Preliminary observations made on 27 March 2002, by Ms Silvia CASALE (Head of Delegation),on behalf of the CPT's delegation
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The visit has only just finished and the rest of the delegation remained in Diyarbakır until this morning, to complete our work. Thus they are unable to be present here today. In accordance with our standard practice, I would like to present the delegation's first impressions.
During this visit we focused on three main areas:
* The development of communal activities in F-type prisons;
* We visited Sincan F-type Prison in order to explore this question;
* Implementation of recent legal reforms concerning custody by law enforcement agencies, and resort to Article 3. c) of Legislative decree N° 430; These two questions were explored in particular in the Diyarbakır province.
We should stress at the outset that co-operation was very good throughout the visit. In particular, we enjoyed prompt access to all places of detention, which the delegation wished to visit. Though we have come to expect this level of co-operation from the Turkish authorities, we still wish to express our appreciation of it.
* * *
1. As regards the development of communal activities in F-type prisons, we were pleased to note at Sincan that some of the workshops were now up and running. We also welcome the fact that arrangements for open visits and access to the telephone were developing, including with participation by some prisoners held under the Law to Fight Terrorism. This is encouraging.
We were also pleased to see that association (conversation) periods, as per the Circular of 18 January 2002, had begun. Further, the conditions under which those association periods were operating appeared to be satisfactory.
However, we noted that practically all the prisoners held under the Law to Fight Terrorism were still refusing to take up the offer of communal activities. In this connection, we strongly reiterate the recommendation made in the report on the CPT's visit in September 2001 (cf. paragraph 70 of document CPT/Inf (2002) 8), namely that the possibility of participating in association (conversation) periods should not be linked to prior participation in at least one of the other programmed communal activities.
Such a link was never envisaged when we first proposed such association periods in our preliminary observations after the September 2001 visit, and we consider that the presence of the link could well act as a brake on the movement towards getting prisoners held under the Law to Fight Terrorism out of their living units. It is not being suggested that, if the link is dropped, the situation will be transformed overnight; however, we feel that removing the link will promote confidence among prisoners in the overall operation of activities. We are convinced that, for a considerable number of prisoners held under the Law to Fight Terrorism, taking part in association (conversation) periods could be the first step towards broader participation in communal activities.
There is another argument in favour of the approach recommended. Dropping the link, and doing so quite openly, will be a clear demonstration of the Turkish authorities' determination to promote activities outside of the living units and hence provide a solid counter-argument to those who claim a system of isolation is being applied in the F-type prisons.
2. We are pleased to be able to inform you that we heard no recent allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners in Sincan F-type Prison and, in particular, no allegations of ill-treatment during the headcount procedure. However, the issue of medical confidentiality remains a problem; it is clear that prison staff are still present during medical examinations. We ask you to put a stop to that practice.
3. Practically no-one was in custody in the various law enforcement facilities visited in Diyarbakır. However, from other sources, including prisoners interviewed, the delegation received a considerable number of allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, both police and gendarmes, in the Diyarbakır province.
The strength of those allegations is currently being assessed. Nevertheless, we must tell you that the delegation gathered compelling evidence of the severe ill-treatment, amounting to torture, of several persons held by the gendarmerie in Diyarbakır in late 2001. The ill-treatment in question apparently began during the initial period of custody and continued when the persons detained had been returned to the custody of the gendarmerie under Article 3. c) of Legislative Decree N° 430. Very detailed and consistent accounts of such ill-treatment were received from several persons interviewed individually and in different prisons. In two cases, medical evidence consistent with the ill-treatment alleged was gathered.
The delegation visited the detention facility of the gendarmerie in which the ill-treatment was said to have occurred. It was located in the Provincial Gendarmerie Command, situated a few kilometres outside Diyarbakır on the road to Elâzığ. The information gathered there reinforced the credibility of the allegations. We wish today to make an immediate observation under Article 8 (5) of the CPT's Convention, calling upon the Turkish authorities to substantially modify the interrogation room in that facility or to withdraw it from service. Indeed it was of an oppressive and intimidating nature, not unlike the facilities criticised in the report on the September 2001 visit (cf. paragraph 24 of CPT/Inf (2002) 8). We request that the reply concerning interrogation facilities due by 20 June 2002 (cf. paragraph 26 of CPT/Inf (2002) 8) also set out the action taken in response to this immediate observation.
We understand that formal complaints have been lodged concerning the alleged ill-treatment in at least certain of the cases referred to above. We trust that the competent public prosecutors will thoroughly and expeditiously investigate those complaints; if authorisation from an administrative authority were to be required for such an investigation to take place, we trust that such authorisation would be forthcoming. These cases can be seen as a test for the system of accountability of law enforcement officials, in the same way as the Yeter case referred to in previous CPT reports (cf., most recently, paragraph 38 of document CPT/Inf (2002) 8).
More generally, we have serious concerns about the application of Article 3. c) of Legislative Decree N° 430; we shall return to that matter shortly.
4. You know the importance the CPT attaches to the conditions under which persons in the custody of law enforcement officials are medically examined. In this connection, we were very concerned to discover that, in Diyarbakır, law enforcement officials are systematically present when suspects are examined at the outset and at the end of their custody. Everyone we spoke with confirmed this, including the doctors concerned, some of whom indicated that the law enforcement officials had been present despite their objections.
Many prisoners interviewed stated that they had been warned not to make any complaints to the doctor about how they had been treated, and that the presence of law enforcement officials during the medical examination had further deterred them from making complaints. Moreover, doctors spoken to mentioned cases in which reports which they had drawn up recording injuries had been torn up by law enforcement officials.
This state of affairs is totally unacceptable. We trust that the CPT will receive very shortly information about the planned amendments 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 hearing of law enforcement officials and must be conducted out of sight of such officials unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case. Of course, even assuming this amendment is introduced, strenuous efforts must also be made to ensure that the regulations are complied with in practice.
5. As regards implementation of the recent legal reforms concerning custody by law enforcement agencies, information gathered during the visit suggests that the shorter custody periods are being respected. This is a positive development. Further, as regards collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts committed in provinces subject to a state of emergency, the delegation was informed that the requirement that suspects be brought before the judge who must decide on any request for extension of custody beyond four days was gradually being implemented.
With regard to the new provisions for improved access to a lawyer and for notification of custody to a relative, the situation remains unclear. During a brief visit to the Anti-Terror Department at Ankara Police Headquarters, the delegation gathered evidence of the first instances of application of the new provisions. In contrast, to date the delegation has found no evidence of implementation of these provisions in the Diyarbakır province.
We wish to highlight in particular the issue of access to a lawyer. This clearly has been, and apparently remains, a significant problem in Diyarbakır. For example, practically every person detained over the last nine months in the Anti-Terror Department and the Narcotics Section at Diyarbakır Police Headquarters (and this amounts to hundreds of persons) was recorded as having waived their right of access to a lawyer. This is scarcely credible. It should be added that countless prisoners interviewed claimed that they had been denied access to a lawyer. We call upon the Turkish authorities to take all necessary steps to ensure that access to a lawyer is guaranteed, as foreseen by the law.
6. Finally, we return briefly to Legislative Decree N° 430, which has been the subject of considerable debate recently. The CPT has made proposals in the report on its September 2001 visit as regards the application of Article 3. c) of the Decree (cf. paragraphs 17 to 19 of CPT/Inf (2002) 8). The validity of those proposals has been confirmed by our findings during the present visit. The current safeguards surrounding the application of this provision are not satisfactory, and the Minister of Justice's Circular of 4 February 2002 has not been sufficient to rectify this situation. We can provide further details today on this subject, if you wish. We should also tell you that the issues concerned are of such gravity that the CPT may be obliged to return to Turkey in the near future in order to pursue this matter. (NM)
