NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY appropriate and significant resolution while it is not relevant to the ethnic groups living in Turkey, but to refugees. The Institution has issued two resolutions on gender discrimination so far and both resolutions are relevant to discrimination towards men.115 It is quite surprising that the Institution has not initiated an ex officio review and issued any resolution concerning discrimination towards women in a country where discrimination against women is so widespread. The grounds of non-discrimination stipulated in Article 3(2) of TIHEK Law do not constitute an open-ended, but a non-exhaustive list. Resolutions of TIHEK show that there is no tendency towards expanding this list. For instance, the application filed because of a claim concerning different treatment due to membership in an association was considered inadmissible by the Institution as it was not covered by any of the grounds stipulated in TIHEK Law.116 Considering the resolutions of TIHEK by the different forms of discrimination set out in TIHEK Law, it is observed that the Institution has not rendered any resolution on indirect discrimination up to now. Approach regarding the burden of proof constitutes one of the most problematic areas for proving the claims of indirect discrimination. It is an issue of concern how the Board will evaluate such claims by considering the confusion concerning the proof of discrimination in the resolution. It is observed that four of the eight resolutions which were published by TIHEK and about which a resolution of violations was issued are relevant to access to goods and services (failure to rent a house and not letting refugees into a shop).117 Two of the remaining four resolutions are relevant to the cases on head-scarf and hasema where the freedom of religion and conscience is intertwined with gender. One of them concerns access to employment118 while the other is related to the failure to enjoy a right granted to site residents.119 Last two resolutions are relevant to facing negative treatment (victimization) due to an application filed before TIHEK on non-discrimination120 and the failure to make appropriate arrangements for access to education. 121 As can be seen, there is no resolution subjected to any merits review with regard to areas of non-discrimination stipulated in Article 5 of TIHEK Law such as membership in the associations, foundations and trade unions of judiciary, law enforcement, transport, communication, social security, social services, social aid, tourism and self-employed professionals and political parties and professional organizations except for the exemptions stipulated in relevant legislation or regulations as well as election for their organs, enjoying the facilities of membership, the termination of membership and attending and making use of their activities/events. Article 7 of TIHEK Law contains a long list of cases where the claim of discrimination cannot be put forth. Considering the 12 resolutions subject to review, only one of them was not concluded to be a violation of non-discrimination within the scope of "different treatment arising out of the conditions and legal status of non-citizens concerning their entry into force and residence" as stipulated in Article 7(1)(g).122 Apart 115 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2018/97, October 15, 2018. 116 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2019/55, September 10, 2019. 117 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2018/69, June 27, 2018; Resolution No. 2019/15, March 5, 2019; Resolution No. 2019/29, May 7, 2019; Resolution No. 2019/64, November 19, 2019. 118 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2018/97, October 15, 2018. 119 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2020/26, February 11, 2020. 120 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2019/54, September 10, 2019. 121 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2020/143, June 18, 2020. 122 TIHEK, Resolution No. 2019/22, April 9, 2019. 49