NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY A- Competence and Responsibilities of TIHEK Legislation 1. TIHEK Law lists the following duties as the duties of the Institution: "ensuring that the state becomes a party to international human rights conventions and ensure the implementation thereof"; "contributing to the reports which the state is required to submit to UN bodies or regional intergovernmental organizations pursuant to their obligations arising out of human rights treaties and, where necessary, expressing an opinion on the subject, with due respect for its independence"; "fight against hate speech" and "promoting diversity and good relations between persons belonging to all the different groups in society"; "conducting awareness-raising activities in the society for promoting diversity and mutual understanding and engaging in activities intended for ensuring that the groups exposed to discrimination have trust in the institution"; " and promoting and supporting positive actions" and "carrying out regular independent surveys and gathering a sufficient amount of sound quantitative and qualitative data on discrimination". 2. Article 3(2) of TIHEK Law does not adopt an open-ended approach in terms of discrimination grounds and does not mention the grounds of gender, sexual orientation and sexual identity. 3. the Law's wording does not comply with the perspective of gender. 4. Duties and mandate of the Institution are too broad for the Institution to engage in effective activities. 5. The Institutions is not authorized to initiate administrative and judicial proceedings by representing victims before administrative and judicial bodies and intervene in these proceedings in cases where they grant consent, intervene in these proceedings, bring the cases of discrimination before administrative and judicial authorities on its own behalf and intervene in administrative and judicial proceedings in any capacity such as amicus curiae, third party or expert. Implementation 1. The Institution does not engage in any considerable activity regarding many subjects falling under its mandate. 2. The Institution has not expressed any opinion drawing the attention of the executive body to situations in any part of the country where human rights are violated and making proposals to it for initiatives to put an end to such situations and, where necessary, specifying the position of the government and the reaction that must be given thereby and has not made any critical statement on the executive body with regard to any human rights problem in the country. 3. The Institution seems to give prominence to cooperation with the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation instead of the international organizations setting standards in the field of human rights such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe and the bodies affiliated thereto. 4. Cooperation of the Institution with public institutions, professional organizations, universities and CSOs dealing with fight against discrimination is quite insufficient. 52