Ms. LABER. My impression is that probably the majority of people that are in prison in Turkey today do belong to the left, although there are, as you say, prisoners from the extreme right, as well.

Mr. SOLOMON. Did you talk to anyone on the extreme right who had been imprisoned or suffered under martial law. For example, I think the entire leadership under the National Salvation Party and the National Action Party were brought to trial and in many cases, I think they were condemned to death. Did you talk to any members of these parties or with their lawyers while you were there? Ms. LABER. We asked for official appointments which were denied by the Turkish Government. Although a number of Members of Congress went to bat for us, the Turkish Government refused to meet with the Helsinki Watch delegation, and it has just recently refused once again to meet with another group that went to Turkey. Therefore, I had no access to prisons, to say nothing of prisoners of my choice.

The U.S. Embassy did arrange for me to sit in on a trial of the Turkish Peace Association, which is admittedly a left-wing group. I did meet those people, who are now in prison but at the time were being tried.

I did meet a cross-section of people in the press, I met with both the conservative press, the centrist press and the leftist press. The reports that I received were amazingly similar. Many people on the right supported the martial law government at the time they took over because the violence and terrorism in Turkey before 1980 was obviously extreme; nevertheless, they had become very disenchanted with what has happened since.

I think Turkey is very much in a transitionary period at this point or at least a potentially transitionary period. It's a very sensitive time, one in which the United States could be backing a winner. The fact is that the new Prime Minister was not the choice of the martial law government, while the U.S. position has been that the martial law leaders would lead Turkey to democracy.

In fact, what happened was that in a very carefully orchestrated election, despite the martial law authorities, the people came out and voted for the one candidate who had any kind of independence. How much authority he has at this point, I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone really knows. The martial law leaders are now in civilian guise as President and Presidential Advisory Council. It's a very tricky time and I think that it requires some very sophisticated policies from our State Department, Embassy, and the U.S. Congress.

I agree with you completely that we need Turkey as much as Turkey needs us.

Mr. SOLOMON. I have a couple of other questions for Ms. Laber, Mr. Chairman, if I might?

Mr. KOSTMAYER. Of course.

Mr. SOLOMON. I have here some excerpts of a draft report which is of the investigating committee of the European Parliament that visited Turkey this past spring, just very recently, and they make a couple of interesting comments.

One, they say that there "are many allegations that torture is going on in police stations, detention houses, and prisons; we hear shocking examples. It is a fact that the Government and Parlia

ment are willing to investigate allegations and promise the severe punishment of persons guilty of torture or inhumane treatment." There is another statement saying it is undeniable that great progress in the direction of full restoration of parliamentary democracy and full respect of human rights was made during the last months.

"Partial lifting of marshall law, the prospect of amnesty for political prisoners, a certain amount of freedom for political parties, the firm willingness to investigate and stop torture," and it goes on and on.

Now this is very encouraging and it comes from certainly a nonbiased body. I just wanted to report that for the record because I think it's a bit paradoxical for us to not to give some credit for improvements that have taken place under that newly elected govern

ment.

And on that, along that line, I would perhaps like to ask Mr. Buz a couple of questions. Is it true that you left Turkey after being acquitted in March 1983, by a marshall law court on charges of belonging to a terrorist organization which they call the Communist Party of Turkey?

Is that correct? After being acquitted, I said?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. He was not allowed to leave Turkey without-there was no basis for him being denied a passport to return to Germany. He had been accused of belonging to the left.

Mr. SOLOMON. But was he acquitted?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Yes; he was acquitted, be

cause

Mr. SOLOMON. And did he leave after he was acquitted?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Not directly afterward no. He was denied the proper means of passport. And there was no basis for this denial since he had, in fact, been acquitted. Through the help of friends and through the municipality of Hanover, he was able to leave the country on August 18 and return to Germany.

Mr. SOLOMON. Does he believe the acquittal was the result of a fair trial there?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. The reason Saheb feels it was in fact a fair trial, is that the city of-the municipality-

Mr. SOLOMON. I can't hear you.

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. The only reason why it was in fact conducted as a fair trial, that is, it was said the only proof they had was a confession which had been extracted under torture. The muncipality of Hanover and his friends and colleagues in Hanover sent over a delegation to observe the trial-a delegation of lawyers who sat at the trial and watched and he feels this was very influential with respect to the Turkish authorities in that they asked questions-what is the charge? What is the evidence that you have against him, and so, yes, he does in fact feel that that was instrumental.

Mr. SOLOMON. Has Mr. Buz returned to Turkey since that acquittal? Since he left?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Yes, he feels that if he returned to Turkey, it would most certainly result in his death. In addition, his father is not allowed to leave Turkey.

Mr. SOLOMON. I see. Am I right then to draw the distinction, in other words, in your testimony about the earlier period, that it was based on your personal experience? But what you say about conditions under the Government today is not a personal experience since you haven't been back there? That's what I was driving at and am I right that your testimony on present conditions has the same basis as the testimony of any other observer who reads the papers or who listens to reports?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Are you asking is his testimony relevant today in Turkey?

Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, yes.

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Yes. His relatives, his family remaining in Turkey assert that in fact the situation hasn't changed; the conditions still are similar for prisoners in their experience. Mr. SOLOMON. So he's saying, no improvement?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. He says, not at all. There's no improvement.

Mr. SOLOMON. In his judgment, did Turkey face a serious problem of terrorism in 1980?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. When he returned there, he hadn't been living there, he was in Germany, he returned there in order to settle the matter of his military service. No one said anything; there was no talk of terrorism, so he's not aware of that.

Mr. SOLOMON. OK. I'd just like to know and he doesn't have to answer this, but does he consider himself a Marxist, philosophically? He doesn't have to answer.

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. I don't even have to answer; I don't have to ask him to translate that.

Mr. SOLOMON. Well, what's the answer, for the record, let him tell you.

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. No, he considers in fact, he will tell you time and time and again, the reason why the municipality of Hanover came out so strongly on his behalf and spoke with the Foreign Minister, had the Foreign Minister speak with the Turkish Embassy, is because he was a staunch democrat; he was a member of the social democrat party in Germany for 16 years.

Mr. SOLOMON. OK. Just one last question. Does he believe that Turkey needs a revolution today?

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. Yes. He thinks Turkey needs to be a true democracy, free from being ruled by the military where people can think and speak and act freely where there is true freedom.

Mr. SOLOMON. And does that need to take place through a revolution? Is that-

Mr. Buz [through interpreter]. A revolution helps.

Mr. SOLOMON. That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOSTMAYER. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York. Mr. Buz, are you now or have you ever been [applause].

I just would feel constrained to say, with all due respect to the gentleman from New York, and I'm sure he agrees with me, that torture is wrong whether we're torturing revolutionaries or Marxists or terrorists that we have ways of dealing with people who violate the laws; they should be incarcerated, punished, but torture is

not a legitimate means of expression of any kind of punishment at all.

Ms. Laber, I think you indicated you wanted to speak?

Ms. LABER. Yes. I wanted first to make the point that you just made. I also want to say that Mr. Buz' testimony a perfect illustration of something which is a very widespread phenomenon in the Turkish prison system. As far as I can tell, in see, the prisons in Turkey are tens of thousands of very young people who were arrested in 1980 and accused of terrorism. They are being tried in mass trials-200, 300, 400 people at a time. Many of them will be acquitted, as Mr. Buz was, but they have already been subjected to torture and in prison they continue to be subjected to abuses that I would consider torture. Many of them will be acquitted by judges who will throw out testimony that is acquired through torture. But they've already been punished more than anyone should be punished for any kind of crime, guilty or innocent.

Mr. KOSTMAYER. Yes?

Mr. ARTUCIO. If you will allow me, I will express some of the things that somebody said here concerning what can we do to fight against torture. Well I think there are two levels: the national level and the international level. On the international level, I think the answer is really to continue to monitor the general situation of human rights in a particular country and to try to look in particular into the question of promoting the independence of the judiciary.

Without independence of the judiciary, we can not stop torture. Further, we also urge the subcommittee to promote ratification of international instruments and to press other countries for ratification of these instruments in international fora.

We also urge support for the convention against torture which has been recently approved by the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations in order to bring these questions to debate in the General Assembly.

Also, I believe that the key word here is implementation. I think what we need is not only implementation of international conventions, but also some kind of body or organ to see that a country that ratifies the convention also respects it in practice.

Speaking from my experience at the International Commission of Jurists, in some countries, including Turkey, for instance, but particularly in Latin America, you find that although almost every country condemns torture in its own legislation and torture is a penal offense in each country, the practice is widespread and systematic.

Many countries in Latin America have ratified international agreements concerning not only torture but protection of human rights. The question for me, I insist again, is implementation and authority. The final point is that the United States should perhaps take a stronger position in the Organization of American States and in its Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, pressing harder for respect for human rights.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOSTMAYER. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the members of the panel and introduce our final panel of witnesses. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Our final witnesses today are two distinguished lawyers involved in international human rights law. They are the Honorable Jerome Shestack, president of the International League for Human Rights, and a former representative of the United States to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and Ms. Amy Young who is the Executive Director of the International Human Rights Law Group.

Ms. Young, I believe it's been agreed that you are going to go first, is that right? So I'm told so if you will proceed with your statement?

Ms. YOUNG. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOSTMAYER. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF AMY YOUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP

Ms. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, the proliferation of international norms proscribing torture are among the most clearly articulated and perhaps the most violated of all international norms. I would like to discuss some of the laws which prohibit torture and mention some standards that are promulgated by the United Nations, which also seek to deter torture.

Because this barbaric practice continues, however, other more effective deterrents should be pursued. For example, at the last session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, a draft convention against torture was adopted. This convention requires state parties to make torture a criminal offense. There have also been suggestions that Congress should provide for a civil action for torture victims.

This subcommittee has a special responsibility to be aware of these developments and to provide leadership in taking initiatives to promote human rights. I am very pleased to provide this information to subcommittee members and commend you and your staff for the diligence and commitment you bring to these very important hearings.

There are a number of human rights instruments on the international and regional levels that prohibit torture, including the Geneva conventions and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Article 7 of the covenant, for example, provides that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The covenant also provides that no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

International declarations also forbid torture although not legally binding, these declarations are evidence of customary international law, which may be recognized as binding by certain legal systems including the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 5 that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

The U.N. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture, in article 3 also states, that no state may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.