Europaudvalget 2020-21
EUU Alm.del Bilag 152
Offentligt
2301183_0001.png
CPT/Inf (2020) 24
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 6 to 17 May 2019
The Turkish Government has requested the publication of this report and of
its response. The Government’s response is set out in
document
CPT/Inf (2020) 25.
Strasbourg, 5 August 2020
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0002.png
-2-
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 3
I.
A.
B.
II.
A.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 6
The visit, the report and follow-up.......................................................................................... 6
Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation encountered .................................. 7
FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ................................ 8
Police custody ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.
2.
3.
Preliminary remarks .......................................................................................................... 8
Ill-treatment ....................................................................................................................... 9
Safeguards against ill-treatment ...................................................................................... 13
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
4.
B.
C.
notification of custody ........................................................................................... 13
access to a lawyer .................................................................................................. 14
medical examinations of persons in police/gendarmerie custody ......................... 15
information on rights ............................................................................................. 16
custody records ...................................................................................................... 17
Conditions of detention ................................................................................................... 17
Specific issues related to the prisons visited ......................................................................... 19
Situation of prisoners held at Imralı F-type
High-Security Prison.................................... 23
APPENDIX I:
List of the establishments visited by the CPT’s delegation
................................................. 27
APPENDIX II:
List of the national authorities, other bodies and non-governmental
organisations
with which the
CPT's delegation held consultations ........................................................... 28
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0003.png
-3-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main objective of the CPT’s May 2019 visit to Turkey was to examine the treatment and safeguards
afforded to persons detained by law enforcement agencies. To this end, the CPT’s delegation visited a
great number of police and gendarmerie establishments as well as remand prisons in different parts of
Turkey and interviewed hundreds of persons who were or had recently been held in police custody in
the Ankara, Diyarbakır, Istanbul and Şanlıurfa areas. On the occasion of the visit, the delegation also
went
to Imralı F-type
High-Security
Prison (‘Imralı Prison’), in order to examine the treatment and
conditions of detention of all prisoners held there and to review the measures taken by the Turkish
authorities in the light of the recommendations made by the CPT after the April 2016 visit.
Police custody
As was the case during the CPT’s 2017 visit, the delegation received a considerable number of
allegations of excessive use of force and/or physical ill-treatment by police/gendarmerie officers from
persons who had recently been taken into custody (including women and juveniles). These allegations
mainly consisted of slaps, kicks, punches (including to the head and/or face) and truncheon blows
after the persons concerned had been handcuffed or otherwise brought under control. A significant
proportion of the allegations related to beatings during transport or inside law enforcement
establishments, apparently with the aim of securing confessions or obtaining other information, or as
a punishment. Further, numerous detained persons claimed to have been subjected to threats and/or
severe verbal abuse. Moreover, a number of allegations were once again received of excessive use of
force and/or physical ill-treatment by members of the mobile motorcycle intervention teams (so-
called ‘Yunus’)
in Istanbul. In a number of cases, the allegations of physical ill-treatment were
supported by medical evidence, such as bodily injuries documented in medical records or directly
observed by medical members of the delegation.
Overall, the CPT has gained the impression that, compared to the findings of the 2017 visit, the
severity of alleged police ill-treatment has diminished. However, the frequency of allegations remains
at a worrying level. The Committee stresses once again the need for more decisive action by all
relevant authorities in order to combat the phenomenon of police ill-treatment in Turkey and reiterates
its recommendation that a clear and firm message of “zero tolerance” of ill-treatment
be delivered to
all law enforcement officials, from the highest political level, namely the President of the Republic.
As concerns fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment, it transpired from the information gathered
during the visit that notification of custody to a relative (or another trusted person) was generally
performed soon after apprehension and that detained persons usually had access to a lawyer whilst in
police custody. However, as during previous visits to Turkey, a number of detained persons claimed
that the police had granted their request for an
ex officio
lawyer only after a considerable delay, in
order to be able to informally question them about the suspected offence without the presence of a
lawyer (prior to the taking of a formal statement). The CPT also remains concerned about the
existence of legal restrictions regarding access to a lawyer during the initial phase of police custody
for certain serious crimes, and it emphasises the importance for the prevention of ill-treatment of
guaranteeing such access from the very outset of police custody.
Further, despite the specific recommendations repeatedly made by the Committee after previous
visits, the system of mandatory medical controls at the outset and end of police/gendarmerie custody
remained fundamentally flawed. In particular, in the vast majority of cases, law enforcement officials
continued to be present during medical controls and such controls were often carried out without any
physical examination. Moreover, several persons claimed that they had been threatened not to show
their injuries by police officers present during medical controls.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0004.png
-4-
As regards conditions of detention, in all the law enforcement establishments visited, detention
facilities were in a good state of repair and generally clean. That said, due to major structural
deficiencies, the CPT considers these facilities to be unsuitable for detention lasting more than a few
days. In particular, many cells did not have access to natural light, and in none of the establishments
visited had arrangements been made to enable detained persons to have access to the open air. The
situation was further exacerbated by the fact that detained persons were often held under very
cramped conditions (e.g. up to four persons in cells of some 9 m²). It is also a matter of concern that
persons held overnight in police custody were still often not provided with a mattress (in addition to
blankets). In addition, many detained persons claimed that they had received no or insufficient food
and, on occasion, no drinking water and that they had not been provided with personal hygiene
products during their stay in police custody. The CPT recommends that these shortcomings be
remedied.
Specific issues related to the prisons visited
Notwithstanding the expansion of the prison estate and greater use of conditional release and
alternative non-custodial measures, the problem of prison overcrowding remained acute, and the
steady increase in the size of the prison population already observed in the mid-2000s continued.
With the
exception of Diyarbakır Juvenile Prison, the official capacities of all the establishments
visited were being greatly exceeded at the time of the visit. Consequently, a large number of inmates
in these prisons did not have their own bed and had to sleep on mattresses placed on the floor.
Moreover, in some living units, prisoners were even obliged to share mattresses, as no floor space
was left for additional mattresses.
The CPT recalls that constructing new prisons is not likely, in itself, to provide a lasting solution
to the problem of overcrowding. Addressing this problem calls for a coherent strategy, covering both
admission to and release from prison, to ensure that imprisonment
–
including pre-trial detention
–
really is the measure of last resort. The Committee once again calls upon the Turkish authorities
to take decisive action to curb prison population inflation and to eradicate prison overcrowding, in the
light of the remarks made in the visit report and relevant recommendations of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Despite the specific recommendations repeatedly made by the Committee after previous visits,
the procedure for medical screening of newly-arrived remand prisoners continued to display major
shortcomings. In particular, it was not uncommon for newly-admitted prisoners to be seen by a doctor
only after a considerable delay or not to be seen at all, and the screening generally did not include a
physical examination of the prisoner. Moreover, no progress was observed as regards other issues of
concern to the CPT, such as the continued lack of respect for medical confidentiality and the recording
and reporting of injuries, as well as health-care staffing levels.
Further, in several of the prisons visited, the delegation observed that newly-arrived inmates with
acute opioid withdrawal signs were left unattended, without receiving painkillers or other
symptomatic treatment. Such a state of affairs is not acceptable. The CPT recommends that the
Turkish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that, in all prisons, newly-arrived prisoners with
drug addiction problems are systematically identified and that those suffering from withdrawal signs
are promptly provided with adequate treatment (i.e. substitution treatment or treatment relieving the
symptoms).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
-5-
Situation of prisoners held at Imralı Prison
As during previous visits, the delegation received no allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners by prison
officers. Further, the health-care services and material conditions of detention remained generally
satisfactory.
However, the situation regarding the
prisoners’ regime had not improved at all since
the
CPT’s
2016
visit. They were still only allowed to associate all together for six hours per week, as well as in pairs
for an additional three hours per week, and association during daily outdoor exercise remained
prohibited. As a result, all prisoners were being held in solitary confinement for most of the time
(i.e. 159 hours out of 168 hours per week, including 24 hours per day at weekends). In the
Committee’s
view, such a state of affairs is
not acceptable. The CPT calls upon the Turkish authorities
to take steps without further delay to ensure that all prisoners held at Imralı Prison are allowed to
associate together during daily outdoor exercise, as well as during all other out-of-cell activities.
Further, the Committee reiterates that the underlying concept of the detention regime of persons
sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment is fundamentally flawed. It once again calls upon the
Turkish authorities to carry out a complete overhaul of the detention regime applied to prisoners
sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment in Turkish prisons.
The issue of contact with the outside world of prisoners held at Imralı Prison has been the
subject
of a long-standing intense dialogue between the CPT and the Turkish authorities, given that no visits
by lawyers had been granted since July 2011 and that hardly any visits by family members had taken
place since October 2014. The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that, following
the military coup attempt of 15 July 2016, a total ban on contacts with the outside world (including
correspondence) was imposed on all prisoners, which resulted in a type of incommunicado
imprisonment. As repeatedly stressed by the CPT in its dialogue with the Turkish authorities, such
a state of affairs is not acceptable and clearly contravenes various relevant international human rights
instruments and standards.
The CPT also notes with great concern that, following the lifting of the state of emergency (in July
2018), all prisoners continued to be denied visits by their lawyers and family members.
That said, the Committee welcomes the fact that, shortly before the 2019 visit, the judicial ban on
lawyers’ visits
was lifted and Abdullah Öcalan was granted the first visit by lawyers since July 2011.
Further, four more lawyers’ visits took place until the beginning of August 2019. However, since then
all requests for visits submitted by lawyers have apparently been turned down. As regards family
visits, the situation has slightly improved since the May 2019 visit with all prisoners being able to
receive a visit from family members in June and August 2019, despite the existence of disciplinary
sanctions of prohibition of family visits.
The Committee acknowledges that there may be valid security reasons to introduce certain restrictions
vis-à-vis prisoners on the exercise of their right to have contacts with the outside world. However,
a balance must be struck between such security considerations and the basic human rights of
the prisoners concerned. The measures taken thus far by the Turkish authorities since the May 2019
visit are a significant step in the right direction. That said, much more needs to be done to render
the situation acceptable. More specifically, a sustainable system of regular visits by family members
and lawyers should be developed for all prisoners held
at Imralı Prison.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0006.png
-6-
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
The visit, the report and follow-up
1.
In pursuance of Article 7 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
a delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to Turkey from 6 to 17 May 2019. The visit was one which
appeared to the Committee “to be required in the circumstances” (see Article 7, paragraph 1,
of the Convention).
2.
The main objective of the visit was to examine the treatment and safeguards afforded
to
persons detained by law enforcement agencies. To this end, the CPT’s delegation visited
a great
number of police and gendarmerie establishments as well as remand prisons in different parts of
the country and interviewed hundreds of persons who were or had recently been held in police
custody in the Ankara,
Diyarbakır, Istanbul and Şanlıurfa
areas.
On the occasion of the visit, the delegation also went to Imralı F-type
High-Security Prison,
in order to examine the treatment and conditions of detention of all prisoners held in the establishment
and to review the measures taken by the Turkish authorities in the light of the recommendations made
by the CPT after its previous visit to the prison (in April 2016).
A list of the establishments visited by the delegation is set out in Appendix I to this report.
3.
The visit was carried out by the following members of the CPT:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mykola Gnatovskyy, President of the CPT (Head of the delegation)
Djordje Alempijević
Nico Hirsch
Julia Kozma
Davor Strinović
Hans Wolff.
They were supported by Michael Neurauter (Head of Division) and Elvin Aliyev of
the Committee’s Secretariat.
4.
The report on the visit was adopted by the CPT at its 100
th
meeting, held from 4 to 8 November
2019, and transmitted to the Turkish authorities on 2 December 2019. The various recommendations,
comments and requests for information made by the CPT are set out in bold type in the present report.
The CPT requests the Turkish authorities to provide within three months a response containing a full
account of action taken
by them to implement the Committee’s recommendations and replies to the
comments and requests for information formulated in this report.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0007.png
-7-
B.
Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation encountered
5.
In the course of the visit, the delegation held consultations with Süleyman Soylu, Minister of
the Interior, Abdulhamit Gül, Minister of Justice, Muhterem Ince, Deputy Minister of the Interior,
and Muhammet Güven, Deputy Minister of Health, as well as with senior officials from the Ministries
of the Interior, Justice, Health and Foreign Affairs.
Further, the delegation met Süleyman Arslan, President of the Human Rights and Equality
Institution of Turkey, in his capacity as Head of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) set up
under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture (OPCAT), and
representatives of non-governmental organisations active in areas of concern to the CPT.
A list of the national authorities and organisations met by the delegation is set out in
Appendix II.
6.
The co-operation received throughout the visit was on the whole very good. The delegation
generally enjoyed rapid access to the establishments visited (including those which had not been
notified in advance), was provided with the information necessary for carrying out its task and was
able to speak in private with detained persons.
The CPT would also like to express its appreciation for the assistance provided before and
during the visit by its liaison officer, Ms Neval Orbay, Deputy Director General for the Council of
Europe and Human Rights, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0008.png
-8-
II.
FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED
A.
Police custody
1.
Preliminary remarks
7.
The general legal framework regulating the deprivation of liberty by law enforcement
agencies of persons who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence remains unchanged
since the CPT’s 2017
periodic visit. It is recalled that the maximum period of police/gendarmerie
custody is generally 24 hours
1
or, in some cases, 48 hours, excluding the time required to bring
the suspect before the nearest judge (which shall not exceed twelve hours).
2
In the case of “collective”
offences (i.e. committed by three or more people), the custody period can be extended, for no more
than one day at a time, up to a maximum of four days by written order of the public prosecutor.
3
8.
Turkey’s nationwide state of emergency, which had been declared in the immediate aftermath
of the July 2016 military coup attempt, was lifted on 19 July 2018. It should be recalled that the first
executive decree with the force of law issued under the state of emergency rule (Decree-Law No. 667
from 22 July 2016) had extended the maximum period of police custody for certain offences related
to national security as well as for terrorism-related and collective offences to 30 days (without
bringing the suspect before a judge). By Decree-Law No. 684 issued six months later, the maximum
custody period for the aforementioned offences had been reduced to seven days, with a possible
extension to 14 days.
4
Following the termination of the state of emergency, the above-mentioned framework was
further modified; with the entry into force on 31 July 2018 of
Law No. 7145 on “Amendments to
some
laws and decree-laws”, a transitional provision (Section 19) was added to the Anti-Terrorism Law.
It provides that, for a period of three years from that date, with regard to crimes against national
security or constitutional order,
5
crimes falling within the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Law or
committed by a criminal organisation, the authorised period of police custody (i.e. 48 hours or,
in the case of collective offences, four days) may be extended twice due to the difficulty in collecting
evidence or the volume of the case file, each time within the time-limit of the respective authorised
custody period.
6
The decision to extend the custody period is taken at the request of a prosecutor and
by decision of a judge who shall hear the detained person.
1
2
3
4
5
6
The 24-hour time limit also applies to persons who have been deprived of their liberty for identification purposes
(See Section 5 of the Regulation on Apprehension, Detention and Statement Taking; hereinafter:
“Detention
Regulation”).
Section 91, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).
Section 91 (3),
ibid.
Such an extension had to be authorised by the prosecutor, owing to difficulties in collecting evidence or the high
number of suspects.
Sections 302 to 339 of the Criminal Code.
That is, to a total of six days or, as regards collective offences, twelve days.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0009.png
-9-
9.
The maximum possible period of police/gendarmerie custody is of direct relevance to
the
CPT’s mandate.
First of all, the prolonged stay of criminal suspects on the premises of law
enforcement agencies, even after the person concerned has been brought before a judge, increases
the risk of intimidation and ill-treatment. Secondly, law enforcement establishments are not designed
for lengthy stays. Indeed, although during more recent visits to Turkey material conditions
in police/gendarmerie detention facilities were found to be generally adequate for short stays,
the Committee has so far not come across any such facility that would be suitable for prolonged
detention (in particular, due to the frequent limitations regarding access to natural light and the
absence of outdoor exercise areas and of proper sleeping places).
7
The CPT calls upon the Turkish authorities to amend the legislation regulating
the duration of police/gendarmerie custody with a view to re-introducing an absolute upper
limit of four days, regardless of the type of the offence.
2.
Ill-treatment
10.
As already mentioned in paragraph 2, the delegation interviewed hundreds of persons who
were or had recently been held in police custody in the Ankara,
Diyarbakır, Istanbul and Şanlıurfa
areas.
As was the case during the CPT’s 2017 visit, the delegation received a considerable number
of allegations of excessive use of force and/or physical ill-treatment by police/gendarmerie officers
from persons who had recently been taken into custody (including women and juveniles).
These allegations mainly consisted of slaps, kicks, punches (including to the head and/or face) and
truncheon blows after the persons concerned had been handcuffed or otherwise brought under control.
A significant proportion of the allegations related to beatings during transport or inside law
enforcement establishments, apparently with the aim of securing confessions or obtaining other
information, or as a punishment. Further, numerous detained persons claimed to have been subjected
to threats and/or severe verbal abuse.
Further, several detained persons, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts of
ill-treatment inflicted on them by police officers on the premises of Sultanbeyli District Police
Headquarters in Istanbul, sometimes in the presence of or even with the active participation of a senior
police officer. Moreover, as during the 2017 visit, a number of allegations were received of excessive
use of force and/or physical ill-treatment by members of the mobile motorcycle intervention teams
(so-called
‘Yunus’)
in Istanbul.
11.
It is noteworthy that only a limited number of allegations of physical ill-treatment by law
enforcement officials were received from persons detained on suspicion of terrorism-related crimes.
Actually, most of the allegations came from persons suspected of ordinary criminal offences (such as
drug-related offences; see, in this regard, also paragraph 13 below).
7
For further details, see paragraphs 28 to 32.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0010.png
- 10 -
12.
In a number of cases, the allegations of physical ill-treatment were supported by medical
evidence, such as bodily injuries documented in medical records or directly observed by medical
members of the delegation.
8
By way of illustration, descriptions are given below of some of these cases:
(i)
A person with a severe physical disability indicated that, at the moment of
apprehension, he had been treated correctly by officers of Sultanbeyli District Police
Headquarters. However, shortly after having been placed in the police van he was allegedly
slapped and punched by police officers. Upon arrival at the police establishment, he was
allegedly again kicked, punched and hit with truncheons by several other officers inside an
office. He further claimed that one senior police officer had punched him in the face, pushed
him to the floor and inflicted further pain on him by forcibly lifting his arms whilst being
handcuffed to the back.
During the medical check at Sultanbeyli Hospital at the end of police custody, the following
injuries were recorded:
“ecchymosis
of the left eye extending to zygomaticus; ecchymosis
oedema of left ear; ecchymosis of the right eye extending to zygomaticus; 5 x 4 cm hyperemic
area of the lower side of the left knee”.
(ii)
One detained person stated that, in April 2019, he had been apprehended on the street
by ten 'Yunus' police officers and handcuffed to the back. The team leader allegedly told
the officers 'to beat him up'. Subsequently, the person concerned was allegedly kicked and
punched on various parts of the body (including the face) and received baton blows.
At a certain point, the team leader also kicked him in the face.
During the medical check at
Bakırköy
Hospital at the end of police custody, the following
injuries were recorded:
“ecchymosis
on left and right ear auricle; red ecchymosis on the outer
side of right shoulder of 4 x 2 cm; 2 x 1 cm abrasion on right elbow; purple ecchymosis of
5 x 4 cm on back side of left arm as well as abrasions of 5 x 2 cm and 2 x 0.5 cm; red
ecchymosis with abrasion of 3 x 2 cm on right cruris lateral; red ecchymosis 2 x 1 cm and two
red ecchymoses 1 x 1 cm; 6 x 5 cm oedema and purple ecchymosis; 2 x 1 cm purple
ecchymosis on back side of left knee; 2 x 2 cm purple ecchymosis on right hip”.
(iii)
One detained person claimed that, during his apprehension, he had been punched in
the face and handcuffed by officers of Sancaktepe Police Station (Istanbul). During his
transport to the police station, the car stopped and the officers allegedly took him out of the car
and hit him several times with a baton (including on the head). At the police station, he was
then allegedly handcuffed during the whole night in the lawyers' visiting room. Further, during
his transfer to a remand prison, he was allegedly handcuffed very tightly for several hours.
Upon examination by a medical member of the delegation, the person concerned displayed
the following injuries: above left eye, 2 x 3 cm dark blue hematoma, 4-6 days old; above right
eye, 0.5 x 1 cm hematoma dark colour; complains about pain on the head; on the parietal
region; on both wrists, linear oedema and superficial lesion of the skin 5 x 0.3 cm as well as
persisting numbness in the ulnar nerve region.
8
As regards the shortcomings frequently observed in the recording of injuries, see paragraphs 23 and 38.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0011.png
- 11 -
(iv)
One detained person claimed that, during his apprehension in April 2019, he had been
kicked, slapped and
punched (including in the face) by ‘Yunus’ police officers, whilst being
handcuffed on the ground.
Upon arrival at the remand prison, the prison doctor documented the following injuries:
“ecchymosis
on right zygomaticus area with a size of 2 x 0.5 cm; on left forehead, ecchymosis
1 x 1 cm; ecchymosis 3 x 0.5 cm on frontal side of lower neck. Right elbow 1 cm ecchymosis,
minimal ecchymosis on right clavicula 2 cm; multiple ecchymoses on back side of right
shoulder”.
(v)
a man apprehended in October 2018 in
the district of Hani (Diyarbakır Province)
alleged that, after having been handcuffed and thrown to the ground, he had been repeatedly
kicked, punched and slapped by several police officers.
In the medical report drawn up during his medical check at Hani District Hospital at the end
of police custody, the following injuries were marked on a body chart:
“sutures
on the
forehead, lesion measuring 4 x 3cm in the right scapular region, and bruises under the eyes”.
In addition, the following injuries were recorded by the doctor upon arrival at the prison:
“bruises
under the eyes, scabbed wound on the nose, and contusion on both ears”.
(vi)
One detained person
alleged that, during his recent detention at Bağlar Police Station,
he had received several baton blows in an office called
‘Grup Amiri
Odası’
on the ground
floor, in the presence of his wife and other family members. On the following day, he was
allegedly taken to the Military Hospital and kept in the police van, while officers went into
the hospital in order to obtain a ‘clean’ medical report without him having been seen by
a doctor.
Upon examination by a medical member of the delegation, the person concerned displayed
the following injuries: on the anterior aspect of the left brachial region, in the middle portion,
irregular yellowish bruising of skin, measuring 6 x 5 cm; on the anterior aspect of the right
femoral region, in the lower part, a yellowish bruising of skin, measuring 11 x 5 cm;
on the lateral aspect of the left femoral region a wide area, measuring 14 x 11 cm, of violet
skin bruising in which few parallel, transversally oriented lines of more intensive bruising are
apparent.
13.
Overall, the CPT has gained the impression that, compared to the findings of the 2017 visit,
the severity of alleged police ill-treatment has diminished. However, the frequency of allegations
remains at a worrying level.
In their response to the report on the 2017 visit, the Turkish authorities indicated that, since
2003, Turkey decisively implemented a ‘zero tolerance policy’ against torture and ill-treatment.
9
This
position was also reiterated by the Minister of the Interior during the consultations the delegation held
with him at the end of the 2019 visit.
9
Including by introducing a number of legislative changes to the relevant criminal legislation (for instance,
abolition of the statute of limitations regarding the crime of torture; obligation of possible cases of torture to be
investigated personally by a public prosecutor; abolition of the requirement of obtaining an administrative
authorisation for the prosecution of law enforcement officials concerning the offence of torture and ill-treatment).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0012.png
- 12 -
Notwithstanding that, it is a matter of serious concern that, in early 2018, political statements
made at the ministerial level had been widely publicised within and outside Turkey, which appear not
only
to run counter to the Turkish authorities’ commitment to pursue a ‘zero tolerance policy’ against
torture and ill-treatment but which could easily be perceived even as incitement of law enforcement
officials to ill-treat certain categories of criminal suspects such as suspected drug dealers.
14.
In the light of the above, the CPT must stress once again that more decisive action by all
relevant authorities is required to combat the phenomenon of police ill-treatment in Turkey.
To this end, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that a clear and firm message of
“zero tolerance” of ill-treatment
be delivered to all law enforcement officials, from the highest
political level, namely the President of the Republic. As part of this message, it should be
reiterated that all forms of ill-treatment of detained persons (including verbal abuse), as well
as any tolerance of ill-treatment by superiors, are illegal and will be punished accordingly.
Further,
the Committee recommends that all law enforcement officials be regularly
reminded, including through appropriate training programmes, that:
-
no more force than is strictly necessary should be used when effecting an apprehension
and that, once apprehended persons have been brought under control, there can be no
justification for their being struck;
when it is deemed essential to handcuff a person at the time of apprehension (or during
the period of custody), the handcuffs should under no circumstances be excessively tight
and should be applied only for as long as is strictly necessary.
-
15.
As regards more particularly Sultanbeyli District Police Headquarters in Istanbul,
the Committee recommends that an independent and thorough investigation be carried out
without delay into the methods used by its staff when detaining criminal suspects.
Moreover, steps should be taken by the relevant authorities to exercise closer oversight
of interventions of ‘Yunus’ police officers in Istanbul.
16.
In order to obtain a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the situation regarding
the treatment of persons detained by law enforcement agencies,
the CPT would like to be provided
with the following information, in respect of the period from 1 January 2017 to the present
time:
(a) the number of complaints about ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and
the number of criminal and/or disciplinary proceedings which have been instituted as
a result;
(b) the number of criminal and/or disciplinary proceedings which have been instituted
ex officio
(i.e. without a formal complaint) into possible ill-treatment by law enforcement
officials;
(c) the outcome of the proceedings referred to in (a) and (b), including an account of
criminal and/or disciplinary sanctions imposed on the law enforcement officials
concerned.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0013.png
- 13 -
17.
Further,
the Committee would like to receive an update on the information referred
to in paragraph 16, indents a)
–
c), regarding cases of possible ill-treatment by law enforcement
officials of persons detained in 2016 on charges related to the military coup attempt of 15 July
2016.
18.
The CPT notes with interest that a Law Enforcement Supervision Commission (LESC) has
been set up (on the basis of Law No. 6713 of May 2016). The LESC is composed of the Deputy
Minister of the Interior (as Chairperson), the Head of the Civil Inspection Board
10
of the Ministry of
the Interior, the President of the Human Rights and Equality Institution, and representatives of the
Ministry of Justice, the Bar Association and civil society. It aims at enhancing the efficiency and
transparency of law enforcement units by creating a common database for all prosecutions and
disciplinary procedures against law enforcement officials.
In their letter of 24 October 2019, the Turkish authorities informed the CPT that, following
the adoption on 7 August 2019 of the Regulation on the Implementation of Law No. 6713, the LESC
had started its activities and had held its first meeting on 20 September 2019. Further, civil inspectors
of the Ministry of the Interior and inspectors in charge of law enforcement units were diligently
conducting inspections and disciplinary proceedings in compliance with Article 8 of the Law
No. 6713.
The CPT would like to receive detailed information on the work carried out thus far by
the LESC.
3.
Safeguards against ill-treatment
a.
notification of custody
19.
It appeared from the information gathered during the visit that notification of custody to
a relative or another trusted person was generally performed by law enforcement officials soon after
apprehension.
11
The application of this right was also usually well documented in the files consulted
by the delegation (see, however, paragraph 27). That said, in some instances, notification of custody
was reportedly delayed by law enforcement officials for several hours (e.g. until the taking of a formal
statement) or even days (e.g. until the initial court appearance).
The CPT encourages the Turkish authorities to make further efforts to ensure that all
persons detained by law enforcement agencies are able to benefit from the right of notification
of custody as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty.
10
11
The Civil Inspection Board of the Ministry of the Interior, which reports directly to the Minister of the Interior,
is responsible for the carrying out of disciplinary procedures against law enforcement officials.
The right of notification of custody is set out in Section 95 (1) of the CCP, which reads as follows: “When
a suspect or accused is apprehended or detained, or the detention period is extended, his/her relative or another
person he/she identifies shall be
informed without delay by the order of a prosecutor”. The law does not allow
for any exceptions to this rule.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0014.png
- 14 -
b.
access to a lawyer
20.
Overall, the delegation gained a positive impression of the implementation in practice of
the right of access to a lawyer. From the information gathered during the visit, it transpired that
detained persons who wished to benefit from this right were usually able to contact their own lawyer
or were offered an
ex officio
lawyer from the Bar Association during police custody.
12
In fact, most
of the criminal suspects (including terror suspects) interviewed by the delegation confirmed that they
had received the visit of a lawyer (private and/or
ex officio)
during their period of custody; many of
them were reportedly permitted to speak with their lawyers in private before their statement was taken
by the police.
However, once again, a number of detained persons claimed that the police had granted their
request for an
ex officio
lawyer only after a considerable delay in order to be able to informally
question them about the suspected offence without the presence of a lawyer (prior to the taking of
a formal statement). Complaints were also received that state-appointed lawyers did not provide any
meaningful assistance. More specifically, several detained persons, who had been provided with
ex
officio
lawyers, indicated that they had not had
–
and the lawyers had not insisted on having
–
a private
consultation during police custody or that the lawyer had shown up only after the statement was taken
by the police, simply to sign documents. Moreover, some stated that that they had seen an
ex officio
lawyer for the first time at the courthouse (during an interview by the prosecutor and/or at the remand
hearing by the judge).
21.
The CPT has on several occasions in the past expressed serious misgivings about legal
provisions (initially to be found in the Anti-Terrorism Law, and later in decree-laws), according to
which persons detained by law enforcement agencies for certain serious crimes could be denied
access to a lawyer for a certain period of time. Such a ban is currently stipulated in Section 154 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended by Law No. 7070 in March 2018), which provides
that, upon the request of a public prosecutor, persons suspected of having committed crimes related
to national security, terrorism and organised drug trafficking may be denied access to a lawyer for
24 hours by the decision of a judge.
13
It
would appear from the delegation’s findings during the visit that
the aforementioned ban is
only rarely applied in practice. Nevertheless, the CPT remains concerned about the existence of such
a legal restriction, and it must stress once again the importance of guaranteeing an effective right
of access to a lawyer
–
from the very outset of police custody
–
for the prevention of ill-treatment.
In the Committee’s
experience, it is during the period immediately following the deprivation
of liberty that the risk of intimidation and ill-treatment is at its greatest. The CPT acknowledges that
it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period during police/gendarmerie custody
a
detained person’s access to a particular lawyer chosen by him/her. However, there can be no
reasonable justification for the right to have access to a lawyer being totally denied during the period
in question. In such cases, access to another, independent, lawyer who can be trusted not to jeopardise
the legitimate interests of the investigation should be arranged.
12
13
The right of detained persons to contact and meet a lawyer in private and to have a lawyer present during
questioning by law enforcement officials is formally guaranteed as from the outset of custody, and indigent
persons are entitled to free legal aid by a lawyer appointed
ex officio.
In addition, the appointment of a lawyer is
obligatory in cases where a detained person is suspected of having a committed a criminal offence punishable
by more than five years of imprisonment (Sections 149, 150 and 154 of the CCP).
No statement may be taken from the person concerned as long as he/she is denied access to a lawyer.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0015.png
- 15 -
22.
In the light of the above,
the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Turkish
authorities take all necessary steps
–
including of a legislative nature
–
to ensure that every
person detained by law enforcement agencies effectively has the right to have access to a lawyer
(which includes the rights to speak with the lawyer in private and to have him/her present
during questioning), as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, it being understood
that whenever there are serious doubts about the professional integrity of the lawyer chosen
by the detained person, another lawyer will be appointed (if necessary,
ex officio).
Further,
steps should be taken in consultation with the relevant Bar Associations
to ensure that lawyers appointed to represent persons in police custody perform their functions
in a diligent and timely manner.
c.
medical examinations of persons in police/gendarmerie custody
23.
In accordance with Section 9 of the Detention Regulation, persons detained by law
enforcement agencies continued to undergo a mandatory medical control
(sağlık kontrolü)
at the outset and end of police/gendarmerie custody (and after every extension of a custody period).
In addition, as observed by the delegation in certain police departments (such as Anti-Terror and
Organised Crime Departments), this system had been complemented by a medical control every
24 hours.
However, the CPT is very concerned to note that, despite the specific recommendations
repeatedly made by the Committee after previous visits
14
, the system of mandatory medical controls
has remained fundamentally flawed. In particular, the visit brought to light that the confidentiality of
such controls was still far from being guaranteed; contrary to the requirements of the Detention
Regulation, law enforcement officials continued to be present during medical controls in the vast
majority of cases, which meant that the persons concerned had no opportunity to speak with the doctor
in private. Unsurprisingly, many detained persons interviewed by the delegation who claimed to have
sustained injuries as a result of police ill-treatment stated that they did not want to inform the doctor
thereof. Moreover, several persons interviewed by the delegation claimed that they had been
threatened by police officers present during the medical control not to show their injuries.
The delegation also received a few allegations from detained persons that they had not been subjected
to a medical control at all; allegedly, they were obliged to wait in the police van outside the hospital,
while a police officer went inside to obtain a medical report signed by a doctor.
It also appeared that such medical controls were often limited to the posing of a question by
the doctor about possible ill-treatment (if at all), and only rarely did they entail a physical examination
(detained persons usually
being “examined” with their clothes on).
15
In this regard, a number of
persons interviewed stated that the doctor went to the police van to ask all persons in the vehicle
collectively if they had any medical issues. It is also a matter of concern that it was not uncommon
for detained persons, including juveniles and women, to remain handcuffed during medical controls.
14
15
See, most recently, CPT (2017) 61, paragraph 19.
By way of illustration, in one case, a detained person was examined in a state hospital by a doctor who recorded
“an abrasion in his left elbow, ecchymoses and abrasions in different parts of his back”. About nine hours later,
the person concerned underwent a second medical control at the same hospital by a different doctor who
indicated on the report that no injuries had been found.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
- 16 -
The examination of medical records in various law enforcement establishments also revealed
that, in those rare cases where a proper examination was performed and any injuries found were
recorded by doctors, the description of injuries was superficial and
the detained person’s account of
how the injuries had been sustained was missing.
Finally, similar to the situation observed during previous CPT visits, it appeared that the legal
requirement for the medical report drawn up at the end of custody to be transmitted to the public
prosecutor by the relevant health institution in a closed and sealed envelope was generally not
complied with. On the contrary, it seemed to be common practice for police officers escorting
the detained person to hospital to receive such reports openly.
24.
In the light of these findings, the CPT cannot but conclude that the system of mandatory
medical controls, in its current form, constitutes a mere formality and fails to serve its intended
purpose.
The Committee once again calls upon the Ministry of the Interior to take vigorous steps
–
in co-operation with the Ministry of Health
–
to ensure that medical controls of detained
persons are carried out in full compliance with the requirements set out in Section 9 of
the Detention Regulation. In particular, steps should be taken to ensure that the persons
concerned are systematically subjected to a physical examination and that medical controls are
always conducted out of the hearing and
–
unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise
in a particular case
–
out of the sight of law enforcement officials. As regards the recording
of injuries, the recommendations made in paragraph 40 apply equally to medical controls
of persons detained by law enforcement agencies.
Further,
the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the Turkish authorities
remind all law enforcement officials that any threats or other discouragement vis-à-vis detained
persons to report injuries inflicted upon them are unacceptable and will be punished
accordingly. Steps should also be taken to put an end to the use of handcuffs during medical
controls.
25.
By letter of 24 October 2019, the Turkish authorities informed the CPT that the General
Directorate of Security had issued instructions in May 2019 to all Provincial Security Directorates on
the procedure to be followed by the police with regard to mandatory medical controls.
The CPT
would like to receive a copy of these instructions.
d.
information on rights
26.
From the information gathered during the visit, it appeared that verbal information
on the rights of detained persons were still not usually given to them at the outset of their deprivation
of liberty but only after their arrival at a police/gendarmerie establishment. As regards more
specifically the right of access to a lawyer, a number of detained persons stated they had been
informed of it only several hours after having been brought to the law enforcement establishment,
often after an initial “informal” questioning session.
Further, as was the case during previous visits, detained persons were not systematically
provided with a copy of the Suspects Rights Form (SRF), despite the requirement in the Detention
Regulation (Section 6) that this be done.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
- 17 -
The CPT calls upon the Turkish authorities to take steps to ensure that all persons
detained by law enforcement agencies
–
for whatever reason
–
are fully informed of their
fundamental rights as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty (that is, from
the moment when they are obliged to remain with the police/gendarmerie). This should be
ensured by the provision of clear verbal information at the moment of apprehension, to be
supplemented at the earliest opportunity (that is, immediately upon the first arrival at a law
enforcement establishment) by the provision of the SRF. The latter form should be available in
an appropriate range of languages. Further, the persons concerned should be asked to sign
a statement attesting that they have been informed of their rights and always be given a copy
of the SRF. Particular care should be taken to ensure that detained persons actually understand
their rights; it is incumbent on police/gendarmerie officers to ascertain that this is the case.
e.
custody records
27.
The delegation observed that, in most of the law enforcement establishments visited,
the custody register was well kept, fully and accurately recording the relevant information.
However, the quality of record keeping left much to be desired in some of the establishments
visited (such as Ankara Law and Order Department,
Diyarbakır-Hani
Police Station
and Şanlıurfa
Juveniles Department) where officers had often failed to record important aspects of custody
(e.g. time of apprehension or release/transfer; whether a family member or lawyer had been
contacted; etc.). Perusal of the custody records in those establishments also revealed that in some
cases similar shortcomings had been identified by inspecting prosecutors.
The CPT recommends that appropriate steps be taken in all law enforcement
establishments in Turkey to ensure that the custody register is properly kept.
4.
Conditions of detention
28.
In all the law enforcement establishments visited, detention facilities were in a good state of
repair and generally clean and well ventilated.
That said, the CPT wishes to stress again that the above-mentioned detention facilities suffer
from major structural deficiencies which render them unsuitable for detention lasting more than a few
days (see, in this regard, the remarks and recommendation made in paragraph 9). In particular, many
custody cells did not have access to natural light, and artificial lighting was often insufficient. Further,
in none of the establishments visited had arrangements been made to enable detained persons to have
access to the open air. It is highly regrettable that, despite the long-standing recommendation to take
the need for providing outdoor exercise into account in the layout when constructing new detention
facilities, the two brand new detention units of Ankara Police Headquarters do not comprise any
outdoor exercise areas.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0018.png
- 18 -
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the Turkish authorities review
the conditions of detention in all law enforcement establishments in order to ensure that:
-
-
-
custody cells have adequate lighting (including access to natural light);
persons detained for 24 hours or more are, as far as possible, offered outdoor exercise
on a daily basis;
the need for outdoor exercise areas for detained persons is taken into account in
the design of any new police/gendarmerie detention facilities.
29.
Further, the CPT must express its concern that, despite the specific recommendation
repeatedly made by the Committee since the first visit to Turkey in 1990, persons held overnight in
police custody were still often not provided with a mattress (in addition to blankets).
16
The CPT
wishes to stress that the practice observed in various establishments of fitting wooden benches with
a very thin foam layer cannot be considered to be an acceptable substitute for the provision of
a mattress. In addition, given their narrowness (60 cm and, occasionally, even less), the
aforementioned benches cannot be considered to be adequate sleeping facilities.
The CPT calls upon the Turkish authorities to take steps without further delay to ensure
that, in all law enforcement establishments throughout the country, detained persons held
overnight are provided with sleeping facilities (such as a bed or plinth) of a reasonable size as
well as with a (clean) mattress (in addition to blankets).
30.
The CPT once again found that detained persons were often held under very cramped
conditions. For instance, in several establishments visited, up to three persons were held in cells
measuring some 8 m² and up to four persons in cells measuring some 9 m².
The Committee reiterates
its recommendation that the Turkish authorities take steps to ensure that all custody cells where
persons may be held overnight offer sufficient living space to detained persons; cells measuring
between 7 and 9 m² should not be used for accommodating more than two persons at a time.
31.
In particular in the
Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa Provinces, the
delegation received numerous
allegations from detained persons that they had received no or insufficient quantities of food and,
on occasion, no drinking water whilst in police custody, mostly during the first 24 hours and
sometimes even for longer.
17
The CPT recommends that the Turkish authorities take immediate
steps to remedy this state of affairs.
32.
Finally, many detained persons claimed that they had received no personal hygiene products
(such as a soap or tooth brush/paste) during their stay in police custody. Moreover, some complaints
were received from detained persons about long delays in accessing sanitary facilities outside their
cell.
The CPT recommends that the Turkish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that,
in all law enforcement establishments, detained persons are granted ready access to a toilet
at all times (including at night) and that those held overnight are supplied with basic personal
hygiene products.
16
17
Mattresses were only provided to detained persons at the Anti-Terror Department in Istanbul and
the Gendarmerie establishments visited.
In a number of cases, food was provided by the family.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0019.png
- 19 -
B.
Specific issues related to the prisons visited
33.
Given the main purpose of the visit (i.e. treatment and safeguards afforded to persons detained
by law enforcement agencies), the delegation did not examine in detail the situation in the prisons
visited
(with the exception of Imralı F-type
High-Security Prison; see Section C). Instead, it focused
on the medical screening of newly-arrived remand prisoners and addressed certain general aspects of
prisoners’
conditions of detention.
34.
In its more recent reports (concerning visits carried out in 2009 and thereafter), the CPT
repeatedly criticised the high levels of overcrowding in Turkish prisons and its negative consequences
for the daily life of inmates, such as extremely cramped accommodation, limited access to out-of-cell
activities and overburdened health-care services. The Turkish authorities responded that measures
were being taken to further expand
the country’s prison estate and to make greater use of conditional
release and alternative non-custodial measures. Regrettably, the 2019 visit brought to light that,
notwithstanding these measures, the situation remained critical.
For example, despite the opening of two new T-type
prisons in Şanlıurfa in 2016 with
an official capacity of some 1,050 places each,
Şanlıurfa E-type
Prison continued to suffer from
extreme overcrowding.
18
Moreover, the T-type prisons were also affected by severe overcrowding
at the time of the visit, each of them accommodating some 1,600 inmates.
As regards
Diyarbakır,
although the opening of two T-type prisons in 2018 had led to some
reduction in overcrowding at
Diyarbakır
D- and E-type Prisons, they continued to operate well above
their official capacity at the time of the visit.
19
Moreover, the recently-opened T-type Prison No. 2
was already overpopulated, holding 1,278 inmates for an official capacity of 1,032.
More generally, with the notable exception of
Diyarbakır
Juvenile Prison, the official
capacities of all the establishments visited were being greatly exceeded at the time of the visit (the
rate of overcrowding being particularly high at
Şanlıurfa
E- and T-type Prisons, Istanbul-Maltepe L-
type Prisons Nos. 1 and 3 and Istanbul-Silivri Prison No. 6). Consequently, a large number of
prisoners in these establishments did not have their own bed
20
and had to sleep on mattresses placed
on the floor. Moreover, in some cases (e.g. E-type Prisons in
Diyarbakır
and
Şanlıurfa
and Maltepe
L-type Prison No. 1), prisoners were even obliged to share mattresses, as there was no floor space
left in the living units for more individual mattresses.
21
A number of other negative effects of this
situation were also in evidence in the prisons visited (e.g. insufficient numbers of chairs, tables and
lockers; 40 to 50 inmates having to share one toilet; etc.).
18
19
20
21
It was accommodating 1,373 inmates for an official capacity of 600 places, being one of the most overcrowded
prisons in the whole country.
With a reduced
official capacity of 815 places (following the closure of the juvenile unit), Diyarbakır E-type
Prison was accommodating 1,199 inmates at the time of the visit. Diyarbakır D-type
Prison was holding
928 inmates for an official capacity of 670 places.
Despite the widespread practice of fitting additional bunk beds in existing accommodation units.
By way of illustration, at Maltepe L-type Prison No. 1, a unit holding 55 inmates had 28 beds and additional
22 mattresses put on the floor.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0020.png
- 20 -
35.
The CPT was also concerned to note that the steady increase in the size of the prison
population already observed in the mid-2000s continued: according to official figures, the total
number of prisoners in Turkey had reached 260,000 in November 2018. It should be recalled that,
during its 2009 periodic visit, the Committee had
noted that the country’s prison population had
doubled since January 2006, reaching 112,000. At the time of the CPT’s
following periodic visit in
2013, this number stood at approximately 130,000, which rose further to over 220,000 at the time of
the 2017 periodic visit.
36.
The CPT must recall that constructing new prisons is not likely, in itself, to provide a lasting
solution to the problem of overcrowding. Addressing this problem calls for a coherent strategy,
covering both admission to and release from prison, to ensure that imprisonment
–
including pre-trial
detention
–
really is the measure of last resort. Such a strategy implies an emphasis on non-custodial
measures in the period before the imposition of a sentence. In this regard, strict limits should be set
on the use of remand in custody and alternative measures should be used wherever possible. Further,
greater use should be made by the judiciary, especially in less serious cases, of alternatives to
custodial sentences. Moreover, the adoption of measures to facilitate the reintegration into society of
persons who have been deprived of their liberty could reduce the rate of re-offending.
The CPT once again calls upon the Turkish authorities to take decisive action to curb
prison population inflation and to eradicate prison overcrowding, in the light of the above
remarks.
22
In this context, it is essential that appropriate action be taken vis-à-vis
the prosecutorial and judicial authorities, including through training, to ensure their full
understanding of
–
and support for
–
the policies being pursued, thereby avoiding unnecessary
pre-trial custody and sentencing practices.
37.
The CPT wishes to stress once again the crucial role of prompt medical screening of newly-
arrived prisoners, in particular at establishments which represent points of entry into the prison
system. Such screening is indispensable, in particular in the interests of preventing the spread of
transmissible diseases, of the timely provision of medical and psychosocial care and of the timely
recording of any injuries.
38.
The Committee noted with grave concern that, despite the specific recommendations
repeatedly made by the Committee after previous visits, the procedure for medical examination of
newly-arrived remand prisoners continued to display major shortcomings.
Firstly, it emerged from the information gathered during the visit that, in practically all
the prisons visited, initial medical examinations usually consisted of the doctor asking the prisoner
whether he/she had any health problem and, unless the prisoner complained of a somatic condition
or bodily injury or made an allegation of ill-treatment, generally did not entail a physical examination.
Further, it appeared that it was not uncommon for newly-admitted prisoners to be seen by a doctor
with considerable delay (several days, or even weeks after admission) or not to be seen at all. It is
also a matter of concern that doctor-inmate consultations still frequently took place in the presence
of custodial staff. Moreover, as in the past, no systematic screening/testing for transmissible diseases
was performed in any of the prisons visited.
22
In so doing, the authorities should be guided by the relevant Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe: Recommendation R (99)22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population
inflation, Recommendation Rec(2003)22 on conditional release (parole), Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the
use of remand in custody, Recommendation Rec(2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules, and
Recommendation Rec(2017)3 on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
- 21 -
The delegation also noted that the descriptions of traumatic injuries by health-care staff in
the establishments visited were usually superficial. Further, in a number of cases, doctors chose not
to document the injuries observed on admission, instead referring to the hospital report obtained at the
end of police custody. Moreover, with very few exceptions, no record was kept of statements made
by the prisoner concerned as to the origin of the injuries, and there was no mention of the conclusions
on the consistency of the injuries with any recorded statements. There was also no dedicated trauma
register in most of the establishments visited.
As regards the reporting of injuries, at
Bakırköy Prison for Women,
the delegation saw
examples of recorded injuries being communicated to the relevant prosecutor. That said, it appeared
that this was not systematically done in this establishment, including in cases where the injuries had
allegedly been caused by police violence. In some of the other prisons visited, the management
considered that, in order for them to notify the prosecutor, there had to be a written statement
by the prisoner concerned about the alleged ill-treatment. Furthermore, some of the prison doctors
met by the delegation were not aware how and to whom they should report injuries and allegations
of ill-treatment, and one doctor even told the delegation that it was not his duty to report such cases
to the prison management or to the prosecutor.
39.
Moreover, the CPT notes with great concern that, in the same way as during previous visits
to Turkey, the health-care services in the prisons visited were poorly resourced. For instance, at Silivri
Prison No. 5 and Maltepe Prison No. 3, holding some 2,800 and 2,500 inmates respectively, there
was only one doctor and five nurses. At
Şanlıurfa
T-type Prison No. 1, there was only one doctor and
four nurses for almost 1,600 prisoners.
Obviously, under such circumstances, a prison health-care service cannot be expected to
perform its tasks in an effective manner, and certain deficiencies (in particular, such as those
described in paragraph 38) will inevitably occur. Indeed, some of the doctors met by the delegation
expressed their indignation at the current state of affairs and admitted that they were not in a position
to perform a full medical examination on all newly-arrived prisoners.
40.
The CPT once again calls upon the relevant Turkish authorities to take the necessary
steps (including through the issuance of instructions and the provision of training to relevant
staff) to ensure that in all the establishments visited and, where appropriate, in other prisons
in Turkey:
-
all newly-arrived prisoners are subject to a comprehensive medical examination
(including systematic TB screening and voluntary testing for HIV and hepatitis B/C) by
a doctor (or a qualified nurse reporting to a doctor) within 24 hours of admission;
the record drawn up after the medical examination of a prisoner contains: (i) a full
account of objective medical findings based on a thorough examination (supported by
a
“body chart” for marking traumatic injuries and, preferably,
photographs of injuries),
(ii) an account of statements made by the person which are relevant to the medical
examination (including his/her description of his/her state of health and any allegations
of ill-treatment),
and (iii) the doctor’s observations in
the light of (i) and (ii), indicating
the consistency between any allegations made and the objective medical findings.
The record should also contain the results of additional examinations carried out,
detailed conclusions of specialised consultations and a description of treatment given for
injuries and of any further procedures performed. Further, the results of every
examination, including the above-mentioned
statements and the doctor’s conclusions,
should be made available to the prisoner and his/her lawyer;
-
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0022.png
- 22 -
-
all medical examinations of prisoners are conducted out of the hearing and
–
unless
the health-care professional concerned requests otherwise in a particular case
–
out of the sight of non-medical staff;
a special trauma register is kept, in which all types of injury observed are recorded;
whenever injuries are recorded by a health-care professional which are consistent with
allegations of ill-treatment made by the prisoner (or which, even in the absence
of allegations, are indicative of ill-treatment), the record is systematically brought
to the attention of the relevant prosecutor, regardless of the wishes of the person
concerned. The health-care staff should advise prisoners of the existence of the reporting
obligation and that the forwarding of the report to the relevant prosecutor is not
a substitute for the lodging of a formal complaint;
-
-
The CPT also recommends that the Turkish authorities take urgent steps to increase
the health-care staffing levels in the prisons visited, as well as in other prisons where similar
low levels of staffing occur.
41.
The lack of systematic medical screening upon admission (or significant delays in carrying
out such screening) in the establishments visited was of particular concern with respect to prisoners
using drugs. In several prisons visited, the delegation observed that newly-arrived inmates with acute
opioid withdrawal signs (including vomiting, shivering, agitation, abdominal cramps, piloerection
and pain) were left unattended, without receiving painkillers or other symptomatic treatment. Such a
state of affairs is not acceptable.
The CPT recommends that the Turkish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure
that, in all prisons, newly-arrived prisoners with drug addiction problems are systematically
identified and that those suffering from withdrawal signs are promptly provided with adequate
treatment (i.e. substitution treatment or treatment relieving the symptoms).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0023.png
- 23 -
C.
Situation of prisoners held at Imralı F-type
High-Security Prison
42.
At the time of the 2019 visit, Imralı F-type
High-Security
Prison (‘Imralı Prison’) was
accommodating the same four prisoners as in 2016 (three sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment
and one serving a normal life sentence). The delegation interviewed individually and in private all
prisoners, examined their administrative and medical files and spoke with the management and
medical staff.
Following the visit to the prison, the delegation held consultations with the Minister of Justice
and the Chief Prosecutor of Bursa, in Ankara and Bursa respectively, in order to discuss with them
certain issues related to Imralı Prison and, in particular, the issue of prisoners’ contact with the outside
world.
43.
As during previous visits, the delegation received no allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners
by prison officers at Imralı Prison. On the contrary, all prisoners indicated that they were treated
correctly by staff.
44.
The delegation once again gained a positive impression of the health-care services
at Imralı
Prison. In particular, it remained the case that the same four full-time doctors rotated on a weekly
basis (with one week of work on the island and three weeks off) and thus ensured a daily 24-hour
medical cover. Further, prisoners’
access to health care (including any specialist care and medication)
was satisfactory, and the confidentiality of medical data appeared to be respected.
That said, the delegation received allegations that prison officers had been present during
medical consultations.
The CPT reiterates its recommendation that all medical consultations be
conducted out of the hearing of prison officers.
45.
Material conditions of detention remained generally satisfactory for all prisoners and do not
call for any particular comments.
46.
However, the situation had not improved at all since the April 2016 visit regarding the regime.
All prisoners were still allowed to associate in collective activities for only six hours per week,
including three hours of ‘conversation’, one hour of volleyball, one hour of basketball and one hour
of badminton/darts. They were also offered three additional activities for a total of three hours per
week (including one hour of painting/handicrafts, one hour of table tennis and one hour of board
games). However, prisoners were still not allowed to participate in these additional activities all
together, but only in pairs. Due to this limitation, they categorically refused to take part in any of
the aforementioned additional activities.
Whilst acknowledging that all prisoners continued to be offered four hours of outdoor exercise
per day (two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon),
23
it is a matter of serious concern
that, despite the specific recommendation made by the Committee in the report on the 2016 visit, the
prisoners concerned were still not allowed to associate during outdoor exercise.
23
The prisoner who is serving a normal life sentence had unrestricted access to the outdoor exercise adjacent to
his cell during the daytime.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0024.png
- 24 -
As a result, all prisoners were being held in solitary confinement for most of the time
(i.e. 159 hours out of 168 hours per week,
including 24 hours per day at weekends). In the CPT’s
view, such a state of affairs is not acceptable. As indicated in the report on the 2016 visit, there can
be no legitimate security considerations to justify the imposition of the above-mentioned restrictions
regarding prisoners’ association during outdoor exercise and other organised activities.
The Committee calls upon the Turkish authorities to take steps without further delay
to ensure that all
prisoners held at Imralı Prison are allowed to associate together during daily
outdoor exercise, as well as during all other out-of-cell activities.
47.
More generally, the CPT must stress once again that the underlying concept of the detention
regime of persons sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment, as defined in Section 25 of the Law on
the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (LESSM), is fundamentally flawed and should be
revised not only at
Imralı Prison, but in the prison system as a whole.
24
As indicated in the report
on the April 2016 ad hoc visit, as well as in the reports on the 2013 and 2017 periodic visits,
the imposition of restrictions regarding the regime should, as a matter of principle, lie with the
prison
authorities
and always be based on an
individual
risk assessment, and not be the automatic result of
the type of sentence imposed. Prisoners sentenced to (aggravated) life imprisonment
–
as indeed all
convicted prisoners
–
are sent to prison as a punishment and not to receive punishment.
The CPT once again calls upon the Turkish authorities to carry out a complete overhaul
of the detention regime applied to prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment
in Turkish prisons, in the light of the precepts set out in paragraphs 82 to 84 of the report
on the 2013 visit.
25
To this end, the relevant legislation should be amended accordingly.
48.
The issue of contact with the outside world
of prisoners held at Imralı Prison has been
the subject of a long-standing intense dialogue between the CPT and the Turkish authorities
(including through consultations at ministerial level), given that no visits by lawyers had been granted
since July 2011 and that hardly any visits by family members had taken place since October 2014.
26
The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that, following the military coup attempt of 15 July
2016, a total ban on contacts with the outside world (including correspondence) was imposed on all
prisoners held at Imralı Prison by the competent enforcement judge
(and upheld by the appeal court),
which resulted in a type of incommunicado imprisonment. As repeatedly stressed by the CPT in its
dialogue with the Turkish authorities, such a state of affairs is not acceptable and clearly contravenes
various relevant international human rights instruments and standards.
Moreover, the CPT has misgivings about the fact that, from July 2016 until the end of the state
of emergency in July 2018, family visits were denied on the basis of legal provisions which were
formally applicable only to remand prisoners.
24
25
26
See also Rules 6 and 102.2 of the European Prison Rules (and the Commentary to the aforementioned Rules),
as well as Recommendation Rec (2003) 23 on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and
other long-term prisoners.
See also Rules 43 and 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson
Mandela Rules).
Abdullah Öcalan was allowed to receive a visit from his brother twice (on 11 September 2016 and 12 January
2019).
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0025.png
- 25 -
49.
The CPT also notes with great concern that, following the lifting of the state of emergency,
all prisoners continued to be denied visits by their lawyers and family members. Decisions to refuse
access to lawyers were repeatedly taken by the competent enforcement judge, each time for a period
of six months, on the basis of Section 59 of the LESSM.
27
As regards family visits, the official justification for refusing visits appears to be rather
specious. Since the lifting of the state of emergency, decisions have been taken every three months
by the Disciplinary Board of
Imralı Prison (on the basis of Section 43, paragraph 2 (e), of the LESSM)
to impose on all prisoners the disciplinary sanction of prohibition of family visits for a period of three
months for having committed the disciplinary offence of ‘hindering sports activities’ by spending
time in the open air during ‘sports activity hours’ without actively exercising the type of sports that
had been scheduled for those hours.
28
In this regard, the CPT wishes to stress again that any restrictions on family contacts as a form
of disciplinary punishment should be applied only when the offence relates to such contacts,
29
which
is obviously not the case in the present situation.
50.
The CPT welcomes the fact that, prior to its May 2019 visit, the judicial ban on lawyers’ visits
was lifted, and that, on 2 May 2019, Abdullah Öcalan was granted the first visit by two of his lawyers
since July 2011. Further, according to the Turkish authorities’ letter dated 24 October 2019, lawyers’
visits also took place on 22 May, 12 June, 18 June and 7 August 2019. However, since 7 August
2019, all requests for visits submitted by lawyers have apparently been turned down.
As regards family visits, the situation has slightly improved since the May 2019 visit with all
prisoners being able to receive a visit from a family member on 5 June and 12 August 2019, despite
the existence of new disciplinary sanctions of prohibition of family visits for the above-mentioned
reasons.
30
27
28
29
30
Section 59 of the LESSM
inter alia
stipulates:
“(7)
In the event that it is understood that a meeting between the
sentenced prisoner falling under paragraph 5 [i.e. convicted for involvement in organised crime, crimes against
national security or constitutional order and crimes falling within the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Law] and
his/her lawyer is used for one of the purposes stated in the same paragraph [i.e. endangering public security and
the security of the penitentiary institution, directing terrorist or other criminal organisations or giving orders and
instructions to them], the meeting shall be stopped immediately and a report containing the reasoning shall be
drawn up on the matter. Advance warning shall be given to the parties in this regard before the start of a meeting;
(8) If a report is drawn up pursuant to paragraph 7, the enforcement judge may, at the request of the chief public
prosecutor’s office, impose a ban on meetings between the prisoner concerned and his/her lawyers for a period
of six months. The decision on such a ban shall be notified to the prisoner and immediately to the relevant bar
association for the appointment of a new lawyer. The chief public prosecutor’s office may request the
chairmanship of the bar association to replace the lawyer allocated by them.
[…]”
According to disciplinary decisions provided to the delegation, the prisoners concerned had played basketball
during the weekly one-hour
period officially scheduled for ‘basketball activity’. However, after approximately
20 minutes, they stopped playing basketball and commenced engaging in conversations in the exercise yard.
See Rule 60.4 of the European Prison Rules and the Commentary to that Rule; see also paragraph 139 of
the report on the 2017 visit.
The visits were granted by the Minister of Justice
on the occasion of a ‘religious, national or other special day’,
by virtue of his discretionary power under Section 85 of the LESSM and Section 15 of the Regulation on Visiting
Convicts and Remand Prisoners.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0026.png
- 26 -
51.
As mentioned in the report on the April 2016 visit, the Committee acknowledges that there
may be valid security reasons to introduce certain restrictions vis-à-vis prisoners on the exercise of
their right to have contacts with the outside world. However, a balance must be struck between such
security considerations and the basic human rights of the prisoners concerned.
The measures taken thus far by the Turkish authorities since the May 2019 visit are
a significant step in the right direction. That said, much more needs to be done to render the situation
acceptable. More specifically, a sustainable system of regular visits by family members and lawyers
should be developed for all prisoners held
at Imralı Prison.
The CPT urges the Turkish authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that all
prisoners at Imralı Prison are effectively able, if they so wish, to receive visits from their
relatives and lawyers. To this end, an end should be put to the practice of imposing a ban on
family visits for ‘disciplinary’ reasons.
Further,
the Committee requests the Turkish authorities to provide
–
on a monthly
basis
–
an account of the visits which all
prisoners held at Imralı Prison have received from
their family members and lawyers.
52.
During the visit, the delegation was informed that the ban on correspondence had been lifted
and that prisoners were henceforth allowed to send and receive letters (subject to security measures
applied in all Turkish prisons).
The Committee would like to receive confirmation that this is still
the case.
53.
Since April 2016, Imralı Prison had
been visited by the competent prison monitoring board
five times.
31
That said, according to the information available, no such visits have thus far taken place
in 2019.
The CPT recommends that members of the competent prison monitoring board be
reminded of their legal obligation to visit Imralı Prison (as well as other prisons under their
authority) on a regular basis.
Further,
the Committee would like to receive copies of the reports on all visits carried out
by the competent prison monitoring board to Imralı Prison in 2019 and 2020.
31
In June 2016; March and October 2017; May and October 2018.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0027.png
- 27 -
APPENDIX I:
List of the establishments visited by the CPT’s delegation
Law enforcement establishments
Ankara Police Headquarters:
- Anti-Terror Department
- Homicide Department
- Law and Order Department
- Narcotics Department
- Organised Crime Department
- Theft Department
Diyarbakır
Police Headquarters:
- Anti-Terror Department
- Narcotics Department
Diyarbakır-Hani
Police Station
Diyarbakır-Huzur
Police Station
Diyarbakır-Yenişehir Police Station
Diyarbakır
Regional Gendarmerie Commandership
Diyarbakır-Mermer
Gendarmerie Station
Istanbul Police Headquarters:
- Anti-Terror Department
- Common Detention Facility
Istanbul-Sultanbeyli District Police Headquarters
Istanbul-Sancaktepe Police Station
Istanbul-Ahmet Yesevi Police Station
Şanlıurfa Police Headquarters:
- Anti-Terror Department
- Juveniles Department
- Narcotics Department
Prisons
Diyarbakır
D-type High-Security Prison
Diyarbakır E-type
Prison
Diyarbakır
T-type Prison No. 2
Diyarbakır
Juvenile Prison
Imralı F-type
High-Security Prison
Istanbul Bakırköy Prison for Women
Istanbul-Metris T-type Prison No. 1
Istanbul-Silivri Prison No. 5
Istanbul-Silivri Prison No. 6
Istanbul-Maltepe L-type Prison No. 1
Istanbul-Maltepe L-type Prison No. 3
Şanlıurfa E-type
Prison
Şanlıurfa T-type
Prison No. 1
Şanlıurfa T-type
Prison No. 2
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0028.png
- 28 -
APPENDIX II:
List of the national authorities, other bodies and non-governmental
organisations
with which the
CPT's delegation held consultations
A.
National authorities
Ministry of Justice
Abdulhamit GÜL
Selahaddin MENTEŞ
Şaban YILMAZ
Dr. Hacı Ali AÇIKGÜL
Mehmet YILMAZ
Dr. Davut ÖKSÜZ
Ali Murat NAS
Fatih GÜNGÖR
Selahattin DOĞAN
Nazmiye AYDEMİR
Hüseyin KOCABAY
Minister of Justice
Deputy Minister
Director General of Prisons and Detention Houses
Head of Human Rights Department
Deputy Director General of Prisons and Detention Houses
Senior Counselor of the Ministry, Advisor to the Minister
Deputy Director General of Legislation, Advisor to the Minister
Head of Department, Directorate General of Prisons and
Detention Houses
Head of Department, Directorate General of Foreign Relations
and EU
Chief of Section, Directorate General of Prisons and Detention
Houses
Rapporteur Judge, General Directorate of Prisons and Detention
Houses
Ministry of the Interior
Süleyman SOYLU
Muhterem İNCE
Ali ÇELİK
Selami HÜNER
Erhan GÜLVEREN
Mehmet Fatih SERDENGEÇTİ
Savaş ÜNLÜ
Brig. Gen. Cengiz YILDIZ
Abdülaziz AYDIN
Minister of the Interior
Governor, Deputy Minister
Director General of Provincial Administration
Deputy Director General of Turkish National Police
Deputy Director General of Turkish National Police
Deputy Director General of Turkish National Police
Head of EU Affairs and Foreign Relations Department
Head of Strategy and Foreign Relations, General Command of
Gendarmerie
Head of Department of Supporting Services, Directorate General
of Migration Management
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 152: Henvendelse af 8/12-20 fra Internationalt Initiativ vedr. Abdullah Öcalan
2301183_0029.png
- 29 -
Mehmet MUT
Kemal Turan ACAR
Advisor to the Minister
Assistant EU Expert, EU Affairs and Foreign Relations
Department
Ministry of Health
Prof. Muhammet GÜVEN, MD
Prof. Rahmi KILIÇ, MD
Selami KILİÇ, MD
Bekir
KESKİNKILIÇ, MD
Pınar KOÇATAKAN, MD
Esra ALATAŞ, MD
Azmi EKMEN
Deputy Minister
Director General of Public Hospitals
Director General of EU and Foreign Affairs
Deputy Director General of Public Health
Head of Department
Head of Department
Head of Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kıvılcım KILIÇ
Neval ORBAY
Çiğdem PATTABAN
Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Bursa
Gökhan ȘEN
B.
Other bodies
President of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of
Turkey, Head of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)
Chief Prosecutor
Ambassador, Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs,
Council of Europe and Human Rights
Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human
Rights, CPT’s liaison officer
Head of Department for the Council of Europe
Süleyman ARSLAN
C.
Non-governmental organisations
Human Rights Association
Human Rights Foundation of Turkey