CPT Report of 31 March 2011

On 31 March 2011 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) published its report on a visit to Turkey from 4 to 17 June 2009 (link to the complete report). The CPT made ad hoc visits to detention centres and prisons in the following provinces and districts: Batman, Bismil, Diyarbakır, Edirne, Erzurum, Hamur District, Ağrı Province, Istanbul, Konya, Karatay District, Konya Province, Mardin, Nusaybin, Van, Kırklareli and Kırıkkale. The DTFDemocratic Turkey Forum has selected the key findings for a special report.

Ill-treatment in custody

14. The CPT is pleased to note that the downward trend seen in recent years in both the incidence and the severity of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials appears to be continuing. The great majority of the interviewed 250 persons m indicated that they had been treated correctly whilst in custody... That said, the delegation received a number of allegations of excessive use of force at the time of apprehension (such as kicks or blows after the person concerned had been brought under control), as well as of threats or verbal abuse during police questioning.

The situation still appears to be problematic in the Diyarbakır area, where most of the above-mentioned allegations of ill-treatment were received. Several remand prisoners, who were interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts of beatings during transportation in a police vehicle, blows with batons and threats of sodomy in police establishments and, in a few cases, of cigarette burns. Some of the allegations made were supported by medical or other evidence.

15. The delegation also received a number of credible allegations that criminal suspects detained in the Anti-Terror Department at the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters had repeatedly been subjected to sleep deprivation during their stay in police custody. This practice appeared to be combined with an almost systematic application of the provisions of the anti-terror legislation which allow access to a lawyer to be denied during the first 24 hours and the custody period to be extended to four days. Neither the use of sleep deprivation nor the regular resort to the above-mentioned legal provisions were found by the delegation in any of the other Anti-Terror Departments visited.

b. access to a lawyer

20. The CPT welcomes the fact that, with the entry into force of the new CCP (on 1 July 2005), the right of detained persons to contact and meet a lawyer in private and to have a lawyer present during questioning by law enforcement officials is formally guaranteed as from the outset of custody (see, however, the exception referred to in paragraph 22). It is also noteworthy that statements taken by law enforcement officials in the absence of a lawyer cannot constitute the basis for a judgment unless they are confirmed by the suspect or accused before the court.

21. The information gathered during the visit would suggest that in the great majority of cases the implementation in practice of the above-mentioned legal safeguards did not pose any particular problems. However, once again a number of allegations were received from detained persons (in particular in Diyarbakır) to the effect that they had been subjected to informal questioning by law enforcement officials without the presence of a lawyer.

22. The CPT has serious misgivings about certain amendments which were made in 2006 to the 1991 Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law No. 3713). According to the new Section 10 (b), persons who are suspected of having committed a terrorism-related offence may be denied access to a lawyer during the initial 24 hours of custody (by order of a public prosecutor). Further, Section 10(e) of the law stipulates that, if there is evidence that the defence lawyer might be “liaising” between the detainee and a terrorist organisation, at the request of the prosecutor and following a decision by a judge, an officer can be present during meetings between the suspect and his lawyer”.

The CPT acknowledges that it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period during police/gendarmerie custody a detained person’s access to a particular lawyer chosen by him/her. However, there can be no reasonable justification for the right to contact and meet a lawyer in private being totally denied during the period in question.

c. medical examinations

23. ... The CPT wishes to stress that the delegation’s findings were disturbing. In the vast majority of cases, law enforcement officials were present during the examinations; the person concerned had no opportunity to speak with the doctor in private; the actual examination was cursory or non-existent; and the conclusions were often summarised in two or three words on the form supplied by the law enforcement agency requesting the examination. In the CPT’s view, this state of affairs is not primarily due to the refusal of law enforcement officials to allow the doctor to make a full examination in private. It is the emergency doctors themselves who are not motivated to do this work properly. They give priority to their “real patients” and take as many shortcuts as they can concerning the persons brought by the police/gendarmerie. Moreover, some doctors even talked of being afraid of criminal suspects or expressed a clear prejudice against such persons.

Further, in a number of cases, the requirement that the report drawn up at the end of custody be transmitted to the public prosecutor in a closed and sealed envelope was not complied with. It is also a matter of concern that it was not uncommon for detained persons to remain handcuffed during medical examinations (on occasion, even handcuffed to the escorting police officer).

...In the CPT’s view, there needs to be reflection by all relevant parties (justice, health, police and gendarmerie) on the way forward, with a view to developing a system of medical examinations which is more simplified but still effective in terms of prevention of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials; the Committee is ready to take part in this process.

Foreign nationals

1. Detention centres for foreigners

39. In the course of the visit, the delegation visited a total of six “detention centres” for foreigners in different provinces. The CPT prefers to use this term rather than the misleading euphemism “guest houses”, since the persons held in these centres are undoubtedly deprived of their liberty.

• Ağrı Detention Centre is located on the premises of Ağrı Police Headquarters. With an official capacity of 30 places, the centre was accommodating three male foreign nationals at the time of the visit.
• Edirne-Tunça Detention Centre is situated on the premises of former military barracks and had an official capacity of some 450 places. At the time of the visit, 47 foreign nationals were present.
• Istanbul-Kumkapı Detention Centre, which was opened in March 2007, is the largest detention facility for immigration detainees in Turkey, with an official capacity of 560 places. At the time of the visit, the centre was accommodating 124 foreign nationals.
• Kirklareli Detention Centre consisted of two blocks previously used as a reception centre for Bosnian refugees during the war in former Yugoslavia. With an official capacity of 400 places, the centre was accommodating 26 foreign nationals at the time of the visit. Almost all the detainees had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR and were waiting for the outcome of complaints they had lodged with the European Court of Human Rights against their deportation.
• The temporary detention facilities for foreigners at Konya comprised a “multi-purpose hall” on the premises of Konya Police Headquarters (capacity: 150 places). At the time of the visit, 47 detainees were being held in the establishment.
• Van Detention Centre is located on the premises of the Van Police Headquarters and had an official capacity of 65 places. On the day of the visit, there was only one foreign national present, who was waiting for the outcome of a complaint lodged with the European Court of Human Rights.

b. ill-treatment

41. The delegation heard no allegations of deliberate physical ill-treatment of foreign nationals by custodial staff (police officers) at the detention centres in Istanbul-Kumkapı, Konya and Van. However, at Edirne-Tunça Detention Centre, the delegation received consistent accounts from several detainees of instances of collective beatings of male foreign nationals, and some allegations of physical ill-treatment (slaps and beatings) were also heard at Ağrı and Kırklareli.

42. Since the 1990s, the CPT has repeatedly received reports from various sources that foreign nationals had been deported from Turkey to a neighbouring country (in particular, Greece, Iran or Iraq) by being compelled by law enforcement officials to cross the border to that country illegally in rural areas. The issue of “informal deportations” was examined by the CPT in detail during the September 2001 visit, in the course of which the Turkish authorities also acknowledged that deportations of this kind did occur from time to time.

43. During and after the 2009 visit, the CPT again received accounts of informal deportations of foreign nationals from Turkey to Iran and Iraq... Although the CPT is not in the position to verify the allegations made, it calls upon the Turkish authorities to take the necessary steps to prevent any such situations from occurring in the future.

47. It is of particular concern that, with the exception of Kırklareli and, as regards women and children, Istanbul-Kumkapı, foreign nationals held in the detention centres visited were offered no outdoor exercise at all. Such a state of affairs is unacceptable.

53. In most of the detention centres for foreigners visited, the entire premises, including all accommodation areas, were fitted with video surveillance cameras, allowing police officers in the central office to monitor the movement of all foreign nationals on a 24-hour basis.

The CPT acknowledges that in-room video surveillance may be justified for security reasons in individual cases and under exceptional circumstances, provided that there are appropriate safeguards in place (such as regular review of the measure and recording of events in a logbook at regular intervals).

55. Further, at Istanbul-Kumkapı Detention Centre, the delegation was informed that, on occasion, foreign nationals were subjected to disciplinary sanctions (including solitary confinement for several days). Due to the lack of any regulatory framework, such decisions were taken by the director without any formal procedure.

57. The delegation was puzzled to learn that in several detention centres visited (in particular, at Istanbul-Kumkapı and Kirklareli), all correspondence was systematically censored. For this purpose, letters written in foreign languages were first translated into Turkish before they were passed on to the addressee. In the CPT’s view, there can be no reasonable justification for such a systematic practice. Steps should be taken to review the current procedures in all detention centres for foreigners accordingly.

Prisons

70. The CPT’s delegation carried out full visits to Erzurum H-type and E-type Prisons and Konya E-type Prison, as well as a targeted visit to Kırıkkale F-type Prison where it focussed on communal activities for prisoners. In addition, the delegation went to several other prisons in the provinces of Batman, Diyarbakır, Mardin and Van, mainly in order to interview newly-arrived remand prisoners.

71. Erzurum E-type Prison has been in operation since 1989 as part of a complex comprising three different establishments (together with the H-type prison and an open prison) situated on the outskirts of Erzurum. With an official capacity of 700 places, the prison was accommodating 818 prisoners at the time of the visit (including 35 women and 39 juveniles); 325 of them were sentenced and the rest on remand. The main prisoner accommodation consisted of duplex multi-occupancy units.

Erzurum H-type Prison, which was opened as a high-security prison in 1989, has an official capacity of 316 places. At the time of the visit, it was accommodating 227 prisoners. Slightly more than half of the prison population were on remand, and many of the sentenced prisoners were serving a life-sentence. Most prisoners were accommodated in duplex living units for four persons. There were no female prisoners or juveniles in the prison.

Konya E-type Prison, located some 20 km outside Konya, was constructed in the late 1980s. The establishment’s initial capacity of 650 places was later expended to 800 by increasing the number of beds in the existing living units. At the time of the visit, the prison was holding 919 prisoners, including 40 adult women and 36 minors (34 male and 2 female). Sentenced (264) and remand prisoners (655) were held separately and were mostly accommodated in duplex multi-occupancy units.

Kırıkkale F-type Prison entered into service in 2007. With an official capacity of 368, the establishment was holding 285 prisoners at the time of the visit, mostly sentenced adult male prisoners serving long-term sentences (including life imprisonment) for terrorism-related or organised crimes, and those who had been transferred from other establishments for repeated regime violations. The great majority of prisoners were accommodated in duplex living units for three persons, while some fifty inmates were held alone in either single cells or three-bed duplex units.

72. Many of the prisons visited by the delegation were overcrowded, barely coping with the ever-increasing prison population. This often led to cramped and unhygienic accommodation, reduced out-of-cell activities, overburdened health-care services, and increased tension– and hence potentially more violence – between prisoners and between prisoners and staff.

73. More generally, the CPT is alarmed by the dramatic rise in the prison population in recent years which has resulted in overcrowding in many Turkish prisons. At the time of the visit, the total number of prisoners in Turkey was double that of January 2006, reaching 112,000, while the official capacity of the entire prison estate was 104,323. At the same time, the proportion of remand prisoners had further increased to some 54%.

Ill-treatment

76. The vast majority of prisoners interviewed by the delegation at Erzurum E-type and H-type Prisons, Konya E-type Prison and Kırıkkale F-type Prison indicated that prison officers behaved correctly towards them, and made no allegations of physical ill-treatment by staff. In particular, in the two E-type prisons, the delegation observed a rather relaxed atmosphere.

77. That said, at Konya E-type Prison, several allegations of physical ill-treatment (such as punches or kicks) were received from prisoners detained under anti-terror legislation and juveniles. One juvenile met by the delegation claimed that he had been punched in the face by a prison officer three days previously. Upon examination by a medical member of the delegation, the prisoner concerned displayed erythema and discrete swelling on the bridge of his nose.

79. At Erzurum H-type Prison, the delegation received only one credible allegation of physical ill-treatment by staff. A prisoner alleged that, some four weeks prior to the CPT’s visit, he had been beaten by four prison officers in a disciplinary cell for having refused to remove his shoes during a body search.

81. At Konya E-type Prison, the delegation gained the impression that incidents of inter-prisoner violence were a rather frequent occurrence.

Erzurum E-type and H-type Prisons and Konya E-type Prison

84. In all three prisons visited, the majority of prisoners were accommodated in units of a duplex design, with a living area on the ground floor (also used as a refectory) and a sleeping area on the upper floor. The former opened onto a courtyard which was accessible during daylight hours. Material conditions in the units were on the whole satisfactory in the three establishments, in terms of state of repair and access to light (both natural and artificial) and ventilation.

86. Both Erzurum and Konya E-type Prisons were affected by overcrowding at the time of the visit, which inevitably had a negative impact on the living conditions of prisoners.

87. Material conditions of detention were particularly poor in the living units for sex offenders (“Hobi-1” and “Hobi-2”) at Konya E-type Prison. Both units were grille-fronted and divided into small rooms which were cramped and unhygienic, with very little access to natural light (due to metal shutters fixed to the windows) and poor artificial lighting. Further, the units had no adjoining outdoor area and the prisoners did not benefit from outdoor exercise on a daily basis, their main area for movement being narrow corridors. It is all the more worrying that some prisoners had been held under such conditions for several months.

During the end-of-visit talks, the delegation indicated that, in its view, the conditions of detention in the above-mentioned living units could be considered as inhuman and degrading, and requested the Turkish authorities to take immediate measures to find more suitable accommodation for the prisoners concerned.

By letter of 23 September 2009, the Turkish authorities indicated that “[…] “Hobi-1” and “Hobi-2” wards in Konya Prison […] were closed. In line with the new planning of reclassification of inmates on the basis of crimes groups and age, settlements in the wards were rearranged and room capacities were increased. As a result, the convicts and prisoners kept in these wards due to sexual crimes were placed in rooms with better conditions.”

Conditions of detention of juvenile prisoners

102. At Konya E-type Prison, the delegation also paid particular attention to the situation of juvenile prisoners. At the time of the visit, the prison was holding 34 male juveniles who were accommodated in two distinct units, as well as two female juveniles. All juvenile prisoners were separated from adult inmates.

103. The material conditions in the juvenile units did not differ much from the rest of the prisoner accommodation. For example, one of the living units for male juveniles (“Çocuk-2”) with twelve beds was housing 16 inmates, four of the juveniles having to sleep on mattresses on the floor.

104. Particular mention should be made of a juvenile prisoner held in solitary confinement. He was detained on suspicion of having committed a terrorism-related offence and, when the delegation met him, had been on his own for nearly one month in a six-bed living unit. Upon the intervention of the delegation, the management indicated that it would take immediate steps to put an end to his isolation. Nevertheless, the CPT considers that a juvenile should not be kept in solitary confinement for the sole reason that he is suspected of a terrorism-related offence.

105. The CPT is concerned about the limited possibilities for juveniles to benefit from activities adapted to their needs. According to the information provided by the prison management, 11 inmates were attending reading/writing classes three times per week for ten hours in total; however, according to the juveniles themselves, each class lasted about one hour.

106. It should be stressed that juveniles have a particular need for physical activity and intellectual stimulation. Regardless of their period of detention, they should be offered a full programme of education, sport, vocational training, recreation and other purposeful activities. Physical education should constitute an important part of that programme.

107. During its brief visit to Batman M-type Prison, the delegation was struck by the conditions under which juveniles were being held. 22 juveniles were crammed together in one living unit with only six beds and twelve mattresses placed on the floor. In addition, the unit was poorly ventilated.

Kırıkkale F-type Prison

109. Since the CPT’s last visit to an F-type prison in Turkey in 2005, a new circular was issued by the Minister of Justice (No. 45/1, dated 22.01.2007) which brought about certain improvements concerning prisoners’ access to communal activities outside their living units. In particular, the circular stipulates that prisoners designated by the prison management can be brought together for association (conversation) periods not exceeding a total of ten hours per week (instead of five hours as before). The 2009 visit provided an opportunity to re-examine the possibilities for association, as well as for work, education and sport, for prisoners in F-type prisons.

110. Kırıkkale F-type Prison had three well-equipped workshops (ceramics, drawing, and handicraft) which offered occupation for a total of some 70 inmates for three hours per week on average, in groups of up to 10 persons, in a pleasant and relaxed environment. Further, 20 inmates attended guitar courses for 12 hours per week, and 10 inmates took computer courses and another 10 English languages courses for 15 hours per week each. In addition, 35 prisoners attended classes in religion and culture on a weekly basis (for 1.5 hours), and 18 inmates had access to the library once a week for up to one hour. The CPT is pleased to note that work was underway to increase the number of classrooms.

111. Overall, the delegation gained the impression that considerable efforts were being made at Kırıkkale to build up a programme of out-of-unit activities, which was very popular among the prisoners. However, the programme of activities was flawed by a number of factors and, as a result, many prisoners could spend no more than five hours out of their units each week.

112. Among the prisoner population, there were 62 prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. Under Section 25, paragraph 1, of the Law on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (LESSM), such prisoners are subjected to a very restrictive regime.

The CPT is pleased to note that efforts were clearly being made, by exploiting the possibilities provided for in the legislation, to attenuate the regime for this category of prisoner. Most of the prisoners concerned were able to share an outdoor exercise yard with other inmates of the same category (where they could converse throughout the day) and/or could associate together, in groups of five to ten, during weekly sports sessions. Further, several of them were authorised, by decision of the establishment’s management board, to take part in vocational courses and to attend a workshop and the library.

Segregation

135. Specific mention must be made of the so-called “observation cells” (22 single cells in D block – “Müşahede”) at Erzurum E-type Prison, which were in fact mostly used for segregation of prisoners for various reasons (e.g. psychological disturbance, incompatibility with other prisoners, the person’s own request, etc.). At the time of the visit, 16 prisoners were being held in these cells. The cells, which were grille-fronted and measured about 7 m2 (excluding the small toilet area), were found to be in a deplorable state of repair and cleanliness. Further, they had no access to natural light (there being no window) and had only dim artificial lighting that filtered in from the corridor. It should also be noted that the inmates had no out-of-cell activity whatsoever (not even outdoor exercise) and were locked up in their cells for almost 24 hours a day, and that some prisoners had spent several months in such conditions. Indeed, the accumulation of poor material conditions, the total absence of out-of-cell activities, and long periods of isolation could, in the CPT’s opinion, be considered as inhuman and degrading.

136. The delegation met two prisoners held in the above-mentioned cells, who had requested to be removed from their multi-occupancy living units since they could not tolerate cigarette smoke. One of these prisoners had consulted the medical service in February 2009. The relevant notes showed that chronic bronchitis had been diagnosed and the doctor had requested placement in a “non-smoking” cell; the prisoner concerned had since then been held in an “observation cell”.

Hasdal Military Prison

139. Hasdal Military Prison is part of the 3rd Army Corps and is located some 50 km north of Istanbul. Like any other military prison, it serves as a detention facility for soldiers (including members of the gendarmerie) who are remanded in custody (under military or civil jurisdiction) or sentenced to a prison term of up to one year (under military jurisdiction only). With an official capacity of 160 places, the establishment was accommodating 89 prisoners at the time of the visit (18 sentenced and 71 on remand).

140. During the visit, hardly any allegations were received from prisoners of physical or other forms of ill-treatment by staff. Many prisoners indicated that there had been considerable tension within the establishment in the past, but that the atmosphere had generally improved in recent times.

That said, the delegation did receive accounts, from various sources, about an incident which apparently occurred in the establishment at the beginning of October 2008 and resulted in the deaths of two prisoners. It is a matter of concern that several of the prisoners met by the delegation were afraid to talk about this matter. According to the information available to the Committee, a fire broke out in one of the dormitories, and two prisoners were overcome by fumes and suffocated. It is claimed that prison officers who had opened the door of the dormitory to let fellow-inmates carry the two prisoners out into the corridor not only failed to provide first aid, but also beat with batons several prisoners present at the scene.

142. The situation was less favourable when it comes to the regime. Apart from daily outdoor exercise of one hour and 15 minutes, out-of-cell activities were limited to two outdoor football sessions of 45 minutes per week. For the rest of the time, prisoners were usually confined to the detention area, their main occupation being reading, watching television or playing board games. It is all the more worrying that a number of prisoners had been subjected to such an impoverished regime for prolonged periods (in some cases, more than four years).