WRITTEN QUESTION E-1848/03 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Investigation into the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association.
Date: 2003-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Kurdistan question, Türkiye, abuse of power, accession criteria, human rights, independence of the judiciary, political violence, right to justice

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/47

(2004/C 88 E/0050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1848/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Investigation into the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association

On 18 May 2003 the author of this question was informed that the Turkish State Security Tribunal had
recently begun investigating the lawyer Selahattin Demirtaþ (the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights
Association) on the grounds that he is a supporter of the KADEK party (the former PKK).

The Republic of Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor considered that the charges should be dropped and he
proposed that the case be closed for lack of evidence or proof. However, the State Security Tribunal took
the view that the case should proceed.

On 27 April of this year the author of this question met the lawyer Selahattin Demirtaþ in Diyarbakir, two
days after attending the second hearing of the new trial (which is still going on) involving Leyla Zana and
three other Kurdish MPs who have been in prison since 1995. On that occasion, Selahattin Demirtaþ
described to me to appalling situation in south-east Turkey, which is still subjected to all manner of
brutality on the part of the Turkish security forces and where there is the threat of a further uprising on
the part of the Kurdish people. The author of this question was asked to convey a request for the European
Union to take firm action vis-à-vis Turkey, so that the threat of another war in south-east Turkey can be
warded off through compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

It therefore seems clear from this most recent episode (as from countless others which have occurred in
recent weeks) that many Turkish magistrates are actively boycotting the current government’s attempts to
democratise the country.

In view of the above, will the Commission say what action it intends to take in order to enable the Turkish
Government to put a stop to the magistrates’ bullying of human rights associations? Does it not consider
that, without a process of genuine democratisation, Turkey will fail in its attempts to join the European
Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding the Chairperson of the Diyarbakir Human Rights
Association, Mr Selahattin Demirtaþ, who was accused under Article 169 of the Turkish Penal Code of
‘aiding and abetting an illegal organisation’. The Commission has been informed that on 14 May 2003 the
State Security Court Prosecutor decided to ‘discontinue the proceedings’ of the case, and that legal
proceedings are therefore not currently being launched against Mr Demirtaþ.

The Commission is also aware of the more general problems concerning the implementation of reforms in
the area of the freedom of expression, freedom of association and the judiciary. The recently adopted
revised Accession Partnership with Turkey (1) set out the priority areas with respect to these concerns.
These priorities include the need to remedy the situation of those persons prosecuted or sentenced for
non-violent expression of opinion, and to pursue and implement reforms concerning the freedom of
association and peaceful assembly.

With regard to the judiciary, Turkey is asked to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the judiciary
and to promote the consistent interpretation of legal provisions related to human rights and fundamental
freedoms in line with the European Convention on Human Rights; to take measures with a view to
ensuring that the obligation for all judicial authorities to take into account the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights is respected; to align the functioning of State Security Courts with European
standards; and to prepare the establishment of intermediate courts of appeal. More generally, Turkey is
asked to guarantee in law and in practice the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms
by all individuals without discrimination.

In the particular case of the South East, Turkey is asked to intensify efforts to develop a comprehensive
approach to reduce regional disparities, and in particular to improve the situation in the South East, with a
view to enhancing economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens. In this context, the return of
internally displaced persons to their original settlements should be supported and speeded up.

C 88 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

As a EU Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria which include the need
to implement reforms in the areas of the judiciary, the freedom of expression and the freedom of
association. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation with respect to these and other areas
related to the democratisation process in Turkey. The Commission will give its assessment of the situation
in Turkey regarding human rights in its forthcoming Regular Report.

(1) OJ L 145, 12.6.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors

(3 June 2003)

The increased EU emphasis on the prevention of torture worldwide implemented from 2002, though very
much to be welcomed, has resulted in an effective cut of 45 % in EU support for the rehabilitation of
torture survivors. The Dublin-based Centre for the Care of Survivors of Torture (CCST) points out that
30 rehabilitation centres in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America are now without EU
support and face the threat of closure.

Will the Commission ensure that funds are reallocated from the 2003 budget to guarantee that these
centres remain open and will it ensure that funding for the rehabilitation of torture victims is restored to,
at the very minimum, 2002 levels (not, naturally at the expense of the new torture prevention efforts) in
the 2004 EU budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Commission’s Communication on Human
Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support,
including the fight against torture. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the
Communication also underlined that
the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the
prevention of torture, as opposed to support for rehabilitation centres. The subsequent programming
document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that
funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce
existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to
look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support
for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union.
These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. The degree of
importance afforded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is also an important factor.
Moreover,
‘institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was
explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered
the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate 1/3 and 2/3 of
the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by
two experts, one of whom was experienced in project management and the other in the psychiatric/
psychological field. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view to ensuring
a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union
(budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the
projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum
thresholds), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the