DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to the Turkish Government on the Visit to Turkey Carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to the Turkish Government on the Visit to Turkey Carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture CPT/Inf (2020) 22 Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 10 to 23 May 2017 The Turkish Government has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2020) 23. Strasbourg, 5 August 2020 - 2 - CONTENTS Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8 A. The visit, the report and follow-up.......................................................................................... 8 B. Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation ........................................................ 9 C. Monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty ..................................................................... 10 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED .............................. 11 A. Police custody .......................................................................................................................... 11 1. Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................ 11 2. Ill-treatment ..................................................................................................................... 11 3. Fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment ................................................................. 15 4. Conditions of detention ................................................................................................... 18 B. Foreign nationals detained under aliens legislation ............................................................ 21 1. General remarks .............................................................................................................. 21 2. Ill-treatment ..................................................................................................................... 26 3. Conditions of detention in removal centres .................................................................... 27 a. material conditions................................................................................................. 27 b. regime .................................................................................................................... 29 4. Detention of minors ......................................................................................................... 31 5. Holding facilities for foreign nationals in the transit zone of Istanbul Atatürk Airport . 32 6. Health care ...................................................................................................................... 34 7. Other issues ..................................................................................................................... 37 a. legal safeguards ..................................................................................................... 37 b. contact with the outside world ............................................................................... 40 c. security-related issues ............................................................................................ 41 C. Prisons...................................................................................................................................... 43 1. Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................ 43 2. Ill-treatment ..................................................................................................................... 47 3. Conditions of detention of adult prisoners ...................................................................... 47 - 3 - a. material conditions................................................................................................. 47 b. regime .................................................................................................................... 50 4. Conditions of detention of juvenile remand prisoners .................................................... 51 5. Situation of prisoners held in R-type prisons .................................................................. 52 6. Health-care services in the other prisons visited ............................................................. 56 7. Other issues ..................................................................................................................... 61 a. contact with the outside world ............................................................................... 61 b. discipline ................................................................................................................ 63 c. complaints procedures ........................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX I: List of the establishments visited by the CPT’s delegation ................................................. 67 APPENDIX II: List of the national authorities and organisations with which the CPT's delegation held consultations ........................................................... 68 - 4 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The main objective of the visit was to review the measures taken by the Turkish authorities to implement the recommendations made by the Committee after previous visits. In this context, particular attention was paid to the treatment and conditions of detention of persons in police custody and foreign nationals detained under aliens legislation, as well as to the situation in various prisons in different parts of the country. In addition, the delegation visited for the first time two specialised (R-type) prisons for prisoners suffering from chronic somatic and/or mental illnesses. The co-operation received by the delegation throughout the visit was generally very good at all levels. Police custody The delegation received a considerable number of allegations from detained persons (including women and juveniles) of recent physical ill-treatment by police and gendarmerie officers, in particular in the Istanbul area and in south-eastern Turkey. Most of these allegations concerned excessive use of force at the time of apprehension. In addition, many detained persons claimed that they had been physically ill-treated inside law enforcement establishments, with a view to extracting a confession or obtaining information or as a punishment. Some detained persons alleged that electric shocks had been inflicted upon them by police officers with body-contact shock devices. In the CPT’s view, in a number of cases, the alleged ill-treatment was of such severity that it could be considered as amounting to torture. Further, many accounts were received, in particular from detained women, that they had been subjected to psychological ill-treatment (such as threats of beatings, rape or death) and/or severe verbal abuse (often of an explicit sexual nature). The CPT recommends that a clear and firm message that all forms of ill-treatment of detained persons are illegal and will be punished accordingly be delivered to all law enforcement officials from the highest political level, namely the President of the Republic. As regards the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment (i.e. the right of notification of custody and the rights of access to a lawyer and doctor), most detained persons interviewed by the delegation indicated that a relative or another trusted person was notified shortly after their apprehension and that they had access to a lawyer whilst in police custody. That said, the CPT expresses its concern about the existence of legal restrictions regarding access to a lawyer during the initial phase of police custody (up to 24 hours). Many detained persons claimed that they had been subjected to informal questioning by law enforcement officials about the suspected offence without the presence of a lawyer, prior to the taking of a formal statement (in the presence of a lawyer). Further, the entire system of routine medical controls at the beginning and at the end of police custody appeared to be fundamentally flawed, since law enforcement officials were usually present during such controls and these controls were often carried out without any physical examination. Regrettably, the specific recommendations repeatedly made in this regard by the Committee after previous visits have not been implemented. In most of the law enforcement establishments visited, material conditions of detention were on the whole adequate for short stays. However, nearly all of them suffered from major structural deficiencies and were thus not suitable for periods of detention lasting longer than 24 hours. With a few exceptions, there was either no or only limited access to natural light in the cells of the detention facilities visited. Further, hardly any of the establishments visited were equipped with facilities to enable detained persons to take outdoor exercise. In some of the establishments visited, the situation was further exacerbated by the fact that detained persons were being held in severely overcrowded cells (e.g. up to four persons in a cell of 7 m²). - 5 - The CPT expresses concern that persons detained under the emergency legislation can be held under the above-mentioned conditions for up to 14 days, and the Committee recommends
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report to the Turkish Government on the Visit to Turkey Carried out by The
    CPT/Inf (2015) 6 Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 21 June 2013 The Turkish Government has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2015) 7. Strasbourg, 15 January 2015 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report............................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................5 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................6 C. Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation encountered...................................7 D. Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention .........................7 E. Monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty and complaints bodies.................................8 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ................................9 A. Police custody ............................................................................................................................9 1. Preliminary remarks ..........................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamics of Collective Action in Turkish Prisons
    DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 by Basak Gemici Ay Bachelor of Arts, Sabancı University, 2012 Master of Arts, Koc University, 2015 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Basak Gemici Ay It was defended on April 14th, 2016 and approved by Suzanne Staggenborg, Professor and Department Chair, Sociology Thesis Director: Jackie Smith, Professor, Sociology John Markoff, Distinguished University Professor, Sociology ii Copyright © by Basak Gemici Ay 2016 iii DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION IN TURKISH PRISONS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAMAK AND DIYARBAKIR PRISONS BETWEEN 1980 AND 1985 Basak Gemici Ay, M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2016 Historically, one of the most significant periods in which incarceration was used as a tool to manage political opponents of the regime in Turkey was the 1980s, specifically during and after the 1980 military coup. This study investigates the high-risk environments of the two notorious military prisons: Mamak and Diyarbakir Prisons between 1980 and 1985. These two military prisons: Mamak Prison, where Turkish revolutionaries were incarcerated and Diyarbakir Prison, where Kurdish revolutionaries were incarcerated, were infamous for the torture and level of repression implemented by the military junta. The aim of the military junta was to dissolve revolutionary organizations and military prisons were one of the state institutions that were used to realize this aim.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Conditions
    Country Information and Guidance Turkey: Prison Conditions Version 1.0 February 2016 Preface This document provides country of origin information (COI) and guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling particular types of protection and human rights claims. This includes whether claims are likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave and whether – in the event of a claim being refused – it is likely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must consider claims on an individual basis, taking into account the case specific facts and all relevant evidence, including: the guidance contained with this document; the available COI; any applicable caselaw; and the Home Office casework guidance in relation to relevant policies. Country Information The COI within this document has been compiled from a wide range of external information sources (usually) published in English. Consideration has been given to the relevance, reliability, accuracy, objectivity, currency, transparency and traceability of the information and wherever possible attempts have been made to corroborate the information used across independent sources, to ensure accuracy. All sources cited have been referenced in footnotes. It has been researched and presented with reference to the Common EU [European Union] Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), dated April 2008, and the European Asylum Support Office’s research guidelines, Country of Origin Information report methodology, dated July 2012. Feedback Our goal is to continuously improve the guidance and information we provide. Therefore, if you would like to comment on this document, please e-mail us.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Turkish Government on the Visit to Turkey Carried Out
    CPT/Inf (2011) 13 Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 4 to 17 June 2009 The Turkish Government has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2011) 14. Strasbourg, 31 March 2011 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report............................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................5 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................6 C. Co-operation and consultations held by the delegation.........................................................7 D. Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention .........................9 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ..............................10 A. Monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty......................................................................10 B. Law enforcement agencies......................................................................................................11 1. Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 in Turkish Prisons and Discrimination Against Political Prisoners
    LEFT BEHIND TO DIE: COVID-19 in Turkish Prisons and Discrimination Against Political Prisoners stockholm center for APRIL, 2021 SCF freedom www.stockholmcf.org This page intentionally left blank 2 Table of contents ABOUT STOCKHOLM CENTER FOR FREEDOM �������������������������������������������������3 1. INTRODUCTION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4 2. THE GENERAL STATE OF PRISONS IN TURKEY FOLLOWING THE COUP ATTEMPT AND COVID-19 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 5 3. ‘TERRORISM’ AND ‘POLITICAL OFFENSES’ IN TURKEY . 9 4. LAW NO. 7242 ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON THE EXECUTION OF SENTENCES AND SECURITY MEASURES ������������������������� 12 4.1. Changes Made to Mandatory Time Served Prior to Eligibility for Release on Parole ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12 4.2. Amendments to Special Procedures for the Execution of Sentences �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 4.3. Changes in Mandatory Time Served Periods . 16 4.4. Convicted women with children aged 0-6 ���������������������������������������18 4.5. Elderly, ill and frail, and disabled prisoners . .18 4.6. Lifting Disciplinary Punishments ���������������������������������������������������������19 5. THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL (HSK) AFTER THE 2017 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ������������������������������������������������������������������20 5.1. The 2017
    [Show full text]
  • In Prison 2017
    A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE PRISON CONDITIONS IN TURKEY IN PRISON 2017 IN PRISON 2017 IN PRISON 2017 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 TORTURE AND MISTREATMENT .......................................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 7 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 8 THE MARMARA REGION ........................................................................................................ 9 THE AEGEAN REGION ........................................................................................................... 26 THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION ............................................................................................. 36 CENTRAL ANATOLIA REGION .............................................................................................. 45 BLACK SEA REGION ............................................................................................................... 54 SOUTHEAST ANATOLIA REGION ......................................................................................... 60 EAST ANATOLIA REGION ...................................................................................................... 63 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of a Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Turkey: Kurds, the HDP
    Home Office Report of a Home Office Fact-Finding Mission Turkey: Kurds, the HDP and the PKK Conducted 17 June to 21 June 2019 Published October 2019 This project is partly funded by the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. Making management of migration * * flows more efficient across the European Union. * * * * *** Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6 Background .......................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of the mission ....................................................................................... 6 Structure of this report ........................................................................................ 6 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 Identification of sources ...................................................................................... 7 Arranging and conducting interviews ................................................................ 7 Notes of interviews/meetings ............................................................................. 7 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................ 8 Executive summary .................................................................................................. 9 Source assessment and commentary .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prisons and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey
    26 May 2020 Conditions are worsening in Turkey’s prisons with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic Following the announcement of COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the CPT issued a set of principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty on 20 March 2020, asking member states of the Council of Europe to follow them. On March 25th, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, and, on April 5th, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe made statements asking governments to respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and democratic standards while devising and implementing measures to fight the pandemic. Some of the key recommendations made by the commissioners include improvement of conditions of prisons which are most vulnerable places in the face of a pandemic, release of people detained without sufficient legal basis (including political prisoners), meeting medical and hygienic needs of detainees and convicts, and not suspending fundamental rights within prisons. Since early March, the government of Turkey has also been implementing various measures to fight COVID-19 within prisons across the country, including a highly contested special amnesty law that enabled release of some 90 thousand convicts. Although the release of these many people helped to significantly reduce prison population, one of the highest in Europe, this amnesty law was utterly unfair and discriminatory at least on two grounds. First, it categorically excluded from its scope all political prisoners facing “terrorism-related charges.” Second, as it applies only to convicts, the law also excluded those jailed pending trial. As various legal authorities have underlined, this law is in clear violation of Article 2 (the rule of law) and Article 10 (equality before the law) of the Turkish Constitution as well as Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Architecture a Typological Analysis of Spatial Organizations in Respect to Punishment Systems
    Prison Architecture A Typological Analysis of Spatial Organizations in respect to Punishment Systems By G. Deniz DOKGÖZ A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE Department : Architecture Major : Architecture İzmir Institute of Technology İzmir, Turkey September, 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Özen Eyüce for her creative suggestions, sensitive critiques and great support during the preparation of this thesis. I especially thank Yılmaz Konursay, İsmail Cem Kantarlı, Mert Topoyan, Kaan Bal, Burhan Öztürk, Özgür Muhtar Cirik, Serkan Bilgiç, and Umut Taylan Ersoy for their technical support. Last but not least, I owe special thanks to Tuba Çetinkaya for his spiritual and technical support throughout the study and I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their unlimited patience, encouragement and support at every moment of my life. ii ABSTRACT The concepts of crime and punishment have always been a part of culture in every society throughout the history of mankind. However, the acts accepted as ‘crime’ and the penalties imposed upon criminals for the same crime have revealed differences in each society and in each era. Prior to the Modern Age, almost in all societies, punishment was an open public activity to warn people and imprisonment was not a way of punishment; instead it was only a measure impeding the criminal’s escape until the execution of punishment. Modern world, at the beginning, has tried to use punishment for dictating definite ‘norms’ instead of frightening; later on, instead of corporal execution some other punishment systems have been used as a means of creating individuals submitting to the authority on the way to the formation of inspection oriented ‘New Society’.
    [Show full text]
  • Everyday Life and Resistance Practices in F-Type Prisons of Turkey
    EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE PRACTICES IN F-TYPE PRISONS OF TURKEY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY SİBEL BEKİROĞLU IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY JULY 2016 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences _______________________ Prof. Dr. Meliha ALTUNIŞIK Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. _______________________ Prof. Dr. Sibel KALAYCIOĞLU Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. _______________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay TOPAL Supervisor Examining Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan YILDIRIM (METU, SOC) ______________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay TOPAL (METU, SOC) ______________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kemal COŞKUN (Ankara Uni, SOC) ______________________ ii PLAGIARISM I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last Name: Sibel Bekiroğlu Signature : iii ABSTRACT EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE PRACTICES IN F-TYPE PRISONS OF TURKEY Bekiroğlu, Sibel M.S., Department of Sociology Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay Topal July 2016, 213 pages This study undertakes the analysis of everyday lives of the political prisoners in F- type prisons in reliance of the concept of “tactic” of Michel de Certeau.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire
    PRISONS IN THE LATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE PRISONS IN THE LATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE MICROCOSMS OF MODERNITY 2 Kent F. Schull © Kent F. Schull, 2014 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 11/13 JaghbUni Regular by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CRO 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 4173 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 7769 6 (webready PDF) The right of Kent F. Schull to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Contents List of Illustrations vi List of Abbreviations vii Note on Transliteration and Pronunciation viii Preface ix Introduction 1 1. Ottoman Criminal Justice and the Transformation of Islamic Criminal Law and Punishment in the Age of Modernity, 1839–1922 17 2. Prison Reform in the Late Ottoman Empire: The State’s Perspectives 42 3. Counting the Incarcerated: Knowledge, Power and the Prison Population 67 4. The Spatialisation of Incarceration: Reforms, Response and the Reality of Prison Life 111 5. Disciplining the Disciplinarians: Combating Corruption and Abuse through the Professionalisation of the Prison Cadre 142 6. Creating Juvenile Delinquents: Redefining Childhood in the Late Ottoman Empire 166 Conclusion 191 Bibliography 201 Index 217 Illustrations Figures 3.1 1912 Prison survey
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Rights Watch the Human Rights Watch Global Report On
    THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH GLOBAL REPORT ON PRISONS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED REPORTS FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH PRISON PROJECT Prison Conditions in Brazil Prison Conditions in Czechoslovakia Prison Conditions in Czechoslovakia: An Update Prison Conditions in Egypt Prison Conditions in India Prison Conditions in Indonesia Prison Conditions in Israel & the Israeli-Occupied West Bank & Gaza Strip Prison Conditions in Jamaica Prison Conditions in Mexico Prison Conditions in Poland Prison Conditions in Poland: An Update Prison Conditions in Puerto Rico Prison Conditions in Romania Prison Conditions in Spain Prison Conditions in Turkey Prison Conditions in the United Kingdom Prison Conditions in the United States Prison Conditions in the Soviet Union THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH GLOBAL REPORT ON PRISONS Human Rights Watch New York !!! Washington !!! Los Angeles !!! London Copyright 8 June 1993 by Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 93 78608 ISBN 1-56432-101-0 Cover design by Robert Kimzey. The Prison Project The Prison Project, established in 1988, cuts across the five regional divisions of Human Rights Watch to focus on a single issue: prison conditions worldwide. The Prison Project has investigated conditions for sentenced prisoners, pre-trial detainees and those held in police lockups. It examines prison conditions for all prisoners, not just political prisoners. The work of the Prison Project is guided by the Prison Advisory Committee, whose chairman is Herman Schwartz. Other members are Nan Aron, Vivian Berger, Haywood Burns, Alejandro Garro, William Hellerstein, Edward Koren, Sheldon Krantz, Benjamin Malcolm, Diane Orentlicher, Norman Rosenberg, David Rothman and Clarence Sundram.
    [Show full text]