Rights activists criticize bill for human rights board

The government, within the framework of the democratization initiative, decided to establish four institutions to improve human rights in general. These institutions will monitor the security forces and prisons, fight against discrimination and examine all kinds of complaints of human rights violations.

For the latter purpose the government decided to restructure the Prime Ministry’s Human Rights Presidency as the National Human Rights Board. According to initial statements from the government, the board is supposed to be independent and will have the power of implementing sanctions, but human rights activists are suggesting that if the board is established in accordance with the bill in Parliament, it will be neither independent nor effective.

The Human Rights Association (İHD), the Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed Peoples (MAZLUM-DER), Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly (HYD), the Turkish Human Rights Foundation (TİHV) and Amnesty International Turkey, which acts as İHOP, argued that the bill was drafted without seeking any opinions or contributions from human rights activists in Turkey and that the board will not be independent either in function or financially and will not fulfill the criteria of the European Union.

“Although the government claims that the board will be established as part of the democratization initiative, it had to be established due to the harmonization process with the EU. But if the draft is approved by Parliament, such a board will not answer the demands of the EU and will continue to be the subject of criticism as was its predecessor, the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry,” Öztürk Türkdoğan the chairman of the İHD, told Today’s Zaman.

He added that the bill was written with the mentality of “establishing a new state body” but not with the mentality of “establishing an autonomous body that will work as an institution which will mediate and monitor between the state and the public.”

İHOP underlined that the United Nations Paris principles should be the guide for the establishment of a human rights mechanism, and its criticism of the bill was based on these principles and also their experience in the field.

İHOP claimed that such a body should be independent in its legal, operational, financial and appointment and dismissal processes but said the bill only fulfils the criteria for legal independence.

Operational independence

İHOP suggested that according to the draft, the board would have the authority to advise the relevant state bodies, but it does not point out the mechanisms for sanction if the advice is not taken. From the point of view of financial independence, according to the draft, the board would be financed with “aid from the budget,” but İHOP claimed that the scope, amount, continuity and process of the “aid” were not defined.

Another of İHOP’s main concerns was regarding appointments and dismissals from the board. “An institution can be independent to the extent that its members are, so the individuals who work there are extremely important. But when you look at the draft you see that the only people who are eligible for appointment are civil servants. The criteria include having no prior convictions. This means that in order to be appointed to this board, a candidate cannot have been convicted under freedom of expression, and it would be very difficult to find a human rights activist who has not been convicted,” Türkdoğan said.

According to the bill the members of the board will be appointed by the government, but İHOP claimed that the board was supposed to monitor the practices of government bodies and that it would be very difficult for a board to monitor the establishment which is responsible for appointing the board. According to İHOP the draft also does not specify the appointment process.

İHOP also pointed out that in order to establish an independent body it was important to specify the dismissal process. The bill states that if members of the board are convicted of crimes committed while performing their duties, they will be dismissed.

However, Türkdoğan recalled that Professor Baskın Oran and İbrahim Kaboğlu, who were assigned to prepare a report on the minorities in Turkey by the Human Rights Presidency, were convicted of inciting hatred among the people because of their report.

“If this draft had existed at the time, Oran and Kaboğlu would have been dismissed. Under these conditions it would be very difficult for the members of this board to work effectively,” Türkdoğan said.