NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM: THE CASES OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY INSTITUTION OF TURKEY forms a link between the administration and the society. Given that it may sometimes be difficult to enforce national and international court decisions in Turkey, the effectiveness of non-binding decisions may be questioned, still, the fact that these decisions constitute recommendations, makes them more comprehensive and flexible. Since the review by the KDK is not limited to review of legality like the courts, but also includes expediency, or as stipulated in the Law review of equity, therefore it is difficult for such decisions to be binding and enforced on an all or none principle. It should be noted that a body that makes a binding decision may not be so active in its assessment of what would be more appropriate in practice. However, drawing the distinction between equity review and legality review is also extremely important. In this respect, the scrutiny by the Institution aims not only to ensure that the administration acts in accordance with the law, but also to establish a better functioning administration, to correct the mistakes or bad practices of the administration, and to transform the administrative culture. There may be situations in which the Institution deems it sufficient to qualify an as unfair rather than considering it to be in contradiction with the international legislation. As such, in a situation in compliance with the law, it is possible to qualify such situation as unfair, or to qualify the relevant act as unfair. The types of decisions and the results of the decisions are not regulated in detail in the Law on the Ombudsman Institution, only expressions towards acceptance and rejection are included in various articles; and in the second paragraph of Article 20, it is stated that “shall notify ... if any, its recommendations to the relevant authority and to the applicant. It is understood from the letter of the law that it does not make binding decisions. On the other hand, according to the first version of Article 31 of the Implementing Regulation of the Law, the Institution can decide that there is no room for a recommendation, a rejection, or a decision.7 The amicable settlement method was developed with the statement added to the regulation on 2 March 2017. Accordingly, it is possible to decide for an amicable settlement, if the relevant administration takes due action, or the parties notify the Institution that the complaint has been settled. Although it seems to be a method that could be completed in a short period of time and would reduce the workload of the Institution, it should be taken into consideration that this method may have some drawbacks, considering the qualifications of the Institution. In practice, in case of an amicable settlement, no decision is written and these decisions are not published. However, in addition to deciding on applications, the Institution also has the function of ensuring the transparency of the administrations, guiding the administration with its decisions, and fulfills its duty of public scrutiny. In this respect, it should be taken into account that although methods such as amicable settlement or admission of the case seem effective in resolving the application before the ECtHR or national courts, a solution offered to one person may not be a convenient solution for others when considering its effect on other individuals or administrations. According to 2019 statistics, 22% of the cases were concluded with amicable settlement, and for 6.63% of the applications, a decision (rejection, recommendation, partial recommendation) was written. Although this number means that the Institution acts effectively and solves the problems, the low rate of recommendations will undermine the 7 Regulation on Procedures and Principles Regarding the Implementation of the Law on the Ombudsman Institution, Official Journal Date: 28.03.2013 Official Journal Issue: 28601 (repeated). 61