NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY CONCLUSION The Institution has many more decisions in the field of discrimination compared to TİHEK. However, the basis of discrimination claimed in the applications is also an important indicator. The Institution mainly receives applications claiming discrimination based on disabilities. It is seen that the right to education is at the forefront in these applications and the number of applications for taking special measures has started to increase. In some of the decisions, the rights-based approach and description of discrimination meet international standards, however, in some of them the description of certain concepts such as disability, positive discrimination, and just cause seems to be problematic. Decisions on discrimination based on religious belief were made for a series of applications made for grievances related to the 28 February process, and therefore, these are related to discrimination cases that are not current. On the other hand, although one would expect a high number of applications related to minority religions/sects claiming discrimination based on religious belief, there is only one application related to this issue. Discrimination claims based on gender are very limited in Turkey on the contrary to actual situation. The absence of any application or decision based on widespread discrimination grounds such as discrimination based on political opinion, sexual orientation, and age is also an important indicator. Similarly, although there are applications claiming discrimination in relation to the right to health and the right to education, especially on the basis of disability, there is a limited number of applications claiming discrimination in relation to many fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to enter public service, freedom of expression, the right to assembly and demonstration, the right to protect private life, and trade union rights, and no recommendation-decisions have been made in relation to these rights. There is a single application filed with the Institution claiming discrimination based on ethnicity, which was made by the Association for Monitoring Equal Rights. The application claims that making election propaganda in native language is discriminatory for individuals whose native language is not Turkish, and on 23 October 2015 TIHEK decided that this constituted a violation, whereas, the KDK informed AMER on 20 May 2016 that this application was not in its purview and therefore it could not make an investigation, but later, it has stated that inaccurate information was provided and made a recommendation-decision on 27 October 2015, referring to TIHEK decision. It is possible to say that the Public Ombudsman Institution, which has completed its seven years now, is much more advanced than TİHEK in terms of institutionalization, knowhow and specialization. The consistent increase in the number of applications and better accessibility of the decisions is also an indication of this fact. However, the number and nature of applications claiming discrimination indicate that the Institutions is not effective in the area of discrimination that would be expected from a national human rights mechanism. The scarcity of applications in the field of human rights, not only in the field of discrimination, and the subjects of existing applications are an important indicator in understanding how the public perceives the Institution. In its recommendation-decisions, the Institution recommended the administration to make a new regulation, to conduct an inquiry into the relevant matter, or to develop training programs. On the other hand, since the tendency to make a rejection-decision in compensation claims will lead individuals to go to the court, this tendency may undermine the effectiveness of the Institution as a remedy. 77