Human Rights Committee
Concluding observations on the initial report of Turkeyadopted by the Committee at its 106th session (15 October - 2 November 2012)
1.The Human Rights Committee considered the initial periodic report of Turkey (CCPR/C/TUR/1) at its 2927th, 2928th and 2929th meetings (CCPR/C/SR/2927, 2928 and 2929), held on 17 and 18 October 2012. At its 2944th meeting (CCPR/C/SR/2944), held on 30 October 2012, it adopted the following concluding observations.
A.Introduction
2.The Committee welcomes the submission of the initial report of Turkey and the information presented therein while regretting that it was submitted late. The Committee is grateful to the State party for its written replies (CCPR/TUR/Q/1/Add.1) to the list of issues which were supplemented by the oral responses provided by the delegation and for the supplementary information provided to it in writing.
B.Positive aspects
3.The Committee welcomes the following legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party:
(a)The 2010 Constitutional reform;
(b)The abolition of the death penalty in 2002 and the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances in 2004;
(c)The 2003 new Labour Law No. 4857, that introduced new improvements to eliminate inequalities between men and women in the field of work.
4.The Committee welcomes the ratification by the State party of:
(a)The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2004;
(b)The Optional Protocols I and II to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in 2006;
(c)The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the signature of its Optional Protocol, in 2009;
(d)The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in 2011.
C. Principal matters of concern and recommendations
5.The Committee is concerned that the State party maintains its declarations and reservation made at the time of ratification of the Covenant and its Optional Protocol. In particular, the Committee is concerned that one of these declarations appears in fact to be a reservation limiting the effect of the Covenant to the national territory of the State party, which could result in the complete non-applicability of the Covenant to persons subject to its jurisdiction in situations where its troops or police forces operate abroad.
The State party should consider withdrawing its reservation and declarations. In accordance with the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on t he n ature of the g eneral l egal o bligation i mposed o