NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY 87 points or higher from the questions related to this course, whereas, the result was to the disadvantage of the students who were not exempted from the course, if they received less than 87 points. The most important aspect of the decision is that it uses simulation technique to demonstrate how the outcome changes when different number of questions is answered correctly. As a result of adoption of this method, which can be an important proof in applications claiming discrimination, it was concluded that this was an unequal practice not only for non-Muslims but also for those who receive less than 87 points from questions in the religious culture and ethics course. However, in the decision, after applying the simulation, an evaluation should have been made to calculate how many people actually got 87 points from these questions. It would be possible to prove the discrimination argument against non-Muslims if the majority of students got high scores from these questions. The fact that this data has not been used is a deficiency. The applications claiming discrimination based on religious belief are predominantly for compensation of grievances experienced because of headscarves during 28 February incidents, about which the Institution has published a special report. Although not all the applications made by victims of 28 February do not contain claims or evaluations of discrimination, in the application made by the 28 February Student Association, it was emphasized that in line with the ban on discrimination, a regulation should be made to to eliminate the grievances of women applicants wearing headscarves. This application is not directly related to a specific individual, but it contains a request for making a general regulation, and a recommendation has been made to grant these victims the right to take a one-time direct oral examination in the Public Personnel Selection Examination.30 Similarly, in the decision, the Higher Education Council was recommended to make a regulation for individuals who could not complete their associate degree program because of wearing a headscarf but could not benefit from the 2014 amnesty, and it was also mentioned that this practice was discriminatory.31 3. Applications Claiming Discrimination Based on Gender and Sexual Identity There is a tab allocated to woman on the website of the Ombudsman Institution, however, both the number of applications and the number of decisions that were published are strikingly low. It is remarkable that the number of applications on this subject has even decreased. The Ombudsman Woman tab was created on the website of the institution and sample decisions were included. There are a total of eight decisions on the website, and all but one are related to social assistance. These figures and examples point to an important problem, especially when it is considered that the incidents of violence against women are increasing and that discriminatory attitude and hate speech against women is increasing. The joint commission frequently discussed whether the KDK could conduct an investigation if a violence incident against a woman was brought to the court. And, as stated in the meetings of the Commission on this issue, the Institution can conduct an investigation regarding the services for the protection of women from violence, even if they are brought to court. For instance, in one application, the In30 Application no. 2017/403, 11.5.2018 (This was accessed through request for information) 31 Application no. 2019/7853, 1.7.2019. 74