A/HRC/37/50/Add.1 76. In a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, the Special Rapporteur was informed that only five “serious allegations” had been received regarding torture and ill-treatment, and that investigations had been conducted and disciplinary measures implemented. 31 It remained unclear whether or not any other (i.e. less than “serious”) allegations had been received, for which no investigation had been initiated, and whether or not criminal sanctions had been imposed in any of the five cases. 77. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the deliberations on the prohibition of torture in several cases that have been transmitted to him by the Court of Cassation. In particular, he welcomes the verdict of the Court in November 2013 whereby a landmark decision against eleven Turkish officials was upheld in the case of Engin Çeber, who had been tortured to death while in custody in 2008.32 The Special Rapporteur also welcomes other verdicts of the Court of Cassation, which either overturned lower court judgments that, contrary to the evidence presented, did not find State officials guilty of torture, 33 or which upheld such decisions if compliant with the evidence and the law. 34 78. However, the Special Rapporteur believes that, in the light of the great number of allegations of torture and ill-treatment having resulted from the present situation in Turkey, failure to investigate and prosecute a significant number of State officials for torture or illtreatment strongly indicates insufficient determination on the part of the responsible authorities to actually live up to the Government’s official policy of zero tolerance on torture. 79. The Special Rapporteur has not been made aware of any cases in which, in accordance with articles 148, 206 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence obtained under torture has been excluded from subsequent legal proceedings. 80. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to remind the relevant judicial authorities of their duty to investigate and prosecute all public officials suspected of committing, ordering, condoning or covering up torture or other ill-treatment, including in situations where they knew or ought to have known that torture was about to be, was being, or had been committed. 6. Lack of review of emergency decrees and related human rights violations 81. The decrees with the force of law (kanun hükmünde kararname) that were introduced following the failed coup have imposed sweeping security measures and have deviated significantly from the usual procedural and administrative guarantees. Article 9 of the first decree, No. KHK/667, for example, states that “legal, administrative, financial and criminal liabilities shall not arise in respect of persons who have adopted decisions and fulfil their duties within the scope of this Decree Law”, and article 10 adds that “stay of execution cannot be ordered in cases brought as a result of the decisions taken and acts performed within the scope of this Decree Law”. By means of article 37 of the subsequent decree law, No. KHK/668, this lack of liability is extended to all decisions and measures adopted “with a view to suppressing the coup attempt and terrorist actions performed on 15 July 2016”. 82. In accordance with the above-mentioned provisions and with article 148 (1) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decided in a landmark ruling on 9 August 2016 that it was not competent to review the emergency decrees, thereby effectively depriving individuals who had suffered violations of their rights and freedoms under the decrees of any remedy. 83. The Commission for Examination of the State of Emergency Procedures was created on 23 January 2017 by Decree Law No. KHK/685 to review applications relating to measures taken within the scope of the decree laws, and in particular applications relating 31 32 33 34 14 The meeting took place on 28 November 2016. Decision No. 2013/26551 of the Court of Cassation in case No. 2013/13411. Decision No. 2014/1575 of the Court of Cassation in case No. 2013/1182; and decision No. 2015/12301 of the Court of Cassation in case No. 2014/35857. Decision No. 2014/5503 of the Court of Cassation in case No. 2013/18602.