The new Turkey
Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human
rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East
January – December 2017,
March 2018
24-Apr-2019
Torture and ill-treatment
"They took me to the police station, terrorism unit …They called the
prosecutor and told him on the phone, "we have got a wife of a terrorist". …
Then the police officer started threatening to take off my clothes and that
they would show me to the detained men soldiers. He put his hands under my
t-shirt and started to take it off. … I was numb, silent." Wife of a man suspected of being part of the Gülenist network, interviewed by
OHCHR.
77. OHCHR documented the use of different forms of torture and ill-treatment in
custody, including severe beatings, threats of sexual assault and actual sexual
assault, electric shocks and waterboarding. Based on accounts collected by
OHCHR, the acts of torture and ill-treatment generally appeared to aim at
extracting confessions or forcing detainees to denounce other individuals. It
was also reported that many of the detainees retracted forced confessions
during subsequent court appearances.
78. On the basis of numerous interviews and reports, OHCHR documented the
emergence of a pattern of detaining women just before, during or immediately
after giving birth. In almost all cases, the women were arrested as associates
of their husbands, who were the Government's primary suspects for connection
to terrorist organizations, without separate evidence supporting charges against
them. 79. OHCHR found that perpetrators of ill-treatment and torture included members
of the police, gendarmerie, military police and security forces.
80. Thousands of uncensored images of torture of alleged coup suspects in
degrading circumstances were circulated widely in Turkish media and social
networks after the coup, along with statements inciting violence against
opponents of the Government. OHCHR received reports of individuals
detained and ill-treated without charge by anti-terrorism police units and
security forces in unconventional places of detention such as sports centres and
hospitals.
81. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment visited Turkey in November 2016 and
found that torture was widespread following the failed coup, particularly at the
time of arrest and subsequent detention. He further found that the number of
investigations reportedly carried out into allegations of torture was "grossly
disproportionate to the alleged frequency of violations."69
82. According to the Ministry of Interior, by the end of December 2017, 159,506
individuals had been taken into custody; out of those, some 55,000 were
eventually arrested.70 Human Rights Watch estimates that between October
2016 and October 2017, "over 150,000 people passed through police custody
accused of terrorist offences, membership of armed groups, or involvement in
the attempted coup of July 2016."71
83. OHCHR also notes with concern the adverse effects of the emergency
measures on fundamental safeguards against torture and ill-treatment:72
a) Timely and unrestricted access to a lawyer of one's choice is crucial in the
context of the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty. Decree 667
significantly erodes detainees' right to confidential legal advice. It provides that
oral consultations between the detainees and their lawyers may be recorded for
security reasons, and that the documents they exchange may be seized; the timing
of such consultations may be regulated, and the lawyer may be replaced, at the
request of the prosecution.
Furthermore, Decree 676 introduced amendments to
the Criminal Procedure Code to allow the detention of individuals accused of
crimes within the scope of the Anti-Terror Law without access to a lawyer for
24 hours.73 Under Article 6 of Decree 676, meetings between lawyers and clients
may be recorded, observed and/or interrupted by a public official where there is
a threat to national security and the client has been convicted for a terror crime.
Access to a lawyer may also be restricted for six months by a magistrates' court.
In addition, Article 1 of Decree 676 states that individuals accused of terrorism
may not have more than three lawyers representing them during court hearings.
b) The right to be brought before a magistrate or judge within a reasonable
period of time. Decree 667 - the first to be issued following the attempted coup -
increased the amount of time a detainee could be held without charge from four
to 30 days. The maximum period in custody without bringing the suspect before
a judge was then reduced from 30 to seven days with a possible extension to 14
days (Decree 684 article 10). Detention of an individual for 14 days without
judicial oversight would constitute a violation of Turkey's human rights
obligations.74
c) Access to a doctor and medical examination. OHCHR received credible
reports that medical checks conducted by the designated doctors on detainees
held in police custody were often done in the presence of police officers,
violating the confidentiality of patients and impeding adequate documentation of
possible torture or ill-treatment.
d) Right to visits and notifying a family member or third party. Access of family
members to detainees was restricted by Decree 667 which provides that detainees
may only be visited by their closest relatives, and are only permitted to use a
telephone for 10 minutes every 15 days.75 These limitations may violate the right
to private and family life.76 Other practices involve unnecessary placement in
high-security prisons far from the detainee' s place of residence, with the right
to only one family visit per month.
e) Independent oversight. OHCHR was informed that all prison monitoring
boards which were operating at the provincial level were closed down by
emergency decree (Decree 673 article 5), and it is not clear whether they were
reopened. OHCHR notes that independent monitoring of places of detention
constitutes an international obligation voluntary accepted by Turkey upon its
ratification of the Committee against Torture (CAT) and the Optional Protocol
to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). Independent visits have a crucial
impact on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their
liberty.
f) Excessive use of pre-trial detention. OHCHR is concerned about the prolonged
and frequent use of pre-trial detention, which violates the principle of
presumption of innocence77 and puts additional strain on the already vastly
overcrowded penitentiary system. OHCHR recalls that pre-trial detention should
be imposed only in exceptional situations, where the existence of security risks
is convincingly demonstrated, for a very limited lapse of time. Moreover, it
should be subject to periodic and independent judicial supervision.78
84. OHCHR welcomes the statement of the Minister of Justice of Turkey
indicating that "Turkey's policy of zero tolerance for torture continues all the
same under the state of emergency … Each and every one of the allegations
concerning torture and ill-treatment are, beyond any doubt, investigated by
independent and impartial authorities of the judiciary."79 OHCHR would
appreciate receiving detailed information on the number of allegations of
torture received, investigations carried out into these allegations, and their
outcome.