PREFACE
It was widely accepted until the end of 2005 that the European Union was the engine power behind the transitions Turkey underwent in the field of human rights and democracy. The official commencement of Turkey’s EU membership process at the end of 2005 has been evaluated as the success of both parties. However, this process has been interrupted in 2006. Eight chapters have been suspended with the recommendation from the EU Commission dated December 11, 2006. Failure to open ports in Cyprus and failure of Turkey to comply with the Ankara Protocol are listed as the reasons behind the suspension decision.
In the meetings held between human rights organizations including HRFT (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey) and the EU representatives of different levels, criticisms made by the EU have primarily focused on problems encountered in implementations. The EU representatives welcome the legal regulations made. We, on the other hand, have made critical comments about the core of reforms performed and underlined that the governments do not show a comprehensive and actual will of democratization. We have also criticized the EU since they give low priority to democratization problems on their agenda. Questions raised in the minds of the society due to the long and open-ended EU membership process of Turkey have increased with the decreasing of relations with the EU to the lowest level. In this process, nationalist movements, which were already on the rise, have gained a greater momentum, anti-EU movements have expanded and human rights defenders, opponent organizations and people have turned into targets. Nationalist groups and their partisans –whose existence has been known since the beginning- have always made violent attacks. In light of these facts, we believe that it is quite wrong of the EU to turn the Cyprus issue –which is still discussed at the UN level- into an internal problem.
Presidential elections to be held in May 2007 and subsequent general elections have led to important discussions in Turkish political life since the last term. The possible candidacy of Prime Minister Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the presidency has heightened the tension between the parties defining themselves as “secular” and the political Islamists.
Discussions that “the presence of PKK in Northern Iraq constitutes a terror and security threat against Turkey” have taken an important place in the agenda. To eliminate the possibility of TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) to intervene in Northern Iraq due to such a threat, the USA has made the proposal of “Establishing a three-member committee composed of representatives from USA, Iraq, and Turkey to solve the problem” has been widely accepted and put into practice in 2006. Relations have taken the start in an environment of high tension due to explanations made by the parties at the beginning. However, joint activities performed have remedied this high-tension environment.
The oncoming referendum in Kirkuk, an increase in the density and speed of migration by the Kurdish population to the said city, the possibility of dissolution of Iraq due to civil war has taken a big part in Turkish political life. By taking into consideration such turmoil area, scenarios have been developed about the place and role of Turkey both in the region and the world. It is clearly stated by both civilian and military authorities that developments such as the establishment of a separated or federative Kurdistan state and Turkey will under no circumstances accept handing over the sovereignty of Kirkuk by Kurds. Such a determined explanation has raised a discussion among Turkey, the Iraq central government, and the Northern Iraq government.
The answer given by Chief of General Staff Mr. Yaşar Büyükanıt as an answer to a question asked in a reception held on November 10, 2006 is still in the memories: “Terror problem in Turkey is tried to be carried to a multi-national level by limiting the issue only to human rights and minority rights. No one talks about terrorism; rather they talk about human rights and minority rights. If this issue is carried to the multi-national platform, then we will turn back to the Ottoman period”. With the statements made by the Chief of General Staff, it is explained that Turkey is forced into a separation atmosphere with the discussions made on human rights and minority problems and that this is done on an international basis. Such an explanation made by Mr. Büyükanıt is a matter of concern for human rights defenders. Because this kind of explanation can be encouraging for some organizations and similar partisans who swear to die and kill people and who clearly state that they prepare lists of thousands of traitors. They can train children like the “ones” who yelled “Bismillah Allahu Ekber” after killing priest Santoro, “We are the soldiers and messengers of God” after an armed attack on Council of State members, and “I have killed the Armenian” after shooting Hrant Dink, and they can lead the way for other homicides.
The highest authorities of the state-defined a Turkey “which is under both internal and external enemy threat” and such organizations emerged and gained prominence at the same time. Oral and written threats against intellectuals including author Orhan Pamuk and Prof. Baskın Oran point out that life safety of opponents is under risk. Being effective in the conflict and violence –both of which gained momentum last year- in the society is a dangerous fact to be considered.
Hrant Dink was killed on January 10, 2007 in such an atmosphere. The death of Hrant Dink has deeply affected the peace-loving people, democrats, human rights defenders of Turkey, and the people who still have human love in their hearts. Two thousand people who participated in his funeral, shouted: “We are all Hrant” “We are all Armenians” and grabbed his body are a great answer to the murderers of Hrant Dink and their commanders. We believe that the failure of the police forces to take any measure to protect Hrant Dink despite the notifications made is as desperate as the murder itself. Mr. Dink was a human rights defender and also the participant of annual human rights conferences jointly organized by HRA (Human Rights Association) and HRFT. When we met at a meeting in Sweden in December and in our subsequent meeting in Istanbul, we were planning to make a joint study on “Belonging and Identity”. We –as HRFT- continue our works on this issue. Our efforts to achieve the objective of peace do and will continue.
Our loss and suffer are quite great. We will never forget him…
In 2006, some regulations have been made which support our view that the “reform process in Turkey is, unfortunately, homework dependent on EU negotiations and the steps taken in terms of democratization are not earnest in nature”. The definition of “terror” has been widened and the number of defense lawyer has been limited to one (1) with the new regulations made in the scope of Anti-terror Law. These regulations –which make it possible to refuse defense lawyers or monitor the meetings between defendant and his lawyer- threaten the freedom of expression and provide a basis for torture.
Under the current situation, by looking at the quantitative decrease in torture cases, a general national and international view claiming that there is no torture problem in Turkey has been developed. Despite the decrease in these numbers, however, we do continue to say that torture still takes place in Turkey. The exercise of security forces in the events that occurred in March 2006 in Diyarbakır shows that we have not achieved considerable progress in this scope. 15 people- 5 of whom were children- were killed by the security forces in this event. One day after the entry of the special team sent from Ankara into Diyarbakır, people were killed, detained and tortured. More than five hundred people most of whom were children were kept in sports halls, in security buildings and were exposed to systematical torture. Offenders of the murders are unknown. What kind of investigation is carried out about the death of said fifteen people is a question mark. The conclusions of the investigation about 35 torture cases declared by Diyarbakır Bar are unknown. Events that have occurred in Diyarbakır has for once more proved that there are forces ready to suppress social reactions and to use excessive violence and that these forces perform their work -which also include murder and torture- wherever and whenever needed.
Last year, security forces went on applying excessive violence while detaining people during the meetings. Torture and maltreatment towards the detainees and the sentenced in the prisons went on in 2006. Despite the circular put into force, no considerable improvement has been observed in isolation exercise in F-type prisons. There are still limitations and barriers before the detainees and the sentenced about the right to access lawyer, the right to inform relatives and about other rights. Problems in the inspections and penalties regarding torture cases also went on. Failure to give the required penalties is an implementation that still continues. Paying by the Treasury of 750.000 YTL fine given by ECHR to Turkey due to torture and maltreatment offenses is an example showing that torture is not penalized and even owned.
With all our hopes for a Turkey free from torture…