NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY resulting in a resolution of violation. The Institution stated that the review of seven applications was pending as of the end of 2018.93 As can be seen, the number of applications about which a resolution of violation was issued out of 371 applications lodged before the Institution is only three. Merits review was initiated for 28 out of 70 applications lodged before the Institution in 2019 and 18 of them were finalized while the number of finalized applications for which a resolution of violations was issued is only three. It was stated that most of the files reviewed on the merits were relevant to mobbing. Apart from these, it was stated that two reviews were initiated on an ex officio fashion, one of them resulting in a resolution of violation while the other one's review was pending.94 The number of applications filed before TIHEK shows that the Institution is not under a heavy workload and is perceived as an ineffective institution before the public opinion. The resolutions issued by equality institutions as a result of applications or ex officio review are generally recommendations that are not legally binding.95 Recommendations can be directed towards the relevant institution or person.96 Although recommendations are not binding in contrary to the judgments of judicial bodies, in the event that the resolutions issued by the Institution in this way are not complied with, it is possible for the Institution to report this circumstance to the supreme institution to which the relevant public institution is affiliated or to the legislative body and announced this circumstance to the public.97 However, in some cases, sanctions can also be ruled by equality institutions, and such sanctions may occur in the form of compensation or fines to a large extent.98 Equality institutions must have the authority to recourse to legal remedies after the resolutions issued thereby regarding discriminatory treatments are not enforced.99 Another issue concerning the quasi-jurisdictional authorities of equality institutions is the sharing of the burden of proof regarding the applications filed on non-discrimination. The aforementioned EU Directives require that a regulation must be in force for the sharing of the burden of proof. This liability with regard to the sharing of the burden of proof is valid for not only judicial bodies, but also equality institutions. This approach is quite important for judicial bodies as well as the equality institutions constituted so as to fight against discrimination. Article 21 of TIHEK Law provides that the burden of proof will rest with the other party if the applicant "puts forth the presence of strong indications concerning the accuracy of his/her claim and of the facts resulting in presumption" with regard to the applications lodged before the Institution with the claim of non-discrimination violation and, in this case, the person or institution against which the application is filed must prove that s/he/it has not violated non-discrimination and the principle of equal treatment. 93 TIHEK, 2018 Activity Report, p. 38-39. 94 TIHEK, 2019 Activity Report, p. 59-60. 95 Gay Moon, “Enforcement Bodies”, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law, Dagmar Schiek, Lisa Waddington; Mark Bell (eds.), Hart, Cornwall, 2007, p. 874. 96 Kucsko-Stadlmayer, p. 45. 97 Kucsko-Stadlmayer, p. 46. 98 Margit Ammer; Niall Crowley; Barbara Liegl; Elizabeth Holzleithner; Katrin Wladasch; Kutsal Yeşilkağıt, Study on Equality Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC, Synthesis Report, Human European Consultancy, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Menschenrechte, 2010, p. 96, http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6454&langId=en (accessed: July 31, 2020). 99 National Human Rights Institutions, p. 7, para. 50. 44