Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf

M.A. in European Studies

Council of Europe’s

Anti-Torture Campaign

The Case of Turkey

Rizik Abu Afifeh

March 15th, 2014

ABSTRACT

Since early times, combating torture was the responsibility of national authorities,

however recently global human rights awareness has created institutions to deal with such

cases. The Council of Europe’s Anti-Torture Campaign led by the CPT, aims at abolishing

torture practices in Europe as well as improving and helping national authorities in the fight

against torture. CPT’s 25 years of work since 1990 has visited all European countries at

least once, but Turkey has the largest amount of visits among all (25 in total). Some major

human rights improvements can be seen in Turkey since the CPT’s visits began, but

awarding the CPT this success is an overstatement. CPT’s success may be analysed by

looking at the Turkish government’s responses and at what other 3rd actors say (i.e.

scholars, NGOs). Yet, although CPT’s recommendations and Turkish improvements and

willingness to cooperate, there are still reports of police abuse, degrading, torture and other

ill treatments to people under detention or at demonstrations. Assessment of the CPT can’t

only be measured according to one case, but the analysis has to encompass other cases.

2

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Introductory remarks 4

Definition of torture 5

The structure of the CPT 7

CPT’s principles and mechanisms 8

Research question and methodology 11

Output 15

Impact 18

Outcome 22

Conclusion 25

Bibliography 28

Appendixes 30 3

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Regardless of the authors’ different academic and cultural background, we managed

to work together. After having frequent intensive meetings to discuss the research presented

in this paper, each author found its own niche within the topic. Each of the authors’

preferences was taken into consideration when dividing the research and analytical parts of

this paper. All three authors wrote the introduction and conclusion of the paper but the

sections in-between were written independently – after each subtitle, the name of the author

who wrote it is indicated. The authors created all tables in this paper. After the presentation

of this paper, suggestions were made to improve the analysis of this paper. The suggestions

made by the audience couldn’t be taken into account in this paper due to the page limit and

lack of published data. Yet, the conclusion will cover these suggestions briefly.

Many people are overlooking torture and this is not different in Europe. Torture

seems to have lost ‘popularity’ among human rights activists, media and politicians. Yet,

psychological and physical torture is being practised till today all over the world, including

Europe. If journalists, human rights activists, politicians and international organizations do

not remind the society that torture is still happening, then everyone will look away from the

people being tortured. Our message is what the 2013 Danish ‘Dignity’ (Danish Institute

Against Torture) commercial portrays: “Don’t look away from torture. Support the fight

against it” (Dignity add commercial, 2013).

Our paper will first give a brief overview of the debate on the definition of torture

and the various international and regional organizations that are trying to stop torture

practices. Later, the structure of the CPT and its’ principles will be explained. Also, the

mechanism of visits will be analysed, which will support the idea of the CPT portraying an

enforcement mechanism. The research question, “How successful is the CPT in Turkey?”

would be explained as well as the methodology of the analysis. The official response of the

CPT will be included and their suggestions were taken into consideration. Then, the three

analytical sections will be presented. Finally, the conclusion emphasizes the findings of this

paper and mentions the shortcomings of the analysis and other possible theories that could

contradict or strengthen our findings of this paper.

4

DEFINITION OF TORTURE

In the political academic world there are many debates over the meaning of various

concepts. Some are consented by all, but others are difficult to define, such as power,

democracy and terror. Torture is among those concepts that not everyone agrees on their

specifics. The legal definition of torture differs from country to country, and from

organization to organization. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture the

following way:

“Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical

or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining

from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an

act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,

or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on

discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other

person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering

arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture, 1984

This broad definition was drafted and signed in 1984, and by 1987 the treaty came into

force as customary international law. However, having only the international law written,

signed and applied in 154 parties is not enough for torture to be abolished from our

systems. There are many international, regional, national and non-governmental

organizations fighting against the practices of torture. These organizations work with

different definitions of torture covering a wider range of situations.

An example is the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture signed

in 1985 and entered into force in 1987. This convention is applicable to the whole of the

Americas continent except 16 countries, among them the ‘most’ democratic nations in the American continent the United States and Canada (Democracy Index, 2012). It defines

torture as:

“For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act

intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is

5

inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of

intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or

for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of

methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to

diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical

pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering

that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that

they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred

to in this article.”

Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, 1985 A more credible

convention against torture is the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter CPT Convention) adopted in

1987 and came into force in 1989. The CPT Convention created the European Committee

for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or

shortly Committee for the Prevention of Torture (hereinafter CPT). Article 1 of the CPT

Convention defines torture in the same way as the 1984 UN Convention against Torture, without the last sentence that reads: “It does not include pain

or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” (UN Convention against Torture, 1984). Due to the prohibition of death penalty in Europe, there

is no need for the last sentence of the UN’s definition. The absolute ban on the death

penalty is key on the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights. But these two treaties come from two different

institutions. Even though the CPT Convention was ratified by 47 members and the EU’s Charter only by 28 members, the CPT has more tools to enforce the ban than the EU.

However, this definition has three main factors that should be emphasized. Firstly, torture is the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering to a person

deprived from liberty. Secondly, torture has to be conducted by a public official, who is

directly or indirectly involved. Lastly, it has to be for a specific purpose, such as “obtaining

from him or a third person information or a confession” (UN Convention against Torture, 1984).

6

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CPT

The CPT was established under the Council of Europe’s CPT Convention, which

came into force in 1989. It builds on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human

Rights, which provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment” (CPT Convention, 1987). The CPT is not an

investigative body, but provides a non-judicial preventive mechanism to protect persons

deprived of their liberty against torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It thus

complements the judicial work of the European Court of Human Rights (CPT in Brief,

2010).

The idea of creating anti torture committee was not much clearer at first. Only eight

members among 25 countries of the council of Europe ratified the convention in 1987.

Later, other countries followed suit till they reached 20, then 41 and currently 47 members.

However, there is only one exception that didn’t ratify the convention, which is Belarus.

(Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 22)

The committee headquarter is based on Strasbourg. The nineteenth strong secretariat

is provided by the secretary General of the council of Europe. It is presided by an executive

secretary arranged into four teams; Central section responsible for administration,

documentation and support and three units each responsible for groups of countries. The

principle functions of the secretariat are to arrange and prepare for visits, accompany and

provide administrative support to members during the course of visits. Also it works to

clerk the meetings of the committee regarding dialogue with member states.

The committee’s members are proportional to the numbers of state parties of the

CPT Convention. These members are elected through majority vote by the Committee of

Ministers. So each national delegation put list of three names, two of which are to be

national of the state concerned. Then, members of the CPT are elected for office for a four-

year period and could be re-elected only once again. The members serve in their individual

capacity, meaning they do not represent the State in respect of which they have been

elected. To further guarantee independence, members do not visit the State in respect of

which they have been elected. “It is thought desirable to specify in details that professional

field from which members of the committee might be drawn. It is clear that they do not

have to be lawyers. It would be desirable that the committee should include medical

7

members who have experience in matters such as prisoner administration and the various

fields relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty” (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 23-24). “And this is to tell that those who are elected to the committee, the

convention always try to best choose high moral character, and known for their competence

and experience in the field of human rights. The committee includes lawyers within its

members and had strong medics.” (ibid).

CPT’S PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS

The CPT works with two principles: cooperation and confidentiality. The

Convention, which established the CPT, emphasizes the importance of Article 3 and Article

11 (1) that embody confidentiality and cooperation. The two articles state:

“In the application of this Convention, the Committee and the competent

national authorities of the Party concerned shall co-operate with each other."

Article 3 of the CPT Convention, 1987

“The information gathered by the Committee in relation to a visit, its report

and its consultations with the Party concerned shall be confidential."

Article 11 (1) of the CPT Convention, 1987 Both principles are necessary for the

preventive mechanism to exert some actions against torture. The CPT’s official website

indicates that cooperation with national authorities is primordial and that their “aim is to

protect persons deprived of their liberty rather than to condemn States for abuses” (CPT in

Brief, 2010). It goes further by stressing that “the Committee’s findings, its reports and the

governments’ responses are, in principle, confidential” (CPT in Brief, 2010). Nevertheless,

most member states have decided to make public all the reports concerned to them.

The system of the CPT works thanks to these principles. As if the state fails to co-

operate with the CPT or ignores CPT’s recommendations to improve the anti-torture

practices in their home country, then the Committee is entitled to make a ‘public

statement’. These public statements are “the principal ‘sanction’ that the committee has

officially at its disposal … [and] it is clear that the decision to make a public statement is a

mark of censure and permits the committee to at least partially lift the veil of confidentiality

which otherwise surrounds its findings.” (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 31). In fewer words,

8

the rationale behind this system is that if the country does not co-operate with the CPT, the CPT’s may break the confidentiality and publicly denounce the country.

Noting that the principles of the CPT are one of its main implementation tools, the

system of visits must be explained. There are two types of CPT’s visits: periodic and ad

hoc. Periodic visits are usually once every four years and announce the countries to-be-

visited in the beginning of December of the previous year (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 39).

The ad hoc visits are carried out when the CPT decides its necessary (CPT in Brief, 2010);

in most cases they take place at very short notice. Follow-up visits can be classified as the

third type, these visits occurs after a periodic or ad hoc visit with the aim to see if the

country in question has or is following CPT’s recommendations.

Before the visit from the CPT delegation, the country is informed on December in

the case of a periodic visit or shortly before in the case of an ad hoc visit. Regardless of the

type of the visit, Article 8 of the CPT Convention clearly dictates that all member countries

must grant access to the CPT delegation to any place within its jurisdiction and must

provide to the CPT with all information relevant to the visit’s nature (CPT Convention,

1987). The duration of the periodic visits are between one and two weeks, and ad hoc visits

ranges from three days to two weeks. The delegation has usually 14 to 15 members if

interpreters are included, but must have at least two members of the Committee and

members of the Secretariat, one of them being a qualified doctor (Morgan & Evans, 2001:

p. 40).

Once in the field, the CPT delegation checks various aspects inline to the CPT

standards. One of the standards is related to the law enforcement agencies, which must

provide the detainee access to lawyers, contact with a third party and the right to request for

medical assistance (CPT Standards, 2013: par. 36) as well as the ban on practice of torture

and other ill treatments or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. They check

conditions of prisons, psychiatric establishments and immigration detentions, as well as

their health care services, treatment from the national official authorities, solitary

confinement of prisoners, treatment to foreigners deprived of their liberty and throughout

their deportation process (CPT Standards, 2013: p. 3). During the visits, they concentrate

on juveniles and women detainees as well as the use of electrical discharge weapons (ibid).

9

At the macro level, the CPT delegation fights against impunity and makes sure that current

legislation corresponds with CPT standards (ibid).

After the visit was conducted, the CPT delegation must create a follow-up report

with their recommendations and reforms within six months. Then, the CPT sends the report

to the visited country. These reports are confidential according to the CPT Convention, but

may be published if the country concerned agrees to it. “Publication of reports has become

the rule rather than the exception, and… those states which do not publish [appears to] have

something to hide” (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 31). After the CPT report has been sent to

the country concerned, the country must reply with an official response. As explained

earlier, in case of non-cooperation the CPT may decide to issue a public statement

denouncing the country. Finally, but not least important, the CPT issues an annual general

report detailing the visits conducted throughout the year, their findings and their

recommendations, but subject to the rules of confidentiality.

The CPT Convention classifies the system mentioned above as a preventive

mechanism. Article 1 of the Observations on the Provisions of the Convention specifies

that: “the Committee's activities are aimed at future prevention rather than the application

of legal requirements to existing circumstances” (CPT Convention, 1987). Nonetheless, this

system is more than a preventive tool. Due to the public statement at the disposal of the Council of Europe, states seem to oblige to CPT’s standards. In other words, it is a type of

enforcement mechanism to oblige all their member states to comply with the treaties signed – both the CPT Convention and the European Human Rights Charter. This can be seen as

all member states comply with CPT’s principles and decide to allow the CPT to publish all

reports concerned to them.

Although this system has unique characteristics that scholars in the field remark as

more efficient than others (Bank, 1997: p. 634), it is not the only committee fighting against

torture practices. The similar convention to the CPT Convention established by the UN in

1984, also created a similar committee to the CPT that has similar tasks, responsibilities

and rights within all their states parties. Besides UN’s CAT (Committee against Torture)

and the CPT, there is the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The

ICCPR system depends on governments’ (Article 41) and individual’s complaints (Optional

Protocol) (Bank, 1997: p. 614). Yet, the ICCPR lacks an

10

inquiry team that could conduct visits to states parties (ibid). The UNCAT has a inquiry

team that visits countries that have been reported of practicing torture by governments or

individuals (in some cases), but this system is based on the countries’ invitation to the UNCAT allowing them to conduct an inquiry research (ibid). Also, because of the large

number of states parties, the number of visits per country is much more limited. In contrast,

the CPT must be allowed to conduct any visit they see appropriate in the states parties

without an invitation of the country concerned and has visited all their member states, as

well as receiving mandatory reports from states parties like the ICCPR system. Yet, its

provisions also limits the CPT in their actions, such as the prohibition in Article 17 (3) of

the CPT Convention to visit those prisons being visited on a regular basis by the

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (CPT Convention, 1987).

RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY

Turkey as one of 47 member states of the Council of Europe is requested to permit

the entrance of CPT to its territorial land. The focus of our research is to assess how

successful the CPT is in this country. Although we entirely recognized that it is very

difficult to assess the work of CPT, we realized that -by following a suitable methodology-

we will relatively get to a point where the picture becomes more implicit. For our topic

which is “The Council of Europe’s Anti-Torture Campaign and the Case of Turkey”, we

chose our research question which is “How successful is the CPT’s campaign in Turkey?” Not only it was difficult for us to assess how successful the CPT is in Turkey, but also we

had a problem to know why to choose Turkey in specific.

At the beginning, we tried to connect our question to Turkey’s history with the case

of torture for example: The Armenian and Kurdish Genocides. However, we realized that

CPT has nothing to deal with such cases that happened in the long past. Then, we tried to

connect it to Turkey’s aim to join EU, but we knew that it was the Council of Europe’s

initiative, which created CPT. We also knew that the selecting of Turkey was not by

coincidence, so we decided to work hard in order to find reasons which justify that. After

deep thinking, we figured out that nothing would be more beneficial to us rather than

searching for recourses, which can help us in our topic. So, we started to look into the

Council of Europe website to find answers for our research question. Fortunately, the

11

website comprises vital information including CPT reports regarding Turkey and the Turkish governments’ responses as well. The too many reports and responses required the

distribution of the work among all members of the team. Each member worked hard to push

the entire team further in our research topic. Every other day we sat together so that every

one of us shares his findings with the others. We were completely able to gather too much

information for our topic, but it was still difficult to assess whether the CPT is successful in

Turkey or not. An amazing suggestion was to send an email to the Secretariat of the CPT so

that they help us in assessing their work in Turkey. Immediately after that suggestion, we

send an email to CPT Secretariat mentioning that:

“We are a research team for the Master Program on European Studies.

The topic of our research team is on the CPT and the case of Turkey. We

are responsible to find out how CPT is successful in Turkey, and we would

appreciate if you could provide us with information that might help us. We

would also like to have an official response from the CPT to our

researched question mentioned above. We will present on January 29,

2014 at Heinrich Heine University and we would like to invite a

representative from the CPT to attend the conference and our

presentation. If the CPT’s representative would like to present the

committee’s views, we will be more than happy to include your input in

our presentation. The conference will consist of nine different

presentations made mainly by Jordanians, Israelis and Palesinians. The

M.A. in European Studies of the Heinrich-Heine University is focused to

teach the three groups of students about European integration and affairs.

However, it also has an informal effect on making ties among the students.

We would appreciate in advance for any help you could provide us.”

While we were waiting for the response, we agreed on effective efforts to be exerted

by all of us in order to find academic answers for our research question. After a while, we

received an email from CPT Secretariat responding to our request. Here is the official

response by CPT:

12

The Secretariat of CPT‘s email was not as we expected to be. They clearly acknowledged

that it is always difficult to judge how successful we are. They also said that in all

countries, improvements may happen but not necessarily because of the CPT’s visits. Besides, they suggested that we judge for ourselves.

For the first time, we were frustrated by CPT’s response, but soon we realized that

their recommendation for us to read the first report made by them in 1990 and the last one

in order to make a comparison which might tells us what improvements have been made in Turkey since CPT launched its first visit to the state concerned until now. Reading CPT’s

reports required us to read the Turkish governments’ responses as well to make a clear

picture of the number of improvements that have been made until now.

However, we then realized the need of a suitable methodology for our research. It

was so hard to find a kind of methodology to deal with a topic like ours not because it is

was a difficult topic but for the fact that we really had lack of resources regarding CPT and

the case of Turkey, so we were mostly dependant on CPT’s reports and the Turkish

governments’ responses which are provided in CPT’s home page.

After profound thinking, we came into a consistent methodology that can help us to

measure whether it was a success or not what CPT has achieved in Turkey. Our methodology was divided into three parts:

13

By using the following methodology it would be so explicit to us in order to measure

whether CPT has got a success or not in Turkey over 23 years of work.

Output means CPT’s visits and their recommendations. Each visit is followed by a

report made by CPT regarding the state concerned. In these reports, a number of

recommendations can be found. These recommendations are portrayed as an output of what

CPT found during its visit to any state within its jurisdiction. Actually, the use of output

refers to CPT’s impressions regarding the visit to a specific country.

Impact means the official response of the state concerned, basically after CPT’s

report is delivered to this state. The need of impact in our research is to find out the state’s

reaction to CPT’s report. It is so vital for us to connect CPT’s recommendations with the

state’s reaction so that we can see whether the situations which CPT found in that state

were improved by the national government or not. A direct connection between CPT’s

recommendations and the country’s response would show the range of the state’s

compliance to improve the case of torture in its territory.

Outcome means the real picture we see in the state concerned. We do believe that

the creation of CPT was for specific aim which is to prevent torture and inhuman or

degrading treatment of people deprived of their liberty, but torture and other similar

practices are there; they existed in the past, exist now and will most certainly occur in the

future. CPT possibly works better than what was expected by those who made the

convention. However, the commitments of member-states are not as far as one imagines;

torture is still considered as a tool to handle prisoners for example: person convicted with

terrorist activities.

14

OUTPUT

As we mentioned before, what we mean by output is CPT’s visits and their

recommendations. These visits are either periodic that take place every four years or ad hoc

which happen as the circumstances require as stated previously. To get a clear picture of

why to choose Turkey as a case study of our research, we made the following table: Table (1): Table of CPT’s visits per country

(See Appendix 1 for the complete table)

The first column of the table (1) represents a number of countries that are members

of the Council of Europe, and then we made a time line, starting from 1990 until 2013, that

represents CPT’s visits to these countries. The last column represents the total number of

visits made by CPT to each country. As you see in the last column in this table, Turkey is

the most visited country by CPT among all members of the Council of Europe. It has got 25

visits since CPT started its work in 1990. This shows the reason why to choose Turkey as a

case study. This also shows how much the CPT is active in its work regarding the

prevention of torture.

One can see that between 1994 and 2005, Turkey had got a big number of visits by

CPT. However; the number has been dramatically reduced between 2006 and 2013. This

could imply a sort of satisfaction from CPT with Turkey’s work. It also indicates that Turkey had made improvements on the conditions of persons deprived of their liberty;

otherwise the number of visits by CPT would not have reduced like this.

In our attempt to figure out CPT’s impressions, we made another table in which we

display a comparative view between two main reports made by CPT regarding Turkey; the

first one represents the first visit in 1990 and the other one represents one of the latest

report, the 2012 report.

15

Table (2): CPT’s two main reports regarding Turkey

1990 CPT Report 2012 CPT Report

Co-operationwiththevisiting

Consultations held by the delegation

delegation (5 pages) and co-operation encountered (3

pages)

Current legal situation and planned

(0 pages)

reforms (4 pages)

Torture and other sever ill-treatment of Ill-treatment (5 pages)

persons detained (16 pages)

Conditions of detention (10 pages)

Management of juvenile prisoners and

conditions of detentions (6 pages)

Medical services (6 pages) Health-care services (4 pages)

Total pages: 59 Total pages: 34

Source: 1990 CPT Report & 2012 CPT Report

In this table, we have sub-categories under which CPT explains its viewing to the situation

in Turkey both in 1990 and 2012. These sub-categories also imply recommendations made

by CPT to the Turkish authorities.

As you see and what matters here, the total number of pages of the first report has

been reduced to almost the half in the last report. This could infer how much CPT is

satisfied by Turkey’s work. To be more precise, we would like to explain some examples.

First, we want to refer to the sub-category under which CPT reviews the legal situation and

the planned reforms; in 1990, CPT used 4 pages to explain this case, a thing we never see in

the last report in 2012. Second, we want to focus on the most important sub-category which

is Torture and other sever ill-treatment of persons detained; in 1990, CPT used 16 pages to

cover this case but the number of pages has been decreased to only 5 pages in its last report

in 2012. These examples show that Turkey is doing well with prevention torture and CPT

itself implied this in its reports.

However, CPT is a non-judicial body that works to prevent countries from

committing torture or other inhuman practices. Thus, CPT now acts as a watching eye over

47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe. A country like Turkey will most

16

certainly take into account the existence of a torture-deterred committee which will directly

interfere in any case of committing torture or any other degrading treatment whenever

circumstances require. Yet, “visits themselves are unlikely to prevent torture and inhuman

or degrading treatment from occurring, though doubtless they may exercise a certain

deterrent function” (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 29).

What we want to measure here is to see CPT’s impressions regarding Turkey. A

good evidence that one can take into consideration lies with CPT’s stick (Public Statement). There were two public statements that CPT used against Turkey both in the 1990s; the first

one in 1992 and the second one in 1996. These public statements happened because the Turkish government did not cooperate with CPT and even did not comply with CPT’s

recommendations regarding improvements on the persons deprived of their liberty. Article

3 of the European Convention for Prevention Torture states that each country of whom

signed the convention shall cooperate with CPT, so non-compliance would mean a public

statement. A question which might be raised by some is that what influence shall a public

statement hold? The answer for this question simply lies in the country’s reputation; a state

like Turkey which claims democracy in the international scene would most probably be

influenced by such procedure. However, there were no public statements made by CPT

against Turkey since the 1990s. This implies sort of satisfaction from CPT with Turkey’s

work. Actually, it shows that Turkey has cooperated well with CPT since 1996 otherwise it

would have got new public statements after that time.

Moreover, CPT is considered as a vital body in the European level regarding torture

and other similar practices. It works hard to protect persons deprived of their liberty. It is an

empirical body that moves immediately whenever it hears allegations of committing torture

in any country. Yet, CPT cannot work alone in 47 countries; it does need cooperation of

non-governmental organisations which should collect information and evidences of

committing torture in their countries so that CPT can act accordingly. “The CPT does not

have to wait for petitions, reports or rumours. It can be and is pro-active. All of which

means that the evidence which emerges in CPT reports cannot be easily dismissed as

misinformation, disinformation, rumour or propaganda by governments wishing to deny

whatever ill-treatment is done to detainees and prisoners in the custodial establishments for

which they are ultimately responsible” (Morgan & Evans, 2001: p. 47).

17

A few years after the beginning of the third millennium, Turkey witnessed several

reforms regarding torture and human rights, a thing that CPT itself acknowledged and

welcomed. These reforms implied the cancellation of death penalty in the time of peace, the

cancellation of the prevention of the languages of minority in education system, the

cancellation of prevention on broadcasting in other languages except the Turkish language,

etc. Besides, there was a new Penal Code that came into force in 2005. This code enabled to

condemn the security forces for violating human rights. It comprised severe punishments

for those who commit torture and violate human rights. “Between 2002 and 2006 Turkey

witnessed real and important human rights progress – certainly according to the CPT” (Coleman & others, 2009: p. 125). To conclude all this, we now believe that CPT is to

some extent satisfied with Turkey’s work regarding the prevention of torture. Its

impressions regarding Turkey are getting more positive.

IMPACT

As we previously mentioned in our research, impact is meant to be the official

response of the state concerned, basically after CPT’s report is sent to this state. The need

of impact in our research is to figure out the state’s reaction to CPT’s report by either being

positive or negative. Necessarily, here comes the point to relate CPT’s recommendations

with the state’s reaction so that we can notice whether the situations which CPT found in

that state were improved by the national government or not. A direct connection between CPT’s recommendations and the country’s response would draw the range of the state’s

compliance to improve the case of torture in its territory.

Within our research here, we try to analyse the Turkish government’s responses to

the CPT’s recommendations. In order to make a clear picture about if there are

improvements regarding the case of Turkey, we got to analytically read the Turkish

government’s responses. In our research, we will focus on two responses made by the

government authorities; the first one made in 1990 and one of the last ones made in 2009.

We should also bear in mind that most of the Turkish government responses are made by

the ministry of interior, which gave strong and good implemented points.

The first response of the Turkish government to the CPT report on its visit in 1990

included some actions taken by the Ministry of Interior. For example, to limit torture the

18

Directorate of interior requested the offices of Governors in Ankara and Diyarbakir to

behave properly, with respect and hospitality to avoid raising doubts concerning torture so

that the CPT believes in such improvement (1990 Turkish Response, 2007).

Under the current Turkish detention system, police officers should subordinate to

training institutions, provide courses on “interrogation techniques”. Then, these officers

should take up their duties after receiving such training. In additions, Turkish policemen

would go into three types of training establishment: police schools, police colleges, and

police academies (1990 Turkish Response, 2007: p. 43-44). Furthermore, the Directorate of

Security of the Ministry of the Interior said to the Police Inspection Department to bear in

mind the recommendations requested by the CPT and try to make immediate and strong

implementations for its requirements (ibid).

In order to reduce the amount of torture in Turkey and for full protection of human

rights, the Turkish government ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of

Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 26 February 1988. And

this was much clear and dedicated in the Turkish Constitution as the Article 17/3 says "No

one shall be subjected to torture or ill-treatment or to inhuman or degrading punishment or

treatment" (1990 Turkish Response, 2007: p. 18).

For a better situation in Turkey regarding detention policies, the CPT recommended

the Turkish government to bear in mind the following points: remand cells with a sufficient

number of solid, fixed benches enabling suspects to rest. Moreover, improvements are

made to toilet and washing facilities. In cases where the physical characteristics of remand

cells are adequate, permission should be given for detainees to be issued with blankets

where weather conditions so demand (1990 Turkish Response, 2007: p. 15)

The ministry of interior wrote to the CPT a report concerning techniques of some

important and effective points of interrogation that could match human rights requirements.

But that was denied by the CPT for having inadequate information, which was then

reformed and has been accepted. This implies that Turkey’s cooperation in 1990 was seen

as insufficient in the eyes of the CPT due to inadequate information provided.

Regarding administrative procedures, other points were added for implementation. “Bearing health requirements in mind, provision should be made for suspects to wash and

meet their other needs under staff escort. Persons at custody should be examined by doctors

19

before and after entering the prison. Also medical examination for detainees should be

conducted in private and all due security cautions are taken for the purpose. In addition, the

size, lighting and ventilation of the cells have been reviewed” (ibid: p. 29).

The 1990 Turkish response could be said to be ‘superficial’ as it only concentrated

on small reforms asked by the CPT. However, these reforms were not sufficient to CPT

standards mentioned in the 1990 CPT report on Turkey. Some of the examples include:

areas which are supposed to be detainee dwellings for multi-day periods had been

renovated and separate areas had been arranged for short-stay accommodation in

Diyarbakir and Ankara prisons; waiting rooms in front of the prisons were added for

visitors (1990 Turkish Response, 2007). The Turkish government complied with minor CPT’s recommendations, yet did not accomplish major reforms that CPT was expecting.

The second response of the Turkish government to the report of CPT on its visit 2009: the Turkish government gave the recommendations of this report serious priority and

concern than other previous reports and it took all necessary procedures to implement them,

and within the shortest period of time it could offer. “The Turkish Government was pleased

to know that the CPT got very good co-operation and reputation at all levels during its visit

to Turkey” (2009 Turkish Response, 2011: p. 5).

The Turkish government recommendations to its regional detention centres: the

Turkish government was much careful that all relevant authorities should consider all of the

rightful steps let the CPT and with its delegations to have full and effective access in future

in their area and to any criminal investigation files. Another point here added much value to

its former ones is that we should not forget that the CPT trusts that the relevant authorities

will work efficiently on all the required arrangements to ensure that the Committee is

provided with detailed information. The CPT delegation request from the chief public

prosecutor of Diyarbakir to have access into two prisoner’s files is a better example to well

justify such a point. Moreover, rather than any other CPT visited places, Turkey has

recently seen very good record and reputation in terms of cooperation with the CPT.

Here below, there are two Turkish examples of violating detention law and then the

government for the first time punished those who practiced torture. Death cases took place

in detention centres and the Turkish reaction toward such cases: first, the case of Engin

Çeber who died in 2008 because of cerebral haemorrhage following his custody and arrest.

20

The court convicted four persons; three of them are prison guards and the director were on

duty to aggravated life imprisonments for purposely causing death by torture. Therefore, in

accordance with the Article 95 (4) of Turkish Penal Code this states that “If death occurs as

a result of torture a sentence of aggravated life imprisonment be imposed.” So they were all

sentenced for life imprisonments as a result of this death (2009 Turkish Response, 2011:

p.8). Second, three police officers and two guardians also received prison sentences of

seven years and six months each in accordance with the Article 94 (1) of Turkish Penal Code which states that “Any civil servant who carries out actions against a person that lead

to bodily or mental pain incompatible with human dignity, that influences their ability to

perceive or their will or is degrading, will be punished by imprisonment of between three

and twelve years.” (2009 Turkish response, 2011: p. 8). Furthermore, 60 public servants

who also doubted to be part in the acts led to Çeber’s death were also traced in this case.

There were police officers. At the end of the trial, responsible officers received prison

sentences starting from 5 months to life sentence with the charges of negligence,

misconduct of detained persons (2009 Turkish response, 2011: p. 8).

Basically, to decrease the number torture in Turkish detention centres, the CPT

requested the Turkish government to take into consideration making improvement on the

interviews of detained persons in Anti-Terror Department, such as being electronically

recorded (either by audio or video), and saving these interviews in files, so that they can be

used whenever required (2009 Turkish response, 2011). Statement-taking rooms were also

built and renovated with new machinery and equipment for detention (ibid). During

medical examination, handcuffs’ removal can be considered a necessity but based on type

of examination (ibid).

For a better quality of forensic medical examination, the Turkish authorities puts the

first priority for training and awareness rising of the medical persons as an important means

for implementation of the legal and institutional arrangements. In this respect, they came up

with a project titled “Training Programme on the Istanbul Protocol” so that the doctors who

are part in this programme could continue to carry out and provide training to the medical

personnel and law enforcement officials (2009 Turkish response, 2011: p. 17). Therefore,

the Turkish ministry of health, worked to improve Health services at prisons regarding the CPT’s recommendation. For example, all newly-arrived prisoners must fall under a

21

comprehensive medical Examination including checking for transmissible diseases.

Moreover, methods of investigation were also reformed as what the Article 148 of the

Turkish Criminal Procedure Code states “Prohibited methods of statement taking and

questioning” (2009 Turkish response, 2011: p. 9), which means proper ways of questioning

are to be used in custody liability than other illegal practices such as medics, drugs,

electronic shocks and etc.

Coming to the end, we can realize how much great improvements and reforms

Turkey went through regarding CPT recommendations of torture practices, starting over

from prison conditions, health measurements, education matters, social activities and etc.

Things that did not exist in the first published CPT recommendations 1990 which are seen

and available these days. This could be seen that Turkey has got no Public statements after

1996 which properly positive in standards. The numbers of the CPT visits to Turkey also

reduced in last period, which leaves good advantages to reconsider. One last indication of Turkey’s commitment to abolish torture can be seen in the year in which all CPT reports

regarding Turkey were published, 2007. It seems like in 2007 was the year Turkey

corroborated with the CPT. Scholars and international organizations have all agreed,

Turkey is improving its human rights situation. Twenty years from the first Turkey

response 1990, great success is now clearly to be seen on land.

OUTCOME

Our analyses on output and impact have indicated that both the CPT and Turkish

authorities perceive that there was an improvement in the efforts to abolish torture practices

in the country. However, Turkey’s viewpoint could be regarded as biased, as they will

clearly indicate there have been improvements because it is in their interest for societal,

political and economic support from their citizens and the international community. And

although the CPT is considered unbiased as stated in the output section (Morgan & Evans,

2001: p. 47), the CPT is ambiguous when asked if their actions have resulted in

improvements or not. Thus, in order to have a more precise analysis of our research

question, there is a need to look at how third parties assess human rights development in

Turkey, especially those referring to torture practices and the role of the CPT.

22

In the international human rights realm, many non-governmental organizations have

gained worldwide recognition by states and international organizations such as the UN or

the European Union. This recognition makes NGOs trustworthy and consistent. These

organizations issue reports on all countries frequently – including Turkey. Furthermore, the

viewpoints of other international organizations such as the Commission on Security and

Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and scholars that wrote on the topic such as Coleman &

others and Bank were taken into consideration. Yet, it has to be noted that is an almost

impossible task to assess if the CPT was the responsible organization that did or did not

improve the human rights situation in Turkey.

Throughout the research, we encountered that most NGOs, scholars and other

sectors adopt two approaches when assessing the situation of human rights in Turkey. These are: ‘good but bad’ and ‘bad but good’. The ‘good but bad’ approach firstly praises

human rights advancement or protection by Turkish authorities, yet they continue to say

that there is still much more left to do. The second approach – ‘bad but good’ – is the

opposite. Those who use this approach are more optimistic as although they indicate there

are still human rights problems in Turkey, there has been positive development. Few

NGOs, scholars and other sectors have explained only positive human rights advancement

in Turkey. And most mass-media communication outlets are more pessimistic and only

report negative human rights development in Turkey, yet it has to be noted that in most

cases media outlets report issues that are negative as it more attractive for the audience.

The ‘good but bad’ approach can be seen in NGOs such as Amnesty International or

the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). However, before looking

at what NGOs report it has to be noted that although Article 17(3) of the Turkish

constitution prohibits torture, there is still the option of ‘state of emergency’ that allows any

country in the world to suspend rights and freedoms (Articles 119-122) (1990 Turkish

Response, 2007). This could imply that under ‘state of emergency’ a country could hold a

person detained without proper a trial, which is against the CPT standards. Nevertheless

there is no indication that Turkey has used this legal tool to detain people. CSCE stated that “[d]espite the Turkish Constitution’s ban on torture, and public pledges by successive

governments to end torture, the practice continues (CSCE, 1997). According to Amnesty International “in 2007 [there were] fewer incidents of torture reported than in previous

23

years but killings in disputed circumstances by security forces in the east of the country

continued, as did excessive force in dealing with demonstrations” (Coleman & others,

2009: p. 127). The ‘good but bad’ approach clearly indicates that there has been an

improvement and increase effort by public officials to eradicate torture, yet the

shortcomings are still in place.

In contrast, the ‘bad but good’ approach is more positive regarding human rights in

Turkey. In 2004 Amnesty International stated that “recent reports suggest that ill-treatment

in police stations continued to occur, but systemic elements of torture, such as the use of

electric shocks, appear to have been eliminated” (Coleman & others, 2009: p. 127). A year

previous to that, Coleman & others indicated that “in 2003 substantial reforms in terms of

the abolition of torture began to be apparent and it was generally agreed that torture could

no longer be said to be ‘widespread’” (Coleman & others, 2009: p. 125). The 1992 CPT’s

report on Turkey which stated that torture in Turkey was “widespread… a deeply-rooted

problem” (1992 Public Statement, 1992: p. 6-7), but professionals in the human rights field,

scholars and international organizations have seen improvements, to the extent of stating

that torture is not widespread anymore.

In the world of mass media communications, media outlets usually are biased when

reporting on current news, emphasizing only news with negative content. These actions can

be attributed to interest-based preferences aimed at making profit as they reach higher

viewers when ‘something wrong or bad is happening’. Bearing this in mind, it is not

abnormal that most news reporting on torture practices on Turkey consists on bad practices

and not on improvements. Only optimistic news are issued when research from

international organizations such as the CPT or the UNCAT and from NGOs find human

rights improvements, but it is rare that media outlets will conduct independent research on

this topic on their own.

In conclusion, third parties mostly point out that there have been improvements in

the abolishing of torture in Turkey. Nevertheless, most point out that always more efforts

can be done to improve the situation. However, this conclusion does not really answer our

research question on whether the CPT can be considered responsible for the improvements

in Turkey. Thus, when attempting to answer the research question, there is the need to

mention scholar Roland Bank.

24

Bank compared the different mechanisms of visits by different organizations and

concluded that the CPT is the most effective system in preventing torture practices to re-

occur. In part of his research, he looked at the case of Turkey which was visited by the

CPT, UNCAT and the Special Rapporteur. Among its conclusions, he said “the CPT

distinguished itself as superior through the number of visits conducted, the size of

delegations sent and the access to detention facilities gained” (Bank, 1997: p. 634). Furthermore, he noted that only the CPT looked at the position of ordinary suspects and did

not concentrate only on cases related to terrorist suspects like the UNCAT or was restricted

to issue recommendations on a small number of issues like that Special Rapporteur is (Bank, 1997: p. 634). In his conclusion for the case of Turkey, Bank stated that “as far as

can be judged from published documents, only the efforts of the CPT have led to any, albeit

few, improvements” (Bank, 1997: p. 634). Yet, following the style of most third parties

reporting on torture in Turkey, the author also suggests “that the steady flow of complaints

about torture in Turkey continued unabated” (Bank, 1997: p. 634). Given that Bank wrote

the article in 1997 prior the widely agreed statement of torture no longer being widespread

in Turkey, it could be implied that efforts by all these agencies, specifically the CPT, has

become more efficient in recent years.

CONCLUSION

Coming closer to the conclusion of our research, here it got to talk about our

findings. As we already mentioned that our research team went through three

methodological parts. Firstly, outcome by which we meant CPT visits and

recommendations. Regarding this point, Turkey made great progress. CPT

recommendations were becoming less and less than before. CPT’s periodic visits were

reduced as well. So this to say that the CPT were to a maximum extend satisfied with the

Turkish cooperation for good reforms. Secondly, impact by which we meant the Turkish

cooperation and responses to CPT recommendations. This is to say that Turkey made great

reforms and progress regarding CPT recommendations of torture practices. No other ‘Public Statement’ was published against Turkey. Coming to the outcome, the all third

parties pointed out that the CPT and the Turkish authorities have had good improvements in

Turkey, yet far from perfection or desirable standards. Last but not least, the answer of

25

our research question is to say that CPT Campaign in Turkey was relatively successful. All

agree – especially Roland Bank – that the CPT can be attributed the responsibility to the

relative success in Turkey’s human rights situation. Its main tools of obligatory visits and

public statements enforce the idea that the CPT is more like an enforcement mechanism.

But this doesn’t deny that torture is still part of human life whether in Turkey or

other places across the world. Torture was recorded in historical events and torture will be

in the future as well. Also, concluding that the CPT is relatively successful due to the

human rights improvements in Turkey is incorrect. In order to get a more comprehensive

and exact analysis, the same assessment should be conducted in the other 46 member

countries of the CPT. Moreover, another shortcoming of this paper was that the historical

context was not taken into consideration as the page limit did not allow for such analysis.

An example would be to look at the political regime at the time of the public statement

made or the fact that since Turkish PM Erodgan came into office there were reports stating

that torture was being increasingly prevented in Turkey. Finally, it is hard to say that

human rights improvements are only linked to CPT, there are other possible theories that

challenge our findings: such as demands from civil society groups for stricter punishment

to those committing torture, Red Cross and other human rights organizations impact, and European Union’s attractiveness could explain Turkey’s reforms in human rights to satisfy

EU’s membership criteria.

Since the establishment of one European Entity in 1951 (the European Coal and

Steel Community under the treaty of Paris), Turkey has been looking forward being part of

this entity especially for economic considerations. However, being part of the EU requires

fulfilling the standards of membership including human rights standards. EU has been

always calling for human rights to be a priority for all member states to be followed. The

cooperation which the Turkish Governments have made with CPT could infer that the

country is moving in the right direction to convincing the EU of Turkey’s intention and

willingness to meet this priority. We do believe that the case of Turkey joining the EU

seems to some extent so difficult for many reasons (political, religious, economical and

geographical reasons), but any hope for realizing this aim won’t happen without

improvements in the field of human rights. To summarize all this, we can say that EU’s

attractiveness can be of strong stimulation to make Turkey comply and cooperate with

26

CPT. Indeed; this might be one of the main reasons why Turkey is making progress in its correlation with CPT.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1990 CPT Report (2007). “Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey

carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 21 September 1990”.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Retrieved from

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2007-01-inf-eng.pdf

1990 Turkish Response (2007). “Responses of the Turkish Government to the report

of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 9 to 21

September 1990”. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Retrieved from http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2007-02-inf-eng.pdf

1992 Public Statement (1992). “Public Statement on Turkey”. European Committee

for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

(CPT), Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Retrieved from

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/1993-01-inf-eng.pdf

2009 Turkish Response (2011). “Response of the Turkish Government to the report

of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 4 to 17 June

2009”. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Retrieved from http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2011-14-inf-eng.pdf

2012 CPT Report (2013). “Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey

carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 21 to 28 June 2012”. European

Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (CPT), Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Retrieved from

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2013-27-inf-eng.pdf

28

Bank, Roland (1997). “International Efforts to Combat Torture and Inhuman

Treatment: Have the New Mechanisms Improved Protection?” European Journal of

International Law, vol. 8. Retrieved from http://ejil.org/pdfs/8/4/788.pdf CPT Convention (1987). “European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Retrieved from http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/ecpt.htm CPT’s in Brief (2010). “The CPT in Brief”. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Retrieved from http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-leaflet.pdf

CPT standards (2013). “CPT standards”. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Retrieved

from http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/documents/eng-standards.pdf Coleman, Roy; Sim, Joe; Tombs, Steve & Whyte, David (2009). “State, Power,

Crime”. SAGE publications, London. CSCE (1997). “The Continued Use of Torture in Turkey Subject of Commission

Briefing”. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Retrieved from

http://www.hri.org/docs/CSCE/040897.html Democracy Index (2012). “Democracy Index 2012: Democracy at a standstill”.

Report from The Economist retrieved from

https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_doc_id=1034 Dignity add commercial (2013). “Don’t look away from torture”. Dignity institute,

published on June 24, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTgl-

MbmnT4 Inter-American Convention against Torture (1985). “Inter-American Convention to

Prevent and Punish Torture”. Organization of American States, retrieved from

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/Treaties/a-51.html Morgan, Rod & Evans, Malcolm (2001). “Combatin Torture in urope: The Work

and Standards of the uropean Committee for the Prevention of Torture CPT ”.

Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

UN Convention against Torture (1984). “Convention against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. United Nations,

published on December 10, retrieved from

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

29

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Table of CPT’s visits per country

Country|Year 1990-1993 1994-1997 1998-2001 2002-2005 2006-2009 2010-2013 TOTAL

Turkey XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXX 25

Russia XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX 22

United

XX

XX

XX

XXXXX

XX

XXXX

17

Kingdom

Moldova XXX XXXXX XXX XX 13

Spain X XXXX XX XX XX XX 13

Greece X XX XX X XXX XX 11

Albania X XXX XX XX XX 10

France X XX X XXX XX X 10

Italy X XX X X XXX XX 10

Macedonia XX XXX XXX XX 10

Ukraine XXX XX XX XXX 10

Netherlands X XXX X X X XX 9

Portugal X XX X XX X XX 9

Romania X XX XXX XX X 9

Azerbaijan XXX XX XXX 8

Armenia XX XX XXX 7

Belgium X X X X X XX 7

Germany X X XX X XX 7

Hungary X X XX XX X 7

Latvia X XX XX XX 7

Malta X X X XX X X 7

Bosnia &

XX

XX

XX

6

Herzegovina

Bulgaria X XX XX XX 6

Cyprus X X X X X X 6

Georgia X X XX XX 6

Switzerland X X X X X X 6

Austria X X X X X 5

Croatia XX X X X 5

Czech

X

X

XX

X

5

Republic

Estonia X X X X X 5

30

Ireland X X X X X 5

Lithuania X X X XX 5

Norway X X X X X 5

Poland X X X X X 5

Serbia X XX XX 5

Slovakia X X X X X 5

Sweden X X X X X 5

Denmark X X X X 4

Finland X X X X 4

Iceland X X X X 4

Luxembourg X X X X 4

San Marino X X X X 4

Slovenia X X X X 4

Andorra X X X 3

Liechtenstein X X X 3

Monaco X X 2

Montenegro X X 2

Source: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/states.htm 31