AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ HAZİRAN 2004 GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPTIĞI KONUŞMALAR

(21-25 Haziran 2004, Strazburg)

Türkiye’nin Yükümlülük ve Taahhütlerini Yerine Getirmesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarının Türkiye Tarafından Yerine Getirmesi

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I thank all our rapporteurs for their comprehensive work. I appreciate the co-operative and constructive attitude that they took during the preparation of both reports.

I want to make some general comments about Mr Jurgens’s report. As everyone knows, the execution of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights is a complex and lengthy process. The execution of some judgments may require more time, while others raise complex political problems. At any meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies in a DH format, there will be hundreds of cases applying to all member states. That does not imply, however, that judgments are not executed.

The system depends on the undertakings and good will of member states. For that reason I hope that this will be the last country-by-country report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I believe that a report of a general nature, dealing with the execution of judgments of the Court in a general way, would help the countries more, because the issue is general, involving not just one or two but all member states in the Council of Europe.

Turkey has always complied with her commitments. Substantial, concrete and consistent progress has been achieved in the implementation of all categories of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights following the legislative and administrative reforms carried out by the Turkish authorities. In executing judgments, as well as satisfying justice, Turkey took general measures, amending the relevant laws and regulations and even the provisions of the constitution. There have been further developments since the report was adopted by the committee, which are relevant to the report. I will not list them all, however.

I want to touch briefly on the monitoring report prepared by Ms Delvaux-Stehres and Mr Van den Brande. It makes a fair and balanced analysis of what has been achieved in Turkey in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as what remains to be done.

Turkey has taken a strong and decisive attitude to complying with its obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe. The last few years have been a period of constant change, as many of our colleagues have said. Without the support of the opposition party, all those reforms and changes would not have been possible. I am proud to be part of the Social Democratic party for that reason.

Turkey has abolished the death penalty, thus contributing to the creation of a death penalty-free zone in Europe. It has adopted a zero-tolerance policy on crimes of torture and ill-treatment. Important measures have been taken to enable greater enjoyment of the rights of freedom of expression and association, and the state of emergency has been lifted throughout the country. Some of those measures could not have been imagined by some of us a few years ago.

I extend my sincere thanks to all our rapporteurs for their hard and invaluable work. I appreciate all the good things all our colleagues have said today about Turkey and the reforms in our country.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I begin by extending my sincere thanks to all our rapporteurs, including Mr Van den Brande and Mr Jurgens, for their comprehensive study and reports. As chairman of the Turkish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, I want to thank them for the co-operative and constructive attitude that they have shown in preparing the reports.

The report prepared by the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee is balanced, and its findings seem constructive in many respects. It examines not only the far-reaching reform process being pursued in Turkey, but the underlying political developments. It well describes a country that has undergone a change in mentality, resulting in radical reforms that could not have been put on the agenda for discussion previously. Perhaps some of our colleagues on the Monitoring Committee do not know that a reform process is still going on in the Turkish Parliament as I speak.

As the report points out, more reforms have been undertaken, and in a more vigorous and determined manner, in the past two years than in the previous decade. That is nothing less than a clear indication of Turkey’s strong commitment to continuing to meet the demands of the Turkish public in terms of further promoting democracy and human rights standards. We are moving in a determined and calculated manner, and although the reform process in Turkey is not complete, it is already irreversible. We are aware that one can change a lot on paper – one can change the rules and the legislation – but by implementing the rules effectively, one can change even attitudes.

I am happy to inform you that there have been many changes in my country, a number of which have already been discussed today. In addition to the constitutional and legal changes that have been discussed – I shall not discuss them further – I want to announce a few other changes that will take place in the next few weeks, and which have already been decided on as of today.

On Mr Jurgens’ report, the authorities of northern Cyprus, in pursuing their positive approach as adopted in the referendum on 24 April 2004, continue to act in a co-operative manner by adopting general measures to ensure the execution of the Court’s judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey. Concrete steps have been taken, such as opening a Greek Cypriot secondary school in northern Cyprus. The council of ministers in northern Cyprus passed a resolution on 21 May 2004 to facilitate the opening of such schools. In the next semester, a Greek language school will be opened in Karpass, and we have an initiative to enable girls to go to school in the south-eastern region of my country. Some 50 000 girls are obliged to go to school, and the district authorities are very keen that their families co-operate in this regard. For us, human rights are very important, and illiteracy is an issue that we must deal with.

A law concerning compensation for persons who were displaced in 1990 during the Kurdish terrorist activities will be passed in the Turkish Parliament either this week or next, and it will deal with the ninth reform package next week. In other words, by the time that we pass the various amendments, your report will become, I am sorry to say, somewhat obsolete.

I should also point out that Turkey is a European country and a secular country, and we are not going to give up our secularity. It used to be the military that supported secularism, but now, the political parties from left to right will abide by the rules of the Council of Europe and put forward that view. I thank you for your support

Mr Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – First, I thank all the rapporteurs for their comprehensive work. If I may dwell on the monitoring report prepared by Ms Delvaux-Stehres and Mr Van den Brande, I believe that they succeeded in preparing a remarkable and comprehensive report that touches on almost every aspect of the progress made by Turkey and the progress yet to be achieved. Only a couple of years ago, everyone questioned whether Turkey would be able to meet the democratic criteria that would allow the end of the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring, but we have now met the criteria.

Turkey is pursuing an ambitious reform campaign with courage and determination. Turkish democracy has been upgraded and deepened, and our legislation has been modernised to conform to the high standards of the Council of Europe. Full transparency of public expenditure, good governance and gender equality have been further improved by the new constitutional reform package that was adopted by our parliament last month.

For decades, Turkey’s laws permitted capital punishment, although that was not carried out. Last year, our government formally abolished capital punishment. Last, but not least, the constitutional reform package that was adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly enshrined the concept of the total abolition of the death penalty in the provisions of our constitution.

Public television and radio broadcasts in all the dialects and languages traditionally used by our people have started. The civilian nature of the administration has been further consolidated. Anti-corruption laws have been passed and the major anti-corruption conventions have been signed. Turkey ratified the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption on 29 March 2004, and that will enter into force in Turkey on 1 July this year. Legislation to promote more transparency in the administration and to increase the accountability of civil servants has been adopted. Recently, Leyla Zana and three other imprisoned former deputies have been set free by the court of cassation.

I have not presented an exhaustive list. I have outlined some facts to show that there has been a healthy change to all walks of life in Turkey over some time. Such change has been accompanied by legal and constitutional amendments, the aim of which was to raise the standards of democracy in Turkey and enable the broader implementation of basic rights and freedoms. If that progress demonstrates one thing, it is that when a functioning democracy and judiciary exist, desired results will eventually be achieved. That is why the institutions and legal system in Turkey, as well as its people and their good will, must be trusted, because everyone acted – and continues to act – in a responsible manner throughout the whole reform process.

It is clear that the reform process in Turkey is not complete, but it is irreversible. We are moving in a determined and calculated manner. We have the political will to be committed to the reform process and its full implementation. We are fully aware that it is in Turkey’s own interests to proceed with the reforms and that that will be of benefit to our people.

Finally, I apologise to the rapporteurs for the inconvenience caused by the rapid progress in Turkey, which meant that they often had to make changes to their reports.

Mr AKÇAM (Turkey). – I would like to begin by thanking all the rapporteurs, Ms Delvaux-Stehres and Mr Van den Brande and Mr Jurgens, for their comprehensive reports on Turkey, their comments and criticisms derived from a scrutinised examination of my country and are of crucial importance.

Turkey has indeed been in the process of intensive political reforms since the first constitutional amendments of October 2001.  Since the seven comprehensive legislative reform packages have been enacted by an overwhelming majority of the parliament.  Consequently, Turkey has delivered without default on its pledge to realise political reforms of an historic nature designed to enhance its democratic standards.  We have all witnessed this breakthrough.

The persistent effort of the Turkish authorities to promote democracy and fundamental human rights is the result of increased public awareness about these rights and freedoms, as well as the demand of the Turkish people for greater freedom and dignity.  Reforms having direct effects on the rights and liberties enjoyed by the population have been carried out with an astonishing momentum and coverage.  It goes without saying that this major task has been accomplished with the support of all segments of Turkish society, including the opposition in Parliament, the media and non-governmental organisations as well as international bodies.  Undeniably, it is a process stimulated notably by intensive dialogue and co-operation with the Council of Europe.  The role of the Council of Europe in the creation of an atmosphere of greater liberty in Turkey cannot be underestimated.

The extensive reforms highlighted in the report are aimed at harmonising Turkish legislation with the common standards laid down by the Council of Europe.  They cover a broad range of areas, ensuring substantial progress, inter alia, with regard to abolishing the death penalty, the fight against torture, reforming the prison system, freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, functioning of the judiciary, civil-military relations, economic, social and cultural rights and anti-corruption measures.

The reform packages also included numerous provisions concerning the fight against torture and ill-treatment, a problem that has been identified with Turkey in the past.  The government has announced a zero tolerance policy towards torture and ill-treatment.  This message has clearly been received.  It is a great pleasure to note that torture and ill-treatment, thanks to the latest legislative reforms and practices, have ceased to be a systematic problem.

Obviously, the implementation into practice of these reforms is of utmost importance.  The government has taken important steps to ensure effective and full implementation.  Comprehensive joint projects are under way in conjunction with the Council of Europe and the European Union on human rights training for the security forces as well as the judiciary, in order to increase awareness.  Bilateral programmes with several European countries have also been initiated.  All in all, the critical mass is already attained and the continued determination of the government is absolute and unquestionable.  It is clear that Turkey has recorded great strides of both symbolic and substantial significance for its people as well as for the region and Europe as a whole.

The latest significant improvements in the constitutional reform package, in the cases of Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, and in the broadcasts by public television and radio in local languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives, are proof of the continuous nature of the reforms.

I shall touch briefly upon the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.  I wish to state that Turkey has always complied with her commitments emanating from the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.  To execute the judgments, apart from paying the just satisfaction, Turkey also took general measures and amended the relevant laws and regulations, even the provisions of the constitution.  No-one has any doubt about Turkey’s attachment to the human rights protection mechanisms of the Council of Europe.

Our achievements have served more than one interest.  First, we are giving to our people what they deserve and have the right to have.  Secondly, our performance is facilitating our integration with Europe.  Thirdly, our achievements testify to the fact that European values are common to all when there is a strong willingness and determination to attain the highest standards of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, transparency, accountability and good governance.  There, European values indeed transcend geography and cultures.

In view of the ambitious reform programme currently undertaken and the comprehensive reforms achieved, as well as the strong resolve to implement them, we think that the time is ripe to decide to conclude the monitoring procedure, to which Turkey has been subjected since 1996.

While thanking once again our respective rapporteurs for their invaluable work, I wish to underline that the approval of the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee to conclude the monitoring procedure with Turkey will be a clear and positive response of the Parliamentary Assembly to the sincerety and extraordinary efforts of Turkey and will help to keep this momentum alive and moving in the right direction.

Mr GŰNDŰZ (Turkey). – First, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to our co-rapporteurs Ms Delvaux-Stehres and Mr Van den Brande, as well as Mr Jurgens, for their comprehensive and in-depth work on my country.  We appreciate their constructive efforts, aimed at drawing the true picture of what has been achieved in the reform process in Turkey, especially in the last couple of years, in the fields of democracy and human rights.  Indeed, our government has undertaken political reforms of an historic nature designed to upgrade and enhance democratic standards in Turkey.  It has been an ambitious reform campaign and we are very glad that we are proceeding with the strong support of all segments of Turkish society.

The reforms on which our government has set its imprint speak volumes in themselves.  They are in a broad range of areas from fundamental rights and freedoms to civilian-military relations, and from the abolition of the death penalty to full transparency and accountability of public expenditures.  The substantial progress achieved also relates to areas such as the fight against torture, reforming the prison system, freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, functioning of the judiciary, civil-military relations, economic, social and cultural rights and anti-corruption measures.

The reform process currently underway is a continuous one aimed at attaining perfection.  This process and consequent achievements have been pursued and attained, despite the ramifications of a war on our doorstep in neighbouring Iraq, the residue of an economic crisis during recent years and the global threat of the phenomenon of terrorism.

What has been achieved so far is not merely an end in itself but a sequence of successive reforms.  Thus, the political will displayed in carrying out these legislative reforms bears testament to Turkey’s resolve to ensure effective and uniform implementation.

It is indeed gratifying to see that there is a wide range of appreciation and encouragement regarding Turkey’s decisiveness on the reform process in Europe, particularly in the Council of Europe.

The approval of the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee for the conclusion of the monitoring procedure for Turkey will certainly provide a further positive impetus to the ongoing reform process in Turkey.

Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe by Bosnia-Herzegovina

Mr Süleyman GÜNDÜZ (Turkey) thanked the rapporteurs for the report on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group which was pleased to note that Bosnia and Herzegovina, some two years after its accession to the Council of Europe, was fulfilling most of its commitments.

What was emphasised in both reports were the weaknesses in the state organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some progress had been made. An intelligence agency had been established and reforms were underway in customs and taxation. The Dayton Peace Treaty needed to be revised to allow further reforms.

The High Representative had wide legal and judicial responsibilities which were not compatible with Council of Europe norms and his responsibilities should now be delegated to local people.

Further action was needed on missing persons and to pursue those responsible for atrocities such as the Srebrenica massacre. More pressure on the Serbian Republic was needed for it to deliver war criminals. Co-operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was important to preserve the ethnic diversity of the country. The President of the country had made great efforts to do this and his work should be recognised. There was an important role for the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the co-operation between the Council of Europe and Bosnia and Herzegovina continued. The Liberal Group supported both resolutions

Mr Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Mr President, dear colleagues, first I should like to thank the rapporteurs for their valuable work on the reports entitled “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Bosnia and Herzegovina” and “Strengthening of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Both reports are important contributions to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s integration into European and Euro‑Atlantic structures in general and the Council of Europe in particular. Turkey has strong historical and cultural ties with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and our relations with that country in all fields have always reflected those strong bonds.

We encourage the continuation of the reform process. It is commendable that Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken steps towards the consolidation of a unified state structure. The consolidation of confidence among the constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the key to lasting peace and stability.

I particularly thank the rapporteurs for making space in their reports to deal with two particular issues: missing people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and landmines. More than 16 000 people are still missing in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their families are still awaiting news of their fate. The answer to the problem of the missing people in Bosnia is difficult and is directly related to humanitarian and post-war concerns such as the return of refugees to their homes and the creation of mutual trust between community members of different ethnicities as well as the building of a long-lasting peace. A state law in the parliament has come from the government in Bosnia and I hope this law on missing people will be a good example for other parts of the state.

Another issue is landmines. There are millions of landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the people cannot move freely in their own land. The clearance of landmines is a long and expensive process and we should support Bosnia technically and financially to clear landmines so that people can move freely.

Before I conclude I wish to thank again the rapporteurs of both committees and those involved in producing the report.

Domestic Slavery

Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey) expressed thanks to the rapporteur for a remarkable report on such a disquieting issue. The report perfectly summed up the problem of domestic slavery. She gave the example of a person being made to scrub the floor with a toothbrush three times a day. It was unacceptable that in the twenty-first century people were degraded in that way. The majority of victims were women in vulnerable situations. Appropriate international and national measures had to be implemented to tackle domestic slavery. Human trafficking was an international issue which demanded attention. Legislative structures had to be set up to safeguard individuals’ dignity. National efforts only came into the full picture if they were enforced internationally. The Council of Europe’s draft convention had to be finalised. They should pursue transparent policies on the migration of work forces to ensure that rights were correctly applied. Improving the living conditions of workers was also important, together with securing legal protection and safe housing for victims.

The Council of Europe’s contribution to the settlement of the situation in Iraq

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thought the military intervention in Iraq was totally unnecessary and had thrown the country into civil war. The torture of prisoners had given rise to a major outrage and was damaging to human dignity. It breached many international conventions. It was a serious violation of the values adopted by the international community and should be punished accordingly.

It was now clear that there were no biological weapons in Iraq and that a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 11 September attacks had not been proven. The fundamental rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people had to be secured urgently. The Council of Europe had an important role to play in this regard. It had to take the initiative in this matter.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I consider that this urgent debate is very important and very timely.  It takes place after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004) which unfortunately only included non-binding language on the need to observe humanitarian and human rights law.

The Parliamentary Assembly has an important role to play as far as we are concerned to ensure that the members of the coalition forces and the future multinational force act strictly in accordance with the obligations under international law.  I think this urgent debate and the outcome resolution will be a great help along these lines.

In particular, I believe that the Parliamentary Assembly should urge all Council of Europe member states and observer states that are part of the coalition forces in Iraq to:  condemn torture unreservedly whenever it occurs and make clear to all public officials that torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment will never be tolerated; ensure prompt and impartial investigations of all allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and help to ensure that those allegedly responsible for torture are brought to justice in accordance with international standards for fair trial, as well as reparation for the victims and their dependants; clarify the legal basis and the legal safeguards that will apply to any future arrests or detention at the hand of the multinational force so that they can be held fully accountable for their conduct; provide a list of all places where people, deprived of their liberty, are held in Iraq and ensure that there is full and unhindered access by international organisations to all places where detainees are kept; ensure that through competent, impartial and independent persons, investigations are conducted into all suspected cases of killings of civilians and into all cases where arrested persons have died in the custody of the coalition forces.

On the other hand, following the immense military campaign, the rapid delivery of humanitarian assistance to the innocent Iraqi people is still of high importance and needs our help.

I think this is the time for Europe and its organisations to prove our unity in helping those who are suffering the consequences of war and ensure the swift transformation to a democratic and stable Iraq.

 Monopolisation of the electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – First, I thank Mr Mooney for his excellent report. He has documented very well the situation and his conclusions should alarm us considerably. The electronic media in Italy is dominated by RAI and Mediaset, a duopoly that commands 90% of the television audience and three quarters of the resources in the sector. That is worrying in itself.

However, the real problem, as mentioned by the rapporteur, is that the owner of Mediaset is Mr Berlusconi. As he is also Prime Minister, political and media power is in the hands of one person. The European Parliament resolution of 22 April 2004 talks about the risks of a violation – in the EU and especially in Italy – of freedom of expression and information, dealt with under Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The resolution devotes particular attention to the situation in Italy and reaches the same conclusions as Mr Mooney reaches in his report.

The resolution condemns the repeated and documented instances of government interference, pressure and censorship and notes that the Italian system presents an anomaly owing to a unique combination of economic, political and media power in the hands of one man, the prime minister. Also, beside Mediaset, the Italian Government is directly or indirectly in control of all national television channels. The Italian President is aware of the situation and drew attention to the urgent need for a law to protect the pluralism of information in Italy.

Consequently, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights can do nothing but express its full support for the draft resolution and recommendation presented by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education. We have tabled four amendments but they are not substantial and are aimed at clarifying the terminology. Our committee fully supports Paschal Mooney and his report.

Mr KEPENEK (Turkey). – First, I thank Mr Mooney for his efforts in undertaking this report on a very important issue and documenting all its basic aspects in relation to Italy.

The issue is important not only for Italy, but all over Europe and even around the world, because its political, economic and technological implications need to be dealt with thoroughly. As is well documented in the report, the concentration of economic, political and media power in the hands of one person has created a conflict of interest that must be resolved as soon as possible.

The difficulty is to balance the right of the public to obtain knowledge with private interests. Rules and principles should protect the obtaining of public knowledge; otherwise, the process of democratisation will be curtailed. In a democratic society, the media requires independence, impartiality and a pluralistic structure. We have talked about the freedom of the press; today, we are considering the question of the freedom of the media. Democracy will function properly only if we have a well functioning media. All human rights declarations and agreements state that freedom of expression is very important. Furthermore, in a democratic society it is essential to be able to acquire accurate information.

The issue is also crucial from an economic and commercial point of view. The report mentions structures based on monopolies and duopolies. In the media sphere, a monopoly is no ordinary monopoly. It is qualitatively different: it cannot be compared with a monopoly on salt or matches, for example. A media monopoly cannot be tolerated from a democratic point of view.

The media sector continually makes technological advances – such revolutions take place every day, if not every hour. The holding of monopolies in that sector will intensify the negative or damaging effects that democratic societies face.

The integration and monopolisation of media markets is taking place in many European countries – it is not a purely Italian issue. If political and economic interests interfere in this area, as in the case of Italy, citizens cannot freely exercise their democratic rights and responsibilities.

Certain countries neighbouring Italy, including other Mediterranean countries, are trying to establish democratic institutions, but those institutions still have some shortcomings in terms of their cultural, social and historical background. Italy should not be a bad example to other countries, but a perfect example.

The recommendations in the report should be fully implemented as soon as possible. I hope that the Assembly undertakes a thorough investigation of this subject in relation to other countries. We should set out common rules and basic principles that are practised in all European countries.

Refugees and displaced persons in Russia and other CIS Countries

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur on behalf of the Socialist Group for his very informative report. The situation of displaced persons was a matter of great concern and it was important for leaders to take the problems seriously. Solutions needed to be found and the Council of Europe’s standards had to be met.

The report referred to Meshktetian Turks whose plight was still unresolved. They could not return to their homeland in Georgia. They lived as stateless persons without access to basic services such as education, labour, health and property.

The Council of Europe Development Bank could make a significant contribution to the situation, but it could not intervene directly in countries who were not members of the Bank. He concluded by supporting the draft resolution.