MONDAY, 3 APRIL 2000

VIOLENCE  AGAINST WOMEN IN EUROPE AND RAPE IN ARMED CONFLICT

 

 

     Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs for their contribution to the debate on

     women’s rights. Violence against women and rape in armed conflict are closely

     inter-related subjects that deserve in-depth discussion; appropriate solutions must be

     found across Europe.

In 1934, Turkey became one of the first countries in Europe to grant women the right to

     vote. Turkey attaches great importance to the rights of women. Women are active in all

     sectors of our economic, cultural and social life. They hold high-level positions in

     administrative, legislative and judicial organs of the state. The presidency of the Human

     Rights Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly is held by a woman,

     Mrs Píkínsüt.

 

      Moreover, Turkey takes all measures necessary to improve legislation on the protection

     of women’s rights and dignity. A draft law amending the Turkish civil code, which

     envisages some substantial improvements in the rights of women, is under discussion in

     our parliament.

 

      I have been a gynaecologist for fifteen years, so I am particularly concerned about

     violence against women. The level of violence against women and the number of such

     cases in Turkey are not much higher than in other European countries. Our local

     authorities have established shelters to help women who have been subjected to violence.

 

      Rape in armed conflict is one of the worst forms of violence against women. I support the

     call for governments to set up special multidisciplinary programmes for female rape

     victims and an appropriate social assistance framework.

 

      I emphasise the fact that I subscribe to the proposals and ideas in the draft

     recommendation.

 

     

Mrs GÜLEK (Turkey).– I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on very well

     prepared reports. Yet again, the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men

     has contributed very valuable work to our Assembly. I would like to thank the members

     who are present at this debate and wish that this discussion had attracted more of our

     colleagues.

 

   The report on violence against women covers a wide range of violence. There is such a

     wide range of important subjects that each one could easily constitute a report in itself.

     The analysis of violence, its definition, and its origins is an especially good one. Violence against women is very widespread – more widespread than most of us probably realise,  as the report points out, and always the same. Despite its prevalence, little is known about it. Why is this? Because a vicious cycle develops that leads to the relatively silent

     continuation of violence against women. Women rarely come out and speak about the

     violence they have undergone. They are often afraid of their spouse or partner, of police,

     of societal pressure. Also, there is pressure to treat domestic violence as a private family

     affair. Many women also feel feelings of shame and guilt when they are abused. Society

     often leads them to think that somehow they must have done something wrong to bring

     violent behaviour on themselves; they often do not know where to turn.

 

   As a result, women often do not speak out. That leads to a lack of adequate statistics,

     which is further complicated by the fact that there is no stereotype of a violent person and  therefore, no way to guess. Across economic and social classes and across all countries,

     there are no common characteristics of perpetrators of violence. These difficulties,

     coupled with resistance to accept the extent of the problem, leads to this tragic and

     unchecked, unpunished continuation of violence against women.

 

      Women need to feel safe and protected, both physically and legally, in order to speak

     out. As members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we have a big

     responsibility to, first of all, unconditionally condemn all kinds of violence against women.

 

      Member countries should aim to pass and improve legislation to address this issue. We

     should also benefit from each others’ experience.

 

      In my own country, Turkey, we passed a law for the protection of the family, which is a

     very good law that ensures the distancing of the violent spouse or partner from the home.

     The law has been so welcome and information about it so well disseminated to women

     that many Middle Eastern countries have been encouraged by its success and have begun

     to translate it in order to pass it in their respective parliaments. Trafficking of women is

     also very important and requires much more international co-operation.

 

      I wish these two valuable reports had their own proper separate debates, but on the

     subject of rape in armed conflicts we cannot even begin discussions until we all very

     strongly endorse the fact that rape in armed conflicts must be viewed as a war crime and

     treated as such legally. We welcome the development that the International Court of

     Justice now considers rape a crime against humanity, has widened the definition of rape to  include many forms of rape during armed conflicts.

 

    To sum up, I would say that we need much more data on violence: we need to set up

     training programmes for staff that will deal with rape and violence victims; and counselling should also be available to violent partners. Greater protection must be available to  women, and information about such assistance should be widely disseminated.

 

     

The Council of Europe can have a tremendous impact by increasing public awareness on

     the extent of violence against women, `and by educational campaigns. But the first step

     must be an unconditional condemnation of all kinds of violence against women. I

     wholeheartedly support these two very valuable reports.        

   

 

THURSDAY, 6 APRIL 2000

SITUATION IN CHEHCNYA

 

     Ms GULEK (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs for a truly colossal amount of work in

preparing the reports. Today, we are addressing whether the situation has changed   and  whether there have been concrete developments in Chechnya since our decision in  January. Has there been a ceasefire? I do not think so. There are some encouraging

improvements and we believe that the new delegation of Russian members of          Parliament  is sincere in its wishes and determination to change the situation. However, this is not  enough at this point.

 

    We need to decide whether we take a firm stand and send a strong message, or whether we let another three months go by while we watch more bloodshed in Chechnya. The  situation on the ground is not changing, and we must consider that.

 We do not deny Russia’s right to fight a terrorist threat, and we have never denied that.

However, a clear distinction must be made between terrorist and civilian targets - a

distinction Russia has failed to make. Targeting terrorists is Russia’s right in fighting

terrorism, but killing innocent civilians - including women and children - raping women and     indiscriminately bombing entire cities to the ground, cannot be approved. We have heard      stories of the collection of young men in concentration camps, which is called a process of      filtration, and reports of torture and killing. These are not ways of fighting terrorism, and      we must put our foot down in this regard.

 

 Russia is not complying with its obligations to the Council of Europe, and has so far

preferred to consider this an internal matter. However, in our world, such gross violations    cannot be considered as domestic issues any longer.

 

In January, we did our best, and we did what we thought was right at the time. However,

there have been no concrete results - although we do not deny that there have been some

encouraging signs - and it is a shame that the international community has not sent a strong     message to Russia. We had a chance in January, but we decided to wait for specific aims  to be achieved. That is what we must think about today.

 

Now is the opportunity for us to wait no longer. The Council of Europe needs to show  that it takes a firm and serious stance on this matter; it must avoid double standards. We  Must not forget that only a few days ago we took harsh measures against Ukraine, which has committed only a small fraction of these gross violations. The argument that members  who are excluded, distanced or punished by not having their credentials approved today    is not convincing. Following changes to the Russian constitution, members of the Duma,  the legislative body, do not have the right to take ameliorative action - the executive body  has that right.

 

I propose what many of my colleagues have already proposed, and which I

wholeheartedly support, and that is the middle ground - to continue the dialogue with the  new members who are here with us, but to suspend voting rights so that the Council of Europe is seen to send a very strong message that it is serious about the issue. It is in our  best interests that we do not just keep talking, because we could get caught up in words  very easily. We are talking about waiting another three months. Every member should  vote with his or her conscience today on what they believe is best. I think that it is best to  take the healthy middle ground of approving the credentials but suspending voting rights.

 

Mr KALKAN (Turkey).– The situation in Chechnya continues to be a source of

very grave concern.  These concerns mainly focus on the humanitarian situation of the

 civilian population and those held in the detention camps.  There are serious allegations

that these people have been and possibly are still being subjected to treatment

incompatible with human rights.  As a member of the Council of Europe, the Russian

Federation has a responsibility to fulfil her international obligations and follow a

transparent investigation process regarding all these allegations. 

 

On the other hand, as an international body which has democracy, human rights

and the rule of law as its guiding principles, the Council of Europe has a commitment to be more involved in the human rights violations in Chechnya.

One should remember that the southern Caucasus continues to be an area of

instability.  The region, as a natural consequence of its geographical position, is open to

extremist tendencies.

 

Being an indivisible part of European stability, the Caucasus needs our full

attention and responsible action.  Therefore, it is high time for the Council of Europe not

only to establish a presence in the region but also to take every necessary step for the full  observance of human rights , fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in Chechnya.

 

 We have a responsibility to create an atmosphere conducive to healing the

 wounds of the present aggravated humanitarian situation in the region caused by the

 military operation.

 

 Creation of such an atmosphere is also necessary to help the suffering Chechen

 population live in peace and security and to eliminate the threat of instability in the region.

 

 Keeping Russian representatives among us, we also become directly responsible

 from the humanitarian aspect of the armed conflict in Chechnya.  We have to coerce

 Russia to abide by her obligations deriving from Council of Europe membership.     

 

TOWARDS UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS

 

 

     Mr AKÇALI (Turkey) said that the proposal to set up a general judicial authority was

     very interesting and needed further discussion. In general, he found the report satisfactory.

There was a clear need for greater uniformity and co-operation in relation to international

greements within the Council of Europe. However, he questioned whether it would be

realistic to have a single judicial authority responsible for over 175 conventions and

protocols. Such a body would have a very heavy burden and would have to cover an

extremely wide range of topics. A number of Council of Europe conventions already

provided for mechanisms to ensure control as well as uniform interpretation and

application, and these were functioning well. For example, there was the committee

responsible for the European Social Charter. Agreements should be controlled by

committees of independent experts. One important function of such agreements was

international co-operation. In creating a new institution, other issues also had to be

considered. The first such issue was the scarce financial resources of the Council of

Europe. The budget had not increased for many years, making the recommendation

unrealistic. This did not mean that it was not important to uphold the agreements and

conventions of the Council of Europe.