|
Turkey
1756. By letter dated 1 July 2004, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received allegations concerning Hakim Cetiner, Besir Ariz, Faysal Karadeniz, Saban Boz, Ahmet Bulut, Bayram Bulut, Mehmet Sirin Hatman, Bahire Karatas, Firat Duzgun and Iclal Guclu, journalists and cameramen for D?HA, Gün TV, Söz TV, SHOW TV and Kanal 21; and a number of demonstrators, including Hasan Orak, Ilknur Ozlem, Hida Gulaydin, Vedat Tanriverdi, Muhslis Abik, Bilal Senturk, Veysi Durudemir, Mustafa Polat, Zeynep Katar, Seyro Ece and Mehmet Ayata. According to the allegations received, the journalists and camermen were assaulted by police officers in Diyarbakir on 28 March 2004, while they were covering the dispersion of a demonstration against alleged electoral fraud, following the local elections in the city that day. They were beaten with clubs and chains. Mehmet Sirin Hatman, Saban Boz and Bahire Karatas were hospitalized. Mehmet Sirin Hatman and Bayram Bulut had their arms broken. During the incident, the police officers damage their cameras and tried to seize film from the journalists. The demonstrators were beaten with batons and chains by police officers. Some of them were seriously wounded. Zeynep Katar, Seyro Ece and Mehmet Ayata were wounded during the dispersion of the demonstration and subsequently arrested.
1757. By letter dated 30 August 2004, the Government informed that after voting for local elections took place on 28 March, a group of demonstrators gathered in front of the courthouse in Diyarbakir at around 10:30pm. The group started to chant slogans and blocked traffic. The security officers did not intervene until an election officer and a policeman were assaulted by the demonstrators. Among the demonstrators, Mr. Seyro Ece was taken into custody for violently resisting the officers and taking part in the incident. The group did not disperse and headed to a nearby street. The police were again obliged to intervene. Mr. Mehmet Ayata, Mr. Mustafa Polat and Ms. Zeynep Katar violently resisted the police officers, and were forcefully overpowered and taken into custody. It was established that Mr. Mehmet Ayata was a lawyer, was ordered released and asked to appear before the Public Prosecutor on the following day, 29 March. Mr. Polat and Ms. Katar were also referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 29 March. The Office filed a lawsuit against the accused in accordance with Law No. 3005 (crimes committed in the presence of witnesses) and Law No. 2911 (violating the law on the meetings and demonstrations). They were released pending the trial and the case is underway. These persons were examined by doctors both before and at the end of their custody. According to the medical reports at the beginning of the custody, “oedema and hyperemic areas” were perceived on their bodies. The medical reports received after the end of the custody period did not indicate the existence of any additional marks. Therefore, it was concluded that the injuries on their bodies had probably occurred during their forceful arrest by the police. After the incidents, local journalists and cameramen Mr. Faysal Karadeniz, Mr. Mehmet Sirin Hatman, Mr. Firat Düzgün, Mr. Bayram Bulut, Ms. Basiye Karatas, Mr. Ahmet Bulut and Mr. Besir Ariz filed a joint complaint at the Yenisehir Police Station in Diyarbakir, concerning police actions at Büyükalp Street. They attached medical reports of their injuries from the Diyarbakir State Hospital. They alleged that some 10-15 persons whom they believed to be plain clothes policemen arrived at the scene, attacked the demonstrators and then assaulted the journalists. According to the complaint, the alleged plain-clothes policemen smashed their cameras and seized the camera of Ms. Basiye Karatas. An investigation has been initiated by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and is underway. Mr. Mehmet Hide Gülaydin and Ms. Iclal Güçlü, stated in their testimonies delivered at the Yenisehir Police Station that they wished to file complaints. Upon the request by the Diyarbakir Governorate, the Ministry of the Interior assigned two police chief inspectors to investigate all the above-mentioned cases.
1758. By letter dated 7 September 2004, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received the following allegations, to which the Government responded by letter dated 25 November 2004 and 20 December 2004:
1759. Mahir Mansuroglu, Dilsat Aktas and Ibrahim Karabagli, three university students. They were severely beaten when they demonstrated on 2 April 2003 against the visit to Ankara of the Secretary of State of the United States of America.
1760. The Government informed that on 2 April 2003 at 9:15am, they were among a group of 20 people who gathered in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ankara, and blocked the road, in protest of a visit of the United States of America Secretary of State. Police officers warned the protestors with loudspeakers, stating that their demonstration was unlawful due to the fact that they blocked the road, thus their act constituted an infringement of the Law on Meeting and Demonstration Marches No. 2911. The police also asked the group to end their unlawful gathering and warned them that they would be detained otherwise. The group disregarded the warnings, continued to march towards the building’s entrance, and threw eggs at the police. The police were compelled to resort to force to disperse them, when the protestors attempted to breach the police cordon. A subgroup of ten protestors, including Mahir Mansuroglu, Dilsat Aktas and Ibrahim Karabagli, who continued to resist forcefully, were detained and charged. The medical reports of these persons record some symptoms of injuries that were sustained from resisting arrest. The Bureau of Criminal Acts in the Press of the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office held an investigation and filed a lawsuit against them at the Ankara Penal Court of First Instance No. 6 on grounds of infringement on the Law on Meeting and Demonstration Marches No. 2911 on 16 April 2003. The first hearing of the case was held on 16 September 2003. Since the offence attributed to the accused was legally unsubstantiated, the court acquitted the accused. The prosecutor appealed against the verdict at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation on 31 October 2003. The review of the case is still underway. They have not file any complaint at the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office related to this incident since 2003.
1761. Mesut Kiliç, a student. He suffered a broken leg as a result of police use of force during a demonstration held on 11 April 2003 in Izmir to protest against the war in Iraq. In scenes that were broadcast on national and local television news broadcasts, police were seen to disperse student protesters by beating and kicking them.
1762. The Government informed that on 11 April at 3:30pm, a group of 25 to 30 people, including Mesut Kiliç, were gathered in from of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association, to protest the war in Iraq. The police repeatedly warned the protestors with loudspeakers with five minute intervals, stating that their protest was unlawful due to the fact that they did not receive the necessary permission. The police asked the group to end their protest after they read their press statement, warning them of the use of force if they did not disperse. The Chairman of the association was asked for mediation to stop the protest. The crowd ignored calls to disperse, and when they insisted on approaching the Rapid Reaction Police forces stationed in front, the latter were compelled to react by use of force to disperse the protestors. After the incident, the group of protestors threw stones and sticks at the police, and beat one traffic officer. They fled toward the Basmane Square, entered the building of the Justice and Development Party, Konak Branch, occupied a meeting room and barricaded themselves. NGO representatives convinced the protestors to evacuate the room. A group of 20 protestors, including Mesut Kiliç, who resisted the police intervention, was detained by force at 5:30pm. Following their medical examination, two minor protestors were handed over to their legal guardians. Eighteen others, including Mesut Kiliç, were brought to the Anti- Terrorism Branch, Bozkaya, due to the limited space of interrogation and detention rooms available in the Division of Security Directorate. The police videotaped the whole incident. The legal authorities later released the detainees. Upon the complaint filed by the Security Division of the Office, the Izmir Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit at the Izmir Penal Court of First Instance No. 7 against Mesut Kilic on grounds of holding an illegal demonstration march on 12 April 2003. The hearing of the case was scheduled for 4 November 2004. He has not filed any complaint at the Izmir Public Prosecutor’s Office related to this incident.
1763. By letter dated 14 September 2004, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received the following allegations, to which the Government responded by letter dated 13 December 2004:
1764. The Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TIHV)’s Diyarbakir Centre for the rehabilitation of victims of torture, a human rights organization whose primary objectives are to document human rights violations, to provide medical and psychological help for torture survivors through a network of rehabilitation centres and to lobby for the abolition of torture. The centre was raided by the police on 5 September 2001. The police reportedly seized computers and documents, including the Centre’s confidential patients’ files. A case was subsequently opened against Mr. Sezgin Tanrikulu (cited in a previously transmitted communication, E/CN.4/2004/60/Add.1, para. 92), TIHV’s Diyarbakir representative, for illegally operating a health clinic and possessing banned publications.
1765. The Government informed that on 7 September 2001, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Diyarbakir State Security Court applied for a search warrant against the Centre. The Reserve Member of the State Security Court Chairman’s Office No. 4, agreed and issued a search warrant, valid for only one search during daytime. With this authorization the search was carried out on the same day at 5:30pm and some documents were seized. The Public Prosecutor was informed about the documents and he filed a lawsuit at the Diyarbakir Penal Court of First Instance on grounds of opening and running a health centre without a license, which constituted an infringement of Law No. 2219. As a result of a hearing held on 19 April 2002, due to the absence of adequate evidence supporting the allegation, the court acquitted the accused. Some of the documents seized were retained for the lawsuit and the rest were handed over to Sezgin Tanrikulu, the Diyarbakir representative of the Foundation, on 9 October 2001 upon the ruling of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State Security Court.
1766. Yunus Güzel, a 33 year-old man who had been accused of being a potential suicide bomber. His dead body was found on 23 October 2001 in his cell at Istanbul Police headquarters. The police announced that he had hanged himself with his bed linen, fixed to the bed. However, other sources reported that there was no linen in the room. Other detainees reported that Yunus Güzel had been subjected to torture. One of his relatives stated that he saw traces of beatings and electric shocks on his forehead and other parts of the body. The case was brought before the Fatih Penal Court.
1767. The Government informed that on 16 October 2001, a security operation was conducted against the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C). The police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate detained him due to his relationship with the organization. On that very day the police officers found him dead in his detention room in the Office of the Chief of the Detention Rooms. He was understood to have committed suicide by hanging himself with his bed linen. The medical examination reports dated 17 October and 20 October indicated no trace of ill-treatment. The autopsy report dated 21 November stated that he died of suicide.
1768. Emin Ete. He was arrested on 19 April 2003 in Siirt by three plain-clothed police officers. He was reportedly threatened by a superintendent who held a gun to his head and slashed him with a knife. Emin Ete was taken to hospital and received stitches to his hand. However, it is alleged that the superintendent confiscated the doctor’s report and neither Emin Ete nor his lawyer have been able to obtain a copy of it. At his first attempt to file a complaint against the police, he was turned away by the public prosecutor. He made a second attempt with the assistance of a human rights non-governmental organization and his complaint was eventually filed with the prosecutor’s office.
1769. The Government informed that on 19 April 2003 at 9pm, a stone was thrown and broke the windshield of a police car on patrol in the Evren Neighbourhood, Siirt. The police sought to interview Mehmet Emin Ete, who was there when the incident took place. He refused and used insulting language, including threats against the officers. He was then invited to the police station. He refused and violently resisted the officers, who were compelled to use force to put him into the police car. He attempted to wound the police officer in the rear seat with a pocket-knife. He accidentally cut himself when the officers intervened. After being treated, he was taken to the police station. Following the completion of the investigation he was released upon the order of the Public Prosecutor. Mehmet Emin Ete file a complaint against the police for ill-treatment at the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The officers filed a complaint against him on grounds of resistance to officers on duty. The Public Prosecutor filed a lawsuit at the Siirt Penal Court of First Instance. The court decided for acquittal for both complaints, and no administrative investigation was initiated.
1770. Ali Ulvi Uludogan and his brother, Ilhan Uludogan. They were detained on 25 May 2003 for driving through a red light in the Kulu district of Konya province. They were subjected to torture and ill- treatment in detention in Kulu police station. On telephoning the police station, Ulvi Uludogan’s wife was informed by police officers that her husband and his brother were not in detention. While Ali Ulvi Uludogan was undergoing a medical examination, a plain-clothed police officer remained in the examination room and that without examining him or his brother, the doctor wrote a report which made no mention of the visible injuries on their faces and bodies.
1771. The Government informed that on 23 May 2003 at 11pm, the Ankara District Traffic Station was informed that a car traveling from Ankara to Gölbasi town was driven by an intoxicated person. At risk to officers’ lives, the car failed to stop twice, and was finally stopped at a red light in the city-centre. The occupants were asked for necessary documentation and to submit to a roadside alcohol test. The two men resisted, and they were taken to the Kulu State Hospital to be tested. They men insulted and threatened the officers and the doctor at the hospital. The tests were positive of intoxication, and they were charged. Upon the orders of the Public Prosecutor, they were detained and their sister was informed. A search of the car uncovered a firearm and ammunition. The medical examination report of Ali Ulvi Uludogan, dated 25 May 2003, stated that he was intoxicated, had a bleeding wound on his upper lip and a bruise on his right shoulder; non-grievous injuries. Another report dated 26 May 2003 indicated that there was no trace of ill-treatment except those indicated earlier. The medical examination of Ilhan Uludogan, dated 25 May 2003, indicated that he was intoxicated and there was no trace of ill-treatment. The second report of 26 May confirmed this. The brothers were released upon the ruling of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Ilhan Uludogan underwent a medical examination at the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institution on 27 May, and the report indicated that his health was impaired from carrying out regular labour for three days. Ali Ulvi Uludogan was reexamined at the same institution on 6 June, and the report indicated that his health was impaired for 15 days. With the latest medical results, they filed a complaint against the police officers and the doctor in Kulu at the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office. A decision of non-competence was adopted because the incident took place in Kulu, and was referred to the Kulu Public Prosecutor’s Office. An investigation by the Kulu Public Prosecutor’s Office resulted in a decision of non-prosecution against the police officers and the doctor. However, a lawsuit filed at the Kulu Penal Court of First Instance against them is pending. Upon the order of the Kulu District Governor’s Office, dated 16 June 2003, a preliminary investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment was conducted. No convincing reason for filing an official administrative investigation was found.
1772. H.B., age 16, and A.A., age 18. The two were arrested on 11 December 2003 and taken to Alsancak police station. There, they were beaten by the police and had their hands smashed against a window and their noses broken. It is also alleged that they were denied food while in custody.
1773. The Government informed that there is no record of these persons in the files of the Izmir Security Directorate. Full names of these persons should be communicated so a more detailed investigation could be undertaken.
1774. By letter dated 30 September 2004, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received the following allegations, to which the Government responded by letter, dated 14 December 2004:
1775. Ms. Hacer Taþarsu, a 23 year-old woman. She was held in detention between 8 and 11 March 2002 at the Anti-Terror Branch of Istanbul police headquarters on suspicion on membership of an illegal organization. While in custody, a stream of water was forced up her vagina with a high pressure hose, she was stripped naked, spat at and forced to sit in excreta. A complaint was formally filed with the public prosecutor in Faith, Istanbul. Her lawyers requested that she be sent from prison for psychological treatment.
1776. The Government informed that she was taken into custody by Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion that she was a member of an illegal organization. An investigation was initiated by the Fatih Public Prosecutor’s Office into allegations that she was ill-treated in custody between 8 and 11 November 2001. Statements of the complainant and suspects were taken. The report of the Forensic Medicine Institute, dated 11 March 2002, was examined, and the Public Prosecutor decided non-prosecution on 29 August 2002. An appeal was rejected by the Beyoglu 3rd Assize Court on 17 January 2003.
1777. Ms. Zahide Durgun, a 28 year-old Kurdish woman from Hakkâri married to an Iraqi man and was living in Iraq. She returned to Turkey without her official documents to visit her family. On 20 August 2002, Zahide Durgun, her two brothers, a visitor to the house, and her brother’s son, Savaþ, were arrested and taken to the Anti-Terror branch of Hakkâri police headquarters. Police wanted her to make a statement that she was an active member of the Partiya Jinmên Azad (PJA, also known as KADEK) and that she had come to Turkey to make propaganda before the elections. She was blindfolded, her hair was pulled and torn out, her head was banged against the wall whilst she was held by her hair, she received blows to the neck, arms, torso, feet and legs, her face was slapped and beaten, electric shocks were applied to her ear. She was allegedly threatened with electric shocks to her breasts, her breasts were hit hard, she was threatened with rape, and immediately after this threat all the buttons were ripped from her shirt. She heard her brothers yelling and being tortured in the nearby cells. Zahide Durgun, who does not read or write, eventually had her thumb-print placed on a pre-prepared statement. On 24 August 2002 she was taken for a medical exam, and given a report detailing her injuries. She was also forcibly subjected to a "virginity test". It is further reported that a trial was opened against the perpetrators who have reportedly not been suspended from active service.
1778. The Government informed that an intelligence report was received by the Hakkari police, warning that a member of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorist organization would illegally enter Turkey from northern Iraq. Zahide Durgun was arrested as she entered the country on 20 August 2002. After being referred to the judicial authorities on 24 August 2002, she was arrested and committed to the prison. She received medical examinations before and after the detention period, on 20 and 24 August, respectively. The second medical report indicated a light wound on her head, and was assumed to be from an old boil or pimple. In her testimony at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, she said she did not know how the wound occurred.
1779. Ms. Sükriye Beyter, a Kurdish woman. She was taken into custody at the Anti- Terror branch of Hakkâri police headquarters on 22 August 2002, where she was kept for four days, during which she had her hair pulled and torn out, her head was beaten against the wall, she received blows to various parts of her body, and she was given electric shocks to her ear and a finger on her left hand. She had her throat squeezed with an electric cable, was blindfolded and had a handkerchief stuffed into her mouth to prevent her from making noise, she was threatened with rape, insulted, and promised money if she confessed. When she refused money, she was beaten again and threatened with rape and electric shocks to her breasts, that her children would be killed, and that she would be killed and he r body would be thrown into the river. Sükriye Beyter was taken to the doctor twice whilst she was in custody, but it is alleged that no report resulting from her examinations has been forthcoming. 1780. The Government informed that she was reported to be a me mber of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorist organization. Upon an intelligence report suggesting that she would enter Turkey illegally from northern Iraq, she was arrested by the Hakkari police on 23 August 2002 as she entered the country. She was referred to the judicial authorities on 26 August, arrested and committed to the prison. Medical reports obtained on 23, 24 and 26 August indicated no trace of ill-treatment. The Hakkari Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation based on complaints of the two persons of ill- treatment, however it concluded with a decision of non-prosecution for lack of credible and substantiating evidence.
1781. Ms. Naciye Cogaltay. She was detained at the Anti-Terror branch of Istanbul police headquarters between 23 and 27 September 2002. When she refused to sign a statement, she was grabbed by her hair and thrown to the ground. A policeman spat into her mouth and nose, and threatened her with rape. She had cold water poured over her. Three policemen stripped her naked, and blindfolded her. She was forced to remain naked for half an hour and was fondled all over and threatened with rape. She was asked whether she is a virgin, and then was subjected to a simulated rape. Her face was stroked whilst she was threatened with having a hose inserted inside her. She wanted to vomit but was told she would have to lick it up. Water was poured in the direction of her vagina and comments about her menstruation were made. She was given electric shocks twice. A policeman squatted in front of her whilst her hands were bound, and tried to force his penis into her mouth. She was forbidden to go to the toilet or to eat. It is reported that she was forced to sign a statement. Naciye Cogaltay was examined by a Forensic Medical Institute doctor, who requested a report to determine “whether or not there are lesions relating to sexual assault (hymen examination)”, although this is an inappropriate substitute for a thorough sexual assault investigation. Her lawyers have filed a complaint against the alleged perpetrators with the public prosecutor.
1782. Ms. Sunay Yesildag. She was detained at Istanbul Anti-Terror branch between 24 and 27 September 2002. She was initially searched by a female police officer before being taken elsewhere. Whilst she was blindfolded one male police officer started moaning and making noises as though he was having sex. The same person swore continuously, and repeatedly opened Sunay Yesildag’s mouth and spat into it. As Sunay Yesildag retched, other other officials held her hands behind her back, and hit her repeatedly on the head to prevent her from spitting out the saliva, as a result of which she became dazed and confused. She was grabbed by the hair and thrown to the ground. She was asked whether she was a virgin or not, and insulted. She was deprived of sleep, food and drink, and blindfolded at various times. She was told to strip, and was sworn at and teased by the officers. When she was blindfolded she was put on the ground and one of the police officers also stripped and rubbed his hands and penis against her. Afterwards, Sunay Yesildag was taken naked to the toilet and sprayed with cold pressurized water. On the third day in custody, she was stripped naked and sexually assaulted again. She was threatened with anal rape using a hose. On 27 September 2002 she was remanded to Bakirköy Women and Children’s Prison Source. A forensic doctor examined her. A case was opened against the perpetrators, who have not been suspended from active service.
1783. The Government informed that the women were apprehended by the Istanbul police on 23 September 2002 during operations against the PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorist organization. After being referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Istanbul State Security Court on 27 September 2002, they were arrested. Upon their complaints, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, Istanbul, filed a lawsuit against four police officers from the Istanbul Directorate of Security at the Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 4 on 4 April 2003. The case is pending. The Istanbul Directorate of Security undertook an administrative inquiry into the allegations, and concluded that there is no need to subject the officers to administrative penalties.
1784. By letter dated 6 October 2004, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received allegations concerning Mr. Hojjat Zamani (cited in a previously transmitted communication, E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1760. See also, para. 844). According to allegations recently received, he was forcibly returned to Iran from Turkey in November 2003. He was tried at Branch six of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court for terrorist-related offences, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and four death sentences. Before he escaped from custody and fled to Turkey, Hojjat Zamani was severely tortured.
1785. By letter dated 6 December 2004, the Government informed that according to an additional enquiry (see reply dated 6 January 2004, para. 1798) recently carried out by the Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Interior, no entry was found in the rele vant records since August 2003, suggesting that Hojjat Zamani had neither entered or left Turkey, nor was taken into custody in the country.
Urgent appeals
1786. On 17 March 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, regarding three Iranian nationals: Farideh Asadi, Nazila Mohamad Hasani Zamani and Soheila Pordel, who have been seeking asylum in Ankara. According to the allegations received, they are due to be deported to Iran with their children in four days. All three women are said to be women’s rights activists, and members of the International Federation of Iranian Refugees (IFIR)-Turkey. While in Turkey, they participated in public conferences and meetings in the defence of women’s rights in Iran, expressing criticism against the Iranian Government, and calling for strikes against it.
1787. By letters dated 29 March and 20 April 2004, the Government informed that the request for asylum of the above-mentioned persons was refused by the UNHCR Office in Ankara, but a reassessment of Soheila Pordel’s application was granted. All have applied for permission to stay in Turkey with “ordinary alien” status, and this is being considered by the Ministry of the Interior.
1788. On 21 July 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, regarding regarding Hamza Uzar, an electrician, Yildiz Dundar, Ali Alp and Sedat Aras. According to the allegations received, on 17 July 2004, they were detained by police on suspicion of aiding and abetting an armed organization, the KONGRA-GEL (formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK). They were initially detained at Hamza Uzar’s house in the Cizre area of Sirnak province and are now held in Cizre Police Headquarters. Their detention has been extended from two to four days. One of the lawyers was able to meet with Hamza Uzar on 18 July 2004. Hamza Uzar appeared greatly distressed and had marks on his face, throat and neck apparently caused by beating, and had great difficulty in speaking, or standing and walking unassisted.
1789. By letter dated 22 September 2004, the Government informed that the police in the town of Cizre, Sirnak, received an intelligence suggesting that members of the PKKKONGRA- GEL terrorist organization arrived at the town from the Gabar Mountains, to carry out an armed attack to the “Sehit Murat Akançay” Police Station and the local courthouse. Mr. Alip Alp and Ms. Yildiz Dündar were apprehended in the vicinity of the police station on 17 July 2004. They were accompanied by a 12 year-old child, in order to give the impression as if they are commuting as a family. Contrary to the allegations, they were not arrested at the house of Mr. Hamza Uzar. Since it was established that Mr. Hamza Uzar aided and abetted the two persons, the police searched his house, and apprehended him together with another member of the organization, Mr. Sedat Aras, who was then present at the house. Mr. Hamza Uzar resisted and attempted to use a gun to shoot at the policemen, who were compelled to use force to apprehend him. With the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at Cizre on 18 July 2004, the custody period of the four suspects were extended to four days. After the end of the custody period, the suspects were remanded in prison by the decision of the First Instance Penal Court on 21 July 2004. All four suspects received medical examinations before, during and after the custody period. The medical reports indicated no traces of ill-treatment for three of the suspects, whereas, the report for Mr. Hamza Uzar indicated a 3cm lesion on his body. This had occurred during his forceful apprehension by police.
1790. On 6 August 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, concerning Abdulhekim Gider, a lawyer, Abdullah Gündogdu, Tahsin Atak, and Ihsan Gülmek. According to the allegations received, on 30 July 2004, police detained Abdullah Gündogdu, Tahsin Atak and Ihsan Gülmek in the Pervari district of Siirt Province, on suspicion of aiding and abetting an armed organization, the Kurdistan People’s Congress (Kongra-Gel), formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Their lawyer, Abdulhekim Gider, came to meet with them at the police station in Pervari on 1 August. While he was waiting, a police officer asked him, "How can you defend traitors? This lot are terrorists...haven’t you got a conscience?" When Abdulhekim Gider saw him, Abdullah Gündogdu appeared exhausted and scared and could not stand upright. He said that he had not been given any food since the day he was detained, and that he had been stripped naked and sprayed with cold pressurized water for two-and-a-half hours, especially at his kidney area. He said that he had also had his testicles squeezed and was beaten about the head. Tahsin Atak and Ihsan Gülmek only said that they had not been given food, but they both appeared tired and frightened. Tahsin Atak later complained that he had been severely beaten on his body and legs. When his lawyer met with him in prison, there was still blood on his legs and socks from this. That day, Abdulhekim Gider tried to lodge a complaint that Abdullah Gündogdu had been tortured, but the Pervari prosecutor was reluctant and tried to persuade him not to do so. When he returned to the prosecutor’s office on 2 August, a police officer pointed his rifle at the lawyer and said to another officer, "I might accidentally pull the trigger". When Abdulhekim Gider went back to the police station to meet with his clients the same day, he says he was prevented from entering by seven or eight police officers, including the local police chief, who surrounded him and apparently insulted and threatened him, because he had lodged a complaint of torture against them. After he appealed to a senior police officer who came to the station, Abdulhekim Gider was allowed to meet with his clients. As the lawyer left the police station, one of the police officers who had earlier threatened him told him, "Your job is not going to be easy any more." When Abdulhekim Gider asked what this meant, the police officer told him, "Go away! I don’t want to see you again. Bad things happen, and they are going to happen." Police have pressured the detained men’s relatives to change their lawyer, and police officers in Pervari are reported to have threatened Abdulhekim Gider since then. Groups of police have followed him in the street, and police vehicles have patrolled conspicuously outside buildings where he has been conducting meetings with the families of his clients. Abdullah Gündogdu, Tahsin Atak and Ihsan Gülmek were all remanded to Siirt prison at 11 pm on 3 August.
1791. By letter dated 14 October 2004, the Government informed that Mr. Gündogu, Mr. Atak and Mr. Gülmek, who were, among other things, suspected of committing crimes of aiding and abetting the PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorist organization, were detained on 30 July 2004 at around 12pm in Pervari, Siirt. They underwent medical examinations on the day of their committal to the detention centre, they were informed of their legal rights and relevant documents were prepared accordingly. The suspects were taken to the Office of the Public Prosecutor on 3 August 2004. Shortly after leaving the detention centre, they underwent a second medical examination at the Pervari State Hospital. Following their interrogation by the Public Prosecutor, they were referred to the Criminal Court of Peace at Pervari. The Court decided for their arrest on grounds of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. They were then committed to the prison in Siirt. The legal proceedings are underway. The allegations that the detainees had not been given food is incorrect, since the detainees themselves rejected to eat the food served to them by the police, apparently for ideological purposes. The lawyer of the detainees, Mr. Abdulhekim Gider, filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 1 August 2004 on grounds that his clients were subjected to ill-treatment. The investigation concluded with a decision of non-prosecution, given that the medical reports obtained before and after the detention period indicated no trace of ill-treatment. Mr. Gündogu appealed against this decision. The appeal is being considered by the Batman Heavy Penal Court. In the meantime, the three detainees were visited by Mr. Gider on 1 and 2 August. He did not appear during the interrogation of the suspects despite being informed of the time and venue of the interrogation. Meanwhile, before his second visit, while entering the police station with two black plastic bags, he was asked to present his identity card. He refused, and an argument broke out between him and the security officers on duty, during which he threatened the officers.
Follow-up to previously transmitted communications
1792. By letter dated 9 February 2004, the Government provided further information concerning Salih Yilar (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1732-1733). The Government informed that he was examined by the Forensic Institute, which found no traces of electric shocks on his body as alleged. In the hearings, he stated that the two accused policemen were not the ones who took him under custody. The witnesses, including the lawyer on duty on 14 May 2002 at the Diyarbakir Branch of the Human Rights Association, the attending doctors and the police officers, stated in their testimonies that they did not personally witness the circumstances which caused the injuries on Salih Yilar. The Court acquitted the accused on 31 October 2003, and the decision was finalized on 10 November 2003.
1793. By letter dated 22 December 2003, the Government provided concerning Irfan Kaplan (E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, para. 1606). The Government informed that an investigation was initiated against the prison administration personnel and Wardens at the Ümraniye Prison, as well as the law enforcement agencies. The investigation regarding the prison administration personnel and Wardens concluded with a decision of non-prosecution. The other investigation regarding the law enforcement agencies is still underway.
1794. By letter dated 23 December 2003, the Government provided further information concerning Tekin Ülsen (E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, para. 1621, 1645-1646). The Government informed that he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrist before being apprehended. The relevant medical reports did not indicate any trace of ill-treatment or torture. He is held in prison, and his trial is continuing, the next hearing is to be held on 31 December 2003.
1795. By letter dated 23 December 2003, the Government provided further information concerning Halil Ibrahim Okkal (E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 1052, E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.5, para. 89, and E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, para. 1626). The Government informed that his application for compensation was rejected by the Court of Cassation for lapse of time. Halil Ibrahim Okkal applied to the Ministry of Interior for redress on 1 October 1999, and the medical reports of his ill-treatment were dated 30 November 1995 and 30 January 1996. The Ministry thus refused his application as it contravened Article 13/1 of the Administrative Procedural Law (Law No. 2577). Halil Ibrahim Okkal then filed a lawsuit at the Administrative Court in Izmir on 22 November 1999 for compensation. The Court delivered a judgement of nonsuit on 11 April 2000, and the appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Council of State on 12 December 2001.
1796. By letter dated 2 January 2004, the Government provided information concerning:
1797. Yener Aslan and Ipek Avci (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1744). The Government informed that upon their complaints a lawsuit was filed at the First Instance Penal Court No. 24 in Ankara, and that the next hearing will be held on 24 February 2004. By letter dated 5 May 2004, the Government informed that the medical reports, witness statements, authorization document and official records relating to the incident indicate that the acts of Yener Aslan and Ipek Avci constituted the crime of violent resistance to the officers. They were first sentenced to two months imprisonment, being the lowest limit of penalties set forth in article 258/1-3 of the Penal Code, and given the inappropriate behaviour of the police officers, through transcending the limits of their powers, in line with article 258/4 of the Code, the penalties were decreased by three quarters to 15 days’ imprisonment. And in line with article 4 of the Law No. 647, the penalties were converted into a fine of 109,000,000 Turkish liras. Although it was understood that the police officers caused the incident with their rude behaviour, this does not constitute the crime of “intentional ill-treatment” as set forth in article 245 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused was merely to execute the provisions of law and order for the persons who impeded the execution of their duty. Therefore the Court in its verdict of 16 March 2004 acquitted the officers of the charges of illtreatment.
1798. Tekin Demir (ibid, para. 1751) and Jale Kirman (ibid, para. 1747). The Government informed that upon their complaints, the Ministry of Justice initiated an investigation, which is continuing.
1799. By letter dated 6 January 2004, the Government provided information concerning Hojjat Zamani and Massoud Moqtadari (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1760). The Government informed that according to the enquiry carried out by the competent authorities, no record indicating the entry into Turkey of the two individuals was established. No record of any persons with those names was found in the register of the Directorate of Security of Istanbul.
1800. By letter dated 7 January 2004, the Government provided information concerning Medeni Kavak (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, para. 1777). The Government informed that upon his application, the Prosecutor’s Office in Diyarbakir initiated an investigation into his allegations of torture in detention. The investigation was concluded with a decision of nonprosecution on 30 January 2003, due to lack of evidence. This was appealed on 27 May and a lawsuit was filed at the Diyarbakir Heavy Penal Court. The first hearing took place on 20 November and the second scheduled for 18 December 2003.
1801. By letter dated 7 January 2004, the Government provided further information concerning:
1802. Vasfi Karakoç (E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 1042, and E/CN.4/2000/9/Add. 5, para. 83). The Government informed that the allegations of ill-treatment were thoroughly investigated and no evidence was found, and a decision of non-prosecution was adopted.
1803. Ali Ekber Öz and Nuran Öz (E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 1047, and E/CN.4/2000/9/Add. 5, para. 87). The Government informed that until the allegations of the Special Rapporteur were presented to the relevant Turkish authorities, the persons in question did not apply to the Court or any other national authority during or after the judicial proceedings on the grounds of ill-treatment which was alleged to have happened on 2 October 1994. Upon the receipt of the communication of the Special Rapporteur, the Ministry of Justice transmitted their content to the relevant Public Prosecutors, who initiated investigations. In the course of the investigation, Ali Ekber Öz, in his statement to the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Bursa on 16 November 2001, affirmed that he did not apply to any authority on the grounds that he was ill-treated when he was detained, nor did he mention any medical report prepared to the contrary. Therefore the Office of the Public Prosecutor adopted a decision of non-prosecution and transmitted the file to the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Antalya, where the file was again reviewed. The Office decided that since the date of the alleged crime in 1994 and the investigation in 2001, there was a lapse of time based on article 102/4 of the Turkish Penal Code. This decision, dated 28 December 2001, was transmitted to Ali Ekber Öz the same day, and since there was no objection, it became final. A similar decision in relation to Nuran Öz was adopted on 17 November 2003. There was no evidence, medical report or testimony supporting the allegations. Nuran Öz was released after serving her sentence.
1804. By letter dated 9 February 2004, the Government provided further information concerning Metin Yurtsever (E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, para. 1615, and E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, para. 1853). The Government informed that the last hearing of the case was held on 12 December 2003. The Court decided that since the addresses of certain witnesses could not be established, the Court ceased the decision to hear them. Further it decided to request the Duty Heavy Penal Court of Ankara to enlist three experts from the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation to examine the video cassettes shot on the day of the incident together with the photographs of Metin Yurtsever, have the experts determine whether he appeared in the scenes and suffered blows, and to send all shots in which he appears to the court in the form of single photographs. As the photographs have not yet been submitted to the Court by the lawyers of Metin Yurtsever, the experts have not begun their work. The case was adjourned until 19 March 2004.
1805. By letter dated 12 May 2004, the Government provided further information concerning Gülistan Durç (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1, para. 1798, E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1775). The Government informed that she did not respond to the invitation of the Public Prosecutor to elaborate on her allegations, and her whereabouts could not be determined. The investigation, conducted in the absence of her own testimony, concluded in a decision of nonprosecution. As for her complaint against the police officer for allegedly ill- treating her, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to initiate an investigation, yet the Office of the Governor did not give the necessary permission for the investigation. The appeal of the Office against this decision at the Midyat Heavy Penal Court was rejected. On 4 September 2001, the lawyer of Gülistan Durç presented a new medical report which was obtained from the Izmir Chamber of Medicine to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Office decided to reinitiate the investigation in accordance with article 167 of the Penal Procedural Code.
1806. By letter dated 27 May 2004, the Government responded to a joint communication of 3 July 2003 sent with the Special Rapportueur on violence against women, concerning Gülbahar Gündüz (E/CN.4/2004/66/Add.1, para. 156). The Government informed that the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Gaziosmanpasa initiated an investigation upon the complaint by Ms. Gündüz. The clothes that she wore on 14 June 2003 (the date when she was allegedly abducted and ill-treated) were sent to the Forensic Science Department to trace any possible evidence. Inquiries for evidence and possible witnesses were carried out in the area of the alleged abduction. Upon the instruction of the Public Prosecutor, Ms. Gündüz was sent by the police to Haseki Hospital for medical examination on 15 June 2003. According to the medical report, superficial grazes were found on her body. In order to establish whether she was sexually assaulted, she was then transferred to the specialized branch of the Forensic Science Department, where she received due medical examination. The Office of the Public Prosecutor requested in writing, from the Security Directorate of Istanbul, to identify the police officers on duty and persons working in and around the area of the alleged abduction, to establish the identities of the perpetrators and to investigate whether or not the alleged perpetrators were police officers. In parallel to the judicial process, the Security Directorate of Istanbul appointed a Director of Security to investigate the case further. In that regard, the testimony of Ms. Gündüz was taken. She repeated the allegations, but indicated that she could not identify the persons who assaulted her since she could not see their faces. Therefore, it was not possible to find out whether the perpetrators were actually police officers. According to the rulings of the Council of State (administrative high court of appeals), cases which cannot be investigated due to the absence of the suspects, should be returned back to the relevant authority. Because of the foregoing, since no security official was accused at this stage, the administrative investigation was lifted. In the light of the foregoing, two separate investigations were initiated upon the complaint of Ms. Gündüz. It should be noted that the investigation initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Gaziosmanpasa is a judicial process, which is separate from that of the Security Directorate of istanbul, being an administrative one. Against this backdrop, the investigation carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office is still ongoing.
1807. By letter dated 21 June 2004, the Government provided information concerning:
1808. Ridvan Olcasöz, Fahri Kini, Semsettin Solhan, Ramazan Akman, and Salahattin Örnek and Savas Yildiz (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1736). The Government informed that on 3 November 2002, Ridvan Olcasöz, Fahri Kini, Semsettin Solhan, and Ramazan Akman, while present as election observers in the primary school being used as a voting centre, in Yüceli Village, insisted that they should stand in front of the ballot boxes while people were voting. The Chairman and members of the Election Committee responsible for organizing and monitoring the election in that district refused this request. When the aforementioned persons persisted, the Chairman of the Election Committee officially asked them to leave the voting room. Their violent resistance led to a public disturbance in the voting room. Following the incident, Ridvan Olcasöz, Fahri Kini, and Semsettin Solhan were sent to the public hospital. Upon the application of Ridvan Olcasöz, Fahri Kini, Semsettin Solhan, and Ramazan Akman, an investigation was initiated by the Public Prosecutor. Salahattin Örnek and Savas Yildiz applied to the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Kiziltepe and alleged that a group of people had obstructed their voting. A lawsuit was filed upon their application.
1809. Hamdiye Aslan, (ibid, para. 1726). The Government informed that in connection with the discovery on 4 March 2002 of documents related to a terrorist organization, Hamdiye Aslan and Abdullcadir Aslan were arrested on 5 March 2002 around 4:30pm by gendarmerie officers of the Yüceli district, and handed over at 7:30pm to the Mardin Directorate of Security. Hamdiye Aslan was kept under custody at the Mardin Directorate of Security from 5 to 7 March 2002. During the detention, she refused to give any statements regarding the crime attributed to her, refused to sign any document, argued that she did not know any of the other detainees held with her, persistently and violently resisted the police officers who wanted to take her fingerprints and photos for the records, and refused the food and drink served to her. Because of her abnormal behavior and concerns regarding her health for refusing the food, she was taken to the Mardin State Hospital on 6 March 2002 at around 8:30pm. During the medical examination at the Emergency Service, her illness was diagnosed as "conversion" (deception). Hamdiye Aslan and Abdullcadir Aslan were referred to the Mardin Penal Court by the Mardin Public Prosecutor’s Office, and following the Court’s decision they were transferred to the Mardin E-Type Prison. The medical reports obtained during their detention of 5 and 7 March 2002 indicated no trace of ill-treatment or sexual harassment. Upon her complaints alleging that she was ill-treated during the detention an investigation was initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Following the investigation a lawsuit was filed against 5 policemen at the Mardin Heavy Penal Court No. 2. The case is underway.
1810. Ethem Akdogan and Hatice Allahverdi (ibid, para. 1748). The Government informed that an investigation was initiated regarding the allegations of torture during their detention. The related medical reports did not confirm these allegations. Sinc e they did not file any complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, a decision of non-prosecution was adopted.
1811. Emrullah Karagöz and Mustafa Yasar, (ibid, para. 1737-1738). The Government informed that the decision of non-prosecution was appealed at the Siverek Heavy Penal Court, which declined the appeal on 16 April 2003.
1812. By letter dated 6 December 2004, the Government provided information concerning
Nese Bilgin (ibid, paras. 1752 and 1753). The Government informed that the trial of the two
police officers concluded on 13 October 2004. The Court acquitted the accused for lack of
sufficient and substantiating evidence. One of the officers was on the duty list at the Adnan
Menderes Airport on the day of the alleged incident.
Back to Contents
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
This report has been published by Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights on July 27, 2005.