... more than a decade of joint action to promote democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe ...

Current Events
Today -
by Programme -
by Country -
Search -
Subcontractors and grantees
Print View
Sign in

Joint Programmes - Activities by Country
01 April 2020

Activity Details (ID# 24597)  

Hide Synopsis  
Title Seminar for enforcement judges about their role, duties and responsibilities as well as new penal enforcement legislation and the revised EPR and other applicable standards 
Description Seminar of two days for enforcement judges about their role, duties and responsibilities as well as new penal enforcement legislation and the revised EPR and other applicable standards, with the attendance of two international experts. 
Status Completed 
Date 29/09/2011 - 30/09/2011 
Location Antalya, Turkey
Countries CoE Members: Turkey
  Joint Programme Activity - Turkey- Pris.reform
Joint Programme EC/CoE
JP Turkey- Pris.reform - Dissemination of Model Prison Practices and Promotion of Prison reform in Turkey    (Logframe)  (Activities)
Project Purpose 1 - 2009/DG I/JP/1790   Dissemination of Model Prison Practices and Promotion of Prison Reform in Turkey
Expected Result 1.4 - The role of the Monitoring Boards and the enforcement judges enhanced
Council of Europe Programme of Activities
I – Rule of Law
Line of Action ⇒ II.1 – Ensuring Justice
Programme ☆ II.1.2  Prisons and Police

Working Method

Organisation of meetings - Seminar 
Directorate Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law 
CoE Contact RAKUSIC-HADZIC, Tanja   email
Last Modified 22/01/2013 

Activity Synopsis (ID# 24597) (Hide Synopsis)

Objective(s) To strengthen the capacity of the participants to understand the essence of the international standards as to monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty and present best practices from other CoE member states. 
Output/Results The method of bridging the international standards with relevant country-specific situation generated considerable number of questions and interventions from the participants. On the basis of presentations made by the national and foreign experts, the participants were asked to prepare their views on the achievements and problems faced by their systems. For these purposes the participants were split into 3/4 groups (depending on the number of participants).
The second day of the seminar demonstrated that its organisers had rightly opted for the model that allowed the participants to take initiative in comparing the developments and remaining difficulties in the sphere of their responsibilities with international standards and best practices. The consultants contributed to developing the lists of questions to be put to the working groups and subsequent discussions/assessment of their feedback. All the groups demonstrated commitment to their professional obligations, interest in discussing the problematic areas and finding solutions. All groups made presentations by the designated rapporteurs. The participants demonstrated genuine professional interest in best practices, international requirements on the matters discussed. They were keen to hear about the solutions and approaches suggested by international standards. The questions concerned the problematic areas identified during the group work, as well as some other issues, such as particular standards of treatment of persons deprived of their liberty (conditions, regime, applicable restrictions, disciplinary punishment etc.). The questions suggest that the audience lacked knowledge of international human rights standards applicable in this area.
Conclusions/Follow Up The open atmosphere of the discussions and readiness to address problems existing in the spheres concerned could be considered as an indication of progress made in the penitentiary system of Turkey.
The event attained its aims and could be regarded as successful.
The events demonstrated genuine professional interest of the participants in international human rights standards and the need for taking this aspect into account for future activities under the JP or other frameworks dealing with the issues of deprivation of liberty and its oversight mechanisms in Turkey.
At the same time, the discussions at seminars with the members of the monitoring boards demonstrated a number of regulatory shortcomings of the system (admitted by the representatives of the MoJ), lack of interaction and networking between the standalone regional monitoring boards, inexistence of common national forum, platform and relevant training schemes (be it initial or ‘in-service’ training of the members). These deficiencies and shortcomings merit a project on advancement of the public monitoring of deprivation of liberty in Turkey and human rights and professional training of members of monitoring boards.
Participants Enforcement judges in charge of processing prisoner complaints 
Consultants/Experts Eric Svanidze, Lawyer, Former CPT Member
Kees Boeij, Long Term Consultant, CoE 
CoE Secretariat Baris Yunculer, Project Manager, CoE
Sukran Ileri, Linguistic Assistant, CoE 
Total No. Participants 94 
Last Modified


  * All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.  
   Return to the top of the page.