The current situation in the police stations: legal safeguards not fully implementedThe contacts made by Human Rights Watch for this survey provided an opportunity to gather bar associations’ views on police compliance nationwide with legal and procedural safeguards for detainees, particularly since the introduction of the new criminal procedure code in June 2005. The picture as presented is of generally good compliance with safeguards, marred by poor performance in some police units in some areas. Bar representatives throughout Turkey were unanimous that police compliance with detention procedures had improved considerably since the end of the 1990s. All confirmed that police rarely held detainees in excess of the four-day maximum detention period, for example. No bar representative suggested that there was systematic obstruction of lawyers’ access to their clients, but lawyers from many provinces said that they are not always granted access during the whole of the interrogation, but rather that access was sometimes delayed until the time when the detainee signed a statement.8 Several bar association representatives complained that once the lawyer arrived, the process of interrogation and taking a statement tended to become rushed and confused to such an extent that it interfered with the lawyer’s ability to assist in their client’s defense. Van bar representative Murat Timur recounted the case of a group of eighty students from Van Yüzyıl University, detained in early June, whose lawyers were initially denied access, and held a series of six press conferences in protest before they finally were admitted to their clients. Moreover, the following examples of allegations of ill-treatment arose when police denied detainees access to legal counsel. Remzi Temel, detained for thirty-six hours under the Anti-Terror Law on May 18, 2005, claimed that police at Ankara police headquarters insulted and beat him when he asked for access to legal counsel.9 Hacı Çetin, detained on May 26 at Çukurca police headquarters in Hakkari province, reported that he was stripped of his clothes, beaten, and threatened with rape and murder while in custody.10 Shepherds Reşat Bozkurt and Mustafa Taşkıran, detained at Doğubeyazıt gendarmerie headquarters in Ağrı province on July 20, reported that they were beaten and held for two days without access to counsel, and they subsequently received medical certificates from the local hospital documenting injuries.11 Bar representatives stated that gendarmes more commonly delayed and obstructed access than police. For example, the representative of Erzincan bar association said that in June 2005 gendarmes denied him access to a client they were holding on the grounds that it was after 5 p.m. and therefore “after business hours.”12 Representatives from Adana, Tokat and Niğde bar associations said that although they had access to their clients, police did not provide a suitable room where they could meet clients within the sight, but not hearing, of the police. One lawyer described having to meet with his client in the police station kitchen.13 Other complaints about non-implementation of safeguards that were mentioned by bar representatives included police officers and gendarmes in Kocaeli, Sivas and Van provinces sometimes improperly registering detainees, or registering them some hours after their actual time of detention.14 This potentially dangerous abuse not only extends the detention period, but means that for a period of hours detainees are effectively “disappeared.” Detainees’ right to notify their families is generally respected by police in western Turkey, but in the eastern provinces of Ağrı, Bingöl and Van, bar representatives mentioned that police cannot be relied upon to permit notification of relatives.15 Several bar representatives reported that gendarmes are less dependable than the police in this matter. Gendarmes’ failure to notify relatives was reported from western provinces such as Afyonkarahisar as well as Erzincan.16 Several lawyers affirmed that respect for detained children’s rights was good, and three spoke approvingly of the scrupulous operation of the police children’s bureaus in Diyarbakır, Trabzon and Şanlıurfa.17 There are exceptions to this positive picture, however. Human Rights Watch was told of an occasion when gendarmes in Erzincan province interrogated a minor and obtained a statement before referring the child to the prosecutor—and this, though ill-treatment was not alleged, was a clear breach of detention procedures.18 Van bar association representative Murat Timur mentioned irregularities in police procedure surrounding the alleged beating of minor T.K., detained on September 22, 2004, at the children’s bureau of Van police headquarters. Police were present in the room during his medical examination, and consequently open wounds allegedly caused by the beating were not recorded. Murat Timur noticed traces of blood on his client’s clothing during interrogation at the prosecutor’s office, and had T.K. examined a second time. Three police officers were subsequently charged with ill-treating him.19 [8] Human rights watch telephone interviews with Zekeriya Aydın, president of the Batman bar association, June 21, 2005; Ankara bar association representative Süleyman Çetin, July 27, 2005; Gaziantep bar association representative Cahit Şimşek, July 6, 2005; Giresun bar association representative Ahmet Türksal, July 13, 2005; Kayseri bar association representative Uğur Altun, July 12, 2005; and Van bar association representative Murat Timur, June 21, 2005. [9] Yıldızer, Ö. “Asılsız ihbar skandal baskın” (“Scandalous raid after groundless allegation”), Evrensel (Universal) (Istanbul), May 22, 2005. [10] Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, April-May-June 2005 bulletin. [11] “Sürü başında gözaltına alınan çobanlara işkence iddiası” (“Torture allegation of shepherds detained from their flocks”), Özgür Gündem (Free Agenda) (Istanbul), July 22, 2005. [12] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Erzincan bar association representative Talip Nayır, July 12, 2005. [13] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Adana bar association representative Fatma Kaymaz Son, July 25, 2005, Tokat bar association representative Nedim Başaran, August 15, 2005, and Niğde bar association representative Ali Altın, August 23, 2005. [14] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Kocaeli bar association representative Mehmet Akay, July 27, 2005; and Sivas bar association representative Hasan Huseyın Yıldız, July 14, 2005; [15] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Ağrı bar association representative Mahmut Kaçan, June 28, 2005; Bingöl bar association representative Abdullah Kaldık, June 21, 2005; and Van bar association representative Murat Timur, June 21, 2005. [16] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Afyonkarahisar bar association representative Fatih Özsoy, August 17, 2005; and Erzincan bar association representative Talip Nayır, July 12, 2005. [17] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Diyarbakır bar association representative Kasım Alpkaya, June 16, 2005; Trabzon bar association representative Ömer Faruk Altıntaş, June 17, 2005; and Şanlıurfa bar association representative Devrim Polat Divri, June 22, 2005. [18] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Erzincan bar association representative Talip Nayır, July 12, 2005. [19] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Van bar association representative Murat Timur, June 21, 2005.
|