NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY stitution had classified them in the discrimination group. Some of the decisions were related to appointment requests of civil servants with a disability, and all of them were in the form of recommendation-decision, recommending necessary arrangements to be made. Although there were overlapping aspects of the applications related to discrimination based on disability, the applications were reviewed under four main groups. The first of these groups contains the requests for reasonable accommodation, the second for special measures, the third claims discrimination among the persons with disabilities, and the last contains requests for amendment of regulations that are discriminatory to persons with disabilities. An early important decision of the Institution regarding discrimination based on disability is the C.G. decision regarding the failure to make reasonable accommodation in the fine arts high school entrance examination for a student with autism.13It is important that the decision emphasizes the rights of children with disabilities, refers to the General Comment No. 9 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the decision of the European Social Rights Committee, and that the lack of reasonable accommodation is considered as a discrimination.14Later, two more decisions were made, where lack of reasonable accommodation for university students with hearing impairment was considered as discrimination.15As such, in the decision recommending the administration to consider the request of an individual with a physical disability for extra time in the Student Selection and Placement exams, analysis of the need for extra time based on question samples may be an indication of an attitude, which is different than the attitude of the courts in proving discrimination.16Again, in the application regarding the rejection of the request of a visually impaired individual to use an electronic magnifying glass instead of receiving help from an assistant who would read the questions and mark the answers, a recommendation-decision was made on the grounds that this practice was unfair, because it was possible to take necessary precautions in terms of exam safety and to permit using an electronic magnifying glass.17 Recommendation-decisions were made in applications due to discriminatory conduct adopted in education towards students with disabilities. It is important to note that judicial review would probably not be effective for these applications in terms of standards of proof and for changing the practices of the administration. For instance, in one of its decisions, the Institution concluded that an education support room was not provided for an inclusion student in preschool education, the child was not given required education support, necessary staff was not provided, cooperation among the 13 022013/1064, 06.06.2014. 14 However, the administration did not comply with the decision and the applicant filed a lawsuit. Although the administrative court decided for a stay of execution in the case, relevant international references were not included in the decision, and no assessment was made on discrimination. 2nd Administrative Court in Mersin 29.08.2014, E.2014/324 (YD) (Not published. I would like to thank journalist Umay Aktaş, who helped me to access the decision. 15 Applications numbered 2016/4990 and 2017/384. 16 2016/1863, 28.10.2016. (https://www.ombudsman.gov.tr/contents/files/Engelli%20Adaylara%20Ek%20S%C3%83%C2%BCre%20 Verilmesi%20Talebi%20Hakk%C3%84%C2%B1nda.pdf) Although the Council of State decided in more than one case that rejection of the request for extra time for students with dyslexia was in compliance with the law, and such decisions were referred to in the decision, the Ombudsman Institution has not adopted this approach. (Referred decisions: Decisions of the 8th Chamber of the Council of State numbered 2014/4195 Esas, 2016/3641 Karar and dated 13/04/2016, and numbered 2014/4582 Esas, 2016/3856 Karar and dated 18/04/2016) 17 2014/1275. It was stated that the act was “lawful, however, the decision was made taking into consideration the expert's detailed and reasoned opinion, national and international legislation, and the principles of right, justice and equity” There are also other decisions, where the act is considered to be lawful but national and international legislation are also taken into consideration. 69