It is possible to assert that significant progress has been made in attaining the first target, which is clearly related to foreign policy and international affairs. Yet there is much room for improvement with respect to the second target.We still see a dramatic and gloomy picture in regard to torture and its prevention. Indeed, 290 people died while in custody over the past eight years of AK Party rule. The number for the current year is 29. There is no need to assert that these deaths are all due to torture. We see no decrease in such cases. Last year 24 people were killed because they did not obey police officers' warnings to stop. The figure for the current year is 31.
Compared to previous years, figures concerning people killed by unknown assailants or due to torture while in custody have not seen a steep increase. While this is an important point, one cannot maintain that there has been any overall permanent improvement in this issue. The target set by the government is a correct one, and work is being conducted to improve the situation, but this is not enough. More efforts must be invested in this cause to attain the target.
The most refreshing development in this respect was the strong message given by the government to the public that they are still sensitive about the issue. As you might remember, Engin Ceber, who had been arrested by the police for distributing propaganda newspapers on Sept. 28, died while in custody. The investigation has revealed that Ceber died as a result of torture. The media organizations justifiably discussed the issue and, eventually, Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Şahin acknowledged the death under detention and, acting on behalf of the government, apologized to Ceber's family. Moreover, 19 people were suspended from duty in connection with the incident and an investigation is under way. This is really a first in the recent history of Turkey. In this respect, we must congratulate Minister Şahin. He not only did what must be done, but also uprooted a prejudice. Thus, when it is guilty or at fault, the state can apologize to its citizens.
In traditional societies, torture was simply used as a method for "revenge" or "discipline." In war, enemies would be tortured by mutilating or blinding them with hot iron. This is called "muslah" in Islamic law and is strictly forbidden. In modern societies, torture is used sometimes as a method for acquiring evidence for a lawsuit or as a political instrument.
In its modern framework, torture was incorporated into our system in the last quarter of the 19th century. The palace would recruit people who were raised without a cozy family environment in the mountainous regions in the north and take no notice of the torturous methods they used against their rivals, even implicitly encouraging them. Since then, torture has been used both in its traditional function (i.e., the state penalizing those who commit offenses against it) and as a method for deriving confessions for proving charges in a criminal investigation. By resorting to torture, the state expects that the people whose political ideas it does not like or finds dangerous will abandon these ideas. Basically, police, gendarmerie and law enforcement officers try to justify their use of torture by arguing, "How can they be against the state?" Thus, they are motivated to use torture for the purpose of discipline.
Islam not only forbids torture of enemy soldiers in wartime, but also forbids Muslims from engaging in any form of torture in times of peace. As narrated by Ali, one of the first four caliphs of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "God forbids torturing any living being, even of a dog with rabies."
