Staying alive by accident

Executive summary

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture completed forensic medical reports on 78 of its Turkish clients referred to the Foundation in the period 1st January 1997 to 31st March 1998. All presented with medical evidence of torture consistent with their accounts. Care and treatment were offered in the same period by the Medical Foundation to further Turkish survivors of torture who did not require forensic medical reports to support their asylum claims.

Most of the torture we have documented occurs in the context of the struggle between the Turkish Government and the Kurdish separatist movement, the PKK.

The Treaty of Sèvres Sèvres after the First World War gave Kurds hopes for a state of their own. These were disappointed when Mustafa Kemal led an armed revolt to establish a new Turkish nation state. By the Treaty of Lausanne, a new peace was concluded with the victors, which made no provision for Kurdish independence. The new Turkish state was intended to be unitary, and did not recognise ethnic or cultural separateness for the Kurds. Risings were suppressed with armed force and people forced to move from their villages which were then burnt and destroyed. The Turkish Government remains determined not to permit any cultural pluralism. Violence characterised the initial relations between the Turkish Government and the Kurds in Turkey, and still does to this day.

There is no doubt that torture occurs in Turkey. Organisations that monitor human rights, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, attest to it year after year. Inter-governmental organisations, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the UN Committee against Torture and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe (CPT) all criticise Turkey for allowing torture to continue. The Turkish Government itself admits that torture occurs in Turkey.

The measures it takes to combat torture, however, are insufficient. Incommunicado detention enables torture to occur; shorter periods which were introduced in March 1997 are not everywhere complied with. Failure to investigate, prosecute, and secure convictions and to impose appropriate penalties on those thought to be responsible for torture are considered by the US State Department in its report on the events of 1997 to be "the single largest obstacle to reducing human rights abuses". Perpetrators may literally be getting away with murder.

Medical examination during detention and upon release or court appearance is required by Turkish law, but intimidation of doctors and detainees leads to torture not being reported or documented even when there are clear signs of it. In March 1998 a doctor was charged with malpractice for documenting torture of six men accused of theft although the charge against the doctor was later dropped. The Turkish Government has issued circulars ordering compliance with regulations forbidding the use of torture and has instituted human rights training for security personnel. It has also established a Human Rights Minister. However, as the CPT pointed out, these measures are inadequate without more effective control of the security forces.

The 78 clients in this report left Turkey and sought political asylum in the UK because they feared further torture. All but eight of the sample were men, most of whom were married, but a good number had left wives and children behind. Most lived in small towns or villages and were farmers, although some had fled to large towns to try to escape the attentions of the security forces. All but two were Kurds; most had political sympathies for Kurdish separatist or communist ideas. Most belonged to the minority religious Alevi group whose members are also harassed. In virtually every case, other members of the family had also been persecuted. The clients were usually detained repeatedly for a few days at a time. Only 15 were charged with an offence, and of these, only three were convicted. All described torture during their arrests.

Forensic medical reports completed by 25 different Medical Foundation doctors found scars or other signs that the clients had been tortured as they described. The time between the last detention and examination at the Medical Foundation ranged from seven months to ten years. Doctors found scarring from beatings, cigarette burn scars, pain in feet and shoulders consistent with reported injuries, and in virtually all the clients, often considerable mental and emotional symptoms. Beating, falaka (beating on the soles of the feet) electrical torture, suspension and cold water hosing were the tortures most frequently reported, with blindfolding, enforced nakedness and threats of death or violence generally accompanying the physical ill-treatment. Similar findings were reported by other agencies, for example, Physicians for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch (Helsinki) and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey.

Despite the forensic medical evidence and the widely documented practices of torture in Turkey, the Home Office, which is responsible for deciding claims of political asylum, does not usually recognise these people as requiring international protection. Many clients told the Home Office, either at the interview or in written submissions from their legal representative, that they had been tortured. We read the accounts of what the clients said to the Home Office alongside the reasons given for refusing asylum. We found that refusal letters written to clients whom we know told the Home Office that they had been tortured either ignore or hardly mention what the clients said about their treatment in detention. Clients' own evidence of torture appears to count for nothing. Ten cases had to wait until the Home Office had seen the medical evidence before their accounts of torture were considered and believed, and 32 were still denied international protection even when the medical evidence was available.

The Home Office assessment of the human rights situation in Turkey seriously and dangerously underestimates the risk of torture or persecution that would be faced by asylum seekers if returned. Its assessment also differs in being more favourable than those made by all the independent commentators whose views are considered here.

The Home Office's failure to consider evidence of torture means that many Turkish torture victims are not being granted the right to stay in the UK. Their claims to be in fear of further torture are being ignored, and the UK may consequently be failing to honour its international obligations to protect those at risk.

Purchasing this report

To purchase this report you should email our
Public Affairs Department.
(It costs £3 + postage.)