NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY stitution was asked to assist with the follow-up of legal cases, and since the Institution cannot make an investigation on judiciary power, the issue was directed to Ministry of Family and Social Policies in order to provide an effective consultancy service and the Ministry was involved in the case.32 In other words, it is possible for the Institution to be effective in cases of violence. Despite this fact, the scarcity of these numbers is an important indicator for the public perception about the Institution.33 The most important application on the subject claims that the so-called “pink bus”, which is a public transport bus allocated solely for women in Malatya, is discriminatory. Özlem Tunçak, who is the only ombudswoman, stated that this practice could not be described as positive discrimination, and in fact constituted a discriminatory practice, and suggested that the Institution should make a recommendation-decision, however the Chief Ombusman’s office made a rejection-decision. In one part of the decision, there is a reference to the following provision of the İstanbul Convention: “Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.“ and it is argued that this practice was adopted to “protect” woman, however, in another part of the decision, it is stated that this method was not developed to protect women from violence but to offer them a “comfortable” travel. The decision also argues that the women are not restricting from taking other vehicles or the quality of service offered to men is not decreased, and similar practices are adopted in various countries. In conclusion the application was dismissed based on such justifications. Although the decision included the expression "comfortable" travel instead of harassment and violence that women experience in transportation, the only reason why women need a different level of "comfort" than men, is the need to protect women from harassment. Anyway, just the reason for a more comfortable journey cannot be justified in terms of this situation created against men. It is argued that the reason of this practice is to protect the women against violence, however, this will lead to separation and exclusion of the victims not the offenders, and legitimize harassment, demonstrate that the state does/can not protect women from harassment sufficiently, and even increase the risk of harassment and discrimination against women who do not use these buses. In another decision, the applicant, whose gender and name changed with a court decision, and whose civil registry records were amended accordingly, had requested a new high school diploma including the applicant’s current sex and name and duly stamped to replace the one issued on the date of graduation with the applicant’s former sex and name, however, this application was rejected by the Ombudsman Institute.34 The decision refers to the Sheffield and Horsham vs. United Kingdom decision of 1998, however according to paragraph 21 of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers, which was issued more recently, provides as follows: “Member states should take appropriate measures to guarantee the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way; member states should also ensure, where appropriate, the corresponding recog32 Application no. 2016/5404. (This decision was not published; it was accessed through Ombudsman Woman tab on the website. 33 For instance tweets posted and statements made by TİHEK Chairman Süleyman Arslan that are clearly against the İstanbul Convention, and the fact that he described divorce as terror, and statements made by the Ombudsman Şeref Malkoç indirectly mentioning a need for rediscussing the İstanbul Convention, are very important in terms of public perception. 34 Application no. 2016/278, 24.8.2016. 75