Press release of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
Istanbul, 20 April 1996
N°6

Contents

• IPU criticizes sentences against Turkish MPs
• Mediterranean security and co-operation
• Cyprus
• Middle East
• UN-IPU co-operation
• Next IPU conference
• Elections to IPU Executive Committee
• Women parliamentarians
• IPU support to Habitat II
• Annex on human rights cases

The Inter-Parliamentary Council, the governing body of the 133-member Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), adopted a report in Istanbul today which called the sentences recently handed down to four Turkish MPs of Kurdish origin "harsh and oppressive".

The sentences against the MPs "seem to reflect a deliberate attempt to prevent these former MPs from engaging in any future political activity", the report said.

The report was from the IPU's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians which looks into cases of MPs who are subjected to arbitrary measures (e.g. harassment, imprisonment, or even assassination for having expressed their views). The Committee had undertaken a two-day fact finding mission, on 11-12 April, which included visiting five Turkish parliamentarians currently in prison in Ankara, four others sentenced, and the wife of an assassinated MP.

The Committee also met with the MPs' lawyer, the Turkish Minister of Justice, Mr Mehmet Agar, and the President of the Turkish IPU Group, Mr Irfan Köksalan.

The report was adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Council, the governing body of the IPU, meeting the day after the close of the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference. The Council also adopted the Committee's recommendations on the cases of 58 parliamentarians in 12 other countries whose cases had been examined by the five-member Committee during its meetings in Istanbul. The other cases concern MPs in Albania, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Togo.

The Committee's work is normally carried out in private and cases are only made public in very serious cases and in response to a lack of progress in solving them by governments and parliaments. Counting confidential and public cases together, during its meetings in Istanbul the Committee discussed a total of 135 MPs in 29 countries. (A summary of all the public cases is contained in the annex at the end of this communiqué.)

The Council elected Mr Hilarion Etong (Cameroon) and Mr François Autain (France) as titular members of the Human Rights Committee, and Mrs Badia Skalli (Morocco) and Mr François Borel (Switzerland) as substitute members.

Representatives of the coastal States around the Mediterranean met in Istanbul during the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference to look at future steps to promote security and co-operation in the Mediterranean following the IInd IPU Conference on Security and Co-operation in the Mediterranean (CSCM) in Valletta, Malta, last November.

The Council took note of the results of the Valletta Conference and approved the holding of a IIIrd CSCM within three years, at the invitation of the Tunisian Parliament. In the meantime, a series of short meetings will be held on specific subjects to move the CSCM process forward, with the first such meeting in Monaco, probably in 1997, on employment and related issues.

The Council also endorsed the recommendation of the IInd CSCM concerning the establishment of an association of Mediterranean States, with a governmental and parliamentary arm, to support the process of security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. It took particular note of a communication from the Maltese delegation that if at least three other delegations brought about their governements' adherence to such an initiative, the Maltese Government would take the necessary measures to foster such an institutionalization of the process.

The Council adopted the report of the IPU Committee to Monitor the Situation in Cyprus, which had met during the Istanbul Conference and which had conducted hearing of the representatives of the two Cypriot communities and of the three Guarantor Powers (Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom). The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Mr E. Gönensay, also met with the Committee on 17 April. The report noted that the IPU Committee offers an opportunity for representatives of the two communities to engage in a dialogue, and continues to make a "useful contribution to the quest for a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus question".

The Council regretted that in the past six months since it last met, "the situation concerning Cyprus has moved no closer to a negotiated settlement", and appealed to the leaders of the two communities to resume negotiations.

It called on the parties to "ensure that no tactical considerations impede their discussions on such fundamental issues as definition of the concept of federation, constitutional questions, territorial questions and safeguards, or the question of Cyprus' membership in the European Union". The Committee proposed that the IPU Council encourage the EU in its efforts to conduct negotiations with a view to the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union -- which would also promote a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

The Committee also noted that the growing tension in recent months between Greece and Turkey, coupled with a significantly increased military potential in the area, greatly contributed to the climate of insecurity.

The Committee said that the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs had made the point that should tensions diminish with Greece, "Turkey would be willing to consider direct dialogue with Greece about Cyprus if that would help in bringing the two Communities together".

The Council renewed its call for a gradual withdrawal of Turkish troops stationed in the north of the Island, saying it remained "one of the major keys to a settlement of the Cyprus question".

Finally, the Committee said that inter-communal meetings at the level of civil society were still "rare and sporadic" and subject to authorization, and should be fostered and encouraged by the leadership of both communities to promote mutual respect and understanding and contribute to a lasting solution to the Cyprus problem.

The Council endorsed the report of the IPU Committee on Middle East questions which had met during the Istanbul Conference. Representatives of the Arab countries (Egypt and Jordan) and of the Palestine National Council had appeared before the Committee, as had separately a representative from Israel, to state their views on progress in the peace process in the Middle East.

The Committee in its report to the Council "strongly deplored the recent exchange of violence across the Israel/Lebanon border, and, in particular the attack against civilians in South Lebanon, as well as the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and the suicide attacks in Israel". Despite this, it felt there was "a measure of progress" in the peace process, including the recent successful elections in Palestine resulting in democratically elected parliamentarians and the development of economic and social institutions. The Committee called these "hopeful signs".

The Committee felt that Israel was "overreacting", and the vicious circle of violence would slow down the peace process.

The Committee "very much regretted" that once again the delegations of Syria and Lebanon had declined to meet with the Committee and present their views.

In conclusion, the Committee appealed for "an end to extremism, terrorism and violence innthe Middle East, whatever their source". It also called for support to Palestine in its development efforts, and called on "all neighbouring states to join Egypt and Jordan in pursuing the peace process".

The Council approved the final draft of an agreement for new and closer co-operation between the United Nations (world organization of governments) and the IPU (world organization of parliaments), which was called for by the UN General Assembly during its 1995 session, and authorized the President of the Council and/or the IPU Secretary General to sign it on its behalf.

The Council also gave its go-ahead to what will be the first concrete expression of the deeper co-operation between the two organizations -- the holding in New York in September of a tri-partite meeting to follow-up the 1995 World Summit for Social Development. The meeting will bring together parliaments, governments and concerned inter-governmental organizations to formulate recommendations for specific follow-up action at the parliamentary level.

The Council decided that the next Inter-Parliamentary Conference, the 96th, which will be held in Beijing from 16 to 20 September 1996. The themes of the Conference will deal with promoting human rights in particular those of women and children, and trade liberalization to fulfill the right to food.

The Council elected Mr Jerzy J. Wiatr (Poland) to the IPU's Executive Committee, to replace Mr M. Szuros (Hungary) whose term had expired.

Mrs Agatha Nicolau (Romania) reported to the Council on the results of the Meeting of Women Parliamentarians that had taken place during the Istanbul Conference session. She mentionned in particular the women parliamentarians' debate on organized violence against women, and drew attention to the model legislation on the issue of domestic violence, prepared by the UN Special Rapporteur on violence.

"As women, and as parliamentarians, we believe it is important to legislate to prevent this phenomenon which has become very frequent and occurs in all countries, and to take measures to punish the authors of domestic violence," Mrs Nicolau said. She noted that during the women MPs' debate, particular attention was paid to the plight of women in Algeria, Rwanda, Lebanon and East Timor.

Mrs Nicolau also drew attention to the latest survey of women in parliament which reveals that only an average of little over 10 per cent of parliamentary seats are occupied by women, as well as to the survey under way on how political parties and electoral systems and procedures affect women's chances to become MPs.

She said the low proportion of women MPs "clearly constitutes a weakness of our democracies". She welcomed the approval by the Conference of the IPU's statutes and rules which have been re-written to make them gender neutral.

The Council adopted a resolution supporting the holding of the second UN Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II, which will be taking place in Istanbul in June 1996. It expressed the hope that Habitat II "will promote new policies and strategies for urban development, housing development and solution of urban environmental problems".

The Council pointed out that many human settlements problems will require legislative action and that the participation of national parliaments and their members in the implementation of the Habitat II commitments "will therefore be vitally important".

Albania (one MP): This is the case of Mr Fatos Nano, former-Prime Minister of Albania and President of the Socialist Party, who was arrested in 1993 following the lifting of his parliamentary immunity and tried and found guilty of embezzling State funds in favour of a third party in connection with emergency aid delivered by Italy to Albania in 1991. In the meantime, the third party was found innocent by an Italian court. Mr Nano's efforts to have his trial reviewed under the old and new penal codes and to have his sentence re-evaluated have been frustrated so far. Moreover, although Mr Nano has the right to regular contact with his lawyers, they have not been able to see him since October 1995. The Committee said it was "outraged" that Mr Nano was still not permitted regular contacts with his lawyer despite promises given during an IPU visit to Albania in December 1994, remains "deeply alarmed" at the combination of measures that have the effect of keeping him in prison, and "fears that Mr Nano's prosecution may be based solely on political considerations, overlooking national and international norms of fair trial".

Bulgaria (one MP): The case concerns the lifting of the parliamentary immunity in 1992 of Mr Andrei Lukanov, former Prime Minister, who was accused in 1992 of misappropriation of state funds for having granted development aid to certain countries. He was later released on bail. He was re-elected to Parliament in December 1994, which automatically gave him back his parliamentary immunity. However, it was only in May 1995 that the Prosecutor General suspended the proceedings under way against Mr Lukanov. As a result of this, the Committee decided to close the case.

Burundi (5 MPs): This case concerns 5 MPs, two of whom, Mr Mfayokurera and Mr Ndikumana were assassinated in August 1994 and December 1995 respectively. Three others were seriously injured in assassination attempts against them. No serious investigations have been carried out to determine the culprits, guaranteeing the attackers total impunity. The Committee expressed its "outrage" at the continued violence which has claimed another MP's life, and "insists that the competent authorities should fulfill their duties under national and international law and ensure that the fullest light is shed on the murders" of the MPs. "Impunity constitutes a serious threat to democracy and human rights by encouraging culprits to persist in their wrongdoing," the Committee said.

Cambodia (6 MPs): The first case concerns Mr Sam Rainsy, former Finance Minister and founding member of the ruling FUNCINPEC party. Following critical statements on his part concerning government corruption, he was dismissed as Finance Minister in 1994, expelled from his party in May 1995 and then from the National Assembly on 22 June 1995 following the government's request that he be removed from his parliamentary seat. The Committee considers that Mr Rainsy was expelled from parliament in the last analysis for having exercised his right to freedom of expression. Moreover, second Prime Minister Hun Sen is reported to have said that Mr Rainsy's life would be shortened if concealed weapons were discovered in his possession. The Committee said it was "alarmed at what seem to be thinly veiled death threats against Mr Sam Rainsy, and strongly urges the government to protect Mr Sam Rainsy's life" as it is its duty.

The other case concerns five MPs of the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party including its founder, Mr Son Sann. Following a split in the party in May 1995, the Government recognized the opposing faction to that led by Son Sann whose attempts to hold a party congress to clear up the situation were stopped by the government and two grenade attacks on participants on the eve of the congress injured 30 people. The government said it would conduct thorough investigations, but it appears that this was not the case. While fearing that the silence of the authorities may simply indicate lack of progress, it urged the authorities to see to it that investigations are conducted "with all due diligence".

Colombia (6 MPs): All the parliamentarians in this case were assassinated between 1986 and 1994 and it is alleged that the MPs were victims of extra-judicial executions perpetrated by groups which might have acted on the authority of the Colombian armed forces. For some time, the Committee has been voicing its concern over the lack of diligence by the Colombian authorities in protecting members of parliament. Last year, special bodies were set up to investigate the assassinations, in particular a search group was sent to capture two paramilitary leaders sought for the murder of two of the senators. The Committee was therefore puzzled to learn that the government was actually negotiating with them with the aim of reintegrating them into civil life -- which may result in their enjoying total impunity.

Gambia (one MP): This case concerns Mr Lamin Wa Juwara, a member of the House of Representatives that was dissolved in the July 1994 military coup, and who was arrested in October 1995 and has since disappeared. The Committee said it was "extremely concerned" at the arrest and dissapearance of Mr Wa Juwara, and "wishes to ascertain urgently" his whereabouts and reasons for his arrest. It recalled that Gambia is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and bound to respect its provisions on the right to life and security of the person.

Honduras (one MP): The case concerns a member of the Honduran Congress, Mr Miguel Angel Pavon Salazar, who was murdered in 1988 shortly after testifying before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning disappeared people. Although the investigations into this case, which had been at a standstill for several years, were reactivated in 1994, to date they have produced no results. The Committee called for more detailed information on the investigations under way, and requested the IPU Secretary General to contact the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to obtain more details on the procedure for obtaining compensation for Mr Salazar's family.

Indonesia (two MPs): The first case concerns a member of the Indonesian Congress Party, Mr Sukatno, who has spent 28 years in prison, most of them under sentence of death, for having played an active part in the attempted communist coup d'état in 1965. Mr Sukatno has not been granted clemency despite appeals by the IPU in view of his age and long years in prison, and also was not among the prisoners released in August 1995 under the amnesty on the occasion of Indonesia's 50th anniversary of independence. Mr Sukatno is reportedly seriously ill, both physically and mentally. The Committee "profoundly regrets" that its repeated appeals to the President of Indonesia for Mr Sukatno's release in view of his age have been to no avail.

The second case concerns Mr Sri Bintang Pamungkas, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives who is an outspoken critic of the government. He is being tried for crimes against the dignity of the President of the Republic of Indonesia for allegedly calling him a dictator him in a speech made in Germany in April 1995. Mr Pamungkas was "recalled" from his parliamentary seat in May 1995 following an official dismissal decree signed by the President. The Committee noted with regret that Indonesian law empowers political parties to have representatives of the people "recalled", although they hold their mandate by popular will. The Committee also considered that Mr Pamungkas was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression -- "which would be quite meaningless if it did not include the right, in particular, of MPs to criticize the Executive".

Maldives (2 MPs): The first case concerns Mr Ilyas lbrahim, a former member of the Citizens' Majlis of the Maldives, who was prosecuted for having sought election in the 1993 presidential elections. He fled abroad, and was tried in absentia and sentenced to over 15 years' banishment -- a trial which failed to meet internationally recognized standards. He has since returned to the Maldives "in the forlorn hope of obtaining justice". The Committee called for more information on the current situation of Mr Ibrahim, and "earnestly hopes that a review of the trial whereby Mr Ibrahim was sentenced will be possible since prosecution witnesses have retracted their testimonies".

The second case concerns Mr Mohammed Saleem, another member of the assembly who in April 1995 was sentenced to five-and-a-half-years' banishment on charges of corruption. His conviction is reportedly linked to his support for Mr Ibrahim and similar political opinions. The Committee requested a certain number of documents which the Maldives has failed to supply.

Myanmar (23 MPs): This case relates to the failure of the military authorities in the country to convene the parliament elected in 1990, and concerns MPs-elect who all were arrested and sentenced to heavy prison terms after summary trials -- including one MP who died in detention. Although most MPs have been released on condition they don't engage in political activity and were also stripped of their right to vote and be elected, some were later re-arrested and remain in detention, and reportedly receive inhuman and degrading treatment. Two MPs have been murdered. Despite assertions that prison conditions are good, the Committee expressed its alarm at reliable information of inhuman treatment of detainees, in particular of the MPs who tried to establish contact with the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar It urged the authorities to grant the UN rapporteur "free access" to all detained MPs and to agree to an IPU fact-finding mission.

Nigeria (7 MPs): This case concerns members of the former Nigerian Parliament, elected in July 1992 and dissolved in the wake of the November 1993 coup d'état. The members of the Senate were arrested on 2 June 1994 and charged with treasonable felony and conspiring with others to overthrow the Government. Although the judge recently ordered the closure of the cases, they reportedly are under a constant threat of re-arrest. Senator Tinubu went into exile for fear of his life. The member of the House of Representatives, Mr Oshun, was arrested on 19 May 1995 and detained without charge. He is meanwhile said to have been released. The Committee expressed its concern at the allegation that they were warned against criticizing the government, and recalled in this connection Nigeria's obligation to respect freedom of speech.

Togo (3 MPs): This case concerns the killing of three parliamentarians in 1992 and 1994, reportedly at the hands of security forces. The authorities consistently affirm that investigations into these crimes are under way, but no progress has been made, although at least in one of the cases the killer's identity is "well known". Thus, the Committee may be "led to conclude that the competent authorities are reluctant to shed light on these odious crimes and that the Togolese State may thus be considered to share responsibility by omission in the murders of these MPs".

Turkey (17 MPs): These cases concern persons, all of Kurdish origin, who were elected members of the Turkish parliament in 1991, representing the south-eastern region of Turkey. All belonged to the People's Labour Party (HEP). The HEP having been banned following a Supreme Court decision of 14  July 1993, its members established and all joined the Democracy Party (DEP) on 7 May 1993. On 2 March 1994, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) lifted the parliamentary immunity of some DEP deputies, leading to their arrest and prosecution for separatism under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code. On 16 June 1994, the Constitutional Court dissolved the DEP. Consequently, by virtue of Article 84 of the Turkish Constitution, all but three MPs belonging to this party lost their parliamentary seat. Some fled abroad and two DEP deputies were arrested and also charged with separatism.

The trial against Ms Leyla Zana, Mr Orhan Dogan, Mr Ahmet Türk, Mr Hatip Dicle, Mr Sedat Yurtdas, Mr Selim Sadak, Mr Sirri Sakik and Mr Mahmut Alinak, started on 3 August 1994 before the Ankara State Security Court. On 8 December 1994, the Court found Ms Leyla Zana, Mr Hatip Dicle, Mr Ahmet Türk, Mr Orhan Dogan and Mr Selim Sadak guilty under Article 168, para. 2 of the Turkish Penal Code of membership in an armed organization and sentenced them to 15 years' imprisonment. Mr  Sedat Yurtdas was found guilty of having provided support to an armed organization (Article 169 of the Turkish Penal Code) and was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Mr Mahmut Alinak and Mr Sirri Sakik were found guilty under Article 8, para. 1, of the Anti-Terror Law for having made separatist propaganda and were sentenced to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment and to a fine of 70 million Turkish pounds. They were both released pending the appeal proceedings, in view of the duration of their pre-trial detention. Mr Alinak had regained his seat in the TGNA pending the appeal procedure. On 26 October 1995 the High Court of Appeal confirmed the sentences of Mr Dicle, Mr Dogan, Mr Sadak and Ms Zana, who are accordingly due to remain imprisoned until the year 2005. In January 1996, an appeal against the decision was brought before the European Commission of Human Rights, which in February 1996 declared the case admissible. On the same day, the High Court of Appeal quashed the sentence handed down on Mr Türk and Mr Yurtdas, ruling that they should have been sentenced under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act instead of Articles 168 and 169, respectively, of the Turkish Penal Code. Both were released on 27 October in view of the length of their detention. The Court also quashed the sentences of Mr Alinak and Mr Sakik, ruling that a mistake had been made in establishing the fines. All four were retried before Ankara State Security Court. On 11 April 1996 the Ankara State Security Court sentenced them to 14 months' imprisonment and a fine of 116,000,000 Turkish pounds (approx. US$1,590). As a result of this sentencing, they are deprived of their political rights, and two of them, who are lawyers, are banned from exercising their professions for the rest of their lives. They have the right to appeal against the decision and intend to make use of it. The Committee called these sentences "harsh and oppressive" and "seem to reflect a deliberate attempt to prevent these former MPs from engaging in any future political activity".

The successor party of DEP, the HADEP, participated in the parliamentary elections of December 1995, Mr Türk, Mr Yurtdas and Mr Sakik re-representing themselves on its list. The party obtained 4.17% on the national level but more than or up to 50% in several electoral districts in the South-East. However, given the threshold of 10% at the national level, it is thus no longer represented in the TGNA.

The committee decided to close the case of Mr Fehmi Isiklar, former Vice-President of the TGNA, who lost his mandate following the dissolution of the HEP in 1993. He did not stand for election last year.

Following is the text of the conclusions of the Committee's report on its mission to Ankara:

1. The Committee is gratified to note that the conditions of imprisonment are acceptable and that the former MPs themselves consider them satisfactory. It nevertheless notes with concern that Ms. Zana, whose family is now living abroad, may not telephone her children and that, on one occasion, one of her sons who visited her in prison was briefly detained and that she does not know why. The Committee strongly hopes that family members exercising their right to visit the MPs in prison will not be intimidated in any manner and that ways will be found of enabling Ms. Zana to maintain contact with her children, if only by telephone.

2. The Committee noted with great interest that, according to the Minister of Justice, there were no problems with legally organized bodies and that "People should voice their views democratically; the Constitution makes this possible at the political level." It cannot but stress that the former DEP deputies were democratically elected; that three of them who were able to stand for re-election in December 1995 obtained many votes in their constituencies, despite the many obstacles to their campaign. The Committee notes that the former MPs did not belong to any separatist organization and they recognize their Turkish citizenship. In the opinion of the Committee, the former MPs were voicing their views and that of their electorate democratically. It therefore wonders what in the eyes of the Turkish Government constitutes democratic expression permitting Turkish citizens of Kurdish background to raise and discuss matters relating to the assertion of Kurdish cultural identity and the many human rights violations being committed in south-east Turkey.

3. The Committee is unable to dispel its concerns regarding the fairness of the trial, in particular the right of the defence to present its case and the administration of evidence. It notes, however, that the case of Ms. Zana, Mr. Dicle, Mr. Dogan and Mr. Sadak is pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. It notes in this respect the clear stand of the President of the Turkish National Group as to Turkey's obligation to abide by a decision of the jurisdiction established under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Committee also notes the decision adopted by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention N° 40/1995, whereby the detention of the MPs concerned was declared arbitrary, and the fact that the Working Group requested the Government of Turkey to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into line with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It hopes that the MPs concerned may be released pending the proceedings of the European Commission of Human Rights.

4. It notes that Mr. Türk, Mr. Yurtdas, Mr. Alinak and Mr. Sakik were sentenced, on 11 April 1996, at the close of their re-trial before Ankara State Security Court, to 14 months' imprisonment under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act for separatist propaganda. It notes with great concern that as a consequence of their being sentenced to a prison term exceeding 12 months, they will be deprived of their political rights for life and that Mr. Alinak and Mr. Yurtdas, who are both lawyers, will be debarred for life from exercising their profession. It also notes in this connection that the judge had the right to reduce the sentence by a sixth, which would have reduced it to under 12 months and therefore would not have had the same consequences.

The Committee considers that owing to these consequences the sentences become harsh and oppressive, which seems to reflect a deliberate attempt to prevent these former MPs from engaging in any future political activity. It nevertheless notes that they have the right to appeal against the decision and that they will exercise it.

5. It notes that the eight former MPs all were indicted under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, which states that "any person who carries out any action with the aim of bringing all or part of the territory of the Turkish State under the sovereignty of a foreign State or to separate any part of the territory from the control of the Turkish State, shall be punished by death". It notes also that the evidence brought against them in their trial was essentially of the same nature. Nevertheless, four of them were found guilty of belonging to a terrorist organization and four of conducting separatist propaganda. It notes that, in the view of the authorities, this illustrates the independence of the Turkish judiciary while, in the eyes of the deputies, the characterization of the crimes and the convictions delivered responded more to political than to legal considerations.

The Committee cannot but express its perplexity at the considerable differences that exist between the sentences handed down on each of the MPs in respect of similar charges and prosecution evidence.

6. The Committee expresses concern that the MPs concerned may have been prosecuted for having exercised their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It notes in this respect that the European Parliament recommends the suppression of Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

7. Finally, the Committee notes that the murderer of Mr. Sinçar has been identified; that, however, he is no longer in Turkey. It deeply regrets once again the circumstances of Mr. Sinçar's murder, which was perpetrated in broad daylight in a region with a usually heavy police presence, and that, despite the authorities' frequent assertions that the police had identified the culprits and even, in one instance, apprehended the look-out man, the police were unable to arrest the killer. The Committee also hopes that the Turkish Parliament will be able to make an exception and provide retirement benefits to Mrs. Sinçar.