NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY special education services board, guidance and counseling centers, schools, institutions, and family was not sufficient, provision of an educational setting appropriate for the needs of the child was delayed, effectiveness of the inclusion model remained limited according to academic data and then recommended that the time that the child could not receive appropriate education should be compensated, and the family should be provided with counseling services, and problems in the inclusion program should be remedied. Although the decision does not describe the act as discriminatory, this decision can also be considered to provide a reasonable accommodation. In an application related to accessibility, the applicant who had an accident because of the tactile surface at the metro station, which failed to comply with accessibility standards, requested the tactile surface to be improved to meet the accessibility standards, and claimed compensation of the damages suffered, the Institution concluded that material damages could not be proven, and did not award any non-pecuniary damage, and decided that the administration should apologize.18 In a situation where the person suffers a bodily harm due to a discriminatory practice, even if material damages cannot be proven, the request for non-pecuniary damages should have been accepted and the amount of the damages should be deterring. The scanned decisions of the Ombudsman Institution, does not include an example, where it awarded damages due to an act or practice which is against law or equity, although the Law authorizes the Institution to recommend payment of damages. On the other hand, in some of its decisions, the Institution erroneously described requests as a form of positive discrimination or led to victimization of persons with disabilities. For instance, when an application was made requesting an increase in the contribution of the state for preschool educational support given to a student with autism, the Institution made an accurate analysis on the positive impact and necessity of early support education for children with autism, referring to the principle of the best interest of the child, and concluded that this had to be done because of the duty to make positive discrimination, otherwise it would be against equity.19 However, there is no positive discrimination here, in fact there is a demand for a regulation according to the specific situation of the person. The Institution uses the concepts of special measures and positive discrimination synonymously in such decisions. Special measures, which are also known as temporary special measures or positive actions, constitute a broader concept than positive discrimination.20 In order to talk about positive discrimination, there has to be a more direct intervention, and a situation, which creates inequality against others in order to provide de facto equality for the relevant party, however, not all special measures need to lead to an inequality. Treating individuals differently due to their different circumstances does not constitute positive discrimination. In fact measures aiming to remove obstacles in front of persons with disabilities preventing them from enjoying rights and freedoms equally are not positive discrimination, on the contrary, these measures are required to provide equality. In this respect, it should be noted that a significant portion of the applications made by persons with disabilities involve the demand for equality, not positive discrimination. In some of its decisions on applications made by persons with disabilities requiring a special measure, the Institution made some assessments, which may lead to victimization 18 Application no. 2018/10289, 1.7.2019. 19 Application no. 2014/4634, 2.4.2015. 20 In its general comment no.5, CEDAW Committe describes positive discrimination as a temporary measure. 70