NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY restricted mobility and cannot use public transport or need to spend money for extra equipment to use their car. However, it is not discussed whether these criteria (90% disability ratio and orthopedic disability) actually reflect this justification. For example, it should be observed that there is no criterion that takes into account the need for separate equipment for people with hearing impairment who may get a driver's license or the fact that all persons with an orthopedic disability are not in the same situation. Another application claiming discrimination among persons with disabilities is filed against Ankara Metropolitan Municipality and is related to announcements made when a person with a disability embarks on a bus. The audible announcement is “free” for person with a disability, and “accompanying person” for the individual with the person with a disability, and it is requested to replace this announcement with a “beep” sound, as it is emitted for individuals over 65 years old. The Institution explained in its rejection decision that this practice was adopted for controlling purposes, and it had a reasonable justification and did not constitute discrimination.26 On the other hand, in the decision, it was stated that “the same outcome can be achieved by applying different methods (such as different signal sounds, lighting or information screen only to be seen by the relevant officer), therefore, it is a requirement of Good Management Principles for the Administration to make a reasonable change in the current practice in time.” This assessment, which can be considered as a contradiction in the decision, reveals that since it would be possible to achieve the same goal with a less discriminating method, the current method that allows everyone to access this information is discriminatory. A similar matter was brought to the Council of State regarding the fact that the disability ratio persons with disabilities are written in their identity cards, and the 10th Circuit annulled the relevant Regulation provision in 2008, deciding that it could damage rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities.27 Another rare decision of the Institution on disabilities was made on an application, where the applicant was claiming that they suffered discrimination because of their son with a disability. In this decision, it was recommended that the regulation which required the applicant to provide a health report for the applicant and the applicant’s relatives, and did not allow sending the applicant to a temporary assignment abroad due to the fact that the applicant’s son has autism, is discriminatory and should be amended.28 2. Applications Claiming Discrimination Based on Religious Belief An early application claiming discrimination based on religious belief, is related to inequality created in the examination for transition from primary education to secondary education (TEOG exam) for non-Muslim students exempted from religious culture and ethics course.29 With the 2013 TEOG exam guide, the practice of asking alternative questions to students exempted from this course was terminated, and a different coefficient was applied to questions other than the questions related to the religious culture and ethics course. The Ombudsman Institution consulted measurement-assessment experts when assessing this application. In this experts report, it was determined that students exempted from the religious culture and ethics course had a disadvantage up to 10 points compared to students who received 26 Application no. 2018/6851, 24.10.2018 27 Council of State, 10th Chamber, E: 2005/8667, K:2008/401, 05/02/2008. The decision became final when approved by the Internal Audit Coordination Board (E. 2008/1763, K. 2012/2340, 28.11.2012). 28 Application no. 2016/2289, 15.11.2016. 29 Application no. 2014/3164, 2.10.2014. 73