<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Developing an Interim Independent Monitoring Mechanism

An effective system of supervision must also include genuinely independent monitoring by an external body. Those who carry out internal supervision have close ties to the police. Governors and prosecutors, for example, often have to rely on the police in the course of their daily work, and this professional relationship may in some circumstances limit the monitors’ willingness to conduct visits in a sufficiently probing manner. Monitoring by competent outside bodies or individuals who are convincingly independent has benefits for the government and police because it publicly demonstrates their confidence in the integrity of their system.

In 1999 the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture recommended to the Turkish government that “a system permitting an independent body, consisting of respected members of the community, representatives of legal and medical professional organizations and persons nominated by human rights organizations, to visit and report publicly on any place of deprivation of liberty should be set up as soon as possible.”¹⁴

Since then, Human Rights Watch has urged the Turkish government to establish a nation-wide system of visiting boards to inspect police stations (along the lines of systems in place in Australia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Nepal, South Africa and the United Kingdom), and to permit provincial bar and medical associations unfettered access to places of detention.¹⁵

The interior ministry recently informed Human Rights Watch that it was planning E.U. funded research with a view to establishing visiting boards along the lines of those currently running in the United Kingdom. This is welcome news. Now that the ministry has recognized the need for independent monitoring, it should provide interim measures to provide this form of supervision until the new system is up and running. Human Rights Watch suggested that bar and medical associations should have access to places of detention during a June 9, 2004 meeting with the Turkish government’s European Union coordination group.¹⁶ The interior ministry spokesperson responded by pointing out that the law establishing the human rights boards provides that bar association and medical chambers are automatically represented on those boards, and that the boards have the right to visit places of detention. With proper access, training and direction, local human rights boards have the potential to provide an interim independent monitoring mechanism until such time as a formal visiting board system can be established.

Recommendation

The Human Rights Directorate of the Office of the Prime Minister should ensure that human rights boards are aware of their right to visit places of detention and should encourage them to exercise this right. Human rights boards should regularly visit all detention units in their area, including rural gendarmeries and anti-terror branches. The bar and medical association representatives on the boards should be present at all such visits. The human rights directorate should provide advice on effective monitoring visits, in consultation with the CPT if necessary, and use its website to provide the public with detailed information about the findings of the monitors and government response.