Turkish Authorities Response to CPTs Obs
I. In the statement setting out its preliminary observations, the CPT strongly reiterates the recommendation made in paragraph 70 of its September 2001 report (CPT/Inf (2002) 8), namely that the possibility of prisoners participating in association periods should not be linked to prior participation in at least one of the other programmed communal activities in the prison.
Under Ministry of Justice Circular No.2-7 of 18.01.2002, prisoners taking part in at least one of the communal activities may come together in groups of no more than ten persons for conversation periods not exceeding five hours a week.
In almost all its reports on our country, the CPT has strongly emphasised the importance of encouraging remand and sentenced prisoners to take part in communal activities. If prisoners are to be reintegrated into society as law-abiding, productive individuals who will not re-offend, they must take part in all the training and rehabilitation activities arranged for them in prison.
A number of terrorist offenders refuse to take part in these activities, branding those who do so traitors; they do not use the communal areas and they try to intimidate those who do so with organisational harassment and threats. For the reasons listed below, it is not advisable that these offenders should be granted the right to simply come together for up to five hours a week:
a. This situation conflicts with the CPT's above-mentioned recommendations because the requirement was imposed in order to encourage prisoners to take part in communal activities.
b. When the subject of F-type prisons first came up, terrorist offenders started death fasts on the pretext that there were no communal facilities in these prisons and that they would not be allowed to take part in any communal activities. Yet although these communal facilities which they previously gave as the reason for their protests now exist, a substantial proportion of terrorist offenders do not use them. This completely contradicts the terrorist organisations' previous arguments and proves that they are not in good faith.
c. If terrorist offenders who are granted the right to make use of various communal facilities but do not exercise this right are allowed to come together purely for conversation purposes, they will clearly use this opportunity to do organisational work in an ideological context rather than for rehabilitation purposes. Consequently, lifting the requirement in question will certainly not be taken as a sign of goodwill and will be exploited for the wrong purposes.
d. Prisoners who do not take part in any communal activities are refusing to be rehabilitated. Bringing those who refuse rehabilitation together for conversation purposes only may turn into a practice threatening prison security. The prison administration therefore has to trust the terrorist offenders' goodwill in the matter. Goodwill must not simply be expected of the prison administration: it must be reciprocal.
For these reasons, it is not planned to lift the requirement in question. Otherwise the determination to promote activities outside the living units in F-type prisons would be adversely affected.
II. The CPT says in its statement that in Sincan F-type Prison the issue of medical confidentiality remains a problem and that prison staff are present during prisoners' medical examinations. It asks that this practice be stopped immediately.
Detailed information on this point is provided in paragraph V. The practice in Sincan F-type Prison does not in fact differ from general practice.
III. The CPT says in its statement that its delegation visited the gendarmerie detention facility situated a few kilometres outside Diyarbakır, on the road to Elazığ, where it had heard rumours that alleged ill-treatment had occurred; the evidence and information gathered in that facility reinforced the credibility of the allegations. In the form of an immediate observation under Article 8(5) of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the CPT delegation calls upon the Turkish authorities to modify this interrogation room or withdraw it from service.
The question of gendarmerie interrogation rooms is not taken up separately; a general measure is being taken on the subject.
As the investigation and interrogation sections were abolished under the Gendarmerie Central Command's circular of 1 March 2001, the interrogation rooms are being withdrawn from service one after the other. However, the registers listing the persons interrogated will be kept for ten years.
In response to the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the Gendarmerie Central Command plans to record the statement-taking procedure electronically with sound and/or video recording equipment, provided that the person giving the statement is aware of the fact and the recording is done openly so that he can see it. Preparations to this effect are under way.
IV. The CPT says in its statement that its delegation has serious concerns about the application of Article 3(c) of Legislative Decree No.430. It adds that the validity of the proposals made in the September 2001 report (paragraphs 17 and 19 of report CPT/Inf (2002) 8) was confirmed by the delegation's findings during its visit in March 2002. It says that the current safeguards surrounding the application of this article of Legislative Decree No.430, together with the Ministry of Justice's Circular of 4 February 2002, have not been sufficient to rectify the situation.
The Ministry of Justice' Directorate General of Legislation is preparing a draft legislative decree to remedy the shortcomings of Article 3(c) of Legislative Decree No.430. Accordingly, consideration is being given to the question of reducing the ten-day custody period to seven days and ensuring that the person concerned is heard by the judge before the decision is taken
In 2000 and 2001, in Diyarbakır province, which is part of the State-of-Emergency Region, the following steps were taken under Article 3 (c) of Legislative Decree No.430 in the area under the responsibility of the police:
In 2000, seven remand/sentenced prisoners belonging to the PKK terrorist organisation and 36 belonging to the Hisbullah terrorist organisation, totalling 43 prisoners, were removed from prison to be interviewed.
In 2001, six remand/sentenced prisoners belonging to the PKK terrorist organisation and 43 belonging to the Hisbullah terrorist organisation, totalling 49 prisoners, were removed from prison to be interviewed.
V. In its statement the CPT requests information about the planned amendment to Article 10 of the Regulations on Apprehension, Police Custody and Taking of Statements, spelling out that the medical examination must in all cases be conducted out of the sight and hearing of law enforcement officials unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case.
Ministry of Justice Circular No.20/130 of 16.11.2001 sets out the procedure for remand and sentenced prisoners to be medically examined on admission to prison. In practice, unless the prison doctor requests otherwise, the law enforcement officials are not present in the examination area; they simply supervise from a distance. However, this arrangement is not specified in writing in the circular. A new circular will therefore be drawn up, on the basis of the CPT's recommendation that "prison staff should not be present during the medical examination of prisoners", indicating that "no officials shall be present in the examination room unless so requested by medical staff for security reasons; officials may only observe from a distance while remaining out of earshot".
Article 10 of the Regulations on Apprehension, Police Custody and Taking of Statements provides that unless this is detrimental to the soundness of the investigation or to the safety of the doctor or the suspect or accused, the doctor and the person being examined shall be left alone. This provision is consistent with the CPT's recommendations.
VI. In its statement the CPT calls upon the Turkish authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that access to a lawyer is guaranteed, as foreseen by law. As regards access to a lawyer and notification of custody to the suspect's relatives, the CPT states that it found no evidence of implementation of this amendment in Diyarbakır.
Access to a lawyer and notification of custody to the person's relatives are the rule under the legislation on this point. However, the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Affairs Department will approach the Diyarbakır judicial authorities on the subject and, if necessary, a new circular will be drawn up on the matter.
The Ministry of the Interior has made enquiries on the subject to Diyarbakır Police Headquarters. Diyarbakır Police Headquarters have replied that in the course of their fight against illegal organisations throughout Diyarbakır province, the relatives of persons apprehended are notified of their detention, persons apprehended are notified of their rights and sign to that effect at the outset of custody, the custody supervision forms and suspects' rights forms drawn up on these points are regularly filled in and a copy of each is given to the person concerned at the outset of custody, while the other copies are kept in their file.
Diyarbakır Police Headquarters add that following the amendments to the Constitution, co-ordination has been established with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office at the State Security Court and implementation of the new amendments has started in accordance with the State Security Court's instructions; staff have also received information on the subject through training courses given to them after the adoption of the amendments.
Drawing attention to the provisions of the State-of-Emergency Law, Diyarbakır Police Headquarters reiterate that before the constitutional amendment of 03.10.2001, persons suspected of terrorist offences were allowed access to their lawyers after the custody period had been extended by court decision; following the amendment, they are allowed access to their lawyers when the additional custody period is ordered by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court; during this period they may have access to a lawyer at their own request; practice in Diyarbakır is therefore confined to these arrangements.(NM)