4. CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE DISPLACED
7.4 Enhanced Role for United Nations Agencies
As recommended by the RSG, the the UN Country Team formed a thematic group on IDPs in 2003, with representatives from UNHCR, UNDP, UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), IOM, as well as occasional participation by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The objective of the IDP Working Group is to provide guidance to national agencies on advocacy and policy issues related to internal displacement. The group is led by Jakob Simonsen, the UN Resident Coordinator, and it takes the Guiding Principles and its annotations as the basis of its work.
The thematic group determined its annual work plan and a strategy to provide guidance to national agencies. According to UN officers, the Turkish government fully cooperated with the UN thematic group
during this process (see also “Clarifying and Disseminating the National Policy” above).234 As mentioned
above, the UNDP plans to provide capacity-building training for NGOs for the use of the Guiding Principles. However, UN assistance to civil society should not be limited to such awareness-raising activities. NGOs may assume constructive roles in fostering trust between national authorities and IDPs in the process of return and in helping with the reintegration of urban IDPs. The UNDP should help build bridges between the government and civil society for cooperation in these areas.
230 Interview with a foreign ministry official, 13 February 2006.
231 For further discussion of how the European Union affected Turkey’s policies related to the issue, see Ayşe Betül Çelik,
“Transnationalisation of Human Rights and Its Impact on Internally Displaced Kurds”, Human Rights Quarterly, 27:3 (2005): 969- 996.
232European Council in Copenhagen (21–22 Jun. 1993), Conclusions of the Presidency, SN 180/1/93 Rev 1, available at http://ue.euint/
ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/72921.pdf.
233 EC, 2004 “Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress towards Accession”, 6 October 2004, available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/
enlargement/turkey/docs.htm.
Outstanding issues/further recommendations:
Since RSG Deng’s visit in 2002, an active cooperation has developed between the government and the UN on the IDP issue, culminating in the signing of an agreement in 2005 for a UNDP project titled Support to
the Development of an IDP Programme in Turkey. But while the UN has been giving consultation to the
government, there is also a need for more systematic and transparent cooperation between the UN and NGOs on the IDP issue. The UN, in cooperation with the government, should encourage NGOs to participate in the design and implementation of policies targeting IDPs on the issues of return and reintegration. The European Commission has been a significant external factor in encouraging Turkey to take steps for addressing its IDP problem since the Helsinki Summit in 1999 when Turkey became a candidate for EU accession. It should also be more proactive in providing consultation and guidance to the government on its evolving IDP policy. The government may incorporate the EU into the policy implementation process through socioeconomic and other projects related to IDPs’ return and reintegration. In addition to the EU progress reports published annually, the European Commission should provide information and disseminate its opinion on the IDP issue more frequently.
8. RECONCILIATION
The issue of “reconciliation” was not addressed by the RSG in his recommendations to the Turkish government. The government’s Framework Document does not address the issue of past human rights violations committed against IDPs – such as the burning and destruction of property, killings, disappearances and torture – committed by security forces, village guards and PKK members in the process of displacement. However, the TESEV Working Group’s fieldwork shows that there is a genuine and urgent need for the government to take steps towards answering the need for reconciliation between the parties to the conflict.
It should be noted that the Compensation Law’s Preamble makes an allusion to the need for reconciliation. The Preamble states among the law’s aims, “bolstering trust towards the state, rapprochement between
the state and its citizens and contributing to social peace”.235 The Compensation Law, however, is limited
to providing reparation for material damages, and precludes compensation for pain and suffering (see “Compensation Law” above). However, reconciliation and durable peace require confronting past human rights abuses and establishing restorative justice.
The Compensation Law has raised expectations among IDPs, civil society organisations and lawyers that it would open the way for the public admission of forced evictions by security forces as well as other human rights violations, and lead to either bringing the perpetrators before courts or at least paying reparation for
pain and suffering.236 The law does not require proof of fault on the part of the administration, but rests
on the “doctrine of social risk based on the objective responsibility of the state”.237 However, in order for
justice to be achieved it is essential that those responsible for violations are identified and brought before the court. The TESEV Working Group observed in Batman and Hakkâri that particularly some families whose relatives have disappeared or been killed by unidentified perpetrators believe that justice will not be achieved unless the perpetrators are prosecuted.
Those who committed abuses, including security forces, village guards and the PKK during the original
process of displacement have rarely been prosecuted.238 A recent development well-covered in the national
media – the discovery of a mass grave near a village whose population was evicted in the Kulp district of
235 Compensation Law, Preamble.
236 For instance, the Planning and Budgeting Commission’s Report on the draft law of 13 July 2004 stated that “it is not equitable
for only material damages to be compensated” alluding to the need for paying compensation for pain and suffering as well.
Terör ve Terörle Mücadeleden Doğan Zararların Karşılanması Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı Hakkında Plan ve Bütçe Komisyonu Raporu, available from http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/yil01/ss650m.htm.
237 Compensation Law, Preamble.
238 Many IDPs the TESEV Working Group interviewed testified that village guards or the jandarma burned their homes; threatened,
Diyarbakır – triggered a wave of demands for bringing to justice the killers of 11 villagers. Local human rights organisations, Human Rights Association‘s Diyarbakir branch, the Diyarbakır Bar Association and two members of parliament called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, echoing a call made time and again by the ECtHR in many cases involving human rights violations committed by security forces during the process of internal displacement.239 Both organisations are demanding judicial and parliamentary
investigations of the incident.240 If a judicial process gets initiated on this matter as a result of pressure from
civil society, it would set an important precedent. The emerging public debate about this case and several others on violations committed during the emergency rule suggests that the time may be ripe for initiating a candid discussion about setting up a mechanism of reconciliation to address issues of impunity.
Outstanding issues/further recommendations:
IDPs, NGOs and the government express the need for rebuilding “trust towards the state” and “social peace”, goals identified in the Compensation Law. Establishing social rehabilitation in the wake of a traumatic period of conflict and ensuing displacement cannot be limited to issues concerning the payment of reparation, return and reintegration, but should also include reconciliation. Although achieving reconciliation may take a long time, the government should take steps to initiate the process. The state’s public acknowledgement of responsibility for village evictions, compensation for pain and suffering, and declaration of a will to identify and prosecute – where possible – those who committed human rights violations during displacement and return may be among such measures. However, it is also important to bear in mind that reconciliation would require the PKK to demonstrate a similar will to assume its responsibility for the human rights violations it has committed. A dialogue should be initiated between the civil society and the government about setting up a structure for reconciliation bearing in mind the examples of truth and reconciliation commissions elsewhere in the world.
239 The ECtHR has stressed that “effective remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 of the ECHR requires, in addition to the payment of
compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effectiveinvestigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrators of human rights violations. See e.g. ECtHR, Case of Hasan Ilhan v. Turkey (2005) Application No: 22494/93, 9 November; ECtHR, Case of Menteşe and Others v. Turkey (2005) Application No: 36217/97, 18 January; ECtHR, Case of Ipek v. Turkey
(2004) Application No: 25760/94, 17 February; ECtHR, Case of Orhan v. Turkey (2002) Application No: 25656/94, 18 June.
240 Zihni Erdem and Ahmet Kıvanç, “Katliam Emrini Kim Verdi”, Radikal, 14 February 2006, available from http://www.radikal.com.
Programme undertakes projects in fi ve main areas, which it deems to be the main obstacles to democratisation in Turkey: internal displacement and the Kurdish question; minority rights and constitutional citizenship; the democratic oversight of the security sector; religion-state-society relationship; and social perceptions and mentalities hampering democratisation.
The “Internal Displacement and Social Rehabilitation Project” was launched by the TESEV Democratisation Programme in 2004. Designed and implemented by an independent and inter-disciplinary Working and Monitoring Group composed of fi ve academics, the Project’s objective is promoting a democratic and just solution of Turkey’s internal displacement problem. Through this Project, TESEV Working and Monitoring Group carries out research, advocacy and monitoring activities targeting the government, the media, civil society and public opinion.
The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), established in 1998 by the Norwegian Refugee Council, is the leading international body monitoring confl ict-induced internal displacement worldwide. Through its work, the Centre contributes to improving national and international capacities to protect and assist the millions of people around the globe who have been displaced within their own country as a result of confl icts or human rights violations.
At the request of the United Nations, the Geneva-based IDMC runs an online database providing comprehensive information and analysis on internal displacement in some 50 countries. Based on its monitoring and data collection activities, the Centre advocates for durable solutions to the plight of the internally displaced in line with international standards. The IDMC also carries out training activities to enhance the capacity of local actors to respond to the needs of internally displaced people (IDPs). In its work, the Centre cooperates with and provides support to local and national civil society initiatives.