NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY published by the Human Rights Institution of Turkey and CSOs and professional organizations with the status of a public institution were enabled to lodge an application on behalf of the victims. A similar provision must be introduced through a regulation to be issued as per Article 17(9) of TIHEK Law, but TIHEK Regulation does not contain any such provision. Another issue regarding individual applications is whether not only victims, but also the institution finding out about the discriminatory treatment in a way can initiate the procedure of complaint in an ex officio fashion or not. Granting such an authority may bring the victimization of victims abstaining from filing an application before the institution. It is stated that this issue is especially important for the institutions considered as sensitive institutions for human rights such as prisons, psychiatric hospitals, refugee camps and orphanages.90 Article 9(1)(g) of TIHEK Law enables the Institution to review, investigate, decide on the violations of non-discrimination and follow their consequences in an ex officio fashion. TIHEK Board assumes the responsibility for deciding on the reviews initiated in an ex officio fashion as per Article 11(1)(b). However, Article 17(6) requires that the express consent of the victim himself/herself or his/her legal representative is received with regard to the reviews to be initiated in an ex officio fashion concerning the violations of non-discrimination in cases where the victim is identifiable. No consent is sought in cases requiring the child's best interest. Seeking such consent as a rule for the reviews to be initiated in an ex officio fashion may lead to the failure to conduct any review as the victims abstaining from filing an application in certain cases do not granting consent due to a similar reason. For this reason, not seeking the consent as a condition in each case seems to be a more appropriate solution. A high number of individual applications may pose risks such as an elevated workload and rendering the institution unfunctional for equality institutions. In this case, the problems experienced by judicial bodies when they are under heavy workload may occur in the same way. For instance, finalizing applications after a long period of time may lead to the perception of the equality institution as an ineffective body in the eyes of the victims of discrimination. Reliability of the equality institution will be on decline in the event that the number of applications is low or the institution admits a low number of applications. In case of a decline in trust, the institution may receive a lower number of applications and its reliability may plummet. According to TIHEK, the number of applications lodged on the claim of non-discrimination violation is 371 and 70 in 2018 and 2019, respectively. These figures seem to be quite low considering the country's population and the prevalence of discrimination cases.91 The number of applications stood at 51 during the first six months of 2020.92 337 out of 371 applications lodged before TIHEK in 2018 were dismissed on the ground that they were not justified based on the discrimination grounds stipulated in TIHEK Law and failed to fulfill the conditions of application set out in TIHEK Regulation. Three of the applications were referred to other institutions due to their relevance and violation review was initiated about 31 applications. Out of the applications subjected to violation review, eight were dismissed on the ground of inadmissibility, 11 on the ground of non-evaluation, two were found to be violations while nine were concluded to be not violations. Besides, an ex officio investigation was initiated by the Institution in 2018, 90 Kucsko-Stadlmayer, p. 21. 91 TIHEK, 2019 Activity Report, p. 51. 92 TIHEK, 2020 Corporate Financial Situation and Expectations Report, p. 8. 43