The United Nations Human Rights Committee made an important decision in the file number 3736/2020 on the issues of wrongful arrest, poor prison conditions and the violation of the right to a fair trial. The application to the Committee was made by Mukadder Alakuş, a national of Türkiye born in 1971 who is currently held in Eskisehir Type L Closed Prison. Ms. Alakuş was accused of being a member of the Gülen Movement, which is considered a Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) in Turkey. The accusations of membership in a terrorist organization against him are based on the fact that he deposited money in her Bank Asya accounts, downloaded the Bylock application on her phone, and attended a peaceful rally.

The applicant was taken into custody on 4 September 2018 and held in custody for one day without food, water or medication. The applicant was arrested by the court on 5 September 2018 and transferred to Eskişehir H Type Prison on the same day. She was forced to live in bad conditions in prison.

The applicant applied to the United Nations Human Rights Committee within the scope of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to her unlawful arrest, poor prison conditions and the violation of her right to a fair trial. In the application, it is claimed that Turkey has violated applicant rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant.

In its assessment, the Committee particularly emphasized that it is a violation of rights to use as a basis for an arrest and conviction decision the Bylock messaging program used as evidence in both the arrest warrant and the conviction decision, having a Bank Asya account and participating in a peaceful meeting, which is not defined as crimes or prohibited under domestic law.  When the assessment of the committee given below are examined in detail, it will be seen that the provisions of the Covenant were clearly violated and the requirements of the right to a fair trial were not fulfilled in the process of making arrest and conviction decisions by the courts in Turkey. In fact, these determinations of the committee mean that the systematic and widespread violations of rights experienced in the investigations and trials against members of the Gülen Movement after the 15 July Coup Attempt are determined and accepted by the Committee.

A.   THE DETERMINATION OF THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IS NOT AN ACTIVE DOMESTIC REMEDY

On admissibility, the State party submits that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as her individual application before the Constitutional Court 7 is currently pending and was lodged after submitting the present communication. ( 4.2)

The author reiterates her claim that an individual application to the Constitutional Court does not offer reasonable prospects of success, pointing to cases where lower courts ignored the judgments of the Constitutional Court. (5.3) On the non-enforceability of the judgements of the Constitutional Court, the author reiterates that this was also raised by the European Court in the Altan, Alpay and Koçintar cases.  (7.1)

The Committee notes the author’s argument that filing an individual application before the Constitutional Court is not an effective remedy as: (a) it does not offer reasonable prospects of success for her release, owing to the non-enforcement of the Court’s judgements by lower courts; (b) the process would be unreasonably prolonged considering the author’s first attempt to exhaust remedies before domestic courts on 4 September 2018 and the Constitutional Court’s backlog. (9.5) The Committee finds that, in the circumstances of the author’s case, the State party has not shown that an individual complaint to challenge the author’s detention before the Constitutional Court would have been effective, in practice. (9.5) 

As can be seen, while taking into account the past examples the Committee considers  that the remedy of individual application to the Constitutional Court  is ineffective.

B.    RESPONSIBILITY OF PROOF

First of all, when the Committee’s decision is examined, a particular emphasis is placed on the responsibility of the State party to prove its obligations due to its strong position in the process. For this reason, it has placed the burden of proof on the State party in terms of whether the person has been detained in accordance with the law, kept in prison in conditions suitable for human dignity, and fulfilled the requirements of the right to a fair trial. Therefore, in order for the State party to prove that it has fulfilled its obligations, every action must be justified, these justifications must have legal and factual grounds, and most importantly, this must be proven with legal evidence. It is clearly stated that the state party should respond to the claims of the violation of rights with concrete justifications and evidence, instead of demanding the citizen to prove the violation of rights. At this point, what is essential for the citizen is to state that his right has been violated, and for the state, what is essential is to prove with documents and evidence that the claims of the citizen do not reflect the truth.

C.    UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND ARREST

The Committee notes the author’s claim under articles 9(1), of the Covenant regarding the unlawful and arbitrary nature of her arrest and detention. The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that her arrest and detention were solely based on her alleged use of the Bylock application, on holding a Bank Asya account and on her participation in a peaceful rally, without solid evidence to suggest a strong suspicion that she had committed a criminal offense; her arrest warrant did not include facts or evidence which would justify her pre-trial detention during such a long period. (Prg.10.2)

Another important issue that the Committee focused on regarding detention and arrest is the concept of “arbitrariness”.  The Committee recalls that the notion of “arbitrariness” must be interpreted broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality. The Committee, observes that the State party has only provided a partial copy of the court hearing of 28 December 2018, without providing any further documentation, such as an arrest warrant or detention order, regarding the evidence held against the author that would justify her detention. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated that the author’s detention met the criteria of reasonableness and necessity. The Committee therefore finds that the authors’ detention amounted to a violation of her rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. (Prg.10.3)   In other words, the Committee decides that detention and arrest are arbitrary.

As it can be seen, the Committee has not imposed the burden of proof on the applicant’s claims and documents to determine the arbitrariness of the detention measure.  The State party’s responses to the applicant’s allegations and the documents submitted by the State party are also taken as a basis for proof. In fact, the Committee has emphasized that a fair process of detention is a right for the individual and that the burden of proving that a detention process in accordance with right of a fair trial is on the State party. At this point, the Committee has not considered the sending of custody and detention documents by the State party sufficient to prove a fair trial and has decided that there is a violation of rights since no other evidence was presented to show that a fair trial was held.

D.   THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Another issue that the Committee focuses on is violations of the right to a fair trial. The Committee notes the author’s allegations under articles 14 (3) (b), (d) and (e), that she was unable to adequately prepare her defense; she was denied access to the entire case file; she was not permitted to call and cross-examine witnesses; she was not allowed to attend her trial in-person despite her request dated 14 December 2018; the conduct of proceedings online and her displaced dentures impeded her from correctly expressing herself.  (10.6)

After the Committee has emphasized the State party’s statements here The Committee observes, however, that the State party has not provided sufficient explanations or documentary evidence, such as full transcripts of the judicial proceedings in order to substantiate its refutations of the author’s allegations regarding her right to a fair trial. 10.6 (9)

The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof in relation to factual questions cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information.52 It considers that the State party has not provided sufficient evidence, such as the full transcripts of the judicial proceedings, which would indicate that the author: (a) was able to adequately express herself throughout the proceedings; (b) was able to cross-examine witnesses, and (c) was able to prepare her defense despite her detention conditions. (10.7)

The Committee recalls that under article 14 (3) (d), accused persons are entitled to be present during their trial and that proceedings in the absence of the accused are only permissible if this is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. The Committee also observes that the conduction of trial hearings through video conference systems would not necessarily constitute per se a breach of fair trial guarantees. The Committee notes however that the author addressed a request to the first instance court on 14 December 2018 in order to be present in trial. It considers that in the absence of further relevant information or explanations by the State party, apart from the practical aspects set out in the Izmir Regional Court of Justice’s decision which  in particular, justified the conduction of the author’s trial remotely and rejected her request to be present, its 14(3)(b), (d) and (e) articles have been violated.(10.7)

As stated above, the Committee did not consider the State party’s incomplete and general statements as sufficient. It also decided that the right to a fair trial was violated since the State party has not submitted concrete evidence and documents to the Committee regarding the fulfillment of its obligations in line with the allegations of the applicant.

E.    THE USE OF BYLOCK AND BANK ASYA ACCOUNT BASIS OF THE CRIMINAL DECISION IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

The Committee has made important assessments regarding the conviction of the applicant for actions that are not defined as crimes or prohibited under domestic law, such as downloading the Bylock application, sharing information through this application, having a Bank Asya account and attending a peaceful meeting under Article 15 (1) of the Convention.

In this context, the Committee further notes about the decision of the Cassation Court (16.CD.  E. 2017/16-956, K. 2017/370) “the involvement of any individual” with the Bylock application “beyond any doubt proves the linking of the individual to the terrorist organization”, (…) “since the Bylock messaging app is a communication network, exclusively designed and developed to fulfill the communication needs of the FETÖ terrorist organization” (Prg.10.4)

At the point of entry to the subject, first of all, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is incumbent on the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and evidence in each case or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice (10.5)

Furthermore, The Committee observes that article 314, paragraph 1 of the Turkish Penal Code, defines the crime of membership of an armed terrorist organization as “any person who establishes or commands an armed organization with the purpose of committing the offenses listed in parts four and five of this chapter”. (10.6)

In light of this broad definition, and in the absence of information from the State party regarding the existence of domestic legal provisions which clarify the criteria used to establish the acts constitutive of the crime defined under article 314, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code, the Committee cannot conclude that the author’s alleged use of the Bylock application and Bank Asya account amounted to sufficiently clear and predictable criminal offenses at the time the acts took place. The Committee considers that, as a matter of principle, the mere use or download of a means of encrypted communication or bank account cannot indicate, in itself, evidence of membership of an illegal armed organization, unless supported by other evidence, such as conversation records. In the absence of documentary evidence provided by the State party, the Committee finds, in these circumstances, that the rights of the author under article 15(1) have been violated .  (Prg.10.6)

F.    POOR PRISON CONDITIONS

Another issue on which the Committee evaluated and ultimately found a violation of the Convention is the conditions of detention in prison, which is incompatible with human dignity.

Since it is a fundamental human right to accommodate the detainee in conditions suitable for human dignity and the State has a positive obligation to ensure this, the Committee also requests the State to prove that it has fulfilled its obligations. However, due to the lack of much information or explanation by the State party in response to the applicant’s allegations and evidence, the Committee concluded that certain minimum requirements were not met and that the State party violated the applicant’s rights under Article 10 (1).

The author claims a violation of her rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 to 27 of the Covenant. She claims that her conditions of detention put her life at risk and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of articles 6, 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The prison is overcrowded and there is not enough food or access to hot water for all inmates. Drinking water for detainees is distilled from the ceiling. The unhygienic conditions of detention and her lack of access to adequate medical treatment and food have deteriorated her medical condition and increased her risk of death..(3.1)

The Committee observes that, the State party has not provided any information to refute the author’s allegations regarding her conditions of detention in police custody and in Eskisehir Type H Prison. It notes that the State party’s information regarding the available floor space at Eskisehir Type L Prison is presented in general terms, without providing information about the number of inmates the author shares her prison cell with nor the specific floor space available to her. The Committee further notes that the State party has not refuted the author’s allegation regarding her sleeping conditions, her effective lack of access to an adequate diet and inaccessibility of the toilets, considering her knee condition and the absence of a caretaker. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the general nature of the information provided by the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty must not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty. Under the circumstances as described, and in the absence of further relevant information or explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that several minimum requirements were not met and that the State party violated the rights of the author under article 10 (1). (10.5)

In this article, evaluations on the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT), which has been granted B status by the Global Network of National Human Rights Institutions, are given.

1.  Global Network of National Human Rights Institutions

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), a network of human rights institutions from around the world, was established in 1993. GANHRI supports national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles and works for the protection and strengthening of human rights.

2.  Paris Principles

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) came to the fore as an idea in the period following World War II. In 1991, an international workshop on “national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights” was organized to establish a framework for the status of NHRIs, and this framework was adopted as the Paris Principles at the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights.

Adopted on 20 December 1993 by the UN General Assembly, the Paris Principles are a fundamental text setting out the framework for the qualifications of national human rights institutions, also referred to as “national institutions”.

The importance of the Paris Principles lies not only in determining the structure and function of NHRIs, but also in giving legitimacy and credibility to these institutions. In this sense, national human rights institutions to be established at the national level must be in line with the Paris Principles in order to have the expected impact.

3.  Accreditation

Accreditation is a procedure within GANHRI for the international visibility, recognition and voice of NHRIs, the purpose of which is to establish the national institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles.

According to the GANHRI Statute, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) is the body that accredits national institutions according to their degree of compliance with the Paris Principles.

As of 2021, out of 128 institutions within GANHRI, a total of 118 NHRIs have been accredited, of which 86 are A level and 32 are B level.

Organizations accredited at level A are considered to be in compliance with the Paris Principles. These organizations can participate in all national and international meetings of national human rights institutions at a voting level. They may also attend all meetings of the Human Rights Council and speak on any agenda item.

The countries that received A status in the evaluation are as follows; Colombia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone.

Organizations accredited at level B may participate as observers in international meetings of national human rights institutions. However,

they are not issued international human rights institution badges and cannot speak at meetings of the Human Rights Council.

Some of the countries, including Turkey, to which the Sub-Committee granted B status are as follows: Nepal, Sri Lanka and Madagascar.

4.  A Level B Accredited Organisation; HREIT

The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT) has been accredited with “B” status by the Secretariat of the Accreditation Subcommittee of the Global Network of National Human Rights Institutions (Subcommittee). In other words, HREIT is far from meeting the Paris Principles.

It can only  participate  in   international  meetings as an observer, but it cannot receive the badge from an international human rights institution and it is not given the right to speak at the meetings of the Human Rights Council.

5.  HREIT’s B Accreditation Distortion

In its statement dated 10 October 2022, HREIT presented its B status as a great success and deliberately misled the public opinion.¹ In fact, the   decision of the HREIT regarding the Committee of granting of  “B” status;

-It means that the institution concerned is recognized as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) and therefore has the opportunity to participate in international and regional meetings of NHRIs.

-It will have the opportunity to submit parallel reports to the UN Organs and to the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (UPRM) of the Human Rights Council“, but concealed the fact that it would only participate in the meetings as an observer and have no say in the proceedings, that it would not even be able to receive a badge from an international human rights organization, and

that in the eyes of GANHRI it had the same status as countries such² as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Madagascar.

6.  Reasons for Granting B Accreditation to HREIT

The GANHRI Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA) published a report on the results of its meeting held in Geneva on 3-7 October 2022.³

In the said Report, criticisms against HREIT were expressed and the reasons why it was given B status were explained. The SCA analyzed HREIT in terms of the following criteria and found it inadequate.

a)  Independence

According to the Law on the Organisation of HREIT, the institution lacks independence due to the tutelage of the President over the institution. The Subcommittee on Accreditation emphasized that HREIT

should be independent from the government and parliament in terms of its structure, composition, decision-making and working method.

b)  Addressing Human Rights Violations

The Subcommittee found HREIT’s efforts to address all human rights violations and to carry out follow-up activities to ensure that the State fulfills its protection obligations inadequate.

The Subcommittee also recommended to HREIT that its positions on these issues be made public, as this would help promote and protect human rights, as well as strengthen the institution’s credibility and accessibility for all people in Turkey.

c)   Promoting ratification of or accession to international human rights instruments

The Subcommittee found that HREIT was not expressly authorized to                                                                                          promote ratification of and accession to regional and international human rights instruments.

d)  Interaction with the International Human Rights System

The Subcommittee observed that HREIT did not engage effectively and independently with the international human rights system.

e)  Pluralism and Diversity

The Law on Organisation does not contain any provisions on the pluralism and diversity of HREIT members and staff.

The Subcommittee determined that currently only 2 of the 11 members of the HREIT Board are women and one of them is disabled, and reported that 79 of the 180 staff members are women and 6 of them are disabled.

The Subcommittee recommended that the requirement for NHREI to reflect the principles of pluralism and diversity, including gender representation of the members of the NHREI Board, be included in the Law on Organisation.

f)  Selection and Appointment

Article 10(2) of the Law on the Organisation provides that the members of the Board will be elected by the President of the Republic. The Subcommittee considered that the selection and appointment process currently enshrined in the law does not ensure broad consultation and participation of civil society.

The Sub-Committee is of the view that the selection process should be characterized by openness and transparency. That is, it should be under the control of an independent and credible organization and should include fair consultation with NGOs and civil society.

The Subcommittee also noted that the Organisation Law did not establish predetermined, objective and publicly available criteria for assessing applicants.

g)  Annual Report

The Subcommittee found that there is no provision in the Organisation Law of HREIT on whether the annual and special reports are discussed in the Parliament.

The Subcommittee recommended that the Law on Organisation be amended to enable HREIT to discuss and evaluate the annual, special and thematic reports of the Parliament.

h)  Term of Office

Since there is no provision in the Law on Organisation and other legislation on whether the members of the HREIT Board can be re-elected or not, the door is left open for them to serve indefinitely.

The Subcommittee noted that HREIT reported that in practice, four of the current Board members were reappointed for a second term. In order to promote institutional independence, the Subcommittee recommended an amendment to the Law on the Organisation of the NHREI to limit the term of office to a second appointment.

7.  HREIT was Monitored for 5 Years

The accreditation process is reviewed every five years. In this sense, after five years, i.e. in 2027, HREIT is required to resubmit the necessary documents to the Subcommittee and fulfill the compliance with the Paris Principles and the recommendations and suggestions of the Subcommittee.

HREIT is an organization that was established as a “friends for friends’ sake“. It has no noteworthy activities regarding the grave human rights violations in Turkey. It is impossible for it to be accredited international organizations with its practices that use the regime’s rhetoric and justify the regime’s unlawful practices. Even a person who defends child marriages and says that preventing the consensual marriages of 15-year-olds is a violation of “human rights” and accuses those who live together without the marriage of having “perverted relationships” has been the president of this institution for years.⁴

Dr. Gökhan Güneş

Bu yazıda;Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumları Küresel Ağı’nın B statü verdiği Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu’na ilişkin değerlendirmelere yer verilmiştir.

1. Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumları Küresel Ağı

Dünyanın farklı ülkelerinin insan hakları kurumlarının oluşturduğu Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumları Küresel Ağı (The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions – GANHRI), 1993’te kuruldu. Ulusal insan hakları kurumlarını Paris Prensiplerine uygunluk açısından destekleyen GANHRI, insan haklarının korunması ve güçlendirilmesi için çalışmalar yapmaktadır.

2. Paris Prensipleri

Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumlarının (UİHK) bir fikir olarak gündeme gelmesi II. Dünya Savaşını takip eden döneme denk gelmektedir.

1991 yılında “insan haklarının korunması ve gücendirilmesi için ulusal kurumlar” konusunda uluslararası bir çalıştay düzenlenerek UİHK’lerin statüsünün çerçevesi oluşturulmuş VE 1993 Viyana İnsan Hakları Konferansı’nda da bu çerçeve Paris Prensipleri adı altında kabul edilmiştir.

20 Aralık 1993’te BM Genel Kurulunda kabul edilen Paris Prensipleri, “ulusal kurumlar” olarak da anılan ulusal insan hakları kurumlarının taşıması gereken niteliklere dair çerçeveyi belirleyen temel bir metindir.

Paris Prensiplerinin önemi, UİHK’lerin yapısını ve işlevini belirlemenin yanında, esasen bu kurumlara meşruiyet ve güvenilirlik kazandırmasından gelmektedir. Bu anlamda, ulusal düzeyde kurulacak ulusal insan hakları kurumlarının kendisinden beklenen etkiyi gösterebilmesi için Paris Prensipleri ile uyumlu olması zorunludur.

3. Akreditasyon

Akreditasyon, UİHK’lerin uluslararası düzeyde görünürlüğü, kabulü ve  oy-söz sahibi olması için GANHRI bünyesinde gerçekleştirilen bir prosedür olup amacı ulusal kurumun Paris Prensipleri’ne uygunluğunu tespit etmektir.

GANHRI Statüsüne göre, ulusal kurumları, Paris Prensiplerine uyumluluk derecelerine göre akredite edecek birim Akreditasyon Alt Komitesi’dir (SCA).

2021 yılı itibariyle GANHRI bünyesinde yer alan 128 Kurumdan, 86’sı A düzeyi ve 32’si B düzeyinde olmak üzere topla 118 UİHK akredite olmuştur.

A düzeyinde akredite olan kuruluşların Paris Prensipleri ile uyumluluk gösterdiği değerlendirilmektedir. Bu kuruluşlar, ulusal insan hakları kurumlarına ilişkin ulusal ve uluslararası tüm toplantılara oy verebilecek düzeyde katılabilir. Ayrıca İnsan Hakları Konseyinin tüm toplantılarına katılıp herhangi bir gündem maddesi hakkında söz alabilirler.

Yapılan değerlendirmede A statüsü alan ülkeler şunlardır; Kolombiya, El Salvador, Endonezya, Nijerya, Peru, Siera Leone.

B düzeyinde akredite olan kuruluşlar ise ulusal insan hakları kurumlarına ilişkin uluslararası toplantılara gözlemci olarak katılabilirler. Fakat kendilerine UIHK yaka kartı verilmez, İnsan Hakları Konseyinin toplantılarında söz alamazlar.

Türkiye’nin de içinde bulunduğu ve Alt Komitenin B statü verdiği ülkelerin bazıları şunlardır: Nepal, Sri Lanka ve Madagaskar.

4. B Düzey Akredite Bir Kuruluş; TİHEK

Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu (TİHEK), Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumları Küresel Ağı Akreditasyon Alt Komitesi Sekreterliğince (Alt Komite) “B” statüsünde akredite edilmiştir. Yani TİHEK, Paris İlkelerini karşılamaktan çok uzaktır. Uluslararası toplantılara sadece gözlemci olarak katılabilir, ancak Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Kurumu yaka kartı alamaz ve İnsan Hakları Konseyinin toplantılarında kendisine söz hakkı verilmez.

5. TİHEK’in B Akreditasyon Çarpıtması

TİHEK, 10 Ekim 2022 tarihli açıklamasında B statü almasını büyük bir başarı olarak sunmuş ve kamuoyunu bilerek yanıltmıştır.[1] Zira TİHEK; Akreditasyon Alt Komitesinin, ‘B’ statüsü verilmesine ilişkin kararı;

-İlgili kurumun bir Ulusal İnsan Hakları Kurumları’nın (UİHK) olarak kabul edildiği, bu nedenle UİHK’ların uluslararası ve bölgesel toplantılarına katılma fırsatına sahip olduğu anlamına gelmektedir.

-BM Organlarına ve İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nin Evrensel Periyodik İnceleme Mekanizmasına (EPİM) paralel raporlar sunma imkanına sahip olacaktır” şeklinde duyurmuş, ancak yapılacak toplantılara sadece gözlemci olarak katılıp hiçbir söz hakkı olmadığını, hatta Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Kurumu yaka kartı dahi alamayacağı gerçeğini ve GANHRI nazarında Nepal, Sri Lanka ve Madagaskar gibi ülkelerle aynı statüde olduğu gerçeğini gizlemiştir.[2]

6. TİHEK’E B Akreditasyon Verilmesinin Sebepleri

GANHRI Akreditasyon Alt Komitesi (SCA) Cenevre’de 3-7 Ekim 2022 tarihinde yaptığı toplantı sonuçlarını bir rapor halinde yayımlamıştır.[3]

Söz konusu Raporda TİHEK’e yönelik eleştirirler dile getirilmiş ve neden B statüsünün verildiği gerekçeleriyle anlatılmıştır. SCA, TİHEK’i aşağıdaki kriterler açısından ele almış ve yetersiz bulmuştur.

a) Bağımsızlık: TİHEK Teşkilat Kanununa göre Cumhurbaşkanının Kurum üzerindeki vesayeti nedeniyle kurumun bağımsızlık niteliği yoktur. Akreditasyon Alt Komitesi; TİHEK’in yapısı, bileşimi, karar verme ve çalışma yöntemi bakımından hükümetten ve parlamentodan bağımsız olmasını gerektirdiğini vurgulamıştır.

b) İnsan Hakları İhlallerinin Ele Alınması

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in tüm insan hakları ihlallerini ele alma ve Devletin koruma yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmesini sağlamak için takip faaliyetleri yürütme çabalarını yetersiz bulmuştur.

Alt Komite ayrıca, insan haklarının desteklenmesine ve korunmasına yardımcı olacağı ve aynı zamanda kurumun Türkiye’deki tüm insanlar için güvenilirliğini ve erişilebilirliğini güçlendireceği için bu konulardaki pozisyonlarının kamuya açıklanmasını TİHEK’e tavsiye etmiştir.

c) Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Belgelerinin Onaylanmasını veya Bunlara Katılımın Teşvik Edilmesi

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in bölgesel ve uluslararası insan hakları belgelerinin onaylanmasını ve bunlara katılımı teşvik etmek için açıkça yetkilendirilmemiş olduğunu tespit etmiştir.

d) Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Sistemi ile Etkileşim

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in uluslararası insan hakları sistemi ile etkin ve bağımsız bir şekilde ilişki kurmadığını gözlemlemiştir.

e) Çoğulculuk ve Çeşitlilik

Teşkilat Kanunu, TİHEK üyelerinin ve personelinin çoğulculuğu ve çeşitliliği konusunda herhangi bir hüküm içermemektedir.

Alt Komite, şu anda TİHEK Kurulunun 11 üyesinden sadece 2’sinin kadın ve birinin engelli olduğunu belirlemiş, 180 personelden 79’unun kadın ve 6’sının da engelli olduğunu raporlamıştır.

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in, TİHEK Kurulu üyelerinin cinsiyet temsili de dahil olmak üzere çoğulculuk ve çeşitlilik ilkelerini yansıtması şartının Teşkilat Kanununa dahil edilmesini tavsiye etmiştir.

f) Seçim ve Atanma

Teşkilat Kanununun 10(2). maddesi, Kurul üyelerinin Cumhurbaşkanı tarafından seçileceğini öngörmektedir. Alt Komite, halihazırda yasada yer alan seçme ve atama sürecinin sivil toplumun geniş bir istişare ve katılımını sağlamadığını değerlendirmiştir.

Alt Komite, seçim sürecinin açıklık ve şeffaflık ile karakterize edilmesi gerektiği görüşündedir. Yani, bağımsız ve güvenilir bir kuruluşun kontrolü altında olmalı ve STK’lar ve sivil toplum ile adil istişareyi içermelidir.

Alt Komite ayrıca, Teşkilat Kanununun başvuru sahiplerini değerlendirmek için önceden belirlenmiş, nesnel ve kamuya açık kriterler oluşturmadığını not etmiştir.

g) Yıllık Rapor

Alt Komite, yıllık ve özel raporların TBMM’de görüşülüp görüşülmediği konusunda TİHEK Teşkilat Kanununda düzenleme bulunmadığını tespit etmiştir.

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in, TBMM’nin yıllık, özel ve tematik raporlarını tartışmasını ve değerlendirmesini sağlamak için Teşkilat Kanununda bu yönde değişiklik yapılmasını tavsiye etmiştir.

h) Görev Süresi

TİHEK Kurulu üyelerinin yeniden seçilip seçilemeyeceği konusunda Teşkilat kanunu ve diğer mevzuatta bir düzenleme olmadığından, sınırsız görev yapma imkânına açık kapı bırakılmıştır.

Alt Komite, TİHEK’in uygulamada, mevcut Kurul üyelerinden dördünün ikinci bir dönem için yeniden atandığını bildirdiğini not etmiştir. Kurumsal bağımsızlığı teşvik etmek için Alt Komite, görev süresinin ikinci kez atama ile sınırlandırılmasını için TİHEK Teşkilat Kanununda değişiklik yapılmasını tavsiye etmiştir.

7. TİHEK 5 Yıl İzlenmeye Alındı

Akreditasyon süreci her beş yılda yeniden gözden geçirilmektedir. Bu anlamda beş yıl sonra yani 2027’de TİHEK’in gerekli belgeleri Alt Komiteye tekrar sunması ve Paris Prensiplerine ve Alt Komitenin öneri ve tavsiyelerine uygunluğu yerine getirmesi gerekmektedir.

TİHEK, “dostlar alış verişte görsün” kabilinden kurulmuş bir yapıdır. Türkiye’deki ağır insan hakları ihlallerine ilişkin kayda değer hiçbir faaliyeti yoktur. Rejiminin söylemlerini kullanan ve rejimin hukuksuz uygulamalarını temize çıkaran uygulamalarıyla uluslararası kuruluşlar nezdinde akredite olması olanaksızdır. Zira çocuk evliliklerini savunup 15 yaşındaki çocukların rıza ile olabilecek nikâhlarının engellenmesinin ”insan hakkı” ihlali olduğunu söyleyen ve nikâhsız birliktelik yaşayanları ”sapkın ilişkiler” kurmakla itham edebilen bir kişi bile bu Kurumun yıllarca başkanlığını yapmıştır.[4]

[1] https://www.memurlar.net/haber/1043602/tihek-ulusal-insan-haklari-kurumlari-kuresel-agi-nezdinde-akreditasyon-aldi.html

[2] https://www.tihek.gov.tr/kurumumuz-ulusal-insan-haklari-kurumlari-kuresel-agi-ganhri-nezdinde-akreditasyon-statusu-kazandi/

[3]https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/nhri/ganhri/2022-11-08/SCA-Adopted-Report-October-2022-EN.pdf

[4] https://t24.com.tr/haber/tihek-baskani-tbmm-de-cocuk-evliliklerini-savundu-15-yasinda-nikah-kiyilmamasi-insan-hakki-ihlali,955038