NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY determination was accepted in the Concluding Observations recently published by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding Turkey's first contracting state report.62 The most recent Turkey report by ECRI also criticizes the association of the Institution with the executive body and the appointment of all its members by the executive body in terms of independence.63 Acting independently for its activities and setting its own procedures come to the fore as regards the operational autonomy of an equality institution. In this sense, the reports prepared by the institution, the examinations conducted thereby and the opinions submitted thereby must not be subject to the review and acceptance of another body.64 For example, the reports prepared by the institution must be submitted directly to the relevant authorities and not be subject to any acceptance procedure.65 Besides, it is recommended that laws prescribe various sanctions against acts such as preventing the institution from engaging in its activities and the failure to submit the information requested by the institution.66 Moreover, the employees of the institution must be appointed by the institution itself.67 It is observed that TIHEK is autonomous to a certain extent in terms of setting its own procedures. The reports prepared by the institution, the examinations conducted thereby and the opinions submitted thereby are not subject to the review and acceptance of another body or authority. First of all, the first version of TIHEK Law's Article 10(7) provided that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board would be selected by the Board from among the members of the Board. This regulation was abolished by the DL No. 703. Although it is possible to interpret this situation as to the effect that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board will be selected by the Board, it will be observed whether or not the new chairman and vice chairman will be directly appointed by the President in case of any potential appointment for the members of the Board. Secondly, although Article 27 stipulates that the regulations on the implementation of TIHEK Law will be put into force by the Institution, the authority to decide on the opening of any new office outside Ankara upon the request of the Institution rests with the President as per Article 14(5). It is not known whether or not any step was taken by the Institution to open offices in provinces other than Ankara, whether or not any proposal was previously submitted to the Council of Ministers or is currently submitted to the President and, if such proposal was submitted, the outcome of the request is not known, either. Article 14(6) of TIHEK Law provides that the working procedures and principles of service units and offices will be set in a regulation brought into force by the President upon the proposal of the Institution in line with its field of activity, duties and authorities set out in TIHEK Law. Since these two issues can be easily decided by TIHEK itself, it is not possible to understand why a regulation is in place to the effect that the President is authorized to decide on these issues. This approach is considered very problematic in terms of both the accessibility of the Institution and its ability to conduct activities independently. Apart from this, TIHEK can determine its service units itself and there are 10 service units designated in this way.68 62 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of Turkey, CRPD/C/TUR/ CO/1, 01.10.2019, para. 35, 67, https://undocs.org/en/CRPD/C/TUR/CO/1 (accessed: 31.07.2020). 63 ECRI, Report on Turkey, Fifth Monitoring Cycle, para. 26. 64 National Human Rights Institutions, p. 11, para. 71-72. 65 Murray, p. 369. 66 Smith, p. 917. 67 Kucsko-Stadlmayer, p. 17. 68 TIHEK, 2019 Activity Report, p. 20. 31