Summary of law reform necessary to achieve full prohibition

Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, schools, alternative care settings and possibly penal institutions.

Legal recognition of parents’ “right of correction” was removed from the Civil Code in 2002, but the Criminal Code recognises a person’s “disciplinary power arising from the right of tutoring of a person under his/her care or to whom he/she has obligation to raise, educate, care, protect or teach an occupation or art”. The near universal social and cultural acceptance of corporal punishment in childrearing necessitates clarity in law that no degree or form of such punishment is acceptable in disciplining children. All legal defences should be repealed and legislation should explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment and other humiliating and degrading treatment, including by parents in the home and in all settings where adults have authority over children.

Explicit prohibition should be enacted of corporal punishment in all schools, public and private, in all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law and in all alternative care settings, including public and private day care, residential institutions, foster care, etc.

Current legality of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. In 2002, the Civil Code was amended to remove parents’ “right of correction”, but the Criminal Code (2004) recognises the concept of “disciplinary power” (article 232). Provisions against violence and abuse in the Criminal Code, the Law on Protection of the Family and the Law on Child Protection (2005) are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment of in childrearing.

Ms Nimet Cubukcu, Minister for State Social Services, has signed up to the Council of Europe campaign against corporal punishment of children. To our knowledge there have been no moves towards law reform to achieve prohibition, but as at 2009 the Ministry of Justice, UNICEF and others had conducted a study of national legislation and recommendations were being drafted to ensure harmonisation with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Schools

Corporal punishment has been considered unlawful in schools since 1923, but there is no explicit prohibition and there has been some controversy as to its legal status. Law No. 1702 punishes ill-treatment and beating of (articles 20 and 22), and the Law on Promotion, Appreciation and Punishment for Primary School Teachers No. 4357 (article 7), the Law on Promotion and Punishment for Secondary School Teachers (articles 20-22 and 27) and the State Personnel Law No. 657 provide for punitive measures against teachers who use physical or psychological violence against children. However, in April 2008, an investigation by the Education Ministry into the use of corporal punishment by a school principal reportedly concluded that corporal punishment has an educational value. The investigator reportedly cited an Administrative Supreme Court ruling in 1978 which supported corporal punishment by teachers, but not a 2005 ruling against it.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. There is no provision for it in the Criminal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code (2004).

Corporal punishment is considered unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, but we have yet to confirm prohibition is explicit. The Law on Enforcement of Punishment and Security Policies (2004) provides for the rights of children in detention, but we have no further details.

Alternative care

There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in alternative care settings.

Prevalence research

A 2010 study examined the prevalence of family violence in the childhoods of 988 college students through anonymous questionnaires. The types of violence included being kicked, punched, thrown, bruised, burned, or caused to bleed, lose teeth, or have broken bones. More than half of the students (53.3%) had experienced some of these types of violence in childhood (64% males, 41.6% females). The most common perpetrators were mothers and fathers, but siblings and other relatives were also perpetrators. One in five students (22.6%) said that the violence was inflicted to establish discipline, 15.9% said that the perpetrator wanted to teach them a lesson, and 16.1% said the purpose was to instil respect. (Turla, A., Dündar, C. & Özkanli, C. (2010), “Prevalence of Childhood Physical Abuse in a Representative Sample of College Students in Samsun, Turkey”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1298–1308)

A report on psychiatric facilities, orphanages and rehabilitation centres in Turkey found that in psychiatric institutions children as young as nine were subjected to electroconvulsive or “shock” treatment (ECT), including as a punishment, without the use of muscle relaxants or anaesthesia. In rehabilitation centres and orphanages, children were restrained, sometimes permanently, by being tied by their arms and legs or having plastic bottles taped over their hands. The report documents an incident of corporal punishment where a child was locked up, thrown across a room, tied up and hit. (Ahern, L. et al. (2005), Behind Closed Doors: Human Rights Abuses in the Psychiatric Facilities, Orphanages and Rehabilitation Centers of Turkey, Mental Disability Rights International)

In research involving 1,800 children and young people aged 10-18 years in Istanbul, 23% reported experiencing physical punishment by their parents, more commonly for children under 14 than for older children. (Erkman, F. (2003), paper presented at the Society for Cross Cultural Research Conference, South Carolina, February 2003)

According to statistics from UNICEF relating to the period 2001-2007, of girls and women aged 15-49, 39% think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances. (UNICEF (2009), Progress for Children: A report card on child protection, NY: UNICEF)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee expresses its deep concern that physical punishment in the home is culturally and legally accepted and that only ‘excessive punishment’ resulting in physical injury is prohibited by the Penal Code. It also notes with concern that, although prohibited, corporal punishment is used in schools and other institutions.

“In the light of articles 3, 19 and 28(2) of the Convention, the Committee encourages the State party to develop measures to raise awareness on the harmful effects of corporal punishment and promote alternative forms of discipline in families, to be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s dignity and in conformity with the Convention. It also recommends that the ban on corporal punishments in school and other institutions be enforced effectively.”
(9 July 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.152, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 47 and 48)

Committee against Torture

“The Committee, while noting the amendment to the Civil Code in 2002 which removed parents’ right of correction, is concerned at the lack of an explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in the home and in alternative settings in the domestic legislation, and reports that corporal punishment is widely used by parents and is still considered to have educational value in schools (art. 16).

The Committee should clarify beyond doubt the legal status of corporal punishment in schools and penal institutions and, as a matter of priority, prohibit it in the home, alternative settings and, if appropriate, schools and penal institutions.”
(20 January 2011, CAT/C/TUR/CO/3, Concluding observations on third report, para. 22)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

“The Committee is concerned that corporal punishment is not explicitly prohibited in the home and is practiced in schools (arts. 10 and 13).

The Committee urges the State party to adopt specific legislation prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment in the home. It further calls on the State party to raise public awareness against corporal punishment at home or in schools. In this respect, the Committee draws the attention of the State party to its recommendation on discipline in schools as contained in its general comment No. 13 (1999) on the right to education.”
(12 July 2011, E/C.12/TUR/CO/1/, Concluding observations on initial report, para. 24)

European Committee of Social Rights

“The Committee notes that according to Article 6 of Law 4357 (13) and Articles 20 and 22 of Law 1702 (14), a teacher who commits a harmful act against a pupil may be sanctioned by inter alia the non payment of his/her salary and pursuant to Article 27 of the latter law, a teacher who commits sexual harassment against a pupil is sanctioned by dismissal. From another source the Committee notes that corporal punishment is used in schools and other institutions. Since the report is unclear on which legislation actually prohibits all forms of corporal punishment in schools and in institutions, the Committee asks that the next report contain this information. It asks also what measures have been taken to effectively enforce a ban on corporal punishment in schools and institutions. The Committee finds that there is no prohibition of corporal punishment in the home. This situation cannot be considered to be in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter.

…

“The Committee concludes that the situation in Turkey is not in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter on the grounds that:

- corporal punishment in the home is not prohibited….”
(March 2005, Conclusions XVII-2)

“The Turkish Penal and Civil Codes have provisions for the protection of children from physical and mental abuse, exploitation and other similar treatment by their parents. The Committee wishes to receive further information on these, especially national case law. In particular the Committee wishes to know whether legislation prohibits all forms of corporal punishment of children in the home, in institutions, in schools and elsewhere….”
(1 June 2001, Addendum to Conclusions XV-2, pages 271-274)

Universal Periodic Review

Turkey was examined in the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in 2010. The Government accepted the recommendation to prohibit corporal punishment of children (A/HRC/15/13, Report of the Working Group, paras. 87 and 101(4)). Examination in the second cycle is scheduled for 2015.