2001 Introduction

• Table of Contents
• Abbreviations

As far as the documentation center of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFTHuman Rights Foundation of Turkey ) was able to gather the necessary information for the year 2001, at least 33 became victims of extra-judicial executions; at least 2 persons “disappeared”; among the torture survivors 643 made their allegation public and at least 8 people died in custody and 49 in prisons. Impunity of officials charged with torture and ill-treatment continued. Only very few of the law enforcement officials accused of extra-judicial executions, killing under torture or other violations were put on trial. Court cases based on such allegations usually resulted either in acquittal or very low sentences. Among 148 uniformed personnel, charged with torture or ill-treatment during 2001, only 9 were sentenced. Their prison terms were usually commuted to fines and suspended. A total of at least 852 people were tried in 456 trials for expressing their views or publishing the views of others. Of 101 court cases terminated during the year 58 ended in conviction. The hunger strikes and death fast actions that had started in 2000 against the F-type prisons continued in 2001. As a result of these actions 37 people lost their lives and a large number of prisoners began to suffer from the Wernicke-Korsakoff disease, disabling them for the rest of their lives. Almost 250 prisoners were temporarily released for 6 months due to their health problems as a result of the death fast action. More than 400 people applied to the treatment and rehabilitation centers of the HRFT for diseases in connection with the hunger strikes. No effective investigation was carried out on the death of 32 people (including two from the security forces) during the operation against 20 prisons that started on 19 November 2000.

BACKGROUND to HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKEY 2001

The year 2001 observed a number of legal changes including the 1982 Constitution touching the area of human rights and freedoms. Since the measures took their dynamics only from the aim to join the EU and did not stem from the truly felt need of the lawmakers for democracy they were bound to remain mere paper work. The nature of the State not tolerating different views and not believing in pluralistic democracy was quite obvious. The different sections of this report help to show that no powerful political will developed for the solution of problems that accumulated from the past and turned into a social trauma.

Human rights defenders pointed at the need of the establishment of a political culture to deal with the social trauma as a result of the human rights violations over the last 20 years. In 2001 individuals, groups, institutions and political parties tried to institutionalize an understanding of human rights, but were faced with new traumata based on the “protection of national security, secularism and the national unity”. Nationalism, based on singularity and homogeneity, sometimes taking the form of racism did not leave room for opposition and cultural pluralism (variety of ethnicity, religion, belief and language). The main traumatic areas in 2001 were the problem of ethnic origin and identity, pressure and violence against dissident political views and movements, particularly against the F-type prison, intolerance against headscarves under the pretext of fighting fundamentalist tendencies. The political weight and decisive role of the military in the State continued in 2001. The National Security Council determined the politics and strategies in 2001.

This character of the regime got the chance of settling in the aftermath of 11 September. Following the attack on the twin tower of the World Trade Center in New York, allied governments such as Turkey gained the opportunity to restrict democratic freedoms and cover human rights violations under the pretext of “fighting against terrorism”. This strategy put the USA in a position to ignore the UN and take single sided decisions ignoring international law. The first examples for such a practice were the decision by the UK to keep foreign nationals imprisoned indefinitely without being taken to court, the Home Office's raids on houses of refugees and detention of 10 people immediately after this law entered into force on 14 December, and Swedish government's refoulement of two Egyptian nationals at high risk of torture. The new tendency may easily be called the “global state of emergency” that Turkey was already used to. In return Turkey tried to point at the areas of threat in its national security policy in order to gain legitimacy on the national and international level.

Another element that determined political, social, economic and cultural life in 2001 was the outbreak of the financial crisis in February. The discussion on white-collar crimes and apparent failure of the government to combat such crimes led to the outbreak of the deep-rooted crisis that made the people suffer even more. In particular in the area of employment the crisis left deep wounds in terms of human rights. No steps were taken on the Law on Social Security that had been drafted in 2000. The number of suicides increased and many people were imprisoned, because they could not pay back the credits taken on the basis of foreign currency. Shop owners and small businessmen took to the street for the first time.

The judicial aspect of the Susurluk scandal that unfolded after the traffic accident of 3 November 1996 came to an end in 2001. Fourteen public employees charged in the main Susurluk trial were convicted for “forming a gang”, but politicians and members of the armed forces, whose names had been mentioned in this context, remained untouched.

The influence of the National Security Council (NSCNational Security Council ) on political, economic and public life did not change in 2001. The National Program for the Adoption of the EU Acquis, constitutional amendments and changes to the penal code were all shaped around the national security strategy of the Turkish Armed Forces.

The approach to and policy on the Kurdish question were formed around the “PKKKurdish Workers' Party ’s threat to become political”. The political and human rights question that had evolved in atmosphere of violence after 1984 and become the basis for the Kurdish question was either not discussed or those, who discussed it, were punished. Accusation against HADEP of being an affiliation to the PKK continued and many executives and members of the party were detained and arrested.

Foreign relations in particular relations to the EU were based on the attempt of legitimizing the fight against terrorism after 11 September and in this context finding a strategy on the Kurdish question and the fight against politicization of the PKK. The EU was accused of following the same aim as the PKK, when publication and education in the mother tongue and the abolition of the death penalty were formulated as short and medium term goals for the accession to the EU. When Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit participated in the summit of Nice in December 2000 the General Staff made an announcement saying, “the PKK never was so much encouraged as during the phase of Turkey's integration with the EU”. The statement accused some member states of the EU of openly or covertly supporting the terror organization PKK and having accepted them as a party to turn to. This gave reason to suspect that the old support was continuing. (See Appendix 1)

The Economic Crisis

Following the stand-by agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the end of 1999 a bottleneck was first experienced in the bank sector and afterwards bankruptcies followed in the field of productions. Fluctuations experienced since November 2000 were replaced by a heavy economic crisis in the financial sector. When on 21 February the interest rate for one night reached 7,500 the currency rate that had been fixed since 22 February 1999 was left floating. In the middle of the economic crisis Kemal Derviş, deputy chairman of the World Bank joined the government as Minister of State for Economics in May. A short discussion on the continuation of the current government started by former trade unionist and deputy of the ruling DSP, Rıdvan Budak, was cut by the NSC saying, “The GNATGrand National Assembly of Turkey is convinced that the government’s program will be successful”.

The competences given to Kemal Derviş, who was presented in the media as the rescuer, and the new economic program of the IMF led to problems in the Council of Ministers. Enis Öksüz, Minister of Transportation, and Minister of State Yüksel Yalova resigned after their comments on the economic policies.

Under the influence of the economic crisis the gross national product decreased by 9.4% and the gross domestic product went down by 7.4%. The national income per person went down by 27.2% to the level of $ 2,160. The official figure on unemployment was 8.1%. The Ministry for Employment and Social Security put the figure of unemployed at 1.5 million. Many sectors were affected by the crisis and termination of work was experienced. In the media alone 4,000 employees were dismissed.

In November the State Planning Institute (DPT) announced the report on “improvement of the distribution of income and fight with poverty” stating that one third of Turkey’s population was not able to spend $ 1.5 for the minimum daily needs. The report stated that 38% of the population lived on the merge of poverty with Southeastern Anatolia having the highest amount of 44%. The Black Sea region followed with 42% and Eastern Anatolia with 40%.

Fight Against White Collar Crimes

In 2001 economic fraud deepening poverty, leading to an increase in human rights violation and paralyzing the judicial system, was one of the subjects that kept the public occupied. The operations against white-collar crimes in 2000 and 2001 revealed after the Susurluk scandal how much criminal energy had developed between politicians, businessmen, mafia and the bureaucracy. It was observed that no measures had been taken to effectively fight against handling of public commissions, for general principles on frankness of the private sector, supervision of money and politics, independence of law enforcement agencies, the judicial system, duties and taxes.

The number of operations against white-collar criminality in certain sectors reached 30 during the year. About one thousand persons were detained, including former ministers, entrepreneurs, mayors and leading bureaucrats. Many of them were released by the courts.

One of the most discussed operations in this context was the so-called “white energy” operation. At the end of the operation conducted by the gendarmerie against the limited company for electricity TEAŞ five people were remanded including former Minister of State Birsel Sönmez. After the name of Energy Minister Cumhur Ersümer had been mentioned he was forced to resign on 27 April. Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz, chairman of ANAP, criticized the fact that the operation was carried out by the gendarmerie saying, "I fear that extraordinary methods of interrogation may be used more widely and Turkey may become a Gestapo or police State.” The general command of the gendarmerie reacted sharply against this statement saying on 3 May that the “white energy” investigation had been carried out impartially and it was a sign of irresponsibility to show activities of the gendarmerie as extraordinary speaking of a police State.

Another minister, whose name was mentioned in connection with fraud, was the Minister for Construction and Accommodations, Koray Aydın. The operation “profit” on commissions of the ministry made deputy Prime Minister Devlet Bahçeli, chairman of the MHPNationalist Movement Party , ask him to resign, what he did on 5 September. However, Ömer İzgi, President of the GNAT and MHP deputy, did not forward the resignation for quite some time. After the operation ended Koray Aydın was appointed deputy group leader of the MHP, since his name was not mentioned in the indictment.

Saadettin Tantan, Minister of the Interior, who had been named a champion in the fight against white-collar crimes, was criticized for special units he had formed within the directorate for security. After the discussion within ANAP on the “white energy operation” Saadettin Tantan was removed from office. Subsequently he resigned from his party and the government. İstanbul Chief of Police, Kazım Abanoz and General Director for Security, Turan Genç were dismissed afterwards.

Accession to the EU and the National Program

The basis for the discussions on democratization and human rights in 2001 was the European Commission’s report on Accession Partnership (AP) with Turkey announced on 8 November. Most discussed were the political criteria. In response the National Program (NP) was prepared and having been discussed in the NSC announced to the public on 19 March.

Several points of the National Program raised discussion. Kurdish politicians mainly criticized the vagueness on education and publication in the mother tongue. Ahmet Türk, deputy chairman of HADEP said that the omission of the word “Kurdish” was in contravention to the sociological reality of Turkey. He maintained that it was no solution to increase the number of civilian members in the NSC. He reminded that "decisions by the NSC had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency" according to Article 118 of the Constitution, but the lack of political will and the atmosphere created at the meetings of the NSC supported the view that these decisions had to be implemented at once. He said that all proposals of the NSC had been implemented and wished that the NSC would really get an advisory character as expressed in the criteria of the EU.

Deputy Prime Minister Yılmaz commented on the criteria for education and publication in the mother tongue: “Nobody can ask us for freedoms they don’t have. Greece, for instance, is a EU country. In Western Thrace 250,000 Turks are living. Should I ask for TV for them, because they need it, would that be granted?” Yılmaz admitted that the NP did not exactly meet the expectations of the EU, but added that restriction on language had no practical effect, neither in the medium nor short term and he hoped that EU would have an understanding for their position. Yılmaz maintained that the NSC was an advisory body saying that the NSC could not pass any decision that the government did not approve of.

Discussion on National Security

Further points raised by the coalition partner ANAP and its chairman Mesut Yılmaz kept the public occupied. Besides publication and education in the mother tongue these points concerned transparency of military spendings, reduction of the number of soldiers and the length of military service, privatization of public economic entities (KIT), restrictions and hindrance in preparing the national program and changing the Constitution as expressed by the NSC.

During the 7^th Ordinary Congress of ANAP Mesut Yılmaz said on 4 August: “The notion of national security is raised with and without reason at any place. It should not be used to prevent steps for the healthy future of our State. It has become almost impossible to take steps for a positive future of our State and for peace and comfort of our nation. If Turkey wants to proceed it has to get rid of this syndrome.”

Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit stated after this speech that he was quite confused and Mesut Yılmaz would have to explain what he meant with discussing national security. He added that national security could not be an obstacle for Turkey. The term needed to be filled, since Turkey was surrounded with dangers and insecurities on all sides and this reality had to be kept in mind when determining the national security policy.

The General Staff reacted sharply against the speech of Mesut Yılmaz. His attitude was called without responsibility, merciless and dangerous.

Excerpts from the answer by the General Staff (09.08.2001) “The statement by the leader of a political party on a congress of his party on national security have been noted in the media as an attack on the armed forces. “The existing notion of national security was shown as an obstacle for the future of our State. It is known that the term of national security starts with an understanding and evaluation of threat/risk and includes all national power units with the social, economic and military parameters. Its final aim is the protection of democracy and the secular and unitarian Republic inside the country and outside the defense of the vital interests of the country. “For years the Republic of Turkey has been the target of attacks against its singular and secular structure. For more than 15 years has the bloodiest terrorist organization in history conducted pitiless massacres. These actions have continued with the support of some countries. They are still trying to politicize their efforts and take them on a legal level. Thousands of armed terrorist are readily waiting in the mountains. For years political movements longing for the sheria have exploited the opportunities of democracy and worked for a change of the secular nature of the State. They have gone some way in this attempt. "Against all this negative aspect the Republic of Turkey is fighting a successful struggle and the most self-sacrificing element is the mighty Turkish nation. “The unfortunate speech did not give a single example for the claim that any step forward is hindered on the grounds of national security. As known, it is the Council of Ministers that has to account for national security in front of parliament. It is inappropriate and alarming, if a person that shares this responsibility delivers a speech targeting institutions. “It needs to be discussed if any further step for the future of the country is in fact a step forward. If such a step enables activities of pervert thought and activists thinking of the sheria; if groups can build on them for dividing the country; if we have to make concession on vital security measures for our country, these steps would be steps backward.”

ANAP simply responded by saying that the speech of Mesut Yılmaz had for a wide interpretation of the term national security and might create an obstacle for integration with the EU. It had not targeted any person or institution.

At the time of the discussion on national security the High Council for Radio and TV (RTÜK) banned the broadcasting of BBC and Voice of Germany based on a report of April that had found the programs to be inadvisable in terms of national security.

Constitutional Amendments

In May the subcommission of the Inter-Party Mediation Commission in the GNAT consisting of 2 members each from all political parties with the strength of a group and established to work on the constitutional amendments mentioned in the National Program as short and medium term goals presented the draft on amendments to 51 Articles of the Constitution to the Mediation Commission. The Mediation Commission reduced the number of Articles to be amended to 37.

During the monthly meeting of the NSC in June agreement was reached on the 37 Articles that should be changed. After the meeting Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit said on the attitude of the military members in the NSC: “We had fruitful discussions on the constitutional amendments. They showed a close interest and stated their views generally being supportive. We would like all social circles to state their opinions. The members of the government need to study the Articles.”

The package of 37 Articles was signed by the party leaders of the coalition government and 288 deputies and presented to the President of the GNAT on 6 September. He called the General Assembly for an extraordinary session on 17 September to forward the package to the Constitutional Commission in the GNAT. The Constitutional Commission made changes to the provisions on the death penalty and ban on political activity. During the first round of debates in the GNAT the provision in Article 32 for the dominance of international conventions, if they are found to be in contradiction with national legislation only reached 221 of the necessary 330 votes. During the second round of the debate the changes to Article 27 and 28 of the Constitution did not get the necessary majority. Both Articles are related to the wages and sentences of deputies.

The vote on the package was taken on 3 October, leaving three Articles aside. Even though the number of amended Articles dropped to 34, this was the widest change to the 1982 Constitution that had already been changed partially five times. On 15 October State President Ahmet Necdet Sezer ratified 33 of the 34 Articles, but sent the Article on the wages of the deputies back recommending a referendum on it.

The objection of the State President led to some objection from the government, but when Sezer issued a written order the constitutional amendments entered into force on 22 October by promulgation in the Official Gazette.

The media presented the changes in an unrealistic way as a new constitution that would broaden freedom of thought, allow for Kurdish publications and exclude intervention into the freedom of communication.

Discussion on the Constitutional Amendments

One of the persons, who presented their views on the constitutional amendments, was Nuri Alan, President of the Supreme Administrative Court. He spoke on 10 May on the 133^rd anniversary of the Court. He said that the Constitution had been discussed since the day of its introduction in 1982. There was no social or political organization approving of all parts of the Constitution. He stated: “It appears to be difficult for society to reach the level of contemporary countries on the basis of the 1982 Constitution with the restrictions to basic rights and freedoms and the rules that narrow the areas for administrative and constitutional jurisdiction.” He criticized in particular paragraph 3 of temporary Article 15 that does not allow challenging laws passed during military rule as being unconstitutional.

In May the association of industrialists TÜSIAD presented a report on “Perspectives on Democratization in Turkey and the EU Political Criteria of Copenhagen: Views and Priorities” to the public. In general the report supported the Accession Partnership with a critical view on the National Program. The report criticized that the NP appeared to ignore some political criteria. The NP was criticized for using abstract ideas that should have been termed more clearly as changes to the constitution, laws and administrative measures. Some concrete proposals of the report directed at the political parties, the law on election, immunity of deputies, freedom of expression, right to assembly and civil society, abolition of the death penalty, cultural life and individual freedom, the National Security Council, torture and ill-treatment and measures to secure the state of law were not reflected in the constitutional amendments.

On 17 September 12 NGOs announced their joined opinion on the constitutional amendments. The police intervened in the press conference held in Ankara, Yüksel Alley. The focus of the report was put on the fact that the Constitution needed an overall revision that could not be restricted to 37 Articles. The draft amendments had been discussed by 5 political parties and not taken into account the views of society and the experience of many years.

Joined Press Statement (on constitutional amendments) 17 September 2001, 12am, Yüksel Alley “Since the military coup d'etat of 12 September (1980) the Turkish society is constantly confronted with a constitutional crisis. The current Constitution has been criticized for restricting personal and social rights and freedoms, impeding remedy, looking at the citizens as servants, silencing society and accepting the State as definite authority. Injustice does not only exist on basic rights and freedoms but also in the economic, social and cultural area. One of the basic problems of the Constitution is the policy of uniformity against the pluralistic structure with many identities and cultures in society. This has made things difficult for Turkey in the international community. The comprehensive change of the Constitution can no longer be postponed… The discussions in the government and parliament are positive signs. It is, however, wrong to restrict the discussion to political parties, who have the strength of a group in parliament… This means to leave the views of all social groups aside. The restriction to some Articles is a sign that the anti-democratic understanding of the Constitution will remain untouched… We feel unable to term the draft of the mediation commission a “reform package”. Yet the draft amendments to 37 Articles can be seen as a step forward. There are some positive elements for the development of rights and freedoms, but also some provisions that are not only incomplete, but also dangerous. To use elastic terms such as “national security”, “public order” or “general moral” when restricting rights and freedoms creates the danger of misuse and can render the protection of freedoms by the constitution ineffective. Such provision cannot be justified by pointing at the terminology of the European Court of Human Rights. The draft amendments to Articles 26 and 27 are closely related to freedom of expression and press freedom. Leaving the details to special laws empowers the rulers to restrict the freedoms easily. It is alarming that the political parties cannot agree on the term of “language prohibited by law. The right for everybody to use and develop his/her mother tongue and the right to education in the mother tongue has to be granted as a constitutional right according to the pluralistic structure of our society… Preserving the death penalty for offences during war, situations close to war and for terrorist crimes, instead of abolishing the death penalty according to the 6th Protocol to the European Human Rights Conventions is a contravention to human rights and principles of democracies. The draft amendment to Article 51 of the Constitution granting the State control over trade unions is a step backward. The provisions on minimum wages according to Article 55 create the impression that the principle of a social state is abandoned. Article 69 of the Constitution was amended to the effect of making the closure of political parties more difficult. These changes do not conform to democratic principles and the fact that political parties are basic institutions of democracies. The individuality of offences has to be observed and the closure of political parties should be taken out of the constitution. The National Security Council should be abolished. The influence of this institution on governments will not change, even if the members change. Temporary Article 15 should be lifted. Thereby the law of an extraordinary rule and the rulers can be challenged in court. Democracies do not grant privileges for certain people excluding them from charges forever. Signed by: İsmet Demirdöğen, chair ÇGD, Ali Ersin Gür, chair ÇHD, Çetin Öner, chair of the Association of Literaries, Mustafa Coşar, SG Halkevleri, Hüsnü Öndül, chair HRAHuman Rights Association , Yılmaz Ensarioğlu, chair Mazlum-DerHuman Rights Association for the Oppressed , Sami Evren, chair KESKConfederation of Trade Union in the Public Sector , Ali Balkız, chair of the Cultural Association Pir Sultan Abdal, Yavuz Önen, chair HRFT, Kaya Güvenç, chair TMMOB, Babür Pınar, chair of the Foundation Forum of Turkey and Middle-East

The Susurluk Scandal

The cooperation among police, politicians and the mafia revealed after the car crash in Susurluk town of Balıkesir province in the night of 3 November 1996, which resulted in the deaths of Director of İstanbul Police School Hüseyin Kocadağ, Abdullah Çatlı and Gonca Us and injury of True Path Party MP Sedat Edip Bucak, was curtained by the legal proceedings that concluded in 2001. Many questions remained unanswered despite the hopes and demands for a clean society raised by the Campaign on “one minute darkness for permanent light” in which millions participated.

It was argued that all illegal activities of the Susurluk Gang exhibiting the cooperation between top level bureaucrats, politicians, police chiefs, mafia bosses, ultra-nationalist armed groups, repentant militants and village guards were carried out with knowledge of the NSC. It was said that the Susurluk Gang was developed in the “cold war” era for the protection of the State against communism and organized further in the 1980s for the fight against the PKK. Using the opportunities of the State the gang had been involved in drug trafficking, bribery, laundering money, kidnapping of industrialists, killings and all this had been done on plans and with the information of the NSC.

The judicial process launched after the Susurluk accident did not result in cleansing of the counter-guerilla organization from the State. The defendants in the main Susurluk trials received sentences, but the trials related to it did not show the same result. For instance, the police officers named in connection with MİT staff Tarık Ümit, who disappeared in 1995 and accused of having provided a diplomatic passport for the Susurluk defendant Yaşar Öz and the former director of İstanbul police department for general order, Sedat Demir, accused of having allowed Haluk Kırcı to escape in 1996, were acquitted. The police officers, who released Yaşar Öz in 1994 on orders of Mehmet Ağar were convicted, but their sentences were suspended. Kemal Yazıcıoğlu, then İstanbul Chief of Police and his deputy Bilgi Ünal were charged with misconduct of duty for having released members of a special teams, defendants in the Susurluk trial and charged in connection with the killing of Ömer Lütfi Topal, without even presenting them to a prosecutor, were acquitted by İstanbul Criminal Court No. 3 on 4 November 1999.

The Main Susurluk Trial

After 25 sessions and more than four years after the “accident in Susurluk” İstanbul SSCState Security Court No. 6 announced its verdict in the trial of 14 defendants on 12 February. İbrahim Şahin and Korkut Eken were sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment under Article 313 TPCTurkish Penal Code for “establishing and leading a formation aimed at committing crimes”. The court also announced a ban from public services for life. The defendants Ayhan Çarkın, Ayhan Akça, Oğuz Yorulmaz, Enver Ulu, Mustafa Altunok, Ercan Ersoy and Ziya Bandırmalıoğlu (members of special teams and police officers), the driver of Urfa MP for the DYP Sedat Bucak, Abdülgani Kızılkaya, Haluk Kırcı, convicted for mass murder, Yaşar Öz, drug dealer, Sami Hoştan and Ali Fevzi Bir, partners of Ömer Lütfi Topal, who was killed in İstanbul, were sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment under Article 313 TPC for “establishing a gang aimed at committing crimes”. They were banned from public services for three years. Article 296 TPC (hiding wanted people) was not applied since it is within the scope of the Law on Conditional Release and Suspension of Sentences.

Lawyer Ergin Cinmen, spokesperson for the initiative “one minute darkness for enlightenment”, said that the court passed the highest possible sentences, but that this trial was only the tip of the iceberg. Fikri Sağlar, member of the Susurluk commission in parliament said that this verdict was proof for the existence of gangs that entered the State. The evidence had been strong enough to convict all 14 defendants. It was now up to parliament to lift the immunity of those politicians who are involved in this case. Sağlar also reminded of the fact that the trials against the MPs Mehmet Ağar and Sedat Bucak were still pending.

At the time the following files on MPs Bucak and Ağar were still waiting for a decision of the GNAT to life their immunity:

DYP Şanlıurfa MP Sedat Bucak:
“Form an armed gang with the purpose to commit crimes” and “assist in hiding a wanted person”.

Elazığ independent MP Mehmet Ağar:
“Lose arms and material belonging to the department for special operations”, “possession of unregistered arms”, “possession of faked passports”, “obstruct an investigation by ordering the release of a suspect” and “formation of a gang”.

The 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict of İstanbul SSC No. 6 on the so-called “Susurluk gang” on 24 October, because the wish of the defendants for a closed hearing had not been granted. This demand had been made during the hearing of 27 December 1999 and the defendants might have provided vital information. The Court also criticized that the result of the trial concerning the killing of Ömer Lütfi Topal had not been introduced in the proceedings. This trial is still going on at Beyoğlu Criminal Court No. 1. The Court of Cassation rejected the application by İbrahim Şahin, former deputy chief of the department for special operations, to quash the sentence for “hiding a wanted criminal”. This sentence had been suspended.

On 3 November the Chief Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation appealed against the verdict of the 8th Chamber. The prosecutor argued that the verdict had not elaborated on the effects of non-public hearing on the defense and that the assumption that some potential defendants had been omitted had no effect on the defense. The prosecutor also drew attention to the fact that the case might be turned down during retrial because the time limit could be exceeded.

On 4 December the Panel of Chambers of the Court of Cassation did not reach a decision on the Susurluk case. During the hearing of 4 December 13 members of the Panel voted for the prosecutor’s objection. 11 members wanted the objection to be rejected. Thus the 2/3 majority was not reached. On 11 December the Panel of Chambers at the Court of Cassation decided by 16 against 9 votes in favor of the objection by the chief prosecutor Sabih Kanadoğlu against the decision of the 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation.

This decision forced the 8th Chamber to deal with the case again. The confirmation of the verdict by İstanbul SSC No. 6 came on 15 January 2002. According to the rules for the execution of sentences the defendants of this trial were to spent the following time in prison: İbrahim Şahin 694 days, Korkut Eken 879 days, Sami Hoştan 555, Ali Fevzi Bir 467, Enver Ulu 445, Ayhan Akça and Ziya Bandırmalıoğlu 402, Abdülgani Kızılkaya 393, Mustafa Altunok 382, Ayhan Çarkın, Ercan Ersoy and Oğuz Yorulmaz 296 days. The other two defendants, Yaşar Öz and Haluk Kırcı, were under arrest in connection with other cases, but had a remaining time in prison from this case for 481 days (Yaşar Öz) and 431 days (Haluk Kırcı).

The “Lost Arms” Case

On 10 July Ankara Penal Court No. 6 passed the verdict in the case of the “lost arms” in connection with the Susurluk scandal. As far as the arms were concerned the case had already exceeded the time limit and only an expertise report was attached to the verdict stating that the weapons had been obtained by the Hospro Company from Israel and were donated to the police. However, no information had been obtained on how the arms later had been distributed. The court ruled that for the defendants İbrahim Şahin, Mustafa Büyük, responsible for the arms depot in Antalya, Uğur Çevik, responsible for the arms depot in Gölbaşı, Lüfti Eraslan, organizing courses for the police, Chief of Police Şemsettin Canpolat, Sezai Boran, chair for the accounting department and the members of the commission, Niyazi Pek, Arif Yıldız, Hasan Kozan and Ali Durmuş the time limit for punishment had been exceeded. As far as Necmettin Ercan, former chairman of the purchasing department in the General Directorate for Security, Mustafa Tekin Hatipoğlu, responsible for deals from abroad, Nazmi Kara, responsible for duties, and police officer Ömer Aydoğan were concerned the charges brought under Article 230 TPC fell under the Law on Conditional Release and Suspension of Sentences and had to be suspended. After the accident in Susurluk on 3 November 1996 one Beretta pistol and a muffler were found and identified as belonging to the “lost arms”. The owner of the Hospro company had testified: “At the end of September 1993 Mehmet Ağar, Ertuğrul Oğan, İbrahim Şahin, Korkut Eken and I were invited to Israel. The course in Antalya was held as anti-terror training. The material was sent directly from Israel. I know that the arms were picked up at the customs and sent directly to the camp.”

In a separate trial some defendants were charged with having taken illegal possession of the “lost arms”. On 16 October Ankara Criminal Court No. 5 rejected the charges for İbrahim Şahin, Lütfi Eraslan, Şemsettin Canpolat and Necmettin Ercan and suspended the sentences for Mehmet Korkut Eken and Ertugrul Oğan, who had been found guilty of “miscarriage of duty” according to the Law on Conditional Release and Suspension of Sentences.

The Topal Case

On 8 November Beyoğlu Criminal Court No. 1 acquitted 8 defendants, who had been charged with the killing of Ömer Lütfi Topal, known as the “king of casinos”, on 28 July 1996. The 8 defendants in this trial were Sami Hoştan and Ali Fevzi Bir, companions of the victim, the former members of special teams Ayhan Çarkın, Oğuz Yorulmaz, Ercan Ersoy and Mustafa Altınok, Haluk Kırcı, a right-wing militant, who was convicted for his involvement in the killing of 7 members of the Turkish Workers’ Party TİP in Bahçelievler (Ankara) and Serdar Özdağ. The court followed the prosecutor in acquitting the defendants because of lack of evidence.

In a separate case, one of the defendants in the “Susurluk Case”, Ayhan Tokcan, former deputy chief of police in Kağıthane district (İstanbul) appeared at İstanbul SSC No. 1 on 9 November. He denied the charges of kidnapping Ali Fevzi Bir and demanding a ransom of $ 600,000 and stated that he had been tortured in detention including the application of electric shocks and squeezing of his testicles.

The Case of the Yüksekova Gang

One of the four trials opened against the Yüksekova Gang, as expressed by Diyarbakır SSC Prosecutor Nihat Çakır “Susurluk is nothing compared to what this guy (PKK confessor Kahraman Bilgiç ) said and which may even change the Southeast policy”, concluded on 22 March. The 13 defendants at Diyarbakır SSC 4 included a PKK confessor, high-ranking members of the military and even one mayor. They were charged with drugs and arms trafficking, robbery and other offences. Major Hamdi Poyraz, Ali İhsan Zeydan, former mayor of Yüksekova (Hakkari), lieutenant Ali Kurtoğlu, village guard İsmet Ölmez, Hasan Öztunç, Mustafa Koca, Oğuz Baygüneş and Captain Nihat Yiğiter were acquitted. PKK confessor Kahraman Bilgiç was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, Major Mehmet Emin Yurdakul to 25 years and 2 months' imprisonment, Kemal Ölmez, leader of village guards received a sentence of 13 years and 4 months' imprisonment, lieutenant Bülent Yetüt 7 years, 4 months' and special team member Enver Çırak 3 years and 8 months' imprisonment. For the "Yüksekova gang" the first verdict was delivered on 17 September 1998. The Court of Cassation had quashed the sentences on 15 September 1999, except for the verdict against Kahraman Bilgiç. The second trial ended on 26 December 1999. Only Fatih Özhan was sentenced to 16 years, 8 months' imprisonment. Another trial was conducted at Hakkari Criminal Court on the killing of four people including Abdullah Canan. On 12 November 1999 the court acquitted Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, Kahraman Bilgiç and Nihat Yiğiter.

A court case opened for the kidnapping of Necip Baskın in September 1996 had concluded at Diyarbakır SSC No. 1 on 17 September 1998. Kahraman Bilgiç was sentenced to 12 years 6 months’ imprisonment. Fatih Özhan, Yusuf Azmi Aydın, Abdülkadir Bayram, Abdülkerim Özcük, Osman Özpazar, Necmettin Hazeyi, Mehmet Emin Ergen and Osman Ergen had been sentenced to 17 years, 7 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation confirmed the verdict for Kahraman Bilgiç on 15 September 1999, but quashed the other verdicts. The retrial concluded on 29 December 1999 and Yusuf Azmi Aydın, Abdülkadir Bayram, Abdülkerim Özcük, Osman Özpazar, Necmettin Hazeyi, Mehmet Emin Ergen and Osman Ergen were acquitted, only Fatih Özhan was sentenced to 16 years, 8 months’ imprisonment.

The trial opened at Hakkari Criminal Court against Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, Kahraman Bilgiç and Nihat Yiğiter on the allegation of murdering Abdullah Canan on 21 February 1996, Mutad Özeken, Münir Sarıtaş and Abdülkerim Sarıtaş by applying torture also ended in acquittal on 12 November 1999.

The “28 February Period”: NSC in Public Life

On 28 February (1997) the NSC resorted to a wide range of strong measures against the Islamic movements, officially termed “fundamentalists”, based on the assumption that these movements were posing a serious threat to secularism and the existing constitutional order. In 2000 a “strategy to fight fundamentalism” was adopted and continued in 2001. The NSC coordinated the official measures. Human rights violations in this context extended to almost all spheres of public life.

In its session of 22 June the Constitutional Court decided to close the Virtue Party (FP). The decision was based on “actions against the secular principles of the republic” under Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution and Articles 101 (b) and 103 of the Law on Political Parties. Nazlı Ilıcak (İstanbul MP) and Bekir Sobacı (Tokat MP) lost their mandate. They and the party’s members Merve Kavakçı, Ramazan Yenidede and Mehmet Sıla were deprived of their political rights for a period of 5 years.

The operations against the wearing of headscarves as one of the elements of the “fight against fundamentalism” continued in 2001 in almost all parts of public life. According to figures from the Ministry for National Education 706 teachers were dismissed from duty between 1998 and 2000, because they had been wearing headscarves during the lessons.

Mazlum-Der issued a report on 1 June under the title of “Human Rights Violations by the Council for High Education (YÖK)” detailing measures against teachers and students with headscarves between January 1998 and May 2001. Some students were not accepted for the central examinations for places at universities, because they used photographs with headscarves on their application. YÖK decided not to accept any students at Fatih University on the grounds that the administration had a fundamentalist approach in the past and had not corrected their deeds despite warnings. In Sıvas students at the theological faculty of Cumhuriyet University were not allowed into the classes for wearing headscarves. At Ankara, Sıvas and Marmara Universities headscarved students were not allowed to take examinations,

After criticism of Rahşan Ecevit two articles were added to the statute for private courses aiming at excluded headscarved students from the theological lyceums. The regulations provide for punishment of administrators allowing students with headscarves to attend the classes.

A strategy paper on the fight against fundamentalism was forwarded to the meeting of the NSC on 29 June. The report stated that activities of sects were being followed closely and crimes were immediately reported to the relevant prosecutors. Further reports would be prepared in periods of 3 months. The report also noted that a dialogue with the leaders of religious sects and groups some progress had been made in integrating them into the system of state and law.

The report listed 277 actions against 309 mayors, who had been found to act against secularism between 1998 and 28 February 2001. The number of students at theological lyceums had dropped from 476,069 in the school year 1996/97 to 356,741 in the school year 1997/98. The numbers had gone down further in the school year 1999/2000 (by almost 60%) and by another 40% in the school year 2000/01.

Official Initiatives on Human Rights

During 2001 the government issued a number of regulations for the establishment of an institutionalized structure for the protection and development of human rights. In August the statutes on the Human Rights High Council attached to the Prime Ministry, the Human Rights Consultative Boards attached to the Ministry of State responsible for Human Rights and the Delegations to Investigate Human Rights Violations were published. Article 16 of the Law to Fight Terrorism was amended. The statute for Prison Monitoring Boards and for Judges on Execution of Sentences was issued. Among the constitutional amendments the shortening of the detention period and some changes in the Civil Law were noted as positive development. The Ministry of the Interior and the Committee “10 Years of Human Rights Education” jointly conducted course for the gendarmerie and the police. 26,780 staff of the gendarmerie and some 21,000 staff of the police attended human rights courses. Circulars were issued on the prohibition of torture. On 8 November the government authorized the publication of 7 reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). This enabled the public to get information on the CPT’s activities over the last 12 years. The government and administration conducted meetings with NGOs. However, a true dialogue with human rights and other civil society organizations did not develop.

The office of the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights twice changed hands. Following the resignation of Minister of Interior Saadettin Tantan on 5 June, Rüştü Kazım Yücelen, left the Ministry of State and became Minister of Interior. Edip Safter Gaydalı became the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights. Later Nejat Arseven, ANAP MP for İstanbul, who had been chairing the Constitutional Commission in the GNAT, became the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights. In both functions Nejat Arseven developed notable activities. He spent much effort for the shortening of the length of detention as part of the constitutional amendments. As Minister of State he sent a circular to all governors calling on them to prevent torture. He called on the human rights councils in the provinces and districts to be concerned about first generation rights such as protection of life and property, prevention of torture and ill-treatment, second generation rights such as the right to work and health service and third generation rights such as a clean environment and asked them to care about their protection.

The “Human Rights High Council” met as part of the government for the first time on 26 December. Minister of State Nejat Arseven, Minister of Interior Rüştü Kazım Yücelen and Minister of Justice Hikmet Sami Türk participated in the meeting. It was decided to hold monthly meetings. Every second week undersecretaries from the ministries should come together to evaluate complaints about human rights violation and torture.

The government had planned that representatives of human rights, professional and other civil society organization should have their share in the institutions established for the protection and development of human rights, but failed to implement this idea in 2001.

The Human Rights Presidency

On 12 April the GNAT passed Law No. 4643 on changes in the organization of the Prime Ministry. With this law the Human Rights Presidency became a central organization unit in the Prime Ministry. The duties of the Presidency were describes as: keeping in contact and coordinating efforts between institutions actively involved in human rights, observe the implementation of provisions on human rights, evaluate the results, find solution for deficiencies, coordinate activities to bring national legislation in line with international conventions, investigate petitions concerning human rights violations, evaluate the results and coordinate activities on measures against violations.

After this change the statutes on the Human Rights High Council attached to the Prime Ministry, the Human Rights Consultative Boards attached to the Ministry of State responsible for Human Rights and the Delegations to Investigate Human Rights Violations were published in the Official Gazette on 15 August.

The Human Rights High Council

The duties of the Human Rights High Council, comprise of state secretaries from the Ministry of State responsible for Human Rights, the Prime Ministry, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security were described as follows:

1. work on administrative and legal measures for the protection and development of human rights and make necessary suggestions;
2. make appropriate suggestion to bring the current legislation and draft laws in line with basic human rights principles and international conventions;
3. advise the Prime and other Ministries and public institutions on human rights;
4. coordinate the efforts on protection and development of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN and other covenants, to which Turkey is a State party;
5. coordinate efforts to inform the public on developments in respect to human rights;
6. observe the human rights education by public institutions and contribute to the human rights education for means of mass communication and civil society organizations;
7. to determine the voluntary organizations that appoint member for the National Committee “10 Years of Human Rights Education”, observe, evaluate and direct the work of the Committee;
8. appoint the members of the Human Rights Consultative Board that do not represent institutions, observe the work and evaluate it;
9. evaluate the investigations of the Presidency and the Investigative Delegations on allegations of human rights violations and make suggestions on measures to be taken;
10. establish commission and working groups on subjects to be determined.

The Human Rights High Council gathered 87 times in 2001, but it was not possible to gather details on its work included suggestions on the constitutional amendments.

Human Rights Consultative Board

The statute of 15 August mentioned organizations for certain professions such as TMMOB, TTB, the Journalists’ Association, TİSK and TESK as candidates for a participation in the Human Rights Consultative Board. It was left to the discretion of the Minister of State responsible for Human Rights to elect further members from NGOs. The Board should meet three times a year and present views and proposals for the development and protection of human rights, on existing legislation and contradiction to international law, on administrative measures; it should establish communication between official institutions and organizations from civil society and be an advisor on national and international human rights issues. It was expected to prepare report on the national situation of human rights and present views on international human rights issues including racism and enmity against foreigners. The Consultative Board did not become active in 2001.

Delegations to Invest Human Rights Allegations

It was planned that such delegations should be formed on necessity and include representatives of the Ministry of State responsible for Human Rights, the Prime Ministry, the Ministries of Justice, Interior, Foreign Affairs, National Education, Health and people or professional organizations concerned with human rights.

National Committee “10 Years of Human Rights Education”

On 18 July the statute for the National Committee “10 Years of Human Rights Education” was published in the Official Gazette. The Committee was attached to the Human Rights High Council. Members of the Committee should be one representative each from the Prime Ministry, the ministries that included the Directorate for Status and Problems of Women, the Directorate for Social Services and Orphans’ Hostels, the ministries of Justice, Interior, Foreign Affairs, National Education, Health and Culture, six representatives from voluntary organization working on human rights and five members from the teaching personnel at universities. The Committee should prepare a national program that might be implemented in Turkey. It should follow the educational activities within an action plan and national program, should evaluate the activities and forward a report to the Human Rights High Council.

The Committee worked under chairwoman Prof. İonna Kuçuradi, who is chairing the Center for Application and Research on Human Rights and its Philosophy at Hacettepe University since 1997 and includes representatives of the White Point Foundation, Project for Woman’s Human Rights, Anatolia Contemporary Education Foundation, the Turkish Democracy Foundation and the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly.

Provincial and District Human Rights Councils

These councils were introduced by a decree of 6 December 2000 and founded in 900 places, but did not have the expected impact. In many provinces the councils did not receive a single petition and in others only social issues were raised. Official circles concluded that no human rights violation had occurred in the provinces of Ardahan, Erzurum, Erzincan, Kars, Ağrı, Bingöl, Muş and Tunceli. News appeared that the highest state representatives in the provinces and districts made discriminatory choices for the councils. The human rights organization Mazlum-Der declared on 13 July that it would not participate in the councils. Mazlum-Der criticized the attitude not to take up violations without an application. It further stated that they had been called for participation in İzmir and Trabzon, but in İstanbul only the intervention of MP Emre Kocaoğlu, chairing the parliamentarian human rights commission had resulted in an official invitation to the provincial and district councils. Having observed an attempt to keep human rights organizations out of these councils and to cover up violations Mazlum-Der had decided not to participate any further.

The Human Rights Association (HRA) did not participate either, even though a principle readiness to cooperate with the State on human rights education. The HRA had been invited in some provinces (İzmir, Çanakkale, Trabzon), but the HRA board decided against participation on the grounds that it was against their principle of being independent.

The Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) joined the human rights council in Altındağ district (Ankara). In Diyarbakır the HRFT representation was not invited. In Adana two persons, who had applied to the HRFT were encouraged to apply to the provincial human rights council. The chair of Adana Human Rights Council appointed a police officer to evaluate the application. His report stated that the Forensics had issued a report stating that the two people had not shown any traces of blows. The persons in question had been detained on allegations of some relatives that they had supported a separatist organization and, therefore, their allegations of torture, were a plot against the State. On this basis the Council rejected the application of the two people.

Changes to the Civil Code

The next important step after the constitutional amendments was adoption of a new civil code. On 30 December 1999 the 57^th government under Bülent Ecevit had forwarded a draft to the GNAT and on 14 January 2000 the Judicial Commission had started to deal with the Turkish Civil Law. The draft was presented to the GNAT on 21 June 2001.

The debates on 1030 articles started on 24 October and ended on 22 November. The new law entered into force on 8 December by publication in the Official Gazette. The provision that the man is the head of the family was abolished and women do not have to ask for permission of the husband, if they want to work. Religious marriages (imam nikahı) will only be allowed after the registry office wedding. Further changes include the rules for adopting children, choice of surname and the rules of inheritance.

Human Rights and International Relations

After Turkey had been declared an official candidate for membership in the EU in Helsinki in 1999 and the Accession Partnership document was prepared in 2000 the relationship to the European Union became one of the most important elements of the foreign policy. Another important element was the “fight against terrorism” that dominated international relationships after the 11 September attack in New York and the ensuing war against Afghanistan. The Armenian question, Cyprus and the social and cultural rights of citizens from Turkey abroad also kept the government busy.

EU-Turkey Relations

The EU-Turkey relations were shaped around the Accession Partnership (AP) document. The question of democracy and human rights were part of the political criteria as well as the Cyprus issued and also included the right to the mother tongue and abolition of the death penalty. The National Program (NP) prepared in response to the AP, the constitutional amendments and packages for democratization generally were seen as positive steps. Both sides reacted positive on the European Commission’s 2001 Report on Progress. Military circles frequently expressed their uneasiness on measures concerning Cyprus and minorities. They were not pleased to be excluded from the decision-making bodies for a European security and defense policy. The official pressure for joining the organs was withdrawn at the end of the year.

The Cyprus Question

Turkey objected to the formulation in European Commission’s report on Accession Partnership which read, “the European Union encourages Turkey, together with all parties, to continue to support the UN Secretary General’s efforts to bring the process, aiming at a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, to a successful conclusion.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Turkey had never seen any link between the Cyprus issue and Turkey’s membership of the EU. The problem had to be solved between the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot Regime.

Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit stated on 22 November that the EU had broken promises given during the Helsinki Summit on 10 December 1999 concerning the question of Cyprus and the Aegean. He insisted that the solution to the Cyprus problem relied on the acceptance of two independent States on the island.

In August the European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution on Cyprus prepared by the rapporteur Jacques Poos. The report called Turkey an “occupying force” and concluded that the annexing of Northern Cyprus would be the end for Turkey’s candidacy to the EU. Speaking for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Faruk Loğoğlu, stated that Turkey would determine its policy on Cyprus without interference, but would continue the dialogue with the UN on this question. On 1 September the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made an official announcement number 157 on the EP’s resolution. The report criticized former Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Jacques Poos, with single-sided views aiming at separating Turkey from the EU. His attitude had come at a time, when the SG of the UN was carrying out his good will mission and was obviously aimed at render such efforts ineffective.

On 8 September discussions on the progress report prepared by Alain Lamassoure were held in the EP.

In the conclusive section of the report adopted on 13 November the following remarks were made: “The constitutional amendments adopted by the Turkish Parliament on 3 October 2001 are a significant step towards strengthening guarantees in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms and limiting capital punishment. The amendments narrow the grounds for limiting such fundamental freedoms as the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought, freedom of the press and freedom of association. Attention has now turned to the effective implementation of these important changes.

“Despite these changes, a number of restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms have remained… The moratorium on the death penalty has been maintained. The revised Article 38 of the Constitution limits the death penalty to cases of terrorist crimes and in times of war or imminent threat of war. The exception for terrorist crimes is not in line with Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (which does not permit any reservations), whereas the exception in the case of war crimes is permitted under Protocol 6… The provisions forbidding the use of languages prohibited by law, in Articles 26 and 28, have now been abolished. This could pave the way for the use of languages other than Turkish and is a positive development. Existing restrictive legislation and practices will need to be modified in order to implement this constitutional reform, as the Turkish authorities have recognized. There has been no improvement in the real enjoyment of cultural rights for all Turks, irrespective of their ethnic origin.

“A number of substantial prison reforms have been adopted. Turkey is encouraged to ensure that these reforms are fully implemented. The disproportionate use of force in breaking up prison protests is to be regretted. Reform of the judicial system has begun. The independence of the judiciary, the powers of State Security Courts and military courts and compliance with rulings of the European Court of Human Rights remain matters of concern…

“The basic features of a democratic system exist in Turkey, but a number of fundamental issues, such as civilian control over the military, remain to be effectively addressed. Despite a number of constitutional, legislative and administrative changes, the actual human rights situation as it affects individuals in Turkey needs improvement. Though it is beginning to make progress in some areas, Turkey does not yet meet the Copenhagen political criteria and is therefore encouraged to intensify and accelerate the process of reform to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully protected in law and practice, for all citizens, throughout the country.

“… the support Turkey has expressed in the political dialogue for the UNSG's efforts to find a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem should now be followed by concrete steps by Turkey to facilitate a solution.”

The Armenian Question

At the beginning of January the French Parliament passed a law that included the “official recognition of the genocide against the Armenians in 1915”. Turkey protested by saying, “despite all warnings accepted the French National Assembly the draft law on an Armenian genocide and thus made a horrible mistake in front of history and mankind. The Turkish government protests against this decision showing the impertinence of accusing Turkey with genocide that she never committed and rejects the law with all its consequences. This law created a shock for our nation and will damage the relations between Turkey and France… The Turkish Republic has called its Ambassador to France, Sönmez Köksal to Ankara.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Staff reflected on an alternative counter action plan. It was decided to keep France out of official commission, in particular those from the Armed Forces. After State President Jacques Chirac had ratified the law, Turkey reacted even stronger. An initial agreement with the French Alcatel Company on a spy satellite to cost $ 250 million was cancelled. A draft agreement with the Thompson Company on the production of an electronic system for 80 F-16 fighters was unilaterally annulled. The Turkish Telekom expelled the Alcatel company from a competition over $ 1 billion for a GSM 1800 line. A project by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing concerning the passage over the bay of İzmir with total costs of $ 6.5 was cancelled, because the only two companies that had handed in proposals were from France.

In reaction two draft laws were introduced in the GNAT on 23 January protesting against the French genocide in Algeria (Turkey had supported France during that war).

Relations to the Council of Europe (CoE)

Turkey continued to be one of eight countries, for which the Council of Europe kept the membership status under review. The procedure had started in 1996. In this context Andras Barsony and Benno Zierer visited Turkey between 23 and 25 May and reported on it. They noted some progress, but also detected areas, in which nothing had been done on the criteria of membership. They asked for measures for the protection of human rights, in particular in the southeast, including constitutional changes, abolition of the death penalty and a reform of the prison system. On 28 June the General Assembly of the CoE accepted the report deciding for a continuation of the review procedure and aid for Turkey to conduct seminars on multi-ethnic societies.

Later Lord Russel, chair of the General Assembly of the CoE issued a message welcoming the constitutional amendments. Human Rights Commissioner Gil Robles paid his first visit to Turkey between 3 and 6 December. He talked to officials and human rights organizations. After the visit he expressed hopes for cooperation of both sides on protection and development of human rights stating that the CoE planned a meeting on this subject in Turkey.

The European Court of Human Rights remained the only judicial control mechanism on human rights in Turkey. Both human rights activists and the media followed the decisions of the ECHR with great interest. In 2001 the ECHR was occupied with important political questions such as the situation in Cyprus, the death penalty for Abdullah Öcalan and the closure of the Welfare Party.

The payment of compensation the ECHR awarded to applicants of cases against Turkey raised some problems. CoE SG Walter Schwimmer held a press conference on 27 June and stressed that Turkey was obliged to stick to the decisions by the ECHR. He particularly criticized the fact that Turkey had not paid the compensation in the Louzidou case. Schwimmer called on the Council of Ministers to exert pressure on Turkey.

There was a growing tendency to solve cases by friendly settlements. In these cases the ECHR was content with declarations by the Turkish government to accept violations as individual mistakes, promising measures against repetition and offering the expected amount of compensation. Human rights activists argued that this tendency was not helpful in solving basic problems of systematic human rights violations such as torture.

The European Committee for the Prevention (CPT) visited Turkey from 10 to 16 December 2000, 10 to 15 January 2001 and from 18 to 21 April and 21 to 24 May 2001, mainly in connection with the operations against the prisons of December 2000, the F-type prisons and actions against them.

Relations to the UN

In 2000 Turkey had followed the call by the SG of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and signed the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These conventions were not ratified in 2001 and it was not clarified whether Turkey would file reservations against provisions such as the right to self-determination.

Ms. Asma Jahangir, special rapporteur of the UN on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions carried out research in Turkey between 19 February and 1 March. The General Staff and the Command of the Gendarmerie did not meet her. The report was published on 18 December (See Appendix 2).

The Committee for Children’s Rights started to review the situation in Turkey on 23 May. In an expertise report demands were raised that Turkey becomes active on the rehabilitation of children exposed to violence, in and outside their families. The report also pointed at the earthquakes in 1999 and stated that Turkey had not completely fulfilled its obligation under the Convention on Children’s Rights. The report asked for the allocation of funds and new legislation for the rights of children that needed a mechanism for complaints. Turkey was reminded to cancel its reservations to Article 17, 29 and 30 of the Convention. The report pointed at allegations of torture and cases, where the families had not been informed of detention and criticized that the minimum age for laborers was 12, but only juveniles at the age of 16 could become members of trade unions.