TURKEY: DISPLACED VILLAGERS CRITICIZE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 000516

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/06/2017
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY: DISPLACED VILLAGERS CRITICIZE
GOVERNMENT'S COMPENSATION PROGRAM

REF: ANKARA 461

Classified By: Classified by Political Counselor Janice G. Weiner for r
easons 1.4(b),(d)

1.(C) Summary: The GOT may be enforcing a Turkish law to
compensate villagers who were forcibly displaced during the
GOT's counter-terrorism campaign in the 1990's unevenly and
at times unjustly. Kurdish contacts from southeastern Turkey
agree that the current system has failed to provide adequate
compensation for displaced villagers. They report that
following the European Court of Human Rights approval of the
compensation system in the 2006 "Icyer" case, the GOT began
systematically to reduce settlement offers. A December 2006
Human Rights Watch Report that analyzes the settlement
process supports these claims. Ministry of Interior
officials dismissed the report, said the current system is
being administered fairly and efficiently, and appeared
unwilling to take seriously the charges raised by displaced
residents. Unless the GOT is willing to establish a more
transparent process, and create a more effective appeals
process, southeastern residents' perception that the
compensation is merely a superficial attempt by the
government to meet EU accession requirements is likely to
continue. End summary.

--------------
Under Pressure, GOT Enacts Law to
Compensate Displaced Villagers
--------------

2.(U) During armed conflict between the Turkish security
forces and the PKK between 1984 and 1999, massive internal
displacement took place in the eastern and southeastern
regions of Turkey. The Turkish Economic and Social Studies
Foundation (TESEV) comprehensively studied the issue and
concluded that the main causes of the displacement were:

--people leaving their villages because of the collapse of
animal husbandry and agriculture as a result of the ban on
the use of pastures and as a result of PKK pressure,
intensifying military operations and armed clashes;

--the PKK's eviction from villages and hamlets those who
agreed to become "village guards", locally-recruited
civilians armed and paid by the GOT to oppose the PKK; and

--the security forces' eviction of villagers who refused to
become village guards or who were thought to be aiding the
PKK.

Turkey's Interior Ministry reported that 358,335 people were
displaced from 945 villages and 2,021 hamlets during the
period. International organizations and domestic and foreign
NGOs estimate between one and four million; the truth likely
lies somewhere near the bottom end of that estimate, but is
almost impossible to calculate accurately.

3.(U) The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in 1996
that the GOT was partly at fault for the displacement because
its security forces had unlawfully destroyed houses and the
local judiciary had assisted in a cover-up. In November
2002, the UN's internal displacement special representative
recommended that "displaced villagers should be compensated."
In May 2003, the EU revised its Accession Partnership with
Turkey to require the speedy return of IDPs. Under
international pressure, the GOT passed legislation in July
2004, to allow IDPs to apply to a local "damage assessment
commission" that would determine a settlement fee based on
detailed compensation schedules governing factors such as the
length of the applicant's displacement and the value of land
and crops lost.

4.(U) Amid numerous cases pending against Turkey at the ECHR,
FM Gul presented evidence to the Court that, under the
Compensation Law, commissions had awarded displaced families
an average of $33,500 each during 2005. In the January 2006
case of plaintiff Aydin Icyer, the ECHR ruled that the
Compensation Law was an effective remedy "capable of
providing adequate redress for the grievances of those denied
access to their possessions and place of residence." The

ANKARA 00000516 002 OF 003


Court ordered Icyer to exhaust his domestic remedies under
the Compensation Law.

-------------- --------------
Compensation Program Criticized by Southeastern Kurds
-------------- --------------

5.(C) Contacts from Turkey's southeast have expressed great
disappointment with GOT efforts to implement the law.
Kurdish attorney and human rights activist Rojbin Tugan
(please protect),who serves as the only non-government
member on a 7-person damage assessment commission in Hakkari
province, told us that the nominally independent commissions
are in fact politically beholden to Ankara. Independent
experts who analyze each case and recommend a settlement
figure to the commissions must value crops at what Tugan
views as "disproportionately low" rates, established by
Ankara bureaucrats unfamiliar with the local market. In many
cases the commission had then revised downward the expert's
recommended figure by up to 30 percent. Complainants,
hopeless and desperate to take whatever is offered, normally
accept the commission's offer. Tugan thus far has been
unsuccessful in opposing "these illegal actions." Tugan has
case documentation but is reluctant to pass on during a tense
period when she is receiving numerous threats (reftel).

6.(C) Esat Canan, a Kurdish CHP MP from Hakkari, told us that
he believes the GOT established the compensation process
merely to end a growing number of cases that villagers were
filing in the ECHR. Following the Icyer decision, damage
assessment commissions started to issue much lower
assessments. Canan explained that in Hakkari Province,
assessment commissions had processed only one-third of the
applications and were offering amounts that were roughly one
percent of the value of what a villager lost. Serafettin
Elci, a respected Kurdish politician who was Minister of
Public Works from 1978-1979 in the then-Ecevit Government,
and who recently formed the Participatory Democracy Party
(KADEP),told us that it is common belief among Kurds in
southeastern Turkey that the Compensation Law system has
utterly failed to provide adequate compensation for losses
suffered.

--------------
HRW Report Criticism of Compensation System
--------------

7.(U) Human Rights Watch's December 2006 report, "Unjust,
Restrictive, and Inconsistent: the Impact of Turkey's
Compensation Law" sharply criticizes the compensation system.
Echoing Canan's claims, the report charges that, following
the Icyer decision, damage assessment commissions started to
issue much lower assessments, and even sought to revise the
assessments that had already been made. The report cites
over 40 cases where the commissions set aside offers made
before the Icyer decision and then made new, lower offers.
The report stated that the cases FM Gul presented to the ECHR
"were not signs of a reliably fair system, but elements in a
cynical agenda to prevent the ECHR from issuing further
judgments."

8.(U) The report details techniques commissions have used to
"prune" settlement figures: valuing houses based on public
works rates instead of the much higher, legally mandated,
compulsory purchase rates; refusing to pay for livestock
destroyed in the course of the displacement even though the
law requires it; computing assessments based on the assertion
that villagers could return to their homes in 1999, even
though several applicants are still unable, for security
reasons, to return; and refusing to accept claims for
unregistered lands in cases where the State itself failed to
complete the registration process. The absence of any
effective appeals procedures leaves villagers no realistic
alternative but to accept the unreasonably low judgments, the
report concluded. HRW noted that it was not able to complete
its assessment because the GOT arrested and deported its
researcher for alleged visa irregularities.
9.(U) HRW concludes that the current "capricious" system
cannot be salvaged. It views the commissions' valuations as
more likely to stoke a sense of grievance in the local
population than heal wounds. HRW proposes a "standard sum

ANKARA 00000516 003 OF 003


solution" that would provide compensation calculated on a
scale per year of displacement, with a legal mechanism for
opting out of the program. The report also encourages the
ECHR and Council of Europe to investigate the impact of the
Icyer judgment.

--------------
GOT: Compensation System Working Smoothly
--------------

10.(C) GOT officials told us that the report's claims were
vastly exaggerated. Interior Ministry Secretary General
Mustafa Toprak had not read the report but denied allegations
of a coordinated or systematic plan to reduce settlement
offers following the Icyer decision. The number of
commissions has been increased in the last year, commissions
have accelerated their work, and claims are being paid by the
state regardless of whether the province has sufficient
funds. Any problems with the system, he stated, are due to
citizens and attorneys who submit false claims. Toprak said
a Turkish version of ambulance chasing is occurring --
attorneys who are paid a percentage of settlements are
encouraging people to file claims even if they were not
displaced due to PKK-related violence. MOI Department Head
for Foreign Relations Ercan Arslantas told us the MOI is
giving high priority to the compensation program and that HRW
overstated the problems. In Arslantas's view, although it is
difficult to administer such a massive program without
errors, approximately 90 percent of the cases are fair and
error free. He said there was no need for outside monitoring
by Human Rights Watch or other organizations.

11.(C) Comment: Official views of the program's success are
clearly at odds with the views of displaced villagers and
their attorneys. Interior Ministry officials with whom we
spoke seemed unwilling to take seriously the charges raised
by Human Rights Watch or residents from southeastern Turkey.
The GOT needs to create a more transparent process by
allowing independent monitoring of the compensation program
and establish an effective appeals process if it hopes to
change southeastern residents' current perception that the
compensation is merely a superficial attempt by the
government to meet EU accession requirements. End comment.

Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/

WILSON