NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY this crime they have found out in association with their duties, they will commit the crime of "the failure of a public official to notify a crime" as per Article 279 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237. 102 It is not possible to consider as effective, proportional and deterrent the sanction imposed by TIHEK. Moreover, it is not possible for TIHEK to impose sanctions such as deciding for the prevention of a future case of discrimination, deciding on the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation or announcing the decision or the persons committing discrimination other than issuing an administrative fine. In addition, the legislation in force does not provide that the government and other public authorities must reply to or take action to implement TIHEK's recommendations within a certain timescale. While the current legal framework for the execution of the administrative fine is sufficient, there is a loophole in the execution of recommendations. Besides, no information is available as to whether or not any activity is performed to monitor the consequences of the resolutions issued by the Institution. The rate of the fulfillment of the resolutions rendered by the Institution is not known. 2. TIHEK and the Authority of Mediation Another authority discussed for equality institutions is the authority of mediation. The procedure of mediation comes to the fore especially in cases where the victims of discrimination are withdrawn from recoursing to legal remedies and do not want to face the phenomenon of victimization.103 Owing to the mediation, one of the alternative dispute resolution methods, the risk of victimization disappears to a certain extent and it is possible to reach a conclusion in relatively shorter period of time when compared to adjudication.104 In accordance with international standards, Article 11(1)(b) of TIHEK Law provides that one of the duties of the Board is to initiate and finalize the process of reconciliation with regard to the applications lodged and ex officio reviews concerning the violations of non-discrimination where necessary. Article 18(3) grants the Chairman of the Institution the authority of inviting the victim applying with the claim of non-discrimination violation and the persons responsible for this violation upon request or in an ex officio fashion. Preferring the concept of “reconciliation” over mediation in the law suggests that it is inspired by the mechanism of reconciliation in criminal jurisdiction. The phrase "Determinations, statements or explanations during reconciliation negotiations cannot be used as evidence within any investigation and prosecution or lawsuit." within the text of the law strengthens this possibility. However, it is not very likely that discriminatory treatments constitute a crime. Discriminatory treatments may predominantly cause private law liability and it seems possible through the text of the article that determinations, statements or explanations during reconciliation negotiations can be used as evidence during an action for damages. Article 18(3) of TIHEK Law expects that reconciliation be finalized within a month at the latest. The action to be established in case of successful reconciliation may be in the form of finalizing the act claimed to be a violation of non-discrimination or paying a certain amount of compensation to the victim or another act. As the information 102 Turkish Criminal Code (No. 5237), the Official Gazette No. 25611 of October 12, 2004. 103 Moon, p. 897. 104 Moon, p. 897. For information on the alternative dispute resolution methods applied by equality institutions, see Lindholt; Kerrigan, p. 104-105. 46