Prof. Dr. Ioanna Kuçuradi’s assessment titled “The Turkish Human Rights Institution”
Ioanna Kuçuradi
Around this time last year, and later during an international conference organized by the Presidency of Human Rights, the Turkish Human Rights Institution—which was on the agenda but whose draft could not be obtained—was discussed, and opinions were expressed regarding what this institution, expected to be established by law, might look like. Additionally, over the past period, the views of 4–5 human rights organizations that had reacted to the “confidentiality” of the draft regarding this institution were sought; however, it was not possible to access either this draft or its revised version.
There is an urgent need for an institution in our country that will address human rights issues comprehensively and propose solutions to problems from a human rights perspective. Without such an institution, progress on human rights issues will be left to chance.
There is an urgent need for a National Human Rights Institution. Otherwise, human rights issues can be manipulated in any direction one wishes. The establishment of this institution must also be based on comprehensive, open information regarding human rights and accurate knowledge of the situation in Turkey.
*
There is a widespread understanding regarding human rights: human rights are meant to protect the individual against the state. Human rights education is also generally conducted in line with this understanding; that is, human rights education aims to “teach individuals their own rights.” Thus, setting aside human rights education in some European countries—which has been reduced to “multicultural education” in primary and secondary schooling—human rights education is generally carried out as legal education—that is, teaching human rights documents and protection mechanisms.
I find this approach to human rights—that is, the understanding that human rights are meant to protect the individual against the state—quite problematic. Because I believe that human rights should be viewed not only as principles of treatment but also as principles of conduct—as ethical principles—and that, precisely because they are such principles, they must form the foundation of law—that is, they must not merely be listed in constitutions (merely mentioned by name) but must constitute the basis for the establishment of state organs and institutions.
In that case, the raison d’être of the state—this human institution we call the state (the modern state)—is, above all, the direct or indirect protection of human rights.
If the work of national human rights institutions is carried out in accordance with such a conception of the state, it is reasonable to hope that human rights will be better protected in the countries of our world where efforts to disregard human rights in the name of security are becoming widespread. There is no need to explain the difference in actions between a public official who believes the state’s raison d’être is to protect human rights—and thus that its primary duty is to protect human rights—and a public official who believes their duty is to protect the state—such as a police officer or a district governor.
National human rights institutions exist to monitor whether state bodies and public services are fulfilling their duty to protect human rights in practice, to intervene when necessary, to identify and demonstrate the most appropriate means of protection under current conditions, and to contribute to their implementation. Their organizational structures should also be determined in accordance with this understanding.
There are various models for national human rights institutions. For example, those in France and India are quite different from one another. However, they all share certain common minimum standards—the UN Principles on the Status of National Human Rights Institutions.
Now, I will attempt to take a closer look at such institutions in Turkey together with you, and based on the experience I gained while serving as a chairperson, member, or advisor in six of these eight national institutions, I will present my conception of the national institutions needed in Turkey. This will be my third public presentation.
First, let’s take a look at what has happened over the past 20 years from the perspective of these institutions.
*
In addition to civil society organizations directly involved in human rights—which began to emerge in Turkey in the late 1980s and have played a significant role in raising awareness of the importance of human rights—the following organizations have been established since 1990 with the aim of protecting human rights:
The Turkish Grand National Assembly Human Rights Investigation Commission, established by law in December 1990 (December 5, 1990, Law No. 3680)
The High Advisory Council on Human Rights, established by a Prime Ministerial Directive in August 1994 (August 26, 1994, Decision No. 1994/34). Comprising 25 members known for their work on human rights and working with the State Minister for Human Rights appointed by the Prime Minister, this Council was dissolved in March 1996 by another Prime Ministry Circular following a change in government. Thanks to the efforts of this Council, a human rights course was introduced as a mandatory subject in primary education in 1995. However, for some reason, this course was quietly removed from the curriculum two years ago.
The Supreme Council for Human Rights Coordination, established in April 1997. This Council consists of the State Minister for Human Rights, the Prime Minister’s Office, and the undersecretaries of seven ministries. In 2001, a provision regarding this Council was added to the Law on the Organization of the Prime Minister’s Office. This Council ensured the inclusion of the clause “respect for human rights” in the personnel records of public officials.
The National Committee for the Decade of Human Rights Education, established in June 1998 by a decision of this Council. Initially comprising 15 members and later expanded to 20, this Committee consisted of 6 university faculty members known for their work on human rights, 7 representatives from civil society organizations, and 7 representatives from ministries. After the Decade ended, the committee’s name was changed in an effort to ensure its continuity. However, I do not know whether this committee is still active.
These four national institutions played a major role in taking significant steps toward the protection of human rights in Turkey through their work and the reports they prepared, and some of their initiatives served as turning points in this process.
Since the year 2000, we have seen the establishment of four additional national organizations.
At the national level, in all 81 provinces, the Provincial and District Human Rights Councils, established in November 2000, some of which are active and others inactive. These councils, which convene under the chairmanship of a provincial vice governor in provinces and a district governor in districts, are composed of representatives from professional associations, civil society organizations, municipalities, provincial councils, and other institutions (there are currently 931 councils nationwide [850 + 81]).
In April 2001, the following three institutions were established through amendments to the Law on the Organization of the Prime Ministry:
The Presidency of Human Rights,
The Human Rights Advisory Board. This council was composed of approximately 80 members, including representatives from public institutions, professional organizations, and civil society organizations engaged in human rights work, as well as judges who had previously served on international courts and individuals recognized for their work in the field of human rights. (April 12, 2001; regulation: August 15, 2001)
Commissions for the Investigation of Alleged Human Rights Violations. These are commissions to be established by the Minister Responsible for Human Rights “according to the location and subject of the investigation and inquiry.”*
None of these institutions have their own staff or budget. Relevant legal regulations stipulate that the Human Rights Directorate shall handle their secretarial duties, and their needs shall be met from the Prime Minister’s Office budget.
Upon reviewing the regulations of these institutions, it is notable that they were drafted without taking into account the regulations of previously established bodies. Consequently, issues have arisen because the duties and authorities of these institutions sometimes overlap. Currently, the Human Rights Presidency and some provincial and district committees continue their work. The Advisory Board has been dissolved, and the other institutions do not appear to be active.
Taking into account the problems I observed during the operations of these bodies—some stemming from the number of members, some from the manner of their appointment, some from the lack of knowledge regarding human rights among certain members, and the lack of intellectual and ethical independence, or a combination of all these factors— I believe that the institutions other than the Human Rights Investigation Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey should be dissolved, and a “Turkish Human Rights Institution” should be established under its umbrella, comprising various national committees, in accordance with the UN “Principles Governing the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (A/RES/48/134, December 20, 1993), with care, knowledge, and by taking into account the experiences gained.
Let me explain exactly what I mean by “carefully.” In doing so, I’ll also point out what I see as the greatest challenge in establishing such an institution:
When it comes to national institutions like this, the first thing that’s emphasized is the necessity of their independence. However, this “independence” is generally understood to mean independence from the state and government—that is, not being dictated to by them in their decisions and actions. The conditions for this are seen as the inability to remove the members of such institutions from office, their ability to select and appoint their own staff, having a budget under their own control, and so on.
There is no doubt that independence understood in this way is important and essential; yet it is insufficient for such an institution to function effectively in achieving its objectives, because this independence can be exploited for other purposes. In addition to this institutional independence, its members must also be intellectually and ethically independent; that is, in their work and decisions, they must not only be independent from the government but also conduct their work, evaluations, and decisions free from ideological, cultural, and religious influences—especially free from prevailing trends—that is, the influence of public opinion—and, in other words, they must not place any other “thing” before human rights.
So, if these factors do not determine their evaluations and decisions, what should determine them? To put it simply, I believe these should be knowledge of ethical values and knowledge of human rights.
For this to be possible, those who will serve in this institution must possess certain qualities: They must sincerely desire to protect human rights and be honest; they must possess sufficient knowledge of human rights and have reflected on this knowledge, and they must also be sufficiently informed about the state of the world and the country and its problems. Furthermore, to be able to determine what human rights require in specific situations they encounter, they must have demonstrated in their previous lives that they are accustomed to analyzing these specific situations in light of ethical values and human rights knowledge.
The most significant challenge I see in establishing such a national institution is the organizational structure that would make it possible for individuals with these qualities to serve within it.
With its duties, authorities, and operational structure established in accordance with UN principles as “independent” and “pluralistic,” and capable of offering hope that the problems experienced in the past will not recur, the basic structure of such a national institution could be as follows:
TÜRKİYE İNSAN HAKLARI KURUMU
These national committees can ensure that the institution is “pluralistic”; if properly constituted, the board of directors can also ensure the institution’s independence—in the sense I previously mentioned; it can significantly prevent other considerations and interests from taking precedence over the requirements of human rights, and it can contribute to the consistent articulation, implementation, and monitoring of human rights requirements within the country’s specific conditions.
This board of directors could consist of the Chair of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Human Rights Investigation Commission, the ombudsman (if one exists), five individuals recognized for their work in human rights and whose ethical and intellectual independence has been demonstrated, and the Chairs of the National Committees, who would be appointed in accordance with established procedures as determined by these five members.
Here lies the difficulty I mentioned earlier—specifically, the question of how these five individuals will be selected once such an institution is established. As I see it under current conditions, the relatively smoothest path for the initial appointment would be for the President or the Prime Minister to appoint these individuals from among the candidates proposed by civil society organizations that have contributed to the protection of human rights at the national level through their work—organizations that have proven themselves in this regard—along with their justifications. The Board of Directors of this institution, established for the first time in this manner, may propose its own members.
It is essential that such a national institution—the Turkish Human Rights Institution—be enshrined in the Constitution and established by law, like other independent institutions within the Prime Minister’s Office, with its expected scope of duties clearly defined.
We must recognize the need for human rights education aimed at comprehensively addressing the protection of human rights in our country and fostering individuals capable of safeguarding them; we must collaborate respectfully with relevant organizations regarding their respective authorities and responsibilities to achieve this common goal, and ensure the coordination of these efforts. We cannot ensure the protection of human rights merely by increasing the number of organizations. It is also necessary to create the conditions required for these organizations to operate in a manner consistent with their objectives and in a coordinated manner.
In the second half of the 20th century, a country’s development was measured by criteria such as gross national income, industrialization, and possession of advanced technology. As the 21st century nears the completion of its first decade, could the measure of a country’s development be the degree to which it protects human rights? **
* In addition to these organizations affiliated with the Prime Ministry, Prison Boards have also been established in all 81 provinces by the Ministry of Justice.
** Speech delivered at a meeting organized by the Confederation of Turkish Tradesmen and Craftsmen on December 10, 2009, on the occasion of Human Rights Day.
- Click here to access the PDF copy of the speech.