INTERIM resolution DH (99) 434

HUMAN RIGHTS

ACTION OF THE SECURITY FORCES IN TURKEY:

MEASURES OF A GENERAL CHARACTER

(cases of Akdivar and others against Turkey, Aksoy against Turkey, Çetin against Turkey,

Aydin against Turkey, Mentes and others against Turkey, Kaya against Turkey,

Yilmaz and others against Turkey, Selçuk and Asker against Turkey, Kurt against Turkey,

Tekin against Turkey, Güleç against Turkey, Ergi against Turkey, Yaşa against Turkey)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 1999 at the 672nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Articles 32 and 54 of the Convention for the Protection of H u man Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the decisions of the Committee of Ministers in the cases of Çetin and Yilmaz and others, adopted in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Akdivar and others, Aksoy, Aydin, Mentes and others, Kaya, Selçuk and Asker, Kurt, Tekin Güleç, Ergi and Yaşa, all concerning Turkey and brought before the Committee of Ministers for supervision of execution;

Considering that in all these cases, the Court or the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the European Commission of Human Rights in its reports, have found serious violations of the Convention by Turkey, which all result from the actions of its security forces in the south-east of the country, a region subject to a state of emergency for the proposes of the fight against terrorism;

1. Violations of the right to life (Article 2):

Name of the case Court’s judgment Other violation(s) of the Convention found

Kaya Judgment of 19 February 1998 Violation of Article 13

Güleç Judgment of 27 July 1998

Ergi Judgment of 28 July 1998 Violations of Articles 13 and 25, paragraph 1

YaÅŸa Judgment of 2 September 1998 Violation of Article 13

2. Violations of the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3):

Name of the case Court’s judgment Other violation(s) of the Convention found

Aksoy Judgment of 18 December 1996 Violations of Articles 5, paragraph 3, and 13

Aydin Judgment of 25 September 1997 Violation of Article 13

Kurt Judgment of 25 May 1998 Violations of Articles 5 and 13

Tekin Judgment of 9 June 1998 Violation of Article 13

3. Violations of the right to respect for the applicants’ home (Article 8) or of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1):

Name of the case Court’s judgment Other violation(s) of the Convention found

Akdivar and others Judgment of 16 September 1996 Violation of Article 25, paragraph 1

Mentes and others Judgment of 28 November 1997 Violation of Article 13

Selçuk and Asker Judgment of 24 April 1998 Violations of Articles 3, 13 and 25, paragraph 1

4. Violations exclusively of the right to a tribunal or to an effective remedy (Articles 6 or 13):

Name of the case Decision of the Committee of Ministers

Çetin decision of 15 May 1997

Yilmaz and others decision of 22 April 1998

Stressing that all High Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Article 53 of the Convention) and by the decisions of the Committee of Ministers (Article 32 of the Convention) and thus have to take measures effectively to prevent new violations of the Convention similar to those found in the Court’s judgments and in the decisions of the Committee of Ministers;

Stressing that the necessity of taking such measures is all the more pressing in the case of repeated violations as serious as those established in the present cases, i.e. resulting from torture, inhuman treatment, destruction of property, illegal killings and disappearances;

Having invited the Government of Turkey to inform it of the measures taken in consequence of the violations found in the above-mentioned cases;

Information provided by the Turkish authorities (see appendix)

Having examined the information provided by the Government of Turkey concerning the measures which have been taken so far, which are being adopted or which are planned, in order to prevent new, similar violations to those found, details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, and considering also the information provided in the context of the YaÄŸiz and Sur cases (see Resolutions DH (99) 20 and DH (99) 26;

Noting, in particular and with satisfaction that Turkey has engaged an important process, including notably measures in respect of regulations and training, in order to implement fully and in all circumstances of the constitutional and legal prohibition of the use of torture and ill-treatment (see the above-mentioned Resolutions YaÄŸiz and Sur);

Noting with interest in this context that the Turkish authorities authorised the publication of the report of the European Commission for the Prohibition of Torture (CPT), drawn up following its visit in Turkey in October 1997, and the Turkish authorities' interim reply;

Assessment of t he Committee of Ministers

Stressing the duty of any democratic State to ensure effective protection against terrorism, respecting the rule of law and human rights;

Noting that the actions of the security forces challenged in these cases took place in a particular context of the rise of terrorism during the years 1991-1993;

Noting, however, that the principal problems at the origin of the violations found remain, notably in the territory subject to a state of emergency, and, in particular, that investigations relating to these violations, when they have taken place, have as yet  not given concrete and satisfactory results;

Stressing that the efficient and systematic implementation of the protection already provided by the Turkish Constitution itself and Turkish legislation against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, unjustified destruction of property and murder and illegal killings depends essentially on the adoption of efficient preventive and repressive measures;

Noting with satisfaction that during 1997 and 1998 Turkey adopted several texts, of a legislative and regulatory nature, in order to reinforce the normative system governing the actions of the security forces and, in particular, that law no. 4229 of 6 March 1997 as well as regulations on detaining persons for questioning, police custody and interrogation, brought up to date on 1 st of October 1998, reinforced the procedural guarantees in order to prevent abuse of power in the course of detention in custody (reduction of maximum periods of detention in custody, extension of habeas corpus proceedings to offences coming under the State Security Courts, etc);

Considering that effective preventive measures notably imply providing the agents of the security forces with adequate training so that they fulfil their duties in accordance with the laws and regulations in force, showing full respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, and also imply the provision of effective remedies against any action on their part which violates these norms;

Considering that, with respect to the training of agents of the security forces, Turkey has undertaken to engage in an overall reform of the organisation and training of the police and Gendarmerie , particularly in the context of the Council of Europe programme “Police and Human Rights 1997-2000”, aiming at ensuring, at all levels, respect for human rights in the exercise of the duties assigned by Turkish law;

Noting with interest, as regards effective remedies, the initiatives aiming at better training and awareness raising of prosecutors and judges in the field of Human Rights (notably through training courses for  judges, organisation of seminars and the recent Ministry of Justice’s practice of disseminating the Court’s judgments concerning Turkey, in Turkish translation), in order to ensure that the requirements of the Convention effectively taken into account when interpreting the Turkish law;

Noting also the positive development of the jurisprudence of the administrative courts in order to ensure reparation for corporal, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused in the context of the security forces’ operations in the south-east of Turkey;

Stressing, however, that the Court has emphasised on numerous occasions that, when an individual formulates an arguable claim for destruction of property, torture, ill-treatment or killings involving the responsibility of the State, the notion of an “effective remedy”, in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention, entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access by the complainant to the investigative procedure;

Noting, in respect of the efficiency of criminal proceedings directed against agents of the security forces, that still, more than two years after the first judgments of the European Court of Human Rights denouncing the serious violations of the human rights at issue here, the information provided to the Committee of Ministers does not indicate any significant improvement of the situation with regard to offences falling within the jurisdiction of the state Security Courts and/or committed in the regions subject to a state of emergency;

Considering that efficient criminal investigations will require an important reform of criminal procedure, in particular aiming at abolishing the local administrative boards’ competence with regard to the investigation and the decision whether or not to engage proceedings, as well as at reinforcing and reorganising prosecutors' departments in order to give prosecutors the means and independence necessary efficiently to pursue allegations of abuse of power by the security forces;

Considering that, despite the necessity of fighting against terrorism in the south-east of the country and the difficulties faced by the State in this fight, the means used must respect the Turkey’s obligations under the Convention, in particular as specified by the Court’s judgments and by the Committee of Ministers’ decisions,

Conclusions of the Committee of Ministers

Calls upon the Turkish authorities to pursue with the greatest diligence their efforts to reorganise and improve the training of agents of the security forces in order to ensure respect for human rights in the performance of their duties.

Calls upon the Turkish authorities rapidly to complete the announced reform of the present system of criminal proceedings against members of the security forces, in particular by abolishing the special powers of the local administrative councils in engaging criminal proceedings, and to reform the prosecutor’s office in order to ensure that prosecutors will in the future have the independence and necessary means to ensure the identification and punishment of agents of the security forces who abuse their powers so as to violate human rights;

Encourages the Turkish authorities to continue their efforts in order to ensure rapid reparation for the victims of violations of the Convention committed by the security forces;

Invites the Turkish authorities to continue to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the concrete effects of the measures adopted, in particular by providing statistics concerning compensation awarded, the number of criminal complaints lodged and their outcome as well as details of the scope of the training and management reforms planned and of the means allocated to them;

Encourages the Turkish authorities to develop the initiatives already taken with the view to raising the awareness and improving the training of judges and prosecutors in human rights through integration of these matters into continued education programmes, in order to ensure that these authorities will effectively and rapidly provide a guarantee that the security forces will, in all circumstances, respect human rights;

Encourages the Turkish authorities to adopt all further measures necessary rapidly to ensure respect for human rights by the security forces in all circumstances;

Decides to continue, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Convention, the examination of the above cases until measures have been adopted which will effectively prevent new violations of the Convention.

Appendix to Resolution DH (99) 434

Information provided by the Government of Turkey for the Committee of Ministers’ examination

of the execution questions raised by

the activities of the security forces in Turkey

( cases of Akdivar and others against Turkey, Aksoy against Turkey, Çetin against Turkey,

Aydin against Turkey, Mentes and others against Turkey, Kaya against Turkey,

Yilmaz and others against Turkey, Selçuk and Asker against Turkey, Kurt against Turkey,

Tekin against Turkey, Güleç against Turkey, Ergi against Turkey , Yaşa against Turkey)

The Turkish Government, conscious of its obligations flowing from the Convention, has constantly presented, and will continue to present orally or in writing, all the necessary information to the Committee of Ministers, which is responsible for supervising the execution of the Court's judgments and of its own decisions.

The aforementioned cases refer to facts, which took place in the context of the fight against the terrorist organisation PKK, which has caused the death of several thousand persons notably during the years 1992-1993.  Notwithstanding the difficulties created by these exceptional circumstances, the Government has reiterated and at the highest level and on several occasions its determination to fight against all human rights violations in Turkey.

Following the above-mentioned judgments of the Court and decisions of the Committee of Ministers, the Turkish authorities have taken the following measures to prevent further violations of the Convention ( see also information provided in the above-mentioned cases YaÄŸiz and Sur) ;

I. Reform of the legislative and regulatory framework governing the activities of the security forces

A. Prevention of torture, ill-treatment and disappearances

The government recalls that Article 17 of the Turkish Constitution prohibits torture and ill-treatment and that the use of torture or ill-treatment by public employees is an offence under the Penal Code (Articles 243 and 245). Moreover, since 1992 (see the Resolution adopted in the Erdagöz case, DH (96) 17), Article 135A of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the use of torture or ill-treatment as methods of interrogation and specifies that evidence obtained as a result of these methods is null and void regardless of the consent of the person concerned.

The Government has placed before the Turkish National Assembly a Bill aimed at stiffening the penalities applicable to agents of the security forces found guilty of torture or ill-treatment (the penalties provided under the present dispositions are, in principle, three to five years’ imprisonment and a disqualification – either temporary or permanent – from public service).

Aware of the link between shortcomings in the system of police custody and the risk that detainees may be tortured or ill-treated while in such custody, the Turkish authorities have adopted a number of laws and regulations reducing the length of time that a person may be held in police custody and introducing important procedural safeguards during the custody period.

Length of police custody

New legislation (Act No. 4229) adopted on 6 March 1997, following the Aksoy judgment, reduced the maximum lengths of time that a person may be held in police custody.  The maximum period in the case of offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts and committed by several persons in concert was reduced from 15 to 7 days under normal circumstances and from 30 to 10 days in a state of emergency.  In the case of offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts and committed by individuals, the maximum period in a state of emergency was reduced from 96 to 48 hours.  Finally, the maximum periods of police custody were also reduced in the case of ordinary offences committed by several persons in concert: from 8 to 7 days both under normal circumstances and in a state of emergency.  In all cases, the extension of police custody beyond four days requires a court order, following application by the prosecution.

Safeguards during police custody

Act No. 4229 of 6 March 1997

Under Act No. 4229, all persons held in police custody in connection with offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts were given the right to see their lawyer at any time once they had been held for four days.  The same law provides that such persons may bring judicial proceedings challenging the lawfulness of their detention under Article 128, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (application for a writ of habeas corpus ).

The new legislation also further extends the scope of the ordinary criminal law by removing from the competence of the State Security Courts offences committed in respect of means of transport and telecommunications (Articles 384 and 385 of the Criminal Code). Persons suspected of such crimes, accordingly, now also enjoy the ordinary guarantees during police custody.

Interior Ministry circular of 31 March 1997 (No. 071618)

Shortly after the adoption of Act No. 4229, an Interior Ministry circular dated 31 March 1997 (No. 071618), specifically reminded all provincial governors firstly of Turkey’s international obligations as a member State of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and secondly of the series of provisions adopted under domestic law to protect and develop human rights, including those of Act No. 4229 on the maximum length of police custody and the detainee’s right to see a lawyer.

Prime Minister’s circular, No. 1997/73 of 3 December 1997, entitled “Order concerning police custody, interrogation and statements”

The Prime Minister’s circular, No. 1997/73 of 3 December 1997, entitled “Order concerning police custody, interrogation and statements”, instructs the security forces to observe a number of conditions when persons are in police custody, irrespective of the offence involved. Among these rules the following may be mentioned:

Persons placed in police custody must be informed of their rights under the law, notably those relating to access to a lawyer; special forms for this purpose must be issued to them, without exception, at the beginning of the period of custody;

Details of persons placed in police custody must imperatively be recorded and a full record kept concerning their detention, transfer and release, in accordance with current procedures;

A medical report must be made on every person detained in police custody, regardless of the length of detention, both at the start of the period of custody and again before the detainee’s release;

The necessary work will be done to bring the physical conditions of premises in which persons are held in custody up to international standards; premises that cannot be brought up to this standard must no longer be used;

The necessary investigations into allegations of ill treatment will begin immediately.

The chief area administrative officers (prefects) and their deputies have the task of permanently supervising the security forces’ application of the circular’s provisions; regular reports on their findings will be sent to the responsible ministries.

Regulation on apprehension [1] , police custody and interrogation, updated on 1 October 1998

On 1 October 1998, the updated version of the Regulation on apprehension, police custody and interrogation came into force with its publication in the Official Journal. This text sums up and clarifies the rules applicable under the existing legislation to the procedures for detention in custody and interrogation.

The regulation recalled the time-limits on custody set by Law No. 4229 and prescribed in particular the following guarantees to be respected during apprehension, detention in police custody and interrogation:

Information to be given upon apprehension

Regardless of the offence with which they are charged, persons shall be informed as soon as they are taken into custody of the reasons for their apprehension, their right to remain silent and their right to inform their next of kin.

A report shall be drawn up on any apprehension and a copy of that report shall be forwarded to the person apprehended together with a “Form setting out the rights of the accused”, appended to the said regulation.

Registration of detainees

All detainees shall be registered in the detention register, which shall be checked; entries in this register shall include, in particular, all information concerning the identity of the detainee, the date, time and other details of the detainee’s apprehension and custody, the references and summary of the medical report, the name of the next of kin informed, the statement containing a request for a lawyer, details concerning the extension of custody, etc.

Contact with a lawyer

The apprehended person may meet his or her lawyer at any time in a place where their discussions may not be heard by anyone else. In the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security courts, the person apprehended may meet his or her lawyer only after extension of the police custody beyond 4 days. Correspondence of the apprehended person with his or her lawyer may not be subject to any control.

Informing next of kin

During apprehension, the person will be given the opportunity to inform relatives (in the case of foreigners, their Embassy or Consulate). In the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security courts, the relatives of the person apprehended will be informed in the same conditions if this does not harm the outcome of the investigation.

Access to a doctor

When persons are taken into custody or apprehended by force, their state of health shall be checked by a doctor; when they are transferred to a new place of detention, released or brought before the courts, or when the period of custody is extended, their state of health shall be established anew.

Persons whose health is affected in any way shall immediately be brought before a doctor; all medical checks and care shall be afforded free of charge by police surgeons, court medical officers or official health service doctors.

In the cases falling within jurisdiction of the State Security courts, a medical report shall be drawn up at the moment of extending the detention by the judge and the time between two medical controls may not exceed 4 days.

The doctor who is in charge of the medical legal report shall examine the person apprehended in private, except when this is not possible because of restrictions due to the investigation or to reasons of security.

Medical reports shall be drawn up in quadruplicate: the first copy shall be kept at the detention centre, the second shall be delivered to the detainee, the third added to the case-file and the fourth kept by the health service.

Physical condition of the detention

A place of detention shall be at least 7 m², 2.5 metres high and 2 metres between two walls; sufficient natural light and air circulation shall be ensured.

Statements and examinations

The apprehended person shall be entitled to the presence of his or her lawyer or a lawyer appointed by the Bar, without powers of representation, when making a statement.

Statements by suspects must be based on their free will; statements obtained by prohibited means, even with the consent of the suspect, may not be used as evidence.

Apprehended persons may not be subjected to physical or psychological treatment preventing the expression of their free will, such as torture or ill-treatment with the use of force or violence.

Judicial proceedings

Regardless of the offence with which the apprehended person is charged, he or she may appeal to the courts against the decision issued by the Public Prosecutor regarding his or her apprehension or the extension of custody, and ask to be released.

Police forces legally authorised to carry out apprehensions, detention in custody and interrogation are responsible for implementing the said regulation.

B. Prevention of the destruction of property and unlawful killing

The government recalls that the Turkish Penal Code makes it an offence to start a fire deliberately or otherwise (especially Articles 369, 370, 371, 372 and 383), to damage another person’s property deliberately (Article 526 et seq .), to take life involuntarily (Articles 452 and 459) or deliberately (Article 448) or to commit murder (Article 450). If members of the armed forces are suspected of having committed such offences they can be prosecuted for causing serious damage or for violating human life or property, unless they were acting under orders (Article 89 of the Code of Military Justice).

The government’s efforts to reduce the use of force include the following:

The Standing Instruction of the Commandant General of the Gendarmerie , dated 23 December 1996, sent to all ranks of the Gendarmerie following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Akdivar case and containing orders which, in particular, reflect Turkey’s obligations under the Convention. Specifically, it requires that any use of force during armed operations should be absolutely necessary.

The Instruction of the Gendarmerie General Command, Human Rights Section, sent to all ranks of the Gendarmerie , requiring that they take all possible care and precautions to protect the lives and property of members of the public; that, when evacuating sites for security reasons, they comply with decisions taken by the territorial authorities in accordance with the law and the relevant regulations, and that they take the necessary measures to avoid damage during evacuations.

These instructions are of particular relevance to establishing the liability of members of the security forces under criminal and civil law and in disciplinary proceedings.

II. Implementing the new legislative and regulatory framework

A. Educational measures for the security forces

The government stresses that beyond the new procedural safeguards introduced by the Act No. 4229 of 6 March 1997, the latter together with the subsequent regulations have had important incidences on the attitudes of members of the security forces regarding respect for fundamental rights during detention in police custody. This effect is reinforced in particular by the drawing up and progressive adoption of regulatory and educational measures in order to ensure at all levels of the security forces the effective application of the different norms and regulations relating to detention in police custody.

Furthermore, in 1995-96 a human rights education programme was run in the security forces.  It included a series of talks co-ordinated by the presidency of the chiefs of staff and was held, in particular, in certain districts (Diyarbakir, Elâzig and Van) where a state of emergency was in force.

In 1996 and 1997 the Gendarmerie General Command introduced educational programmes, including workshops and other forms of theoretical and practical training in human rights, which are to be built on and developed.  Accordingly, in May 1998, Command headquarters published a “Brochure on human rights” ( Insan Haklari Brosürü ) designed to raise awareness of the subject throughout the force and to strengthen a sense of responsibility in this respect on the part of all Gendarmerie personnel. This brochure was circulated to all units of the force.

More recently, as part of the Council of Europe’s pan-European “Police and Human Rights 1997-2000” programme, the possibility to reorganise Turkish police basic, in-service and management training has been studied in close co-operation with the police authorities. This feasibility study has resulted in April 1999 notably in a number of proposals in the field of basic, management and continued training of police. The appropriate funds and means are being allocated presently in order to implement these major suggested reforms found to be necessary. For the moment, it has not been decided if this programme will be applied to the National Gendarmerie.

The main purpose of these and other current initiatives is to ensure that, as soon as they take up their duties, all police officers and gendarmes will be trained to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the case of senior officers, the aim is also to provide them with sound management training so that they can ensure human rights are respected in day-to-day practice.

B. Measures concerning effective remedies against the security forces’ activities

The Government reports that the various existing remedies under Turkish law for ill-treatment, the destruction of property or the taking of life by members of the security forces are currently being strengthened.

Applications for compensation

Article 125 of the Constitution provides that the administration shall provide compensation for any damage arising from its acts or measures. Additional Section 1 of Act No. 2935 of 25 October 1983 on the state of emergency provides that applications for such compensation shall be lodged with the administrative courts.

On the basis of these provisions, the Turkish administrative courts have, in recent years, developed a practice of awarding compensation to victims of physical harm and material or non-material damage, relying either on fault on the part of the authorities (in a small number of cases) or, most commonly, on the theory of “social risk”, which implies the objective liability of the administration and exempts the applicant from proving fault and even from identifying the persons responsible.  The government has submitted numerous judgments by the Turkish administrative courts to the Committee of Ministers, which, on the basis of the State’s objective liability, awarded compensation to victims of armed operations in the districts where a state of emergency is in force (some fifty of the judgments submitted were delivered in 1998).  The government also points out that the European Court of Human Rights found in a recent judgment (Aytekin against Turkey, judgment of 23 September 1998) that lodging a compensation claim on the principle of the State’s objective liability was an element that could be taken into account when examining whether domestic remedies had been exhausted or not (paragraphs 84, third indent, and 85 of the judgment).

In the government’s view, it is clear from the foregoing that a practice of payment of compensation for damage caused by the security forces or by unidentified persons has developed.

The government has, moreover, tabled a bill in the Turkish National Assembly that envisages compensation system for victims by means of special funds, without obliging them to introduce legal action before the courts.

Criminal proceedings

The government recalls that under Articles 151 and 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaints about the destruction of property, killings, and the infliction of torture or ill-treatment can be made to the public prosecutor or to the local administrative authorities.  The public prosecutor and the police are under obligation (under Article 153) to investigate complaints made to them and under Article 148, the prosecutor decides whether or not proceedings should be brought.

However, under Section 4, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 10 July 1987, if the person suspected of an offence is a public employee or civil servant – and members of the security forces are included in that category – the opening of proceedings has to be authorised by the local administrative council (the executive committee of the provincial assembly), which conducts a preliminary investigation.

Following the Prime Minister’s Circular of 26 February 1998, the government tabled a bill in the Turkish National Assembly proposing the abolition of this procedure in cases brought against public employees.  As a result of the reform, State prosecutors will also become entirely responsible, in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for investigations of alleged crimes committed by members of the security forces.

Dissemination and the publication of the Court's judgments

The Ministry of Justice has sent translations of all the judgments concerned, as well as of other cases against Turkey, at least to the Turkish supreme jurisdictions, the State Council and the Court of cassation, in order to allow them to align their interpretation of Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention as defined in the judgments of the European Court. Recently, the translation of the Court's judgment has been included in the Ministry of Justice's "Bulletin of case-law" which publishes the Turkish courts' case-law.

Certain judgments have furthermore been published in the Journal of the Ankara Bar and all of them in the Bulletin of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, published by Hacettepe University’s Foreign Policy Institute, which also assures the translation of the judgments (with the participation of the Council of Europe).

Training of judges and prosecutors

In recent years a number of measures have been undertaken in order to ensure that judges and prosecutors in the performance of the their duties effectively assist in implementing the Convention and in particular the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In this spirit two seminars have been organised for judges and prosecutors with the participation of the President of the European Commission of Human Rights (notably one in 1997 involving the judges and prosecutors of the regions subjected to emergency rule concentrating on the problems highlighted by the judgments of the European Court). Subsequently, in 1998, a conference was organised with the participation of the Council of State, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and representatives of the European Court of Human Rights (concentrating on the problems relating to the legislation regarding the criminal responsibility of civil servants).

An increase in the number of seminars, conferences and information sessions on the Convention aimed at the legal profession is planned. In addition, in order to ensure a more general awareness of the requirements of the Convention, a course in human rights, including the Convention, has been introduced by the Ministry of Justice as part of the ordinary training programme of future judges and prosecutors. As a complement, as from 1999, the government has allocated funds to allow certain magistrates to seek internships at the Council of Europe, notably at the European Court of Human Rights.

The government also wishes to stress the interest demonstrated in the Convention by different bar associations (notably the bar assoications of Istanbul and Izmir) and other organisations and the fact that information meetings have been organised also by such bodies. Judges and prosecutors often participate in these meetings.

[1] According to the Turkish law, only a judge can order the “arrest” of an accused person (Article 106, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Law No; 3842 of 18 November 1992). The term “apprehension” (“ interpellation ” in French) is accordingly used to designate an action of the security forces when arresting the person in the common sense of this word.