Letter to Prime Minister
December 5th, 2006 by info
EUROPEAN ROMA RIGHTS CENTRE
Hungary, Budapest H-1016, Naphegy ter. 8; Tel.: +36/1/4132200; Fax: 4132201; errc@errc.org
HELSİNKİ YURTTAŞLAR DERNEĞİ (HELSINKI CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY)
İnönü Caddesi 77/13, Gümüşsuyu 34437 Beyoğlu, Istanbul; Tel: +90 212 292 68 42 & 43;
Faks: +90 212 292 68 44, info@hyd.org.tr
ULAŞILABİLİR YAŞAM DERNEĞİ (ACCESSIBLE LIFE ASSOCIATION)
Liva Sok. No 13/4 Cihangir – Istanbul; Tel. 90 212 243 99 80; info@uyd.org.tr
SULUKULE ROMAN KÜLTÜRÜNÜ GELIŞTIRME VE DAYANIŞMA DERNEĞI
(SULUKULE ROMANI CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION)
Edirnekapı Kaleboyu Cad. Çınar Sok. No:7, Istanbul, Turkey, Tel. 0090 212 531 73 44, Fax: 635 68 18, sulukuleliler@gmail.com
FOUNDATION OF THE ROMANI ASSOCIATIONS FEDERATION EDROM
Cavusbey Mah. Horozlubayir Sok. Polat Is Hani No: 5, Edirne, Turkey, Tel: 90 2842123357, edrom70@mynet.com
Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey
Basbakanlik
Necati Bey Cad. No: 108
06100 Bakanliklar / Ankara
Fax: +90 312 425 39 18; 312 471 04 76
September 14, 2006
Budapest/Istanbul
Honourable Prime Minister Erdoğan,
We, the undersigned organizations write to you to express our concern about the recent wave of forced evictions resulting from urban renewal and rehabilitation projects which gravely affect hundreds of Romani families in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey. The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organization aimed at combating anti-Romani racism and human rights violations against Roma. The Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly works to advance peaceful political debate, democratization, civic engagement and human rights in Turkey and the neighboring region, aiming to build a “wider Europe” from below. The Accessible Life Foundation (UYD) supports disadvantaged communities in Turkey to ensure better access to social and economic rights. The Sulukule Roma Culture Association is a Roma civil society organization established with the aim of combating prejudice and discrimination against Roma in Turkey and promoting tolerant relations between Roma and other communities.
On the basis of an ongoing monitoring of the situation in several neighbourhoods in Istanbul with large numbers of Romani residents as well as a number of field research missions, we note that forced evictions of Roma have been carried out in gross violation of Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law. Our fact finding missions show that, numerous Romani individuals, including children, are currently facing homelessness and deprivation of basic rights as a result of forced evictions. Forced evictions of Roma are sometimes reportedly accompanied by police violence and executed in contravention to due process guarantees.
The gravity of the reported human rights violations against Roma in Turkey calls for your urgent attention and interference to halt the execution of forced evictions until a reasonable solution to the housing situation of the Romani families is found.
Below we provide a summary of our findings based on the testimony of Romani individuals who have been affected and/or threatened by forced evictions.
According to reports, on July 20, 2006, police and municipal officials demolished 120 houses of Roma in Küçükbakkalköy neighbourhood, in Kadiköy, Istanbul, as part of the Urban Transformation project of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Part of this neighbourhood used to be home to about 200 Romani families. As of July 26, 2006, nine Romani families had remained at the spot after the demolition due to lack of alternative housing provisions. The families were reportedly provided with monetary compensation from the municipality and were given a notice to vacate the area by August 15, 2006. As of July 26, around 30 Romani individuals were living in extremely substandard conditions in makeshift structures, amidst piles of rubble and trash. There was no running water and sanitary facilities.
According to the testimonies of Roma, in November 2005, municipal officials notified the inhabitants that they had to leave the area due to the forthcoming reconstruction project. At that time most of the Romani families who had legal documents for their houses sold the houses to a company which had obtained permission to construct apartment buildings in the area. A number of Roma did not agree to sell their houses because the houses were very small and the money received for them would not have been sufficient to buy another house or even rent a house for more than a very short period of time. The families who did not sell their houses remained in the area despite the eviction notice. Several Romani families who had no property and were tenants also remained in the area. Their houses were destroyed during an eviction operation on July 20, 2006.
A middle-aged Romani woman testified that during the July 20, 2006 eviction action, police entered the neighbourhood in the early morning hours, reportedly around 5 am, and ordered the Roma to leave their houses. The people were not allowed to take any belongings with them. Police then proceeded demolishing the houses, burying inside furniture, personal belongings and documents. Several persons testified that the police used pepper gas to force people out of their homes. The pepper gas had reportedly caused health problems for children in the days following the eviction. Several Roma also testified that police officers attempted to instigate Roma to violence against the police telling them, “Defend yourselves so that we can hit you!”
In the absence of adequate social support and/or alternative accommodation, the evicted families are faced with homelessness and severe deprivation of basic rights. It was reported that municipal officials visited the community after the July 20 eviction and offered compensation to the families whose houses were destroyed. According to the families that compensation was far from enough to buy or rent a new house. Some of the families who were tenants and who did not own any property reportedly did not receive any compensation.
A separate, but apparently related eviction affected Romani families living in Hasanpaşa neighbourhood, Kadiköy district of Istanbul. As of July 8, 2006, approximately 10 families lived on a very large vacant lot near Fenerbahçe Deresi. The area which looks like a trash dump with bottles, soda cans, plastic and paper scattered around, is fenced in and located just below several middle-class apartment buildings and car repair shops. Families lived in shelters made of canvas and rope tied to trees, about 1.3 meters high and 2 meters wide. There was no electricity and running water. Drinking water was kept in an open jug. According to the testimony of a 50-year-old Romani woman, in the winter of 2006, on a snowy day, municipal bulldozers leveled the shacks of around 40 families who used to live in that area for around 70 years. The Roma were given a deadline of 15 days to leave the place. After the expiry of the deadline, in the early morning hours, approximately 7-7:30 am, while many people were still in bed, around 200 police circled the area. Then four bulldozers proceeded to destroy the houses. The families were not given time to collect their belongings from inside. Furniture, personal belongings and documents were destroyed together with the homes. Some of the families left the area after the destruction of the houses. Around 10 families assembled shelters and remained on the spot. Several Roma stated that they were determined to remain where they were because they had no other place to go and could not afford to pay rent or buy a house. They were reportedly not offered any help from the municipality. One man alleged that after the winter eviction he requested help from the municipality but was turned down by a municipal official. Roma testified that in the recent weeks officials from the municipality visited them threatening them with a new eviction.
As of July 9, 2006, around 60 Romani families lived in simple makeshift shelters in Yildizbakkal, another area of the Kadiköy district. The families lived on a small plot of land surrounded by large apartment buildings, houses, cranes and construction equipment for a new office building. Some families have lived on that spot reportedly for as much as 60 years. Others have arrived in 1999 from Küçükbakkalköy neighbourhood, after being forcibly evicted.
According to the testimony of local Roma, the Kadiköy Municipality owns the land in Yildizbakkal and wants to develop the land into office space. Three months previously, municipal representatives evicted eight families in the neighborhood. People who had title deeds for the property were reportedly provided with compensation, while tenants were not given any compensation or offered alternative housing. Some Romani families rent houses from family members or friends for symbolic prices, around 15 Turkish liras per month (approximately eight Euros) and fear that if they are evicted from this place they would not be able to afford renting a house elsewhere as prices are much higher. Romani people stated that they expected more evictions in the near future. They believed that the evictions halted temporarily because of the approaching local elections. The families had not yet received official eviction notices but municipal representatives had reportedly visited them and notified them about the pending eviction. One Romani couple testified that they did not own property and if they were evicted they would have to build a tent and continue living in the same area.
Another area targeted for forced eviction actions is the Hatice Sultan (Sulukule) neighbourhood in the Fatih Municipality of Istanbul. The neighbourhood is a historical site where Roma have lived for centuries since their arrival in the European continent in the 11th century. It may in fact be the oldest Romani settlement in Europe. According to information by local Romani community members, 571 households, most of them Romani, including more than 1000 families, are facing forced eviction scheduled for September 2006, due to renovation of the area as reported by media sources. In October 2005, the Fatih Municipality considered plans to rehabilitate and develop the area. On July 13, 2006, the Türkiye Toplu Konut İdaresi (TOKI) and Fatih Municipality signed an agreement for constructing new buildings in the area, involving, reportedly, the demolition of the existing houses. According to the representatives of the Sulukule Roma Culture Development and Solidarity Association, the decision to evict the families in Sulukule was made without a feasibility study or any consultation with community members about alternative solutions. Since October 2005, the Fatih Municipality reportedly undertook to notify the families residing in the area about the urban renewal project which involves their eviction.
An issue of serious concern is the lack of adequate alternative housing provisions for large numbers of families who will be affected by the eviction. The number of individuals who have title to land or ownership of property is reportedly around 300. Several thousands of individuals, who do not own property and are therefore not eligible to compensation after the eviction, would be required to move to social housing and pay rent. Many people, who do not have regular jobs or any jobs at all, may not be able to afford the cost of renting housing or buying one. Following the eviction, these individuals may be rendered effectively homeless.
Forced evictions are also reported in other parts of Turkey. According to information obtained by the Istanbul-based civil society organization Accessible Life Foundation, in the period May-August 2006, the following cases of forced evictions have occurred:
- In Ankara, in the Aldındağ Municipality, Gültepe neighbourhood, 170 houses of Roma were destroyed and destruction of further 400 houses is pending;
- In Ereğli/Zonguldak, Müftü neighbourhood, a two-storey building, home to about 45 Roma, was destroyed.
Honourable Prime Minister Erdoğan,
The practice of forced evictions violates a number of international law commitments of the Republic of Turkey. Most notably, Turkey is bound by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which states, at Article 11(1), “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of this right, recognising to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.”[1]
Evaluating in its General Comment 7 the relationship between the right to adequate housing (including, as noted above, the element of legal security of tenure) and the issue of forced evictions, the United Nations Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held that “forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant.”[2] General Comment 7 defines, at Paragraph 3, forced evictions as “the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.” Finally, at Paragraph 16 of General Comment 7, the Committee stated: “Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.”
In addition, the CESCR has emphasized that special attention should be accorded to vulnerable individuals or groups, inter alia, ethnic and other minorities, since often these individuals and groups suffer disproportionately from the practice of forced evictions.[3]
The CESCR has recommended a number of procedural protections in relation to forced evictions. These include, “(a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, should be made available in reasonable time to all those affected; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, government officials or their representatives should be present during an eviction; (e) all persons carrying out the eviction should be properly identified; (f) evictions should not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g) the provision of legal remedies; and (h) the provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who require it in order to seek redress from the courts.”[4]
The UN Commission on Human Rights has affirmed that the practice of forced evictions constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to housing.[5] Furthermore, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has reaffirmed, “the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of a broad range of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing, the right to remain, the right to freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to security of the home, the right to security of the person, the right to security of tenure and the right to equality of treatment […].”[6]
In addition, a number of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights provide protections against forced evictions and other core elements of the right to adequate housing. Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights sets forth the following guarantees: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” Article 8’s protection encompasses inter alia the following rights: the right of access[7], the right of occupation[8], and the right not to be expelled or evicted, and is thus intimately intertwined with the principle of legal security of tenure.[9] Further, the European Court has developed extensively under its Article 8 jurisprudence the concept of “positive obligations”, under which a Contracting State must not only restrict its own interferences to what is compatible with Article 8, but may also be required to protect the enjoyment of those rights and secure the respect for those rights in its domestic law.[10] In addition, protections available under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention — guaranteeing the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions — have been interpreted to include the protection of housing rights.[11] In some circumstances, forced evictions and extreme housing conditions may rise to the level of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment, as banned under Article 3 of the Convention.[12]
Forced evictions have implications well beyond the act itself, and frequently result in a range of consequences triggering violations of civil and political rights, as well as other economic and social rights, inter alia, the right to life, the right to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home, and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to security of the home, the right to security of tenure. It is imperative that legal protection is afforded individuals against unjust evictions from their homes and/or land and that legal redress be made available for victims of illegal forced evictions. When forced evictions are unavoidable, state authorities must ensure that suitable alternative housing solutions are provided. In cases of justifiable evictions, it is incumbent upon state authorities that said evictions be carried out in a manner according to relevant law and that legal remedies and recourses be made available to those affected. Prior to carrying out forced evictions, all possible alternatives must be discussed with the affected persons in order to prevent the use of force.
Finally, the serial targeting of Romani settlements for forced eviction gives rise to serious concerns that these actions are racially discriminatory. Racial discrimination in the field of housing is banned under a range of international law provisions in effect in Turkey, including but not limited to:
· Articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
· Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
· Article 5(e)(iii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
· Article 16 of the European Social Charter.
Finally, banning discrimination in housing and providing effective legal means for victims to secure due legal remedy is a requirement of Turkey’s obligations in the context of efforts to join the European Union, as a result of Council Directive 43/2000 “implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin”.
Honourable Prime Minister Erdoğan,
We urge your Government to take into consideration the situation regarding the urban development projects that have a grave impact on Roma communities in Istanbul and Turkey, to cease the forced evictions forthwith, and, to design and implement an acceptable solution of the housing situation of the affected Roma, in consultation with the communities concerned. Furthermore, we urge you to ensure that the Romani families whose home have already been demolished be immediately provided with alternative accommodation as well as with due compensation for the loss of and/or damage to their property.
Yours sincerely,
Dimitrina Petrova
Executive Director, European Roma Rights Centre
Ümit Fırat
Member of the Board of Directors, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly
Belgin Cengiz
Chair, Accessible Life Association
Sükrü Pündük
Chair, Sulukule Romani Culture, Solidarity and Development Association
Erdinç Çekiç
Chair, EDROM
cc: Kadir Topbaş
Mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediye Baskanligi
Sarachane / Istanbul
Fax: +90 212 455 27 00
cc: Mustafa Demir
Mayor of Municipality Fatih Belediyesi
Fatih Belediyesi
Büyük Karaman Cad. No: 69
Fatih Itfaiyesi Yani
Fatih / Istanbul
Fax: +90 212 532 53 71
cc: Miloon Kothari
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: +41-22-9179010
cc: Thomas Hammarberg
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Council of Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX
Fax : +33 (0) 3 90 21 50 53
commissioner@coe.int
[2] “General Comment No. 7 (1997), The Right to Adequate Housing (Art 11(1) of the Covenant): Forced Evictions”, adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 20 May 1997, contained in U.N. document E/1998/22, annex IV.
[6] UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Forced Evictions: Sub-Commission resolution 1998/9 (E/CN.4/SUB.2/RES/1998/9). August 20, 1998, paragraph 1. Furthermore, international bodies have ruled that, in certain instances, forced evictions and the destruction of property amount to cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment. For example, in the case of Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the destruction of houses and the eviction of those living in them constituted a form of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Judgement of 24 April 1998, Appls Nos 00023184/94 and 00023185/94). Similarly, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) has ruled that, under certain circumstances, destruction of property may amount to cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Committee against Torture. Communication No 161/2000: Yugoslavia. 02/12/2002. CAT/C/29/D/161/2000 (Jurisprudence)).
[10] E.g. Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, March 25, 1993, Series A, No. 247-C; 19 E.H.R.R. 112, para.26.
No Comments »
Henüz yorumlanmadı.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI