Police Station Monitoring Not Yet Consistent and CountrywideBy the second half of 2004 the Human Rights Presidency was already reporting that monitoring visits by human rights boards had begun,20 and at this writing monitoring is happening in around half of all provinces—Human Rights Watch’s interviews indicated that by September 2005 thirty-one of the eighty-one provincial human rights boards had visited police and gendarme stations, (see Appendix 1) with another ten reported to be about to begin visits that month.21 In a small number of provinces, however, information given by governors to the effect that visiting was frequent and regular was contradicted by bar or medical association representatives who could recall no visits having been carried out. Governors sometimes fail to distinguish between their own internal visits and visits by the human rights boards, and this may explain the discrepancy. The Human Rights Presidency recently started regularly recording police station visits in its quarterly activity reports, but the presidency also made no distinction between internal visits (by governors and prosecutors) and visits by human rights boards.22 The Presidency intends to list internal visits and board visits separately in future reports.23 Representatives of boards in provinces where there had been no visits often seemed to feel that visiting a police station other than on the basis of a personal complaint was unnecessary, inappropriate, or even beyond the boards’ competence. Indeed, the most common explanation board members gave for not using boards’ powers of inspection was that there had been no complaints upon which they could act.24 Many board members were not even aware that the human rights boards are entitled to carry out announced visits, ad hoc (unannounced) visits, or visits in response to media or other reports of ill-treatment in a particular unit. [20] Başbakanlık İnsan Hakları Başkanlığı, “İl Ve İlçe İnsan Hakları Kurulları, Temmuz-Aralık 2004 Faaliyet Raporu” (Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry, “Provincial and Local Human Rights Boards, July-December 2004 Activity Report”). [21] Human Rights Watch contacted representatives from all 81 provincial human rights boards, but did not make contact with the 849 local human rights boards established in each town district (ilçe) and chaired by the local governor (kaymakam). There is no information to suggest that local boards are engaged in police station visiting. It seems unlikely that small communities would be able to provide their board with sufficient personnel or expertise to carry out meaningful monitoring activities. More importantly, a board in a small town setting would be unlikely to be sufficiently distanced from the state and security force authorities to carry out proper supervision. [22] For example, the Human Rights Presidency’s April-June 2005 activity report states that 122 visits were made in that province—54 to gendarmeries and 68 to police stations. The Izmir board carried out no visits during that period. On September 9, 2005, Human Rights Presidency representative Mehmet Altuntaş told Human Rights Watch that the 122 visits were carried out by governors and prosecutors. [23] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Mehmet Altuntaş of the Human Rights Presidency, September 9, 2005. [24] The most consistently reported item of feedback was that boards received few complaints, and that the few that were received were usually “irrelevant.” Examples given were applications about electricity supply, water shortages, or complaints on issues about which courts had already given judgments.
|