NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY tions due to the lack of legal bases, they are not addressed at all, no assessment is made from the perspective of human rights (especially in terms of legality, proportionality, discrimination) and it is noteworthy that there is no mention of the discussions made worldwide. Furthermore, the number of applications in areas where there are extensive human right violations in Turkey (freedom of expression, right to assembly and demonstration) is low, and no special report has been prepared in these areas. It is observed that the rate of compliance with the decisions of the KDK has gradually increased over the years. It is seen that the rate of compliance, which was 20% in 2013, increased to 75% in 2019. An important factor in this increase is the widespread use of amicable settlements. Worldwide, the administrations who fail to comply with the decisions are disclosed to the public, however, the KDK has done it for once, and has not given any detailed report on to what extent the administrations comply with the decisions since then. Although there is information on the compliance with certain decisions in the annual reports, there is no systematic reporting. The striking provision in Article 18 of the Venice Principles is that in the framework of the monitoring of the implementation at the national level of ratified international instruments relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the harmonization of national legislation with these instruments, the Ombudsman has the power to present, in public, recommendations to Parliament or the Executive, including to amend legislation or to adopt new legislation After the 2017 Constitutional amendments, with the removal of the ministries' authority to draft law, if the recommendation requires a legal amendment, sending the decision to the relevant administration will not be sufficient. It would be helpful to include a provision in the law, which would authorize the Institution to send the decision to the parliament or to make a call to that end. According to Article 19 of the Venice Principles, the Ombudsman should preferably have the power to challenge the constitutionality of laws and regulations or general administrative acts before competent courts. According to Paris Principles and Article 16 of the Venice Principles, ombudsmen should have discretionary power, on their own initiative to investigate cases. In Turkey, the Ombudsman Institution is not authorized to apply to the Constitutional Court, and can act only after receiving a complaint, except for writing special reports.10 C. INDICATORS: DECISION STATISTICS Considering that the KDK was established more than seven years ago, an important indicator of being a national human rights institution is the subject and quality of the applications made to the Institution. Based on the applications made in the last four years, the number of applications has increased significantly over the years, but the overwhelming majority of the applications is related to the public personnel regime, especially to appointments. These are followed by applications related to education, labor and social security, which constitute almost half of all the applications in 2019. Then there are applications from penal execution institutions, which are grouped in applications related to justice, national defense, and security. 10 At the end of the 2019 annual report, in the expectations section, the Institution requested to be authorized to apply to the Constitutional Court and to investigate cases on its own initiative. 64