NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY Implementation 1. It is not known how many times a year the Board meets and the resolutions issued during these meetings are not published. 2. The Institution does not have any transparent policy regarding the publication of resolutions. 3. The Board does not provide sufficient information to the public regarding its resolutions. 4. The Institution does not cooperate with other public institutions and CSOs dealing with the prevention of discrimination and there is no regular and effective coordination among the institutions. The Institution does not have any transparent policy on how to identify the CSOs with which cooperation is established to a limited extent. 5. The Institution has not formed any temporary commission with public institutions and organizations to engage in activities concerning the areas falling under its remit. 6. The Institution has organized a few consultation meetings in a very limited sense in terms of the attendance of CSOs and other relevant persons. 7. The Institution has an explicit policy on not cooperating with groups frequently exposed to discriminatory treatment up to now. 8. The Institution does not engage in any special activity in terms of accessibility and the adaptation of its services to the persons with disabilities. 9. The Institution does not have sufficient human resources to guide the persons applying thereto for the administrative and legal procedures to which they may recourse for redressing their victimization and help them to follow up their applications. D- Quasi-Jurisdictional Competence of TIHEK Legislation 1. Legislative provisions on the stay of period for filing a case with regard to the applications to be lodged before the Institution are stipulated in a way that will cause confusion for the applicants in practice and make it compulsory for the applicant to seek legal help on this matter. 2. It is quite ambiguous when and how the requirement of requesting from the relevant party to correct the practice claimed to be unlawful prior to lodging an application before the Institution will be fulfilled with regard to the applications to be lodged before the Institution and is of a quality to deter the victims from exercising the right to apply before the Institution. 3. Procedural rules valid for the applications filed before the Institution are regulated in a very detailed way instead of being simple. 4. The condition of becoming a victim for filing an application before the Institution only cover existing victimization and does not cover potential victimization. 5. CSOs and trade unions cannot lodge an application instead of the victim or alongside the victim upon the consent of the victim. 6. The only sanction that can be imposed by the Institution is administrative fine and the lower and upper limits prescribed therefor are very insufficient in a way to render the sanction ineffective. Fines are not transferred to the victims and cannot be used for redressing the damage. 55