Lastly, courts. the by recognized should be independent reports medical cases, torture In officials.” “resisting public with them charging arbitrarily by victims intimidating from officers police (b) and prevent that officers police the on penalties lowest the impose to able not are prosecutors ensure(a) that regulations that legal commenced; consequent criminal prosecutions should be and detected be should prosecutions of procedures flawed law; the of extent fullest the to pursued be should prosecutions and investigations both follows: as are priority highest of measures the facts, these of prosecutors. of public and judges attitudes the and biased proceedings, investigations trial and of flawed comprised are impunity thatpossible make factors of the policy important Other viewing all the evidence. the all viewing before mistrial declare judges often and professionals, medical qualified appropriately by examined are detainees in whether interest no show they TCK; new the of 265 in Article aduty” out carrying from them prevent to official apublic against threats “using of or grounds the on violence incidents of victims against cases or lawsuits initiate prosecutors investigating, properly of Instead complaints. or mistreatment of signs visible disregard and manner, in atimely witnesses or victims of statements get the to fail they forensicevidence, scene 124 123 sentence. asuspended of possibility the and sentence prison a1.5 year of penalty lower the carries and injury” “intentional specifies which 86 Article in favor of cases in torture 94 Article apply to not may choose prosecutors example, For investigation. out carry to permission require and possible penalty lowest the carry which TCK) the of 256 95, 94, Articles (not crimes minor preferring relatively with officers police accused charge often prosecutors In addition,

Human Rights Watch, ibid., 14-15. p. Watch, Rights Human 27. ibid., p. Watch, Rights Human 123 124 In light In light

43 44 rights, which we can make use of to further clarify the the clarify further to of use make we can which rights, human of promotion and protection in the effective are institutions such sure that make to Principles” “Paris term umbrella the under norms various developed has UN The above. discussed practices institution to counter the powerful sufficiently and independent is an is required What practices. policing of oversight inadequate clearly is very units rights human many Although organization. police the regarding mechanism oversight effective an of lack 126 125 mistreatment. and torture of for crimes retrospectively limitations of statute the TCKrepeal to the of 66 Article to made be

tr/pdf/kutuphane/107_1293624912_2008-01-01.pdf http://e-kutuphane.ihop.org. from 27.09.2012, Retrieved Turkey]. in Rights Human of Institutionalization İnsan Haklarında Kurumsallaş(ama)ma” [(Un) yapilanma_tablo.pdf 27.09.2012, from http://www.ihop.org.tr/dosya/uihk/ Turkey]. in Retrieved Rights Human of Structure Administrative [The Yapılanması” İdari Hakları İnsan “Türkiye’de (2008). K. Altıparmak see, Councils, these Investigation Center. and Assessment For information on Houses, the Human Violations Gendarmerie Rights Education, Monitoring Boards on Prisons and Detention Rights Human of Committee National the Review Claims Infringement Rights Human for Committee Board, Advisory Rights Human The Rights, Human for Council Supreme Boards, Rights Human Sub-provincial and Provincial Commission, Investigation Rights Human These institutions are follows: as The Parliamentary retroactively or not is of great importance. great of is not or retroactively lifted be will limitations of statute the whether regard, this In problem. the solve to insufficient quite be will it peak, their at Turkey in were officers enforcement law by committed violations rights human the when time the 1990s, and 1980s the cover not does alaw such of problem of impunity. However, since the implementation the against fight the for step important avery be will Ofcourse,enforcement this bill, officers. draft if enacted, law by commited mistreatment and torture of crimes the for implemented be not will limitations of statute the that means law draft the of enactment the words, other In violations. rights human regarding torture of crime the for limitations of statute the of elimination the stipulates and limitations of statute the addresses law draft This 7, 2013. March on Parliament the to submitted was Package,” Reform Judicial Fourth “The as known Laws,” Certain of Amendment the on Law the and Rights Human of Context the in Expression of “Freedom law draft the of preparation the publicationThe of this report. in place took that development important an was There 126 alreadyexist within the administration, there 125 Another immediate concern is the is the concern immediate Another ; Altıparmak, K. (2008). “Türkiye’de “Türkiye’de (2008). K. ; Altıparmak, .. requirement of independence. the Watch, fulfilling for not Rights Human and IHD, the TIHV, as such organizations rights human by inception sinceits criticized been has Institution” “Turkey’s Rights Human established newly The Principles. Paris UN the by defined as independence full of requirement the meet not do they that indicates present already institutions the of analysis issues falling within its jurisdiction. its within falling issues for evaluating necessary documents and information any request to have authority the also It should prosecution. and investigation any of subject the itself issue jurisdiction under freely being without and its any scrutinize to authority the including text, legal a by defined authority have abroad rights, human of protection and promotion for the accountable and of in charge be structure, membership pluralistic have should a they funding, and membership both of such institutions should fully be independent in terms Principles, Paris the to According oversight. sufficient provide to institution for an attributes necessary 128 127 particular, the independence and pluralism of the the of pluralism and independence the particular, determining in the members order to ensure, in of process the of importance the to attention drawn

paris_ilkeleri.pdf 27.09.2012, from http://www.ihop.org.tr/dosya/uihk/ Retrieved 48/134. No. Rights.” Human of Protection Dec. 20). “National Institutions for the Promotion and See United Resolution Nations Assembly General (1993, 28.09.2012, from28.09.2012, http://www.hrw.org/es/node/108118. Retrieved Institution.” Rights Human the Regarding Plan Erroneous the up Give (2012)“Turkey: Watch www.tihv.org.tr/index.php?oba_20100114 http:// from 28.09.2012, Retrieved days.” Turkey recent in of Council Rights Human the on Law Draft about opinion public the in impressions wrong create to attempts the regarding Institutions Rights Human the of disclosure Turkey (2011) “Mandatory International Turkey -Amnesty of Foundation Rights Human Peoples Oppressed for Solidarity and Rights Human for -Association Association Aekilmelidir,; Citizens’ Helsinki - Assembly Human Rights KurulmasAEna-Dair-Kanun-TasarAEsAEaE-Derhal-Geri- tr/index.php?aEoeTArkiye-AEnsan-HaklarAE-Kurumu- from http://tihv.org.immediately!]. Retrieved 28.09.2012, withdrawn be must Turkey’ of Council Rights Human the Çekilmelidir!” Law on Draft of the [‘The Establishment Geri Derhal Tasarısı’ Kanun Dair Kurulmasına Kurumu Hakları İnsan “’Türkiye Turkey]. (2009). of Foundation Rights V[Human Hakları İnsan Türkiye See . 128 These criticisms have criticisms These 127 Unsurprisingly, Unsurprisingly, ,; Human Rights Rights Human ,; the independence of the institution. of in terms Principles Paris UN the with incompatible for Turkey, is law the that emphasized also which Commission European the of Report Progress 2012 the “Turkey’s Human Rights Institution” to function as an an as function to Institution” “Turkey’s Rights Human 131 130 129 guaranteed. sufficiently not also was institution the of autonomy financial the that out pointed and membership of election their the criticismof reiterated organizations both rights human adopted, was law the After Associations. Bar of heads Council ( Council of Ministers, one by the Higher Education the by seven President, the by appointed be to are members 5/4 two 6332, No. Law of Article to According June 2012. 21 on enacted law draft in the introduced ensure the institution’s independence were not to amendments necessary the criticism, the all Despite institution’s independence. ensure the to insufficient was law the of preparation during the organizations various of opinions for the request government’s the Significantly, in jeopardy. institution an of independence the puts bodies executive the by members the of election the that emphasized have and further institution, national appointing entities for the maintenance of their position. position. their of maintenance for the entities appointing rendering the institution dependentof the on each bodies, executive by appointed be will members

documents/2012/package/tr_rapport_2012_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_ Report Progress 2012 Turkey Seeestablished. the European Commission. (2012). be to yet are Torture against Convention the to Protocol Optional the under established be to have which bodies reminds also thatThe report independent supervisory haklar-kurumu&Itemid=46. uezerine-ortak-basn-acklamas&catid=36:ulusal-nsan- e&id=585:tuerkiye-nsan-haklar-kurumu-kanunu-tasars- ihop.org.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl http://www. from 28.09.2012, Retrieved Statement.” “Joint (2012). Turkey Branch International - Amnesty Turkey of Foundation Rights Human Peoples Oppressed for Solidarity and Rights Human for - Association Citizens’Helsinki - Assembly Human Association Rights 28339, 30 June 2012 June 30 28339, No. Act]. Institution Rights Human [Turkey’s Kanunu” Kurumu Hakları İnsan “Türkiye (2012). Gazette. Official YÖK), and one by the the by one and YÖK), Kurulu, Öğretim Yüksek . 130 129 Further criticism came from criticism came Further Thus, ten of the eleven eleven the of ten Thus, . Retrieved 25.09.2012, from from 25.09.2012, . Retrieved 131 In order for , p. 19. an institution in jeopardy. institution an by of theputs executive the independence bodies members of the that the election emphasized haveand further of pluralism and the nationalthe independence institution, in particular, in ensure, order to the members determining of of the process drawn the importance to has attention criticism of independence.The the requirement fulfilling since its inception for not criticized been Institution” has “Turkey’s newlyThe established Rights Human attitudes or behavior of law enforcement officials officials enforcement law of behavior or attitudes offenses, the regarding complaints and notifications of Commission the to submission principles; these of implementation for effective authorities competent the to recommendations making agencies; in policing principles ethical of implementation the monitoring authority; its under issues the regarding suggestions and comments evaluations, containing reports annual preparing action; disciplinary by punishable behavior or attitude offenses, their against by of the members policingcommitted agencies or allegedly crimes to in response proceedings disciplinary to launch competent authorities requesting Ministry; the to recommendations related making and system complaints policing the include: laying downthe general concerning principles law for the draft the 4of in Article listed commission the of tasks The program. EU pre-accession the of context in the established is being institution This CGC. and GCG Security, of Directorate General the of personnel policing the by committed violations rights human of complaints investigate and receive to established being of process is in the which institution is another Commission” Oversight “Police The respects. in all transparent and open be should process The state. the of institution an by appointed be should members elected the and body executive the of independent people of consisting aunit by out carried be should members of election the rights, human of protection for the standards international the with in line institution effective

45 46 accountability. with and the principles ofaccordance transparency bepossible in must of Security Directorate General of audit the budget an of the Like other in institutions, all inadequate. isFinancial also auditing force of the police 132 the of initiative the under completely functions it way that as in such is structured institution the framework, current the Within association. bar the of president be to qualified lawyers employed self- from Justice of Ministry the by proposed b) and candidates law three procedure criminal and law criminal of branches in the positions holding members faculty among from Interior the of Ministery the by proposed be to a) candidates three sets: two the of each from Ministers of Council the by selected be to candidate one Justice, of Ministry in the Affairs Penal of Directorate Advisor, Legal General the First Interior, the of Ministry the Ministry in the Inspection Hakları Başkanlığı ( Presidency Rights Human Ministry Prime Commission), of the of President the Chairman (the Interior the of Ministry the of Undersecretary the of law, is composed Commission the draft the 3of Interior. the Article of to According Ministry the within established is being institution The discipline. general the of provisions the with in accordance thisrequest, on action take to expected be will Board the of Presidency the Inspection; of Board Directorate Interior the of Ministry the by days receipt of 30 within proceedings disciplinary to launch competent authorities requesting initiative, own its on Commission the by foundout being acomplaint or notification a of in case or action, disciplinary by punishable

0584.pdf. September http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/1/1- 2012. to the Enforcement Commission Oversight Law]. 28 Preamble and Draft [The Gerekçesi” ve Tasarısı Kanunu Komisyonu Gözetim (2012).“Kolluk Ministry Prime of Office Regulations, and Laws of Directorate General See ), the Chairman of the Board of of Board the of Chairman ), the 132 Başbakanlık İnsan İnsan Başbakanlık them. of portion disclosing any without public fund,” made be “discretionary should the to related ones the including prepared, reports the transparency, inspections Auditors should authorized topropriety be conduct of Court the amendments, these With above. in detail inamended order to eliminate the problems discussed be should regulations its and Auditors of Court the on Law The accountability. and transparency of principles the with in accordance possible be must Security of Directorate General the of budget the of audit an institutions, other Like in all inadequate. is force also police the of auditing Finally, financial binding. be should decisions its and unimpeded, prisons and unannounced centers detention and visit to have authority should the also institution autonomy. The have should financial institution the and position of have guarantee should the members further, violated; have been freedoms and rights whose groups the represent which organizations the of members of consist should all, of Commission, first The Principles. Paris the of principle Pluralism” “Composition of Independence and and Guarantees the with comply not does thiswriting, of time Commission, the at the and UN the by set have been operating institution that for efficiently an standards Commission. the of establishment in the models as taken are Portugal Kingdom and United in the those as Harmonization Commission, similar institutions such EU the by prepared report the to According autonomy.financial and membership crucial the lacks and government 133 faaliyet/donem24/1_584.pdf. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/abuyum/belge/ from 09.28.2012, Retrieved 1/584. No. 11). Apr. (2012 See European TBMM Union Compliance Commission. and in the context of the principle of of principle the of context in the and 133 However, the necessary international international However, necessary the 136 the agency started working in close collaboration. in close working started agency the and government the when 2002 after until MIT the of system operational in the place take didnot changes significant Kılıç, to according in 1992, appointed was 1990s. the of beginning the until MIT ran army the that is argued it organization, the on made studies In the institutions. accountable agencies and more transparent intelligence other and MIT the make to necessary amendments structural and legal primary the address 135 134 and arena wide extremely in an operates MIT The it. on conducted studies the of scarcity the by indicated as transparent, being from is far agency The 1983. 2937,No. 1November dated Law of adoption the with established was structure current coup, agency’s the September 12 the Following July 1965. 22 on effect into put was which 644 No. Law under Service, Security National predecessor, the its Teşkilatı Intelligence National ( The Agency IntelligenceAgencies Other and Intelligence Agency National The

Kılıç, E., ibid., E., 245. p. Kılıç, Ünlü, F., ibid, p. 161-163, p. 244 -245. p. 244 F.,Ünlü, p. 161-163, ibid, Yayınları. Milliyet Istanbul: MIT]. History Service [A Secret MIT” Publications MİT Ankara: 1927-1965]. Services Security National Intelligence the leadership of the History: Organization National [The 1927-1965 MEH-MAH, Riyaseti Hizmetleri Emniyet Milli Tarihçesi: Teşkilatı İstihbarat Milli (2002). E. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac (eds.), Insel A. Bayramoglu, A. In Agency.” Intelligence National “The (2010). E. Kılıç, p. 158-171; Publications, Oversight and Democratic Sector (ed.), Ü. In Cizre Almanac Turkey 2005:Service.” Security For example, see, Ünlü, F. (2006). “National Intelligence 135 While the first civilian secretary of the MIT MIT the of secretary civilian first the While , MIT) was established as a replacement for areplacement as established was , MIT) . Istanbul: TESEV Publications, p. 243-250; İlter, p. 243-250; Publications, TESEV . Istanbul: ; Özkan, T. (1996). “Bir Gizli Servisin Tarihi: Tarihi: Servisin Gizli “Bir T.; Özkan, (1996). 134 This chapter will will chapter This , Istanbul: TESEV TESEV , Istanbul: Milli İstihbarat İstihbarat Milli 136

the scarcity of the studies conducted on it. conducted of the studies the scarcity by indicated is transparent, being as from far agency The Article 4, include: include: 4, Article in vaguely defined are which Agency. duties, Its the Establishment of the National Intelligence and Services Intelligence State the on 2937 No. Law with in accordance authority extensive an exercises features of the state referred to in Article 2 of the the 2of in Article to referred state the of features fundamental the against threat aserious of in case MIT the of Undersecretary Deputy or Undersecretary order of the upon the written detrimental, judge’s permission or, is when postponement a with [and] recorded intercepted detected, be can and record telecommunications: “Telecommunications intercept detect, to MIT’s authority 6defines Article of 3 Paragraph authority. their over-reach MIT the should recourse legal people the allow to explicitly defined Turkey,” of Republic be should phrases these and of the that the national constitute strength elements the existence,target independence, security, all and to out carried “activities constitutes what It clear is not intelligence activities. counter- out carry to institutions,... relevant the to and Council Security National the of General Minister, Secretary Prime the the President, the to intelligence this deliver to and strength national its that constitute order elements all and Constitutional national, existence, independence, security, its its and territory Turkey of its Republic the with of integrity indivisible the targeting of intention the with country the outside in or out carried activities throughout the State on immediate potential and …to intelligence procure national security

47 48 crisis that broke out early in February 2012.crisis in that February broke out early evident with became the of oversightdegree is insufficient the disposal of the Prime which this to Minister. extent The is and at out its own through boards inspection internal oversightCurrent only of the becarried organization can 138 137 and is at the disposal of the Prime Minister. Prime the of disposal isthe at and boards inspection internal own its through out carried be only can organization the of oversight Current violations. rights human of prevention ensurethe to organization the of oversight democratic requires mandate broad This organization. the of power discretionary the extends and clarity no carries likewise law” of rule democratic the and Constitution the 2 of in Article to referred state the of features fundamental the against threat aserious of case “in statement The activities.” terrorist preventing and secrets State of disclosure the detecting spying activities, revealing State, the of security ensuring the of aim the with law of rule democratic the and Constitution Directorate including senior officials. senior including Directorate Security Istanbul in the officials many reassigning dismissing and or investigation, the of prosecutor the Sarıkaya, dismissing Sadrettin intervened, government the MIT. afterwards, Immediately the to in advance delivered was PKK the of activities allegations that the intelligence of some of the of grounds the on Office Prosecutor’s Public Chief Istanbul the by out Kurdistan, carried KCK), ( Union Kurdish the Communities of investigation in the testify to suspects as summoned four and were of the members MIT Undersecretary the 2012, 7February, On 2012. February in early out broke that crisis the with evident became is insufficient oversight of thisdegree which to extent

istihbarat_orgutlerinin_demokratik_denetimi-1079635 http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/murat_yetkin/ Intelligence Organizations]. Radikal Demokratik Denetimi” [Democratic Oversight of the Örgütlerinin “İstihbarat 23). Feb. (2012, M. Yetkin, Radikal. (2012, Feb. 11). “Savcı Sarıkaya soruşturmadan soruşturmadan Sarıkaya “Savcı 11). Feb. (2012, . Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved Koma Civakên Civakên Koma 138 137 The The . 139 Minister does not grant permission to prosecute. to permission grant not does Minister Prime the in case Minister Prime the by appointed officials and members, MIT to grants CMK, the of 250 Article 1of in Article defined crimes the of terms in official any to granted is not which exemption, the Article, the of section Similarly, last the task. aspecific fulfill to Minister Prime the by appointed officials public to members MIT to granted impunity the Minister.” extends amendment new The Prime the of permission the requires no. 5271, Law of 250 Article 1of paragraph with in accordance courts criminal high of mandate the under fall that crimes of allegations to due or duty their of conduct during the committed have to been alleged are that or duty their of nature the from derived crimes to due duty aspecific perform to Minister Prime the by assigned official public any or member MIT an of “Investigation as: 2012 February, 17 dated 6278, No. Law by amended was Law the of 26 Article terminated. was investigation the and amended speedily was Agency Intelligence National The and Services Intelligence State the on 2937 No. Law of 26 Article a solution to Turkey’s to a solution Kurdish Question. find to attempts government’s the hamper to judiciary the by interference apolitical as regarded been also however, time has same decision prosecution’s the At the oversight. from free MIT leaves that framework legal the reinforced amendment the a result, 140

documents/2012/package/tr_rapport_2012_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_from tr/turkiye/savci_sarikaya_sorusturmadan_alindi-1078437. investigation]. Retrieved from, http://www.radikal.com. the from removed was Sarıkaya [Prosecutor alındı” Turkey 2012 Progress Report (2012). Progress 2012 Turkey and excludes legal oversight. See European Commission. interpretations inconsistent to open is it that warned and servants civil some to immunity arbitrary provides MIT regarding law the to amendment this that out pointed The European Commission’s Turkey Report Progress 2012 Retrieved from, http://www from, Retrieved either]. snow driven the as pure as not is MIT Cemal: [Hasan değil” kaşık ak çıkmış sütten de MİT Cemal: Habertürk carpitma-1078779,; com.tr/yazarlar/cengiz_candar/akil_tutulmasi_saptirma_ Distortion]. Radikal Deflection, Reason, of Abdication [The Çarpıtma” Saptırma, Tutulması, “Akıl 15). Feb. (2012, C. Çandar, See . Retrieved from, http://www.radikal. from, . Retrieved .haberturk.com/polemik/ . (2012, Feb. 14). “Hasan “Hasan 14). Feb. . (2012, . Retrieved 25.09.2012, 25.09.2012, . Retrieved 140 In both In both , p. 13. 139 As As intelligence. of sharing and evaluation collection, involve the tasks whose Security and Order Public of Undersecretariat the to and center asingle from communications to related interventions out carry to established apply to the Telecommunications Authority also they but affiliates, its and Security of Directorate General the of Agency, Department Intelligence Intelligencerequirements applyto the Gendarmerie and principles same the do only Not mechanisms. oversight in these involved be should media the and society civil In addition, established. be should bodies judicial and executive, legislative, the incorporating agencies intelligence of oversight of mechanisms a requirementTherefore, as regime, of a democratic 143 142 141 human rights and the rule of law increases. law of rule the and rights human to running counter activities intelligence of possibility isauthority, combinedoperation the increased with of mode by Aytar, when this confidentiality-based stated As confidentiality. on heavily based operation of have modes institutions such that established have agencies intelligence on conducted Studies abuse. of possibility minimize the and negate or ensure transparency to mechanisms accountability establish to and duty of descriptions and regulations legal MIT-related the make itto experiences reconsider crucial these cases, political opposition,political unfavorable and dangerous.” the against used be not should which activities, intelligence make might obtained information the of abuse of possibility “the that states further

Aytar, V.Aytar, ibid. V.Aytar, ibid. p. Publications, 13. TESEV Istanbul: for Practice of Oversight IntelligenceBest Agencies]. [Making Intelligence Accountable: Legal Standards and Uygulamalar İyi En ve Standartlar Hukuki Gözetiminde Teşkilatlarının İstihbarat Getirmek: Hale Verebilir Hesap (eds.), İstihbaratı I. Leigh, and H. Born, In Oversight]. Democratic and Services [Intelligence Gözetim” Demokratik ve Servisleri V. “İstihbarat Aytar, (2008). kotu-mu. iyi-de-mite-dokununca- haber/715847-askeredokununca- 143 Seen in this light, the properties of the the of properties the in thislight, Seen p. 14. p. 141 He He 142

organizations, or because of the lawful activities they they activities lawful the of because or organizations, labor or cultural charities, cooperatives, communities, unions, trade bodies, social parties, to belong have or they joined that fact the opinion, to or political or actions belief,private religious race, their of fact the intelligence persons, due about data or solelyto store produce information, may obtain body intelligence following: “No the states Argentina of Act” Intelligence “National the 4of Article of paragraph second the example, For dissidents. political against powers these of abuse the prevent to introduced be should guarantees institutional and Legal movements. opposition in these groups on pressure exert to used be might services intelligence definitions, vague these by Empowered time. any at movements opposition political criminalize to is possible it statements, these on Based upon. mayinfringed be liberties whose groups and individuals to recourse legal provide to interpretation to open and Turkey” broad of too are that constitute the national of strength the Republic elements all and existence, independence, security the target to out carried “activities or State” the of security the protect “to as such statements activities, “potential” unrealized to addition in example, For delineated. clearly be should agencies intelligence and MIT the of mandates the all, of First follows. as are established be to needs which mechanism oversight democratic 144

Parliament of Norway, Oslo. Norway, of Parliament Intelligence Agencies.” Oslo: Publishing House of the of Oversight for Practice Best and Standards Legal Accountable: Intelligence “Making (2005). I. Leigh, and H. Born, See alternatives. these among from chosen are established. The suggested institutional structures here be could which structures institutional the for suggested were alternatives and mechanisms control the in involved be should authorities judicial and legislative executive the that out pointed necessities, as were guarantees legal emphasized study, This Agencies. Intelligence of Oversight for Practice Best and Standards Legal Accountable: Intelligence Making entitled Leigh Ian and Born Hans of work the from compiled are here mentioned mechanism control the of features necessary The 144

49 50 intelligence agencies should beintroduced. agencies intelligence other and the of powers the MIT protecting, than right. human basic In this regard, alaw delimiting, rather a as data should of protection personal beconsidered The violations. these of proceedings judicial and for legal grounds provide would,least, at it agencies, intelligence the of violations possible all impede not would amendment data and contain regulations in this regard. Moreover, in thisregard. regulations contain and data personal of privacy the of protection the on based be should law new the bill, previous the of In place 146 145 data. collect to authorized institutions the of powers the for protecting and properties these including for not criticized heavily was obsolete, become since has and law into pass didnot but in 2008, Parliament the of Presidency the to sent was which Data” Personal of Protection the on “Bill The introduced. be should agencies intelligence other and MIT delimiting, rather than protecting, the powers of the In alaw thisregard, right. human abasic as considered be should data personal of protection The action.” of sphere in any pursue amendments should be carried out in thisrespect. out carried be should amendments legal necessary the such as and gendarmerie, and organization police the within exist currently not does another. distinction one This from distinct be must thisinformation of basis the on operate which those and information analyze that units practices, such of likelihood the reduce to In order punishment. asuitable to attached and law in the forbidden explicitly be should, nevertheless, circumstances any under to resort cannot agencies the which 148 147

Born, H. and Leigh, I., ibid I., Leigh, and H. Born, ibid. p I., Leigh, and H. Born, ifade-ozgurlugu/137186-gazeteciler-ve-kisisel-veriler. ifade-ozgurlugu/137186-gazeteciler-ve-kisisel-veriler. Retrieved from, http://www.bianet.org/bianet/ and Personal Data].Veriler”. [Journalists Bianet Kişisel ve 3). “Gazeteciler F. March İlkiz, See (2012, Oversight. Democratic and Sector Security 2005: Turkey Almanac (ed.), Ü. In Cizre Intelligence.” “Police (2006). B. M. Eryılmaz, 146 Istanbul: TESEV, p. 152. TESEV, Istanbul: In addition, practices such as “torture” “torture” as such practices In addition, , p. 29-33. . 32. 145 Although such an an such Although 147 148

inadequate and in need of replacement. of in need and inadequate data of personal protection the only at of privacy amendment not aimed at the protection an contains data” personal their of protection the request to “Allhave right the in 2010, individuals 20 of the Constitution to Article added the statement 152 151 150 149 the to referred text so.In do the not does Parliament the However, before currently bill defined. the carefully be should secret” “state of definition the To all, of this, do first authorities. judicial and legislative, executive, by out carried be should agencies intelligence other and MIT the of Oversight codes. these adopt to in order issues rights human to regard with training necessary all provided be should staff the and organized be should rights human protect that ethics professional of Acode prosecutions. disciplinary and criminal both from protected be should law the of aviolation report who Employees practices. such of notice give to responsibility the and instructions unlawful execute to refuse to right the granted be should employees lower-level and high-level Both data. personal to relating practices of legality the oversee to in order agencies the from data adequate to access have should in question mechanism established or the independent legally the courts complaints, individual of aresult as initiated proceedings In the be. should they as implemented are regulations these ensure that to in order established be should staff oversight mechanism involving independent external regulating MIT and other intelligence bodies. intelligence other and MIT regulating legislation the of apart be should guarantees Such dissidents. political about information of provision the as such government the of instructions unreasonable with comply to refuse to right the organization the of employees provide to established

Born, H. and Leigh, I., ibid. p I., Leigh, and H. Born, Born, H. and Leigh, I., ibid. p I., Leigh, and H. Born, ibid. p I., Leigh, and H. Born, F.,İlkiz, ibid. 150 151 In addition, guarantees should be be should guarantees In addition, . 68-71. . 46-48. . 43-45. , rendering it 149 An An 152 but but 8 includes the provision “in case information and and information case “in provision the 8 includes 155 154 153 secret. astate as document and information any classify to authority the monopolized has Minister Prime the Minister, Prime the in practice oppose to unwilling generally are ministers Since the State.” the of relations international the or security national the harm could persons, unauthorized by disclosure their of which, in case records and documents information, “classified as defined is secret astate Parliament, the of Assembly General defined. should becarefully secret” “state of definition the all, of first legislative, judicial and authorities. To do this, out by executive, should becarried agencies other intelligence and Oversight of the MIT the Prime Minister. Prime the of chairmanship the under is held and Affairs Foreign and Interior Defense, National Justice, of Ministries the of Board,” consists Review which Secrets “State the to is granted secret astate as document and information any classify to authority The years. 50 of for aperiod such as treated be can secret a state as classified document and information any bill, the to according In addition, secret. astate as information of kind any classify to possible it makes concept, vague extremely an “nationalon security,” is in itself which is based secret” “state of definition the that fact The

Akın, D., ibid. Akın, duzeni/5283 http://t24.com.tr/yazi/20-soruda-yeni-devlet-sirri- from, Retrieved T24. Questions]. 20 in Order Secret’ ‘State New [The Düzeni” Sırrı’ Yeni ‘Devlet Soruda “20 21). May D. (2012, Akın, See records.” and documents Republic theof the quality information, assesses the of President “The provision the includes bill The donem24/yil01/ss287.pdf http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/ from 09.10.2012, Commission and Judicial Commission Reports]. Retrieved State European Secrets, Union Harmonization the Amending Law Draft [The Raporları Komisyonu Adalet ile Komisyonu Uyum Birliği Avrupa ve Tasarısı Kanunu Sırrı Devlet Turkey (TBMM). of Assembly National Grand see Justice, of Commission the by adopted text the For . 154 . 155 In addition, Article In addition, Article 153

such boards’ ability to make reports public, ad hoc hoc ad public, reports make to ability boards’ such impede secrets” “state of law the Should operate. for created intelligencepolicies agencies how and they authorized to scrutinize been Control has Panel In Germany, aParliamentary thistask. undertake that Parliament the within have committees Germany and States, Kingdom, United the United Norway, Canada, Argentina, as such countries, Many duties. their fulfill they how affect would that attitude apartisan developing from agencies intelligence the prevent may help oversight Parliamentary intelligence agencies. the of oversight democratic the to impediment an constitute not does secret” “state of concept the that possible, as far ensureas to documents, all view to able be should parliament the of committees discovered and punished. and discovered be can secret” a“state as information of classification arbitrary the that such secret” a“state be to commission should monitor information determined independent An years. 15 exceed not should secret a state as of information classified confidentiality the and secret astate as classified be not misgovernment should and individuals on information knowledge, scientific environment, the and health public to damage violations, rights human to related information the report, same in the suggested also As restricted. and stated clearly be should areas thislaw, of these scope and in the covered be should damage verifiable and concrete may cause which of disclosure the documents and information the only in(OSCE), Europe Cooperation and for Security Organization the by prepared press the of freedom the on report in the proposed As institutions. state for the review judicial from dangerous exemption is, it provides as bill, The reason.” the provides board the that providing withheld be can they courts, the by requested are secrets state as classified documents 156 sgp/library/osce-access.pdf. survey.” Retrieved 09.10.2012, from http://www.fas.org/ of results the of preliminary recommendations-Summary and trends region: OSCE the in media the by information to “Access 30). (2007, April M. Haraszti, 156 Judges and investigative investigative Judges and

51 52 159 the organizations in question. organizations the of activities the of principles the also but procedures the only not address and regulation legal clear a on based be should examination any of rationale and Further, scope decisions. the compensation as well as organizations such by held materials of disposal the may include orders these complaint; ajustified with those to solution effective an propose and binding orders legally issue to have authority the should court the possible; as far as publicly completed be should process the of part alarge submitted; are complaints which to in courts working those to granted be should security Job noted: be should points However, following area. the judiciary in the oversight to posing achallenge from secrets” “state prevent to established be likewise can courts” “Specialized 158 157 independently monitored. be should government the and parliament their and implementation by theparliament the in discussed published, be should committees compiled by the Recommendations reports and themselves. committees the by or parliament the by elected be should presidents Their parties. political of arange represent should and parliament, the by appointed be should experts) independent are they (even members if their authority, broad and clear with equipped be should committees and commissions Both information. full with them provide can agencies that so in commissions question the to granted be should guarantees Legal situations. conflict in established be should commissions” “investigative institutions (such the Ombudsman as determine the scope of the decision. the of scope the determine to authority have final and the evidence, the and case the review to have authority should the courts terms of judicial processes, employees of the the of employees processes, judicial of terms

Born, H. and Leigh, I, ibid. I, Leigh, and H. Born, ibid. I., Leigh, and H. Born, House of the Parliament of Norway, Oslo, p. 77-87. Oslo, Norway, of Parliament the of House ofOversight Intelligence Agencies.” Oslo: Publishing for Practice Best and Standards Legal Accountable: Intelligence “Making (2005). I. Leigh, and H. Born, 157 p. 112. p. p. 108, 109. p. 108,

158 Non-judicial Non-judicial 159 ) as well as the the as well ) as In addition, in In addition, classification. beingwithout to confidentiality subjected public the with shared be should prepared reports the and institutions in these inspection propriety aconduct to able be should Auditors of Court the accountability, and transparency of principles the of implementation the For Security. and Order Public of Intelligence the Undersecretariat and Agency National the to apply also oversight democratic of apart as audit financial the to related institutions for other requirements above-mentioned The eliminated. be should system” “permission the and amended be should Agency) Intelligence National The and Services Intelligence State the on Law the and Employees Public Other and Officials Public of Prosecution the on (Law MIT the and agencies policing of for employees system” “permission the contains which law the Therefore, “permission system.” the through protection undue with provided be not should agencies intelligence Diyarbakır Deputy Office of Special Authority Authority Special of Office Deputy Diyarbakır the to file the sent Prosecution the 2012, February in non-jurisdiction of decision the Following case. the regarding decision a confidentiality issued Office Prosecutor’s Public Chief Uludere the investigation, the of launch the following Immediately killings. the inquire into to created was Commission Parliamentary a 2012 9January on and investigation, an launched Office Prosecutor’s Public Chief Uludere the massacre, border. the Iraqi Following the near strike air aTurkish by killed were military Roboski of village Turkey Kurdish of citizens the from thirty-four 2011 December 28 On mechanisms. oversight democratic civilian and accountability of limitations the as well as military the of position autonomous relatively the of example striking most the is probably “Uludere”) as (also known massacre Roboski recent The Turkey’s institutions. security that wouldinstitutional amendments democratize or legal of necessity the to attention further draw to seeks report the cases, these of examination abrief Through problems. these of context in the have that occurred violations rights human of cases representative current some on focuses chapter concluding This violations. rights human severe to lead also they democracy; parliamentary of principles the to contrary only not are in question problems the underlined, previously As problems. these orlegal institutional recommendations to address of aseries outlined has and agencies; intelligence other and (MIT) Organization Intelligence National force, the police the military, the of framework the within mechanisms oversight democratic civilian of a and dearth terms of demilitarization, accountability in ongoing the problems detailed has report This Rights of Considering Violations in Democratization in the Area of “Security” In Lieu of aConclusion: The Need for Malatya public prosecutor’s office. However, these office. prosecutor’s public Malatya the to delivered were reports autopsy the that announced Department Communication Staff General in July, of Chief conducted were the and pilots the of Autopsies killed. were pilots two the inSyria which by June 2012 22 on jet reconnaissance Turkish military a of downing is the example striking similarly Another results. conclusive any yielded has Commission the of investigation the nor process judicial the neither in thistime and massacre 160 161 perpetrators. the of identity the provided or speculated that none were there office prosecution the by submitted in May; however, documents the among office from the speciallydocuments authorized prosecutor’s the requested Commission the In response, decision. the Commissionwith due to the confidentiality shared be would documents official no that stated Commission, which the to areport submitted Staff of Chief the In April, personnel. military with conducted were interviews no and Roboski of citizens the from testimonies received only Commission Parliamentary the and Prosecutor Authority Special Diyarbakir the Both crime. organized investigate to authority the with one is the sinceit jurisdiction latter’s the Prosecutor,

roboskide_utancin_ve_piskinligin_kronolojisi-1093796. from, http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/ezgi_basaran/ Newspaper Daily in Roboski]. Radikal Shiftiness and Shame of [Chronology Kronolojisi” Pişkinliğin ve Utancın “Roboski’de 11). Jul. (2012, E. Başaran, 00&year=2012&month=02&day=29. www.birgun.net/actuel_index.php?news_code=13305232 http:// from, Retrieved Process]. into Appeal massacre Uludere the put has [UCM Aldı” İşleme Başvurusunu Birgün . (2012, Feb. 29). “UCM Uludere Katliamı Katliamı Uludere “UCM 29). Feb. . (2012, 160 on the grounds that the issue fell under under fell issue the that grounds the on 161 It has been more than a year since the the since ayear than more been It has . Retrieved . Retrieved

53 54 164 163 to the contrary, rewarded. contrary, the to was, but mechanism accountability any to subjected not people, many of death the to led which incidents for the responsible been had who Force, Air the of in charge person the was only words, not In other 162 judiciary. military the of existence the to due unaccountability of aspace enjoys it and freedoms and rights individual of protection ensure the to measures necessary the take not does military the that fact the to point recruits military among deaths suspicious of number A large for ayear. position in the served had he that grounds the Turkish on the by Forces Honor of Armed Medal awarded the was Mehmet Erten Commander General November, 28 on Force Air 2012, incidents, two these After public. the to unknown is still incident the of account exact the and level international the at officially voiced have been events about statements of contradictory aFurthermore, series press. the to outrage their haveinvolved taken families the and pilots, deceased the of families the with nor public the with shared neither were reports Developments in the investigation into his death are are his into death investigation in the Developments his at post. forehead in the dead found shot was and in 2009 Hozat Dersim, of town mountain rural in the station police military in the time

2221-asker-intihar-etti. http://bianet.org/bianet/insan-haklari/138345-22-yilda- from, Years]. Retrieved 22 in Suicide Committed have Soldiers [2221 Etti” İntihar Asker 2221 Yılda “22 15). May . (2012, Bianet See service.” military for unfit themselves make to “trying while reasons various for lives their lost people 1.602 and years 22 last the in suicide” “committed have people 2,221 2012, May in Parliament the in Yilmaz, Ismet Minister, Defense National the by mentionedAs earlier, according to the made statement niye-basina-yikilmak-istensin.htm. taraf.com.tr/lale-kemal/makale-komutan-sorumluyken- Taraf responsible]. is he as commander the blame [Why istensin?” yıkılmak başına niye sorumluyken “Komutan 11). Dec. (2012, L. Kemal, See siyasetdetay/10.12.2012/1639887/default.htm. tsk-dan-madalya-aciklamasi/siyaset/ Erten]. Retrieved from, http://siyaset.milliyet.com.tr/ General to given Honor of Medal the regarding statement public [TSK açıklama” ilgili madalyasıyla şeref verilen Milliyet. (2012, Dec. 10). “TSK’dan Orgeneral Erten’e Erten’e Orgeneral “TSK’dan 10). Dec. (2012, 164 Murat Oktay Can was serving his serving was Can Oktay Murat 163 . Retrieved from, http://www. from, . Retrieved 162

effort likewise yielded no results, and the family family the and results, no yielded likewise effort this but report, autopsy the prepared that technician the and doctors three the against Office Prosecutor’s Public Chief Elazığ the to complaint acriminal filed family The Court. Administrative Military Supreme the investigation. for aproper in arguing presented family the evidence the of part formed statements these and gunfire; random of aresult as forehead in the shot a soldier of death the regarding statements made he recording In the in 2011. headlines made and revealed was Staff, of Koşaner, Chief Işık former of recording the voice the time, mean In the report. autopsy the and taken pictures the between discrepancies further were there and loaded fully on, was it was lock its as question, in action for the responsible have not been could appealed to the ECtHR because the weapon used and ruling court’s the to However, objected family the institutions. in civilian performed be ballistics and forensicautopsy the that demand the declined also They prosecution. or investigation for further need no was there therefore and asuicide Can’s death Oktay Murat ruled Command Forces Land Malatya of Office Prosecutor’s Military Command Corps 2nd and Office Prosecutor’s Military Command Corps 8th Elazig representative of unaccountability in the army. in the unaccountability of representative 166 165

private in the forehead. We are culpable]. We are forehead. the in private innocent an shooting up We end suit. follow raided, been have they that thinking others, and shooting starts and asilhouette sees soldiers] the [one of soldiers], [over its control have not does team special If the it. say to want not Ido but tongue my of tip the on is [It biziz.” Kabahatli vururuz. diye pat alnından erimizi masum Bir diye. basıldık etmeye, ateş herkes duyan sesi başlar eder, ateş diye tak görür karaltı bir orada olmazsa, sahip mimi timi Böyle istemiyorum. söylemek geliyor ucuna “Dilimin said: Koşaner Işık report, news the to According haber/662478-isik-kosanerden-bomba-itiraflar http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/ from, Retrieved Koşaner!]. Işık from Confessions [Shocking itiraflar!” Habertürk. htm. mi-/gundem/gundemdetay/25.08.2011/1431216/default. com.tr/kosaner-in-soyledigi-asker-murat-oktay-can- http://gundem.milliyet. from, Retrieved Can?]. Oktay Murat Private mean Koşaner [Did mı?” Can Oktay Murat Milliyet . (2011, Aug. 25). “Koşaner’in söylediği asker asker söylediği 25). “Koşaner’in Aug. . (2011, (2011, Aug. 24). “Işık Koşaner’den bomba bomba Koşaner’den “Işık 24). Aug. (2011, 166 However, their appeal was rejected by by rejected was However, appeal their . 165

investigation. toa conduct decided morefinally thorough State of Council the of Department First The resort. 168 “accidental death.” Each instance reveals the military military the reveals instance death.” Each “accidental “death or them suicide” ruling by by courts military the by ignored been has soldiers many of deaths for the responsibility that suspicions on) strong raise 167 VolkanAkıncı Lütfi Metin, (Mustafa ECtHR the of verdicts to subject examples other and This ( State of Council the to turned

pdf www.askerhaklari.com/rapor. from 27.10.2012, Retrieved Duty]. Military during Experienced Rights of Violations Report- Rights Soldier’s [2012 İhlalleri” Hak Yaşanan Sırasında Askerlik Raporu-Zorunlu Hakları “Asker (2012). Initiative]. Rights [Soldier’s Girişimi Hakları Asker com site regarding the suspicious deaths of soldiers, see Askerhaklari. to made applications the For 39125/04. No: v. Turkey Akıncı Yüksel (2012) Halil (ECtHR) Rights Human aihmden-asker-intihari-karari http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2012/12/13/ Decision Regarding the Soldier’s Suicide]. Retrieved from, [ECtHR kararı” intiharı asker 13).“AİHM’den Dec. (2012, investigation”effective about the incident. See Sabah to and life to right the of “a violation of favor in decided ECtHR the and ECtHR the to applied duty, military during suicide committed had claimed Military the who Turkey v. (2011) Metin (ECtHR) Rights Human of Court European haklari/131286-olen-askerin-anne-babasina-tazminat.; from, http://www.bianet.org/bianet/insan- [Compensation to the dead soldier’s Parents]. Retrieved Tazminat” Anne-Babasına Askerin 7). “Ölen Jul. . (2011, Bianet See murdered. was son their that claimed who father, and mother his of favor in ruled and “suicide” of aresult as died he that verdict the accept not did court The out. carried not been not had investigation effective an that decide to ECtHR leading clothing, civilian soldier’s the on bloodstains were there However, burial. for family his to body his delivered and himself hanging by suicide committed he that stated then and drowned he that said first officials Military 2004. in Brigade, Infantry Command Army 1st the Adapazari, in duty military his fulfilling while life his lost Metin Mustafa sevindirdi_334508.html. http://www.dha.com.tr/danistayin-karari- Ajansı Haber Doğan State]. of Council the of Decision the by Pleased Are [We sevindirdi” kararı 2). “Danıştay’ın Jul. Ö. (2012, Öztürk, htm.; mi-/gundem/gundemdetay/25.08.2011/1431216/default. com.tr/kosaner-in-soyledigi-asker-murat-oktay-can- http://gundem.milliyet. from, Retrieved Can?]. Oktay Murat Private mean Koşaner [Did mı?” Can Oktay Murat Milliyet . , No: 26773/05. The family of Lütfi Volkan Akıncı, Akıncı, Volkan Lütfi of family The 26773/05. , No: . (2011, Aug. 25). “Koşaner’in söylediği asker asker söylediği 25). “Koşaner’in Aug. . (2011, 167 .; European Court of of Court .; European Danıştay . Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved ) as a last alast ) as 168 and so so and . , important case. important is an migration- forced of aresult as city the to came who Kurdish by people inhabited -and Karabağlar Izmir, of town the of neighborhood impoverished an in Limontepe, place took that incident the sense, In this sub-culture. police the by criminalization their of aresult as violence such of target the become to groups certain allow and violence police possible make regulations legal the that fact the to Regarding draws attention force, police the report the terminated. be should space, social the of militarization the to contributes and freedoms and rights individual of violation the it with brings which service, military compulsory Likewise, removed. be nor independent,neither should impartial ultimately is which court, military the account; to brought are violations rights for human responsible those should in made be amendments order to ensure that institutional and Legal purview. its within committed for responsibility notwhich accept the crimes does autonomous and structure to a be non-transparent 169 policing techniques within the framework of new new of framework the within techniques policing aggressive to subject are neighborhoods these of residents and police the by prepared “crimethe maps” of apart form they sub-culture; police the by crime” of “neighborhoods as blacklisted are groups certain of neighborhoods other some and migration forced of victims are who Kurdish people predominantly of neighborhoods poor many that indicate Studies incident. the of aresult as died by. Barlak Emrah wounding apasser- and leg in the men two other the hitting stomach, in the Barlak Emrah wounded and fire opened officers police the of one commotion, the During afine. of payment the regarding officers police two and them between out broke argument an and car squad aparked hit they vehicle, in were their relatives their of one and Barlak Erhan his brother Barlak, shtml. ozeldosyalar/2011/06/110611_elections_guney_blognot. Retrieved from, http://www.bbc.co.uk/turkce/ BBC Izmir]. in Tension and Identity [Ethnic Gerilim” ve Kimlik Etnik “İzmir’de 11). Jun. (2011, G. Yıldız, 169 On 12 August 2012, while Emrah Emrah while 2012, August 12 On Türkçe .

55 56 Erdogan’s visit to the METU campus. According to to According campus. Erdogan’s METU the to visit Minister during Prime protest apeaceful out carry to gathered people hundred Three 2012. December 18 on (METU) Technical University East Middle in the place took which incident is the celebrations, Newroz annual the at and Kurdish geography in the especially manifests which violence, such of example latest The protests. social at violence police discouragingand opposition, social turns into serious oppressing at aimed policies with combined unlawful, todeclared be gatherings demonstrations and for gap legal awide force, leaving use to police the of authority the on restrictions material or physical no Putting violence. police of target the become often demonstrations in social participate who Those authority. thisunrestricted of use arbitrary way for the pave the strategies its and organization police the of characteristics sub-cultural The areas.” vital targeting “not and life” to threat “imminent as restrictions necessary such to subject is not firearms use to 170 organization. in the implemented strategies “preventive” me like a criminal.’” treat and car the over all search They changes. attitude their then from Iam where ID my on see and stop they until way anormal in me treat police ‘The Kurdish. “other”, the is he that him remind who police the mostly is it that state AKP for voted family entire his while BDP of block left the of candidates the for campaigned who Ümit police. the about complain mainly they but welcome not are they that fact the of aware also are Kurds “The finding. this support to seem observations her of support in interviewed she person the from quote the and Limontepe regarding observation Yıldız’s shtml. ozeldosyalar/2011/06/110611_elections_guney_blognot. http://www.bbc.co.uk/turkce/ from, BBC Izmir]. in Tension and Identity [Ethnic Gerilim” ve Kimlik Etnik “İzmir’de 11). Jun. Science and Society 1960]. Turkey in After Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of aManifestation as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası 1960 Alt-kültürü: “Devlet Stratejilerinin Bir Tezahürü Olarak Polis (2009). B. Berksoy, University; Binghamton Thesis, PhD Unpublished 1990s”, Late the Turkey in since Poor Urban the of Criminalization and Police Order Public Izmir The Crime: of Politics “Neoliberal (2011). Z. Gönen, See 170 In addition, the authority of the police police the of authority the In addition, , vol. 114, p.127; Yıldız, G. (2011, (2011, G. Yıldız, p.127; 114, , vol. Türkçe . Retrieved . Retrieved possible. Officers who do not comply with the legal legal the with comply not do who Officers possible. as far as regulations legal by restricted be should force and firearms use to authority the and renounced; be should police the by stereotyping encompasses which techniques policing aggressive based prevention- “risk” transformed; be culture should sub- police the “security;” than rather freedoms and rights human prioritize should policies, in its Accordingly, life. to government, right the the violate may and protests social and life in daily torture of level the approach which practices police the prevent in to theregulations legal orderamendments to necessary make and strategies policing the review to opposition, social against government the by devised strategies repressive the to made be should Changes police. the by targeted individuals of integrity bodily the protect to regulations contain question in legislation the does Nor legislation. other any or Regulations Units Action Rapid the either by restricted is force not use to police the of authority The head. in the him struck bomb gas apepper after hemorrhage brain a suffered them of one and hospitalized, were people were injured,demonstrators three seriously injured Fifty campus. the foundon were bombs sound 70 and bombs gas pepper 2,000 of residue the clash, the After hours. seven lasted students the and police the between clash The crowds. peaceful the against gas pepper use to began and warning, without group in the bomb asound threw police The campus. the on deployed were vehicles armored 100 and police 3,000 around International, Amnesty by witnesses from collected information 171 bogdu-1112746 turkiye/ogrenciler_yurudu_polis_odtuyu_gaza_ with Gas]. Retrieved from, http://www.radikal.com.tr/ METU Smothered Police The Walked, [Students boğdu” gaza ODTÜ’yü polis yürüdü, “Öğrenciler 19). Dec. (2012, Radikal. see addition, In amnesty.org.tr/ai/node/2079. http://www. from 21.12.2012, Retrieved Impartially]. Investigated Promptly, Comprehensively, and Be Should METU in Events [The Soruşturulmalı” Şekilde bir Tarafsız ve Kapsamlı Hızlı, Olaylar Yaşanan “ODTÜ’de (2012). (AI). International Amnesty 171

173 172 penalty. appropriate the receive and review judicial to subject be exception, should, without violations rights human commit and restrictions grant permission for the investigation. for the permission grant didnot Ministry Prime the but complaint, Baransu’s on based investigation an launched Office General’s Prosecutor MIT. the of Bakırköy The agents be to out turned and Order Public of Bureau Bahçelievler the to him taken were following be foundto people two the Afterwards, followed. being was he that claimed for Taraf works also who Baransu, Mehmet thisincident, after years some 2012, In February, illegal. not was surveillance this that and interest public in the wiretapped were journalists the that stated MIT the of representatives defense, In their Court. Administrative 5th in the alawsuit and acomplaint filed Altan Mehmet known, “espionage.” thisbecame After in involved were they that grounds the on MIT of Directorate Regional Istanbul the by wiretapped Altan, Markar Esayan and Amberin Zaman were Taraf of Çongar Star of editor-in-chief the Altan, Mehmet of phones registered the agency. In 2009, the by followed was Baransu Mehmet that and tapped working forsome journalists Taraf and Altan Mehmet of phones the that news is the MIT the to related example recent and striking most The

MİT: Kamu yararına yaptık” [MIT which wiretapped wiretapped which [MIT yaptık” yararına MİT: Kamu T24. polisleri_sevindiren_karar-936801. radikal.com.tr/turkiye/baran_tursun_davasinda_ happy] police the made which case Tursun Baran in [A decision karar” sevindiren polisleri davasında Tursun “Baran 20). May (2009, Radikal. See acquitted. were they however, it, report not did and incident the of evidence concealed they that grounds the on indicted were officers Ten police month. a and years two only to sentenced was trial, pending Atar, Emre Oral officer, police The Izmir. in 2007 25, November on command “stop” the obey not did he that grounds the on gunfire of died Tursun Baran regard. this in example astriking is Tursun’s case Baran violations. new for ground the prepares little very sentenced are or punished not are rights human of violations commit systematically who policemen the that fact The (2012, Nov. 16). “Gazetecileri sahte isimle dinleyen dinleyen isimle sahte “Gazetecileri Nov. 16). (2012, newspaper, called the police and and police the newspaper, called , her father Bekir Çongar, Bekir Ahmet and father , her . Retrieved from, http://www. newspaper, Yasemin Yasemin newspaper, newspaper were newspaper 173 172

174 strength.” national that its constitute order elements all and existence, independence, security, Constitutional its national its and Turkey of territory Republic its with the of integrity indivisible the targeting of intention the with country the outside in or out carried activities potential and immediate on State the throughout intelligence security national Law, procure “to are the 4of in Article stated as organization, the of duties the above, discussed As prosecution. from agents its and it shields effectively and authority much too far MIT, the organization of the gives authorities and duties the Agency,Intelligence regulates which National the and Services Intelligence State on 2937 No. Law that indicate developments these of All staff should be abolished. be should staff institutions’ these of review judicial the to obstacle an constitutes which “permission system” The oversight. democratic for civil allow and accountable institutions these make to in order possible as far as restricted be should agencies intelligence other and MIT the of authority and duties The prosecution. and investigation from exempt be will MIT the by opposition social and political on brought be might that intervention unlawful of kind any that is likely highly it and background, thislegal of basis followingand in dispute actions were defended on the wiretapping “duties.” their of above-mentioned The course in the crime have to committed alleged are who organization the of members the into investigation an initiate to required is permission Minister’s Prime the In addition, actions. of manner for all space unlimited

November 1983 3 18120, No. Services]. Intelligence National the of Organization and Services Intelligence State on 2937 No. [Law Kanunu” Teşkilatı İstihbarat Milli ve Hizmetleri İstihbarat Devlet sayılı “2937 (1983). Gazette. Official dinledik-1109676. from, http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/korumak_icin_ Retrieved them!]. protect to wiretapped [We dinledik!” yaptik/217518.; Radikal. sahte-isimle-dinleyen-mit-kamu-yararina- Retrieved from, http://t24.com.tr/haber/gazetecileri- good]. public for it done We have alias: with journalists 174 Such broad statements open up open an Such statements broad .

(2012, Nov. 28). “Korumak için için “Korumak Nov. 28). (2012,

57 58 When interpreting the laws, judges, prosecutors and and judges, laws, prosecutors the interpreting When practice. into put be can amendments necessary the that so rights human of protection the to importance and priority giving by strategies “security” constructs government the that earlier, is essential it However, future. mentioned in the possible as as far as agencies various by committed rights human of violations the reduce to made be should amendments institutional and legal various that It is clear who violates these rights without any exception. any without rights these violates who officer every and punish to each will is the there if and sphere social the dominates rights human on based arationality if rights,” “human on based are question in strategies the if possible be only will This rights. human violate not does it away that in such power jure de law the between situated are who officers police should use their discretionary discretionary their use should facto, de law and Altıparmak, K. (2008). “Türkiye’de İnsan Haklarında Haklarında İnsan (2008). “Türkiye’de K. Altıparmak, İdari Hakları İnsan (2008). “Türkiye’de K. Altıparmak, National Grand The (2010). N. “Legislation: Akyeşilmen, A. Bayramoğlu, In A. (2010).Aksoy, M. “Gendarmerie.” 2000-2011 İlişkileri: Akay, Asker-Sivil (2011). H. “Türkiye’de Institutional Turkish Forces: Akay, Armed (2010). H. “The in Turkey: Questions, Sector Akay, (2010). H. “Security Vizyonu-Siyaset, Siyasi (2012) 2023 “AK Parti Party AK Books References tr/staticfiles/files/asker_sivil__hale_akay.pdf www.hyd.org. from 03.10.2012, Retrieved 2000-2011] Period the for in Turkey: Evaluation Relations An [Civil-Military Değerlendirme.” Bir İlişkin Dönemine Human Rights in Turkey]. Retrieved 27.09.2012, in Turkey]. 27.09.2012, Rights Human Retrieved of [(Un)Institutionalization Kurumsallaş(ama)ma” yapilanma_tablo.pdf from http://www.ihop.org.tr/dosya/uihk/ in Turkey]. 27.09.2012, Rights Human Retrieved of Structure Administrative [The Yapılanması” Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey (eds.), Almanac İnsel Turkey.” of A. Assembly Bayramoğlu, In A. Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector (eds.),İnsel Almanac Turkey 2006-2008: Security Publications. TESEV Istanbul: Oversight, Democratic and Sector (eds.),İnsel Almanac Turkey 2006-2008: Security A. Bayramoğlu, In A. Dimension.” Military and Publications. TESEV Istanbul: Solutions.” Problems, akparti2023siyasivizyonuturkce.pdf upload/documents/ http://www.akparti.org.tr/ from 30.09.2012, Retrieved World], the and Society Politics, Vision- Political 2023 Toplum, [AK Party Dünya” , A rticles R and . . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: eports . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: . . Bayramoğlu, A. (2009). “EMASYA: Üç anlam, üç işlev” işlev” üç anlam, Üç “EMASYA: (2009). A. Bayramoğlu, and [Military “Asker (2009). A. ve Siyaset” Bayramoğlu, ve Demokratik Servisleri Aytar, V. (2008). “İstihbarat in Impunity (2011). S. “Overcoming Işık, and M. Atılgan, (2012). Initiative]. Rights [Soldier’s Girişimi Hakları Asker 2012). “ODTÜ’de 21, (Dec. (AI). International Amnesty Gözetim [ Gözetim ve Demokratik Sektörü Güvenlik 2006-2008: (eds.), İnsel Türkiye A. Almanak Bayramoğlu, A. In Functions]. Three Meanings, Three [EMASYA: (4th edition). Publications, Turkey] in Army The Party, A [An Estate, Ordu Türkiye’de Parti Bir Zümre, (eds.), İnsel A. and Bir Bayramoğlu In A. Politics]. Publications. TESEV Agencies]. Istanbul: Intelligence of Oversight for Practice Best Intelligence Legal Standards and Accountable: [Making ve En İyi Uygulamalar Standartlar Hukuki Gözetiminde Teşkilatlarının İstihbarat Getirmek: Verebilir Hale Hesap İstihbaratı (eds.), I. Leigh, and H. In Born, Oversight]. Gözetim” and Democratic [Intelligence Services Publications. TESEV Istanbul: Forces.” Security of Turkey Violations and askerhaklari.com/rapor.pdf www. from 27.10.2012, Retrieved Duty]. Military During Experienced Rights of Violations Report: Rights [2012 Soldier’s İhlalleri Hak Yaşanan Sırasında Askerlik Zorunlu Raporu: Hakları Asker node/2079. 21.12.2012, from http://www.amnesty.org.tr/ai/ Retrieved Impartially]. and Comprehensively, Promptly, Investigated be Should in METU Events [The Soruşturulmalı” Şekilde ve Tarafsız bir Kapsamlı Hızlı, Olaylar Yaşanan kutuphane/107_1293624912_2008-01-01.pdf from http://e-kutuphane.ihop.org.tr/pdf/ Almanac Turkey 2006-2008: Security . Istanbul: Birikim Birikim . Istanbul: . .

59 60 Bora, T. (2012). “Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği Genel Genel Derneği T. Hukukçular Bora, (2012). “Çağdaş T. Yönelik Bora, (2011). Öğrencilere “Avukat Aydın’la Oya ve Türkiye’de Raporu (2008). “Çürük A. Biricik, In Forces.” Special of Department “The E. (2006). Beşe, Çıkışı, Ortaya (2012). Devleti’nin B. Berksoy, “‘Güvenlik Tezahürü Bir Stratejilerinin “Devlet (2009). B. Berksoy, Kozağaçlı: Exceptional Judicial Regime and the the and Regime Judicial Exceptional Kozağaçlı: Selcuk Association Lawyers Contemporary the of President the with [An Interview Ağ’” Bir ve Yapışkan Yargı Rejimi ve Polis-‘Elastik Olağanüstü Söyleşi: ile Kozağaçlı Selçuk Başkanı p.54-58. Law]. Birikim ADisproportionate Violence, A Disproportionate Coercion: Legal and Students against Violence Aydın Police on Oya Lawyer [A Talk Hukuk” with Oransız Şiddet, Oransız Söyleşi: Üzerine Baskılar ve Hukuki Şiddeti Polis Publication. İletişim Istanbul: Experiences]. and Resources Conscientious Objection-Intellectual Reels: in the [Sand ve Deneyimler Kaynaklar Red-Düşünsel Vicdani Kum: (eds.), Çarklardaki in Turkey]. In Ö. Çınar,Masculinity H. Üsterci C. of Hegemonic the and Reconstruction Report [Rotten Yeniden İnşası” Erkekliğin Hegemonik Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2005: Turkey Ü. (ed.), Cizre Almanac and Development Party”]. Justice the of Policies Police The Emergency’”: of ‘State the of Permanence the and Organization Technique Police in the Governmental Oriented ‘Security’ the of Manifestation State’, The ‘Security the of Emergence [“The Politikaları” Polis Hal’: AKP’nin ‘Olağanüstü ve Süreklileşen Tezahürleri Teşkilatındaki Tekniğinin Yönetim Polis Eksenli ‘Güvenlik’ Science and Society in Turkey1960]. After Organization Police The of Discourses Dominant the of Evaluation An Strategies: State of Manifestation a as Sub-culture [Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan Hâkim Teşkilatında Polis The Türkiye’de Sonrası 1960 Alt-kültürü: Polis Olarak Publications. TESEV Istanbul: – Turkish Oversight Edition Democratic and Sector ,114. ,114. . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: Birikim p.75-88. , 276, , 261, , 261, ]. ]. TBMM Faili Meçhul Siyasi Cinayetleri Cinayetleri Siyasi Meçhul Faili F.Erdoğ, (2005). TBMM In A. Branch”. Executive (2010). M. “The Erdal, ve Red Vicdani Hukukta (2008). “Uluslararası K. Boyle, Intelligence (2005). I. “Making Leigh, and H. Born, Turkey 2012 Progress Progress 2012 (2012). Commission. Turkey European Report Progress 2011 (2011). Turkey Commission. European In Ü. Cizre Intelligence.” “Police (2006). B. M. Eryılmaz, 2010 yılı Faaliyet Faaliyet (2010).yılı 2010 Command. General Gendarmerie Relevance The P.Fluri, Guidance: and (2005). “Oversight Oslo. Norway, of Parliament the of House Publishing Oslo: Agencies.” Intelligence of Oversight for Practice Best and Standards Legal Accountable: 273, p.30-40. 273, Birikim Network’]. Sticky and -‘Flexible Police [ Raporu Komisyonu Araştırma Oversight 2006-2008: Security Sector and Democratic Turkey (eds.), İnsel A. Almanac Bayramoğlu, p. 273-290. Publications. İletişim Istanbul: Experiences]. and Resources Conscientious Objection-Intellectual Reels: in the [Sand ve Deneyimler Kaynaklar Red-Düşünsel Vicdani Kum: (eds.), Çarklardaki Üsterci C. and In Murat]. Ö. Çınar H. Osman of Case the and Law International in the Objection [Conscientious Davası” Ülke Murat Osman Killings Political on Unsolved Report Commission Research pdf documents/2012/package/tr_rapport_2012_en. europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_ Report Oversight Democratic (ed tr_rapport_2011_en.pdf. enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2011/package/ http://ec.europa.eu/ from 18.09.2012, Retrieved com/2012/01/jgk-2010.pdf. http://istifhane.files.wordpress. from 16.09.2012, Raporu Publications. TESEV-DCAF World the and Turkey Sector: Security the of Oversight (eds.).Cizre, Ş. Sayın Democratic Paker, In Reform.” C. Dülger, M. Its and Ü. Sector Security the for Oversight Parliamentary of .), Almanac Turkey 2005: Security Sector and and Sector Security 2005: Turkey .), Almanac . . Retrieved 25.09.2012, from http://ec. from 25.09.2012, . Retrieved [2010 Annual Report]. Retrieved Retrieved Report]. Annual [2010 ]. Istanbul: Gizlisaklı Publishers. Gizlisaklı ]. Istanbul: , Istanbul: TESEV Publications. Publications. TESEV , Istanbul: . Istanbul: TESEV. . Istanbul: Parliamentary . Istanbul: . Istanbul: , . Haraszti, M. (2007, April 30). “Access to information by by (2007, 30). M. “Access information to April Haraszti, European Turkey of (TBMM). Assembly National Grand Sırrı Devlet Turkey of (TBMM). Assembly National Grand “TBMM Turkey of (TBMM). Assembly National Grand ve Neo-liberal (2012). Mücadele Z. Gönen, “Suçla Izmir The Crime: of Politics (2011). Z. Gönen, “Neoliberal Plan (2008). “Strategic Security. of Directorate General http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/osce-access.pdf. from 09.10.2012, survey.” the Retrieved of results preliminary of recommendations-Summary and trends region: OSCE in the media the donem24/1_584.pdf. gov.tr/komisyon/abuyum/belge/faaliyet/ http://www.tbmm. from 09.28.2012, Retrieved Raporu Komisyonu Uyum AB Tasarısı Kanun Hakkında Yapılması Değişiklik Kanunlarda Bazı ve Kurulması Komisyonu Gözetim Kolluk (2012 Apr. 11). Commission. Compliance Union yil01/ss287.pdf http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem24/ from 09.10.2012, Retrieved Reports]. Commission CommissionHarmonization Judicial and Amending European Union the State Secrets, Law Draft [The Raporları Komisyonu Adalet ile Komisyonu Uyum Birliği Avrupa ve Tasarısı Kanunu yil01/ss1437m.htm. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/ from, Retrieved 2/1037. No Deputies]. Three and Deputy, Parliamentary Uzun, Sivas Selami of Report Commission Justice and Offer the of Powers and Duties Police on Law the Amending Law [The Raporu” Komisyonu Teklifi ve Adalet Kanun Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda ve Salahiyet Vazife Polis Milletvekilinin; Uzun ve 3 Selami Milletvekili Sivas Turkey], in Neo-liberal Poverty of Policing the and Crime against [Fight Zaptiyesi” Türkiye’de Yoksulluğun Binghamton. of University dissertation, doctoral Unpublished 1990s”, in Turkey Poor Late the Urban since the of Criminalization and Police Order Public genel_mudurlugu_Stratejik_Plani.pdf. www.egm.gov.tr/indirilendosyalar/emniyet_ http:// from 25.09.2012, Retrieved 2009-2013.” Birikim . , 273, p. 48-56. , 273, .No. 1/584. 1/584. .No. Işın, M. (2011). “Güvenlik Alanının Demokratik Denetimi: Denetimi: Demokratik (2011). Alanının M. Işın, “Güvenlik Milli Tarihçesi: Teşkilatı İlter, İstihbarat E. (2002). Milli the (2012). up Give Watch. Turkey: Rights Human against Ranks (2008). Closing Watch. Rights Human on Report Special The (2009). Association. Rights Human Association Rights -Human Assembly Citizens’ Helsinki Association Rights -Human Assembly Citizens’ Helsinki Police Academy, Ankara. Academy, Ankara. Police thesis, master’s Forces]. Unpublished Armed Turkish the of Auditting the of Study ACase Field: Security the of Oversight [Democratic Örneği” Denetimi Sayıştay Kuvvetlerinin Silahlı Türk Publications. MİT Ankara: 1927-1965]. Services Security National the of Leadership the History: Organization Intelligence National [The 1927-1965 MEH-MAH, Riyaseti Hizmetleri Emniyet . www.hrw.org/es/node/108118 Institution. Rights Human the Regarding Plan Erroneous related_material/turkey1208tuweb.pdf. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ Turkey in Violence Accountability Barriers against Tackling Police koruculari_ozel_raporu.pdf. org.tr/images/pdf/ocak_1990_mart_2009_koy_ 2009. March and 1990 January between Guards Village the by Perpetrated Violations Rights Human the nsan-haklar-kurumu&Itemid=46. uezerine-ortak-basn-acklamas&catid=36:ulusal- uerkiye-nsan-haklar-kurumu-kanunu-tasars- php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:t from http://www.ihop.org.tr/index. 28.09.2012, Retrieved Statement.” (2012). “Joint Turkey Branch International Turkey -Amnesty of Foundation Rights Human Peoples Oppressed for Solidarity and Rights Human for - Association http://www.tihv.org.tr/index.php?oba_20100114. from 28.09.2012, days.” Retrieved in Recent Turkey of Council Rights Human the on Law Draft about Opinion Public in the Wrong Impressions Create to Attempts the Regarding Institutions Rights Human the of Disclosure “Mandatory Turkey (2011) International Turkey -Amnesty of Foundation Rights Human Peoples Oppressed for Solidarity and Rights Human for - Association Retrieved 14.11.2012, from http://www.ihd. from 14.11.2012, Retrieved Retrieved 28.09.2012, from http:// from 28.09.2012, Retrieved . Retrieved 14.11.2012, from from 14.11.2012, . Retrieved

61 62 TESEV. (2012). “The High Council of Judges and and Judges of Council High (2012).TESEV. “The Agency.” In A. Intelligence National E. (2010). “The Kılıç, Yeni Sayıştay İradesi: Meclis (2012). L. Kalan Kemal, Zayıf the of Command “General (2006). L. Kemal, Bayramoğlu, In A. Judiciary.” Ü. “Military (2009). Kardaş, LGBTT Bireylerin İnsan İnsan Bireylerin (2008). LGBTT Platform. Rights LGBTT Wheels in the (2012). C. Sözeri, D. “Caught and Kurban, a‘Security’ as System Guard D. (2010).Kurban, “Village The Politics of the Police the of Politics Reiner, (2010). The R. İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, Paker, In (2010). A. “Foreword.” C. Tarihi: [A Secret T. MIT” Özkan, Servisin Gizli “Bir (1996). Parla, T.Parla, (2002). Anayasalar Türkiye’de Prosecutors in Turkey: Roundtable Discussion on on Discussion in Turkey: Roundtable Prosecutors Toronto of Press. University Oversight 2006-2008: Security Sector and Democratic Turkey (eds.), Insel A. Almanac Bayramoglu, Publications. TESEV Istanbul: Spending]. Military Monitoring of Ongoing Problems the and Accounts of Turkish the on Law Court New The Weak: Remains Will Parliamentary [The Sorunu Denetimi Harcamaların Askeri Yasasında Publications. TESEV Istanbul: Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2005: In Ü. (ed Cizre Gendarmerie.” Publications. TESEV Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey (eds.), İnsel A. Almanac lgbt_bireylerin_insan_haklari_raporu_2008.pdf http://www.kaosgl.com/resim/KaosGL/Yayinlar/ from 06.10.2012, Retrieved LGBT Individuals]. Hakları Raporu Publications. in Turkey.” Press TESEV the of Istanbul: on Independent Media Freedom and Constraints Economic and Legal Political, The Power: of Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey Almanac (eds.), İnsel A. Bayramoğlu, Policy.” In A. Turkey]. Istanbul: İletişim Publications. İletişim Turkey]. Istanbul: Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2006-2008: Turkey (eds.), Almanac Yayınları. Milliyet Istanbul: MIT]. History Service Publications. . Istanbul: TESEV Publications. TESEV . Istanbul: [Report on the Human Rights of of Rights Human the on [Report . Istanbul: TESEV TESEV . Istanbul: , Istanbul: TESEV TESEV , Istanbul: .), Almanac Turkey Turkey .), Almanac [Constitutions in [Constitutions . Toronto; . Istanbul: . Istanbul: .

Tutuklu Öğrencilerle Dayanışma İnsiyatifi [Solidarity [Solidarity İnsiyatifi Dayanışma Tutuklu Öğrencilerle Foundation Rights [Human Vakfı Hakları İnsan Türkiye Foundation Rights [Human Vakfı Hakları İnsan Türkiye Turkey. of Interior the of (2012). Entegre Ministry The (2012). “Sayıştay Association. Auditors of Court The Meclis Kalan ‘Zayıf Duyurusu: 2013).“Basın TESEV raporu.docx. raporu.docx. files/doc_files/.../TÖDİ_tutuklu_öğrenciler_ Students]. Arrested on Report [The Raporu Öğrenciler (2012). Students]. Tutuklu Arrested for Initiative TasarAEsAEaE-Derhal-Geri-Aekilmelidir. Kurumu-KurulmasAEna-Dair-Kanun- index.php?aEoeTArkiye-AEnsan-HaklarAE- http://tihv.org.tr/ from 28.09.2012, Retrieved immediately!]. withdrawn be Turkey’ must of Council Rights Human the of Establishment the on Law Draft [‘The Çekilmelidir!” Geri Derhal Tasarısı’ Kanun Dair Kurulmasına Kurumu Hakları Turkey].of İnsan “’Türkiye (2009). YAElAEnda-PVSK-Azel-Raporu. http://www.tihv.org.tr/index.php?AEkinci- from 19.09.2012, Retrieved Ankara. Raporu, Turkey].of Özel Yılında PVSK İkinci (2009). Default.Icisleri_2.Aspx?Id=7498. www.Icisleri.Gov.Tr/ from 18.09.2012, Retrieved 2012/40. No: Release, Press Ceremony], Closing Plan Action Management Border [Integrated Töreni Kapanış Planı Eylem Yönetimi Sınır hakkinda-kamuoyu-aciklamasi-1587h.htm tr/sayistay-kanununda-degisiklik-teklifi- http://www.sayder.org. from 27.10.2012 Retrieved Auditors]. of Court of law the modify to request the regarding statement [Public Açıklaması” Kamuoyu Teklifi Hakkında Değişiklik Kanunu’nda pdf Say%C4%B1%C5%9FtayAYMiptal_BasinDuyuru. tr/Upload/Editor/ http://www.tesev.org. from 10.01.2012, Retrieved Court]. Constitutional the of Rule the and Report Accounts) of Court (The Weak’ Remains Will Parliamentary ‘The Report TESEV Release: [Press Kararı” Yasası Sayıştay Mahkemesi’nin ve Anayasa Raporu (Sayıştay) İradesi’ TESEV Publications. Publications. TESEV Istanbul, Operations”. and Structure New Its Retrieved 23.09.2012, from bianet.org/ from 23.09.2012, Retrieved . Official Gazette. (1972). “1612 sayılı Yüksek Askeri Şuranın Şuranın Askeri Yüksek (1972). sayılı “1612 Gazette. Official Savunma Milli (1970). sayılı “1325 Gazette. Official Mahkemeler Askerî (1963). sayılı “353 Gazette. Official of Office Regulations, and Laws of Directorate General L Yıldız, A. (2006)“Grand National Assembly of Turkey.” of Assembly National In Yıldız, (2006)“Grand A. Polisin Polis: (2012). olarak Psikolog A. “Bir Uysal, In Ü. Service.” Ünlü, F. Intelligence “National (2006). Dec. (1993, Resolution Assembly General Nations United (UNCHR). Rights Human on Commission Nations United aws R and Supreme Military Council]. No. 14257, 26 July 1972. July 14257, 26 No. Council]. Military Supreme the of Duties and Establishment the on 1612 No. [Law Kanun” Hakkında ve Görevleri Kuruluş August 1970. August 7 13572, No. Defense]. National of Ministry the of Organization and Duties the on 1325 No [Law Kanun” Hakkında ve Teşkilatı Görev Bakanlığı 1963. October 26 11541, No. Courts]. Military of Procedures Criminal and Establishment the on 353 No. [Law Kanunu” Usulü ve Yargılama Kuruluşu www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/1/1-0584.pdf. http:// 2012. Law]. September 28 Commission Oversight Enforcement the to Preamble and Draft [The ve Gerekçesi” Tasarısı Kanunu (2012).“Kolluk Komisyonu Gözetim Ministry Prime Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2005: Turkey Ü. (ed.), Cizre Almanac Management’], ‘Crowd or Protests Social for Police the Training of a Psychologist: as [Police Yönetimi’” da‘Kalabalık ya Eğitimi Toplumsal Olaylar Publications. Oversight Democratic and Sector Security 2005: Turkey (ed.),Cizre Almanac tr/dosya/uihk/paris_ilkeleri.pdf http://www.ihop.org. from 27.09.2012, Retrieved 48/134. No. Rights.” Human of Protection and Promotion the for Institutions 20). “National principles.html. from http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/ Impunity, Combat to Action through Rights Human of Promotion and Protection the for Principles of Set 8). Feb. Updated (2005, egulations Birikim , 273, p.41-47. , 273, , Istanbul: TESEV TESEV , Istanbul: TESEV , Istanbul: Retrieved 27.09.2012, 27.09.2012, Retrieved . Official Gazette. (2005). “Adli Kolluk Yönetmeliği” (2005). “Adli Yönetmeliği” Kolluk Gazette. Official Terörle Kanunu, İdaresi (2001). “İl Gazette. Official Yönetmeliği” Korucuları “Köy (2000). Gazette. Official “4178 (1996). Kanunu, İl İdaresi Gazette. sayılı Official İstihbarat Devlet (1983). sayılı “2937 Gazette. Official Teşkilat, Jandarma (1983). sayılı “2803 Gazette. Official Yönetmeliği” Kuvvet (1982). Çevik “Polis Gazette. Official Gazette]. No. 25832, 1 June 2005. 2005. 1June 25832, No. Gazette]. Official Police, Judicial the of [Regulation 2001. January 19 124292, unconstitutional]. are amendments on the premise Notification, that some Identity the and Amendment of the LawInstruments on Other and Knives Law, Firearms, Ration Strong Anti-Terrorism the Act, Administration, Provincial the on 4178 No. Law the Annul to 1999/1 No. Decision Court Constitutional [The Karar” sayılı 1999/1 Dair İptaline Gerekçesiyle Olduğu Aykırı Anayasaya Maddelerinin Bazı (4178 Kanunun Sayılı) Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Bildirme ve Kimlik Kanun Hakkında Aletler Diğer ile ve Bıçaklar Silahlar Ateşli Kanun, İlişkin Edileceklere İaşe Kazanından Tayın Er Kanunu, Kuvvetli Kanunu, Mücadele 2000. 1July Guards]. 24096, No. Village of [Regulation 1996. 22747,No. 4September Notification]. Identity on Law the of Amendment the and Instruments Other and Knives Law, Firearms, Ration Strong Terrorism Act, Anti- the Administration, Provincial the on 4178 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda Bildirme ve Kimlik Kanun Hakkında Aletler Diğer ile ve Bıçaklar Silahlar Ateşli Kanun, İlişkin Edileceklere İaşe Er Kazanından Kanunu, Tayın Kuvvetli Kanunu, Terörle Mücadele 1983. November 3 18120, No. Agency]. Intelligence National and Services Intelligence State on 2937 No. [Law Kanunu” Teşkilatı İstihbarat ve Milli Hizmetleri 1983. March 12 No.17985, Gendarmerie]. the of Authorities and Duties, Establishment, the on 2803 No. [Law Kanunu” ve Yetkileri Görev 1982. December 30 17914, No. Regulation]. Police [Riot

63 64 Official Gazette. (2010). “Askeri Mahkemeler Kuruluşu ve Kuruluşu (2010). “Askeri Mahkemeler Gazette. Official Terörle Mücadele sayılı “5532 (2006). Gazette. Official Başaran, E. (2012, Jul. 11). “Roboski’de Utancın ve 11).Utancın E. (2012, Jul. “Roboski’de Başaran, Sırrı’ D. Yeni (2012,Akın, May 21). “20 Soruda ‘Devlet Organs Newspapers Kurumu Hakları İnsan (2012). “Türkiye Gazette. Official ve İstihbarat (2012). Güvenlik “Savunma, Gazette. Official Kurumu (2012). Denetçiliği “Kamu Gazette. Official (2012). Bazı İle “Askerlik Kanunu Gazette. Official ve Kanun Kanun (2012). Bazı “6353 sayılı Gazette. Official Laws and Decrees]. No. 27627, 30 June 2010. 2010. June 27627, No. 30 Decrees]. and Laws Certain and Code Procedure Criminal and Courts Military of Establishment the of Amendment the on Law [The Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Hükmünde Kararnamelerde ve Kanun Kanun Bazı ile Kanunu Usulü Yargılama 2006 July Terrorism]. 18 of 26232, Prevention No. the on Law the Amending on 5532 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanununda August 2012. August 15 28385, Gazette].No. Official Intelligence, and Security Defense, of Administrations Public the to Belonging Properties State of Auditing of aResult As Prepared Reports the of Announcement Public the on Regulation [The Yönetmelik” İlişkin Duyurulmasına Kamuoyuna Raporların Hazırlanan Sonucunda Denetimi Mallarının Devlet Ait İdarelerine Kamu ilgili ile 12 July 2012. July 12 Law]. of 28351, No. Force in the Decrees and Laws Certain Amending on 6353 No. [Law Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kararnamelerde Hükmünde Radikal Daily Daily Radikal in Roboski]. Shiftiness and Shame of [Chronology Kronolojisi” Pişkinliğin tr/yazi/20-soruda-yeni-devlet-sirri-duzeni/5283 T24 Questions]. in 20 Order Secret’ ‘State New [The Düzeni” 2012. June 30 28339, No. Act]. Institution Rights [Turkey’s Human Kanunu” 2012. June 29 28338, No. Ombudsman]. the of Institution the on Law [The Kanunu” 2012. 3June Laws]. 28312, No. Certain and Law Military of Amendment the on Law [The Kanun” Dair Yapılmasına Değişiklik Kanunlarda and . Retrieved from, http://t24.com. from, . Retrieved I nternet Media

. Birgün Demokrat Haber Demokrat (2012, 15). Feb. Çandar, C. “Akıl Tutulması, Saptırma, Birgün Bianet Bianet Bianet Bianet Bianet . (2012, Sep. 18). “Sevag Davasının Takipçisiyiz” Takipçisiyiz” Davasının 18).. (2012, Sep. “Sevag . (2012, May 15). “22 Yılda 2221 Asker İntihar Etti” Etti” İntihar Asker . (2012, May 15). Yılda “22 2221 . (2012, Jan. 19). “Asker Hakları TBMM’deydi” TBMM’deydi” 19).. (2012, “Asker Jan. Hakları . (2011, Jul. 7). “Ölen Askerin Anne-Babasına Anne-Babasına 7). Askerin Jul. . (2011, “Ölen . (2010, Jul. 20). “Mahkeme Irkçı ‘Sarı Gelin’ Gelin’ ‘Sarı Irkçı 20). “Mahkeme Jul. . (2010, . (2010, Apr. 12). “Biber Gazı Polise Neden Zarar Zarar Neden Polise Apr.. (2010, Gazı 12). “Biber . (2012, Feb. 29). “UCM Uludere Katliamı Katliamı Uludere . (2012, 29). Feb. “UCM year=2012&month=04&day=12 net/actuels_index.php?news_code=1334230650& http://www.birgun. from, Retrieved Police?]. the Hurt Spray Pepper the Doesn’t [Why Vermez?” militarizm/140717-sevag-davasinin-takipcisiyiz. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/ Balıkçı]. Trial the Sevag of following are [We Culpable for the Murder of Sevag Balıkçı]. Sevag of Murder the for Culpable is [Ağaoğlu Kusurlu” Ağaoğlu Ölümünde tutulmasi_saptirma_carpitma-1078779. radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/cengiz_candar/akil_ Radikal Distortion]. Deflection, Reason, of Abdication [The Çarpıtma” =02&day=29. php?news_code=1330523200&year=2012&month from, http://www.birgun.net/actuel_index. Retrieved Process]. into Appeal massacre Uludere the put has [UCM Aldı” İşleme Başvurusunu intihar-etti. insan-haklari/138345-22-yilda-2221-asker- Years]. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/ in 22 Suicide have Committed Soldiers [2221 insan-haklari/135559-asker-haklari-tbmmdeydi. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/ Parliament]. the visited Initiative Rights [Soldier babasina-tazminat. bianet/insan-haklari/131286-olen-askerin-anne- Parents]. Retrieved from, http://www.bianet.org/ soldier’s dead the to [Compensation Tazminat” belgeselini-engellemedi. azinliklar/123571-mahkeme-irkci-sari-gelin- Retrieved from, http://www.bianet.org/bianet/ Documentary]. Bride’ ‘Yellow Racist the Block Not Did Court [The Engellemedi” Belgeselini utancin_ve_piskinligin_kronolojisi-1093796. com.tr/yazarlar/ezgi_basaran/roboskide_ Newspaper . (2012, July 7). “Sevag Balıkçı’nın Balıkçı’nın . (2012, 7). July “Sevag . Retrieved from, http://www.radikal. from, . Retrieved . Retrieved from, http://www. from, . Retrieved . Kılıç, S. (March 19). “Eren Özel Kürt ve Alevi olduğu için için olduğu ve Alevi Kürt Özel 19). “Eren (March S. Kılıç, niye sorumluyken 11). “Komutan (2012, Dec. L. Kemal, Puanları” Molotof (2012, 10). June “Polisin A. İnsel Veriler” F.ve Kişisel İlkiz, 3). (2012, “Gazeteciler March Alımı (2012). Korucusu Köy “Geçici Idil Governorship. alımı korucusu (2011). “Geçici Governorship. Keyf Hasan Habertürk Habertürk. Haber Demokrat kusurlu-h11638.html. guncel/sevag-balikcinin-olumunde-agaoglu- Retrieved from, http://www.demokrathaber.net/ because he was Kurdish and Alevi?]. Birgün Alevi?]. and Kurdish was he because just murdered Özel Eren [Was mi öldürüldü?” yikilmak-istensin.htm. makale-komutan-sorumluyken-niye-basina- from, http://www.taraf.com.tr/lale-kemal/ Taraf isresponsible]. he as commander the blame [Why istensin?” yıkılmak başına polisin_molotof_puanlari-1090827. http://www.radikal.com.tr/radikal2/ from, Police]. Radikal the for Points [Molotov ozgurlugu/137186-gazeteciler-ve-kisisel-veriler. from, http://www.bianet.org/bianet/ifade- Bianet Data]. Personal and [Journalists 29.01.2013. tr/haber_detay.asp?haberID=96 http://www.idil.gov. from, Retrieved Recruited]. be will Guards Village [Temporary Yapılacaktır” asp?ID=147 http://www.hasankeyf.gov.tr/haber/haberdetay. from, guards]. Retrieved village of recruitment the regarding [Announcement duyuru” ilgili ile dokununca-kotu-mu. haber/715847-askeredokununca- iyi-de-mite- from, http://www Retrieved either]. snow driven the as pure as isnot MIT Cemal: [Hasan değil” kaşık ak çıkmış kosanerden-bomba-itiraflar haberturk.com/gundem/haber/662478-isik- Koşaner!]. Işık from Confessions [Shocking itiraflar!” er-eren-ozel-cinayetindeki-yalanlar-h7687.html. http://www.demokrathaber.net/guncel/ from, Retrieved Özel]. Eren Private of Murder the about Lies [The yalanlar” cinayetindeki . (2012, Feb. 14). “Hasan Cemal: MİT de sütten sütten de MİT Cemal: . (2012, 14). Feb. “Hasan (2011, Aug. 24). “Işık Koşaner’den bomba bomba Koşaner’den 24). Aug. (2011, “Işık . (2012, Mar. 19). Özel Eren “Er Retrieved from, http://www. from, Retrieved .haberturk.com/polemik/ . , accessed , accessed . Retrieved . Retrieved . Retrieved . Retrieved . Retrieved . Retrieved . Milliyet Milliyet. Milliyet. Milliyet Kaynağı Şiddetinin (2012, 20). Aug. Koçer, “Polis A. M. Milliyet bağlı ilçesine (2012). “Midyat Governorship. Midyat ve Davası Okey 17). “Festus Dec. (2011, S. Korkmaz, . (2012, Jun. 23). “Diskolar Tarih Oluyor” [Soldier [Soldier Tarih. (2012, 23). Jun. Oluyor” “Diskolar . (2011, Aug. 25). “Koşaner’in söylediği asker asker söylediği 25). Aug. . (2011, “Koşaner’in . (2007, Nov. [Police Tekmesi 23). Öldürdü” “Polis Retrieved from, http://gundem.milliyet.com. History]. Becoming are Wings Disciplinary siyasetdetay/10.12.2012/1639887/default.htm. aciklamasi/siyaset/ siyaset.milliyet.com.tr/tsk-dan-madalya- http:// from, Retrieved Erten]. General to given Honor of Medal the regarding statement public [TSK açıklama” ilgili madalyasıyla şeref verilen default.htm. gundem/gundemdetay/20.04.2012/1530700/ guvenli-dersi-yerine-secmeli-ders-geliyor/ from, http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/milli- Retrieved Classes]. Elective by Replaced be to Classes Security [National Geliyor” Ders Seçmeli gundemdetay/25.08.2011/1431216/default.htm. asker-murat-oktay-can-mi-/gundem/ gundem.milliyet.com.tr/kosaner-in-soyledigi- http:// from, Retrieved Can?]. Oktay Murat Private mean Koşaner [Did mı?” Can Oktay Murat com.tr/2007/11/23/guncel/agun.html. http://www.milliyet. from, Retrieved Killed]. Kick Law?] the Violence Police of Cause the [Is Yasa mı” 03&day=19&action=online. php?news_code=1332159368&year=2012&month= Retrieved from, http://www.birgun.net/mobile. 4a7ebbofe&msgn=299&ekmen=2 nan&anid=164&board=co42f4db68f23406c6cecf8 http://www.midyat.gov.tr/goster.php?yazilim=ad from, Retrieved below]. written Midyat of villages in the recruited be will guards village of number specified [The yapılacaktır” alımı korucusu köy geçici sayıda belirtilen köylerde yazılı aşağıda biamag/134802-festus-okey-davasi-ve-adalet. Retrieved from, http://bianet.org/bianet/ Bianet Justice]. and Case Okey [Festus Adalet” htm. com.tr/haber/polis-siddetinin-kaynagi-yasa-mi. (2012, Dec. 10). “TSK’dan Orgeneral Erten’e Orgeneral 10). “TSK’dan (2012, Dec. (2012, April 20). “Milli Güvenlik Dersi Yerine Dersi Güvenlik 20). “Milli (2012, April Taraf . Retrieved from, http://www.taraf. from, . Retrieved . .

65 66 Radikal. Radikal. ettiği 2). gasp Meclis’e Jan. (2013, N. “Yargı Naynaşın, Milliyet. Radikal. [A adım” Nov. geri 18). “‘Adli (2004, kolluk’ta Radikal. sevindirdi” kararı Ö. 2). (2012, Jul. “Danıştay’ın Öztürk, Veren Gerçeği 13). “Madalyayı (2012, Dec. H. Özkaya, Özçer, [The (2012, 4). Aug. A. “Askerin Alanı” Egemenlik from, http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/ gas]. Retrieved with METU smothered police the walked, [Students boğdu” gaza ODTÜ’yü yil_hapis_cezasi-1072364. radikal.com.tr/turkiye/festus_okeyin_katiline_4_ http://www. from, Okey]. Retrieved Festus of [4-Year killer the to Cezası” Sentence Hapis gundemdetay/04.06.2012/1549220/default.htm jandarmanin-yerine-kir-polisi/gundem/ http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/ from, Retrieved Gendarmerie]. the of Instead Police [Rural sevindiren_karar-936801. turkiye/baran_tursun_davasinda_polisleri_ http://www.radikal.com.tr/ from, Retrieved happy] police the made which Tursun case in Baran [A decision karar” sevindiren polisleri htm yargi-meclis-e-gasp-ettigi-yetkisini-geri-verdi. http://taraf.com.tr/haber/ from, Retrieved Taraf. authority]. exhorted Parliament’s restored [Judgement verdi” geri yetkisini gundemdetay/23.06.2012/1557503/default.htm. tr/-disko-lar-tarih-oluyor/gundem/ php?haberno=134660. http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber. Police] Judicial in the back step sevindirdi_334508.html. http://www.dha.com.tr/danistayin-karari- State]. of Council the of Decision the by Pleased Are [We gercegi-aciklasin.htm. www.taraf.com.tr/haber/madalyayi-veren- http:// from, Retrieved Truth]. the Taraf. Express Should Medal Gave the who One [The Açıklasın” askerin-egemenlik-alani.htm. http://www.taraf.com.tr/akin-ozcer/makale- Taraf Military]. the of Dominion (2012, Dec. 19). “Öğrenciler yürüdü, polis polis yürüdü, 19). “Öğrenciler (2012, Dec. (2011, Dec. 13). “Festus Okey’in Katiline 4Yıl Katiline Okey’in 13). “Festus Dec. (2011, (2009, May 20). “Baran Tursun May20). davasında “Baran (2009, (2012, June 4). “Jandarmanın Yerine Kır Polisi” Yerine Polisi” Kır (2012, 4). June “Jandarmanın . Doğan Haber Ajansı Haber Doğan . Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved . Retrieved from, from, . Retrieved

. . Yetkin, M. (2012, Feb. 23). “İstihbarat Örgütlerinin Örgütlerinin Yetkin, (2012, 23). Feb. M. “İstihbarat Yıldız, G. (2011, Jun. 11). “İzmir’de Etnik Kimlik ve Gerilim” ve Gerilim” Yıldız, Kimlik Etnik 11). Jun. (2011, G. “İzmir’de Taraf. Sabah T24. Sabah. Radikal Radikal. Radikal. (2012, Nov. 16). “Gazetecileri sahte isimle dinleyen dinleyen isimle sahte (2012, Nov. “Gazetecileri 16). (2012, Aug. 16). “Devlet Kurumları Hâlâ Sır Küpü” Küpü” Sır Hâlâ Kurumları “Devlet (2012, 16). Aug. . (2012, Dec. 13). “AİHM’den asker intiharı kararı” 13). kararı” “AİHM’den. (2012, Dec. intiharı asker (2012, Mar. 5). “Jandarma İçişleri Bakanlığına Bakanlığına İçişleri (2012, Mar. 5). “Jandarma . (2013, Feb. 5).“İşte 4. Yargı Paketi: KCK Yargı Paketi: 5).“İşte Feb. 4. . (2013, demokratik_denetimi-1079635 yazarlar/murat_yetkin/istihbarat_orgutlerinin_ http://www.radikal.com.tr/ from, Retrieved the Intelligence Organizations]. of Oversight [Democratic Denetimi” Demokratik [Government Institutions are still secretive]. secretive]. still are Institutions [Government guney_blognot.shtml turkce/ozeldosyalar/2011/06/110611_elections_ Türkçe Tension and in Izmir]. BBC Identity [Ethnic mit-kamu-yararina-yaptik/217518. com.tr/haber/gazetecileri-sahte-isimle-dinleyen- http://t24. from, Retrieved good]. public for it We have done alias: with journalists wiretapped which [MIT yaptık” MİT: yararına Kamu karari Gundem/2012/12/13/aihmden-asker-intihari- http://www.sabah.com.tr/ from, Retrieved Suicide]. Soldier’s the Regarding Decision [ECtHR tutuklularina_tahliye_yolu-1119993. com.tr/turkiye/iste_4_yargi_paketi_kck_ http://www.radikal. from, Retrieved detainees]. KCK of Way Eviction the for The Package: Judicial 4. isthe [Here yolu” tahliye tutuklularına jandarma-icisleri-bakanina-baglaniyor. http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2012/03/05/ from, Retrieved Interior]. of Ministry the to attached isbeing Gendarmerie [The Bağlanıyor” icin_dinledik-1109676. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/korumak_ from, Retrieved them!]. protect to wiretapped sorusturmadan_alindi-1078437. radikal.com.tr/turkiye/savci_sarikaya_ http://www. from, Retrieved investigation]. the from removed was Sarıkaya [Prosecutor alındı” bogdu-1112746 . bogdu-1112746 ogrenciler_yurudu_polis_odtuyu_gaza_ (2012, Nov. 28). “Korumak için dinledik!” [We [We dinledik!” (2012, için Nov. 28). “Korumak (2012, Feb. 11). “Savcı Sarıkaya soruşturmadan soruşturmadan (2012, 11). Feb. Sarıkaya “Savcı . . Retrieved from, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ from, . Retrieved . . Radikal .

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2005) (ECtHR) A.D. v. Rights Human of Court European Decisions E Metin v. (2011) (ECtHR) Metin Rights Human of Court European (2011) (ECtHR) Ersin Rights Human of Court European (2008) S. (ECtHR) and Rights Human of Court European (2006) (ECtHR) Rights Human of Court European European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2012) (ECtHR) Halil Rights Human of Court European C uropean Turkey Turkey v. Turkey Pulatlı 30566/04. Kingdom v. United the Marper v. Turkey,Country 0 39437/98, No: Yüksel Akıncı v. Turkey Akıncı Yüksel , No:29986/96. , No: 26773/05. 26773/05. , No: H of ourt , No: 38665/07. 38665/07. , No: , No: 39125/04. , No: R uman , No: 30562/04 and and 30562/04 , No: ights

67 68 the Manifestation of the ‘Security’ Oriented Oriented ‘Security’ the of Manifestation the State’, ‘Security the of Emergence [“The Politikaları” Hal’: Polis AKP’nin ‘Olağanüstü Süreklileşen Tekniğinin Tezahürleri ve Teşkilatındaki Polis Yönetim Eksenli ‘Güvenlik’ Çıkışı, Ortaya Devleti’nin “‘Güvenlik follows: as are publications her of Some power. of strategies state’s the and organization police the relationship between the on sheconcentrates Inresearch, her issues. Turkey of Turkey’s and politics the rights human neoliberalism, of sociology punishment, of theories ofinstitutions penal and sociology policies, penal include interest of areas academic Her Relations. International of Sciences,Department Political of University, Faculty Istanbul at faculty the of member a She is currently University. Boğaziçi at Relations International and Science Political of Department the from degrees PhD and MA, BA, her received Berksoy Bİ Author the About r İ z B erksoy Publications, Istanbul, 2009 Istanbul, Publications, TESEV Oversight, Democratic and Sector Security 2008: (eds.), İnsel A. AlmanacBayramoğlu, Turkey 2006- Organization,” in A. Police “The 2009; 114, Bilim, ve in Turkey Toplum Organization since1960”]. Police the within Prevalent Discourses Hegemonic the on Evaluation An Strategies: State of Manifestation the as Sub-culture [“Police Değerlendirme” Bir Dair Söylemlere Olan TeşkilatındaPolis Hâkim Türkiye’de The Sonrası Alt-kültürü: Polis 1960 Olarak Tezahürü Bir Stratejilerinin “Devlet 2010; Press, (eds.), Schwedler ve Jillian University Columbia Khalili Laleh of Coercion, Formations East: Middle the in Prisons and Formation”, Policing Social the of Re-construction in Turkey the and Period Organization post-1980 in the Birikim Party”]. Development and Justice the of Policies Police The Emergency’: of ‘State the of Permanence the and Technique Organization Police inGovernmental the 276, 2012; “The Re-structuring of the Police Police the of Re-structuring “The 2012; 276, TESEV DEMOCRATIZATION Program POLICY REPORT SERIES

SECURITY SECTOR 4

Military, Police and Intelligence in Turkey: Recent Transformations and Needs for Reform

Biriz Berksoy

Bankalar Caddesi Minerva Han, No:2, Kat: 3 34420 Karaköy ‹stanbul T +90 212 292 89 03 F +90 212 292 90 46 DEMOKRATİKLEŞME www.tesev.org.tr ISBN 978-605-5332-42-6 PROGRAMI