Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges
Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and
Refugees in Turkey

Neil Grungras, Rachel Levitan, and Amy Slotek

Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBTs) face persecution
and violence around the globe. Many are forced to escape this persecution in
their countries of origin and make claims for refugee status on the basis of
their sexual orientation or gender identity. Turkey is increasingly a crossroads for
mixed migration flows from Asia and Africa to Europe, and has seen a rise in the
numbers of LGBT asylum seekers in recent years. Many arrive in Turkey to confront
new violence and harassment by local communities and other refugees. While awaiting
the determination of their refugee status, they avoid the police, are afraid to leave
their homes, and have very limited access to social support, employment, and medical
care. Expedited resettlement is one short-term solution to the security concerns
facing this group. Longer-term solutions include training government agencies and
social service providers on basic concepts regarding LGBT status and the rights of
LGBT asylum seekers and refugees.

Introduction
“All refugees have problems in Turkey. However, I believe that some problems
are very unique to our situation. Many LGBT refugees have no one to
turn to. Refugees who fled their countries because of their political activ-
Neil Grungras is the founder and Executive Director of ORAM—Organization for Refuge,
Asylum & Migration, a California-based NGO assisting refugees and migrants battling
particularly challenging survival issues. An immigration law advocate with over
20 years’ law practice in the public and private sectors, Mr. Grungras has served as a
refugee law adviser to several NGOs and has lectured and taught extensively on the topic
at leading law faculties. Rachel Levitan received a BA from McGill University and a LLB
from the University of British Columbia. She is co-founder and legal director of the Refugee
Advocacy and Support Program of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly—Turkey, the country’s
first and only legal clinic for refugees. Amy Slotek received a BA from McGill University
and is expecting her LLB from Windsor University in 2010. She is co-founder of the Refugee
Advocacy and Support Program of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly—Turkey and worked
for three years as a legal advisor with the program.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
ism often can turn to their political parties for support. Refugees who fled
for religious reasons can turn to their religious communities. Some refugees
can turn to their families in their home country for support. Many of us
left everything behind. We have been cut off from our communities and our
families in our countries and have no one to turn to.”1
In recent years, Turkey has experienced an increase in the numbers of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) asylum seekers. Most come from Iran, which enforces
the death penalty for consensual same-sex conduct and has, by some estimates,
executed thousands of LGBT individuals.2 Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
now-famous denial of the existence of homosexuals in his country,3 scores
of LGBT asylum seekers from Iran escape to Turkey each year.
Rights abuses against LGBT people and their
advocates are rife in Turkey. Identity-based harassment
and violence are common, as is police indifference
to LGBT complaints. There were ten reported
murders of LGBT individuals between November
2008 and April 2009 alone.4 LGBT rights groups in
Turkey have been closed or threatened with closure
for endangering “moral values and family structure.”
5 While in Turkey, LGBT refugee applicants
are subject to the country’s complex asylum procedures,
and they often wait many months or years to
complete the process. Turkey extends protection under the 1951 Convention and 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees only to people originating in Europe.6 Since
the vast majority of asylum seekers in Turkey are not European, they are ineligible for
refugee status in that country. Instead, their protection and prospects for durable solutions
fall largely on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Those whom UNHCR recognizes as refugees become eligible for resettlement in a third
country, primarily the U.S., Canada, or Australia.7
For several years, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly—Turkey (HCA) has provided legal
aid to asylum seekers and refugees in Turkey, a significant portion of whom are LGBT
individuals. During the course of this assistance, HCA identified a clear pattern of interlinking
rights violations against this community of asylum seekers and refugees.
Faced with the “double marginality” of being LGBT and refugees, they experience not
simply the cumulative sum of belonging to both groups but also exponential marginalization
based on profound distancing from traditional support systems and resources.8
To assess the situation systematically, HCA undertook a series of in-depth interviews9
and file reviews for 46 LGBT asylum seekers and refugees. Of those interviewed, the
overwhelming majority were from Iran, with a few others from Arabic-speaking countries.10
Interviewees reported consistent harassment and physical violence from local
communities, gaps in police protection, and barriers to accessing housing, work, edu-

There were
ten reported
murders of LGBT
individuals [in
Turkey] between
November 2008
and April 2009.

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
cation, and health care. Many reported invasive questioning during asylum procedures.
They uniformly expressed deep feelings of isolation—from family and friends in Iran or
other countries of origin, from other refugees in Turkey, and from Turkish society and
authorities. Recommendations to address these protection concerns focus on training
police, social service providers, community leaders, and UNHCR staff, and on creating
safe environments for LGBT asylum seekers and refugees as they wait to be resettled
from Turkey to other countries.
Persecution of LGBTs: The Global Context
LGBT communities face discriminatory treatment and persecution on the basis of their
sexual orientation or gender identity throughout the world.11 They are subject to violence—
including rape, torture, and murder—both by private citizens and government
agents.12 They also confront barriers to accessing basic social and economic rights, including
health care, education, housing, and employment.13 In order to avoid social
ostracism, violence, and even execution, LGBT individuals often are forced by their
families and communities into socially accepted gender identities and heterosexual relationships,
resulting in severe emotional repercussions. LGBTs also tend to be targets
of sexual violence, often used as a punishment for transgressing gender norms.14
Discrimination against LGBT people is often codified, tending to perpetuate a climate
of intolerance.15 Hundreds of nations have enacted laws that prevent the full expression
of LGBT identity, including limitations on legal partnership rights or cohabitation.
Consensual same-sex acts among adults are still criminalized by at least 85 UN
member states.16 Moreover, seven of those nations—Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Nigeria—maintain the death penalty for
homosexual acts.17 Several of these countries follow shari’a law and uphold statutes
establishing stoning as a form of execution for those convicted of same-sex acts.18
Government persecution of LGBTs also manifests itself in non-codified forms, including
unofficial policies that tolerate police violence against LGBTs.19 These policies
often discourage sexual minorities from reporting hate crimes, exposing them to an
even greater risk of abuse.20 States also discriminate against their LGBT citizens by
classifying non-conforming sexual orientation or gender identity as mental illness, and
by legally limiting the expression of LGBT rights organizations.21
International Refugee Law:
LGBTs as Members of a Particular Social Group
As a result of this discriminatory treatment, many LGBTs are compelled to escape persecution
in their countries of origin and seek refuge in countries that provide them
greater protection. Refugee claims ensuing from sexual orientation or gender identity
are most often based on the applicant’s “membership in a particular social group”
(MPSG), one of the five grounds for protection enumerated in the Refugee Convention.
While the Convention leaves the term MPSG undefined, there have been two generally

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
accepted approaches to its interpretation. The “protected characteristics” approach examines
whether the group at issue is united by a characteristic that is immutable or “so
fundamental to human dignity that [one] should not be compelled to forsake it.”22 The
“social perception” approach examines whether the claimed group shares a common
characteristic which renders it cognizable or which sets it apart from society at large.23
UNHCR has embraced a definition best described as “social perception” informed by
“protected characteristics”:
[A] particular social group is a group of persons who share a common characteristic
other than their risk of being persecuted, or who are perceived as
a group by society. The characteristic will often be one which is innate, unchangeable,
or which is otherwise fundamental to identity, conscience, or the
exercise of one’s human rights.24
On a practical level, lesbian and gay asylum seekers may qualify under all approaches
to social group membership. Lesbians share the immutable characteristic of
being sexually or emotionally attracted to other women; gay men share the immutable
characteristic of being sexually or emotionally attracted to other men. These characteristics
are increasingly regarded in Western societies as so fundamental to identity and
human dignity that one should not be forced to forsake them.25 Lesbians and gay men
may also be perceived as a group in their country of origin. This is underscored by the
fact that more than 80 countries criminalize homosexual conduct, numerous others
have morality laws resulting in harassment or persecution of LGBTs, and still others
permit violence and abuse against sexual minorities.26
Bisexual claimants, who often intersect heterosexual and homosexual social circles,
may have more difficulty proving that they are perceived as a separate group.27
Where this is the case, bisexuals can often legitimately claim imputed membership in
a particular social group of lesbians or gay men.
Transgender claims are based on gender identity rather than sexual orientation.
(Being transgender is a matter of self-perception and internal identity. It is separate
from one’s sexual affinities and does not imply attraction to members of a given gender.)
Claims by transgender asylum seekers are most often based on membership in a
social group of “individuals born with one anatomical sex who believe this anatomical
sex does not match their gender.”28 This gender identity, rather than the claimant’s
male or female anatomical characteristics, is viewed as immutable and fundamental
to the person’s identity.”29 Transgender individuals may also affiliate closely with one
another, are driven by their common interest in assuming the gender identity of the
opposite sex, are recognized as a segment of the population, and are often singled out
for different treatment.30 Transgender claims may, in addition, be based on imputed
membership in a particular social group of lesbians or gay men.31
LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
As European nations have taken increasingly strong measures to stem the flow of migration
from Africa and Asia, larger numbers of migrants and refugees have made their

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
way into Turkey. LGBTs make up a small but notable portion of Turkey’s refugees.
Almost all the known LGBT asylum seekers arriving in Turkey originate from Iran.
The Treatment of LGBTs in Iran: The Basis for Refugee Status
Iran’s intolerance of same-sex relations is clearly spelled out in its criminal code. All
penetrative sexual acts between adult men are punishable with the death penalty,32
and other consensual sexual acts between consenting men or consenting women are
punishable with lashes up to the fourth offense; thereafter with death.33 According to
one Iranian gay and lesbian rights group in exile, the Iranian government has executed
an estimated 4,000 homosexuals since 1980.34
Iran’s state security apparatus—with support
from a civilian morality corps called the “Special
Protection Division”35—actively pursues, entraps,
and tortures those thought to be engaging in homosexual
conduct. House raids by police are common.
The 30 people arrested on suspicion of homosexual
activity during a February 2008 house raid reported
being held without charge for several weeks and
denied access to legal representation.36 Victims of a
May 2007 house raid that led to 87 arrests reported
being stripped to the waist by police and beaten until
their backs and faces were bloody. Some sustained
broken bones.37 Internet entrapment is also a common
and dangerous threat for LGBTs seeking the
apparent safety of online contact.38 After agreeing
online to meet an undercover police officer, one gay
man was arrested. He was sentenced to 175 lashes,
and was later repeatedly tortured during a weeklong
detention.39
Paradoxically, the Iranian government subsidizes
gender reassignment surgery.40 Once diagnosed as transgender by a government
physician, one can receive official government dispensation to cross-dress in public
pending surgery.41 However, many LGBTs report feeling pressured to undergo sexchange
operations to avoid the severe consequences of being charged with engaging in
homosexual conduct.42 Transgender people who decline to undergo sex reassignment
surgery are officially viewed as homosexuals and victimized by both state and nonstate
actors.43 They report police abuse, rape, and various forms of torture in detention.
44 They also face barriers to social assistance and employment, leading many to
engage in sex work to support themselves.45
The Iranian asylum seekers and refugees interviewed reported coming to Turkey
to escape imminent arrest, torture, or other abuses consistent with those described
above.

Iran’s state security
apparatus—with
support from a
civilian morality
corps called the
“Special Protection
Division”—actively
pursues, entraps,
and tortures
those thought to
be engaging in
homosexual
conduct.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
Turkey’s Geographical Limitation
After escaping persecution in Iran, LGBT asylum seekers are subject to Turkey’s complex
and lengthy asylum procedures. Turkey applies a geographical limitation to the
Refugee Convention, meaning that that vast majority of forced migrants entering its
borders today—refugees from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa—are not accorded asylum
in Turkey. Instead, the responsibility for their protection falls primarily to UNHCR,
which is charged with finding them a durable solution, usually involving resettlement
in another country.
The roots of the geographical limitation date back to the original 1951 Geneva Convention,
which concerned itself only with persons who had become refugees as a result
of events that occurred before January 1, 1951. The Convention offered signatories the
option of limiting their protection to persons who had been rendered refugees as a
result of events in Europe.46 The vast majority of nations chose the broader variant,
extending coverage to refugees from anywhere in the world.47 Turkey was one of four
nations to choose the limited European alternative.48
By the mid-1960s, population displacement in Europe had largely subsided, while
events elsewhere in the world were creating large new forced migrations. The Geneva
Convention, which related only to events before 1951, was becoming largely irrelevant
to the refugees of the day. The 1967 Protocol was drafted to extend to these new situations;
it offered no “Europe only” option.49 Turkey acceded to the Protocol. However,
it became the only nation to explicitly retain its original limitation to “persons who
[became] refugees as a result of events occurring in Europe.”50
At the same time, Turkey entered into an agreement with UNHCR, which remains
binding today, to allow non-European asylum seekers to remain in Turkey while UNHCR
conducts refugee status determination and facilitates their resettlement elsewhere.
Commensurate with its limited treaty obligations, Turkey denies non-European refugees
long-term or permanent sanctuary.
Turkey’s Asylum System
Ministry of Interior Procedures
“I was the first trans[gender] person in Nevşehir. When I arrived, the police
told me about the conditions here, how to live, and how to fit in. They told
me to be careful. They told me to wear men’s clothes. They told me to walk
like a man.”51
Non-Europeans who seek refugee protection from UNHCR must secure the right to remain
in Turkey by applying for temporary asylum with the Ministry of Interior (MOI).52
They also must live in one of approximately 30 “satellite cities,” which are usually small
towns in Turkey’s interior.53 They may leave their assigned city for short periods, but
must receive police permission to do so. In order to access very basic social assistance,
asylum seekers must have a residence permit, which may cost up to $218 at the first
issuance and $169 per person every six months thereafter54—a prohibitive expense for

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
most. Once registered in their assigned satellite cities, asylum seekers undergo detailed
status determination interviews with a local foreigners’ police official.55 Throughout
this procedure, asylum seekers and refugees must report to local police as often as once
a day to prove their continued residence in their assigned satellite cities.56
Virtually all the LGBT asylum seekers interviewed
had registered with the police in their respective
satellite cities, but could not afford the cost of
a residence permit—in turn limiting their access to
most social assistance. The majority described invasive
questioning regarding their sexual history and
sexual experiences during their temporary asylum
interviews. For example, they reported being asked
about the sexual positions they preferred and the
number of sex partners they had. Another common
complaint was that the interviews were not conducted
in private. Many reported that other police officers
in the room mocked or laughed at them during
their interviews.
Many of the male-to-female (MTF) transgender
asylum seekers interviewed, as well as the gay men
who appeared “non-masculine,” reported that the
police immediately warned them to wear their hair
short, dress “like a man,” and not wear makeup or
jewelry. This advice was apparently given for their
own safety. It was the first indication to many that
the police would not be able to ensure their physical
safety if their outward appearance made them targets
within the general population.
UNHCR Procedures
Procedures and practices at UNHCR reflect an overall commitment to protecting LGBT
asylum seekers and refugees, but are hindered by a lack of resources and skills to consistently
do so effectively.
UNHCR’s refugee status determination (RSD) process initially involves a registration
interview. The LGBT interviewees were generally satisfied with their treatment by
UNHCR staff during registration. However, they consistently reported harassment by
other asylum seekers while they waited to be registered, both outside the UNHCR gate
and after being admitted into the UNHCR reception area.
Once registration is complete, asylum seekers are given a date for their first instance
interview, which is the basis for granting or denying refugee status.57 Like other
asylum seekers, the interviewees reported waiting eight months to a year on average
for their first interview. The waiting times vary depending on UNHCR staff resources,

Many of the
male-to-female
transgender
asylum seekers
interviewed, as
well as the gay
men who appeared
“non-masculine,”
reported that the
police immediately
warned them to
wear their hair
short, dress “like a
man,” and not wear
makeup or jewelry.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
and have recently been decreasing. However, some LGBT asylum seekers said they
feared they would be killed before their claims were assessed.
While UNHCR is obligated to create an environment of “trust and respect” during
RSD interviews,58 many LGBTs described interview techniques that were invasive,
inappropriate, or prurient. For instance, while describing a twelve-hour gang rape by
Iranian state security agents, a transgender asylum seeker was asked to provide explicit
sexual details. Similarly, a gay man was repeatedly asked to describe whether his
partner had used any “liquids, instruments, or drugs” during his first sexual experience.
Another man recalled his UNHCR interviewer stating that it was unlikely that he
was gay because he had been married to a woman in his home country. Likewise, interviewees
who dressed and behaved in a more typically masculine manner were asked
why they did not dress “more femininely.” Interviewees also reported that at least one
of UNHCR’s Farsi interpreters referred to gay men using a term that derogatorily implied
prostitution.
It can take as long as two years from the date of UNHCR registration for a case decision
to be issued.59 UNHCR makes efforts to expedite the claims of the most vulnerable
refugees,60 including LGBTs, and many of the LGBT asylum seekers interviewed had
been granted refugee status by UNHCR. A number of interviewees had been granted
refugee status within four months of their first instance interview, while others had
been waiting over eight months for a decision. If their application is rejected, asylum
seekers may appeal the decision.61
Following a long wait for decisions on their claims for refugee status, LGBT refugees
then face a lengthy resettlement process, which often spans a year or more. Current
UNHCR guidelines do not refer to sexual orientation or gender identity (or to
the targeting which often accompanies them) as specific vulnerabilities warranting expedited
resettlement. Many LGBT refugees interviewed expressed distress about the
waiting period for resettlement in light of their security concerns in Turkey. In addition,
since UNHCR does not refer common-law partners for resettlement together,
same-sex couples are subject to separation from their life partners during the resettlement
process.
In 2008, UNHCR issued guidance on the handling of refugee claims made on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.62 A significant step forward, this publication
sets out a broad range of circumstances warranting protection in claims involving
LGBT persecution. Significantly, the guidance calls for the development of trainings
and materials relating to appropriate inquiries and interview techniques to use
with LGBT applicants.63 Until these are developed and implemented in local branch
offices of UNHCR, the usefulness of the guidance is likely to be limited.
Violence and Discrimination
Insufficient Police Response
“Local people always call out ‘top’64 when I walk on the street… People harass
me all the time. They want to have sex with me. I was attacked four

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
times by local youth. Each time, I complained to the police, but nothing ever
happened.”65
All the LGBT interviewees distinguished between the local police and the “foreigners’
police,” with whom they had more regular contact. While some reported being satisfied
with their relationship with foreigners’ police officers, they consistently reported that
the local police offered them very little protection from violence, harassment, abuse,
and exploitation. Many who had been physically attacked were dismissed with police
admonitions to “be more careful” or not to go out after dark. After a particularly violent
attack, one gay couple was reportedly warned by the police that they might be deported
if they attempted to fight back during a future attack.
In theory, asylum seekers are entitled to protection
from personal crime in Turkey; under the Turkish
constitution, citizens and non-citizens alike enjoy
the same rights,66 including the right to initiate legal
proceedings.67 In practice, as borne out by this study,
LGBT asylum seekers are much less likely to pursue
their legal rights or to benefit from them.
In the vast majority of cases, interviewees reported
that, to their knowledge, the police did not
follow up or investigate crimes against them. Many
said they did not report incidents of abuse or exploitation
to the police. Some interviewees who had been
abused by their employers said they feared the police
would penalize them for having worked illegally.
Others said they feared the police would not believe
them, or would otherwise not follow up. Interviewees
commonly reasoned that since the police had been
unable or unwilling to assist or protect their friends in the past, they would not help
them either. These perceptions likely drive LGBT asylum seekers further underground,
isolating them and rendering them even more vulnerable to violence and harassment.
Housing Rights and Violations
“Our neighbors call us ‘top’ and ‘bastard’. They ask me how much it costs to
have sex with me. The building opposite our house is a school and even small
children from the school call us top. We don’t even want to leave our house
when the children are on break. Even now, dressing as a man, I face these
problems.”68
As a rule, asylum seekers and refugees in Turkey are required to pay their own housing
costs. While UNHCR and state authorities provide very limited financial assistance,
this generally reaches only the most vulnerable. Only a handful of the LGBT refugees
interviewed reported receiving any financial assistance, and then mostly in amounts
less than the equivalent of $60 on a one-time basis.

In theory, asylum
seekers are entitled
to protection from
personal crime
in Turkey.... In
practice... LGBT
asylum seekers are
much less likely to
pursue their legal
rights or to benefit
from them.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
The majority of LGBT asylum seekers interviewed reported having found housing
through other LGBT asylum seekers in their satellite cities. Others described being rejected
by prospective landlords, because they were foreign, because their gender identity
or sexual orientation was detectable, or both. Yet others had been evicted when
their sexual orientation or gender identity was discovered. Most interviewees lived with
other LGBT asylum seekers, often in cramped and overcrowded apartments. Despite
the poor living conditions, they uniformly preferred to live with other LGBT asylum
seekers to avoid harassment and to enjoy financial and emotional support. All those
interviewed expressed serious concerns about paying their rent and utilities. Even the
few who were employed had difficulties paying their housing expenses.
LGBT asylum seekers widely reported housing discrimination in addition to difficulties
covering costs. Although asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to equal
rights under Turkish law,69 there is in practice little protection for those facing discrimination.
Compounding other protection gaps, Turkish law does not prohibit or protect
against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Moreover, while LGBT asylum seekers may theoretically initiate a lawsuit against a
landlord,70 few are willing to expose themselves to retaliation or are able to afford the
associated legal fees and court costs.
Employment Discrimination and Workplace Violence
“I worked in a restaurant for four months when I first came to Isparta. But
when the boss realized that I was gay, he fired me. Now I work as a sex
worker in Eğirdir and Isparta. I have to because I have no money and I have
to survive somehow.”71
Although Turkey’s asylum regulation encourages asylum seekers to apply for work permits,
very few asylum seekers or refugees have ever been granted such authorization.72
The work permit process is both expensive and administratively complicated. None of
the LGBT asylum seekers or refugees interviewed had employment authorization.
Because asylum seekers rarely have work permits, they must look for illegal job
opportunities. Many of the LGBT asylum seekers interviewed reported that they had
never been able to find work in Turkey, despite regular efforts to do so. All attributed
this to their LGBT identity, their status as asylum seekers, or both. A female-to-male
transgender asylum seeker reported giving up the search for work after being consistently
asked if he was “a boy or a girl.” Some interviewees reported entering shops or
other establishments with posted help wanted signs, only to be told that they could not
apply because of their appearance. Many of the asylum seekers who were visibly LGBT
described being taunted or humiliated during the application process.
Deprived of standard workplace protections, LGBT asylum seekers are viewed by
unscrupulous employers as vulnerable, and are subjected to exploitative working conditions.
73 LGBT asylum seekers, especially those whose sexual orientation or gender
identity is identifiable, are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and mistreatment
by their employers. A number reported being violently forced off the job site when it

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
was discovered they were gay or transgender. Others reported being sexually harassed,
threatened, and subjected to other forms of violence.
While LGBT asylum seekers, even those without residence or work permits, can
lodge formal complaints against abusive employers with the police or a prosecutor,74
few have the knowledge, tools, or funds to do so. Moreover, with their economic survival
in the balance and employment opportunities scant, most endure such abuses
as long as they are tolerable. Interviewees uniformly felt they could not complain to
the Turkish authorities because they did not have legal permission to work in Turkey
or because they were afraid of retaliation from their employers. Unprotected against
widespread workplace exclusion and discrimination, LGBT asylum applicants are especially
hard-hit by these realities.
A small number of interviewees stated that they engaged in survival sex work because
they could find no other employment. These individuals described being forced
to engage in unprotected sex. They were also subjected to harassment and attack, not
only by their clients but also by local Turkish sex workers, who accused them of taking
away clients. They reported having little to no access to health care. Thus the multiple
identities of being LGBT, asylum seekers, and sex workers threatened these interviewees’
immediate physical safety as well as their long-term health.
Limited Access to Health Care
Asylum seekers and refugees in Turkey are required to pay their medical expenses
in full.75 The little support provided by UNHCR is often insufficient to cover the full
cost of medical treatment.76 UNHCR’s implementing NGO partners77 do provide free
mental health counseling in a number of satellite cities.78 The state provides medical
assistance only in extraordinary cases of destitution and if UNHCR is unable to assist.79
In theory, to receive state assistance, an asylum seeker must report to the local police
with a valid residence permit. The applicant is then referred to the “Social Assistance
and Solidarity Foundation,” which assesses the financial and medical needs at hand,
and in turn refers the case to a local health clinic or hospital.80 While some local medical
referral mechanisms comply with or exceed the standards set in Turkey’s asylum
regulation, most fall short. Pursuant to legislation passed in late 2008, even the limited
medical support for non-European asylum seekers and refugees described above may
soon be reduced.81
Like other asylum seekers, LGBTs have difficulty accessing care because many
cannot afford it. However, heightened financial vulnerability of LGBTs, combined with
their fear of leaving home, exacerbates this problem. Quite a few reported worsening
symptoms of untreated conditions. Many interviewees reported depression, anxiety,
suicidal thoughts, nightmares, difficulties sleeping, memory problems, and feelings of
isolation and loneliness. The few interviewees who received mental health care had
been referred by UNHCR or treated by its implementing partner, the Association for
Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASAM). Notably, the interviewees did
not identify a pattern of mistreatment by medical or mental health professionals on the
basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
Barriers to Social Assistance
“We were referred to a local charity which runs a soup kitchen. But when
they found out that we were gay, they refused to give us any food. Since we
were wearing makeup and our hair was long, all the local people getting
food there laughed at us. So I cut my hair and went back to the charity. But
they still refused to serve us. We were told that we were not clean and that
they could not give us food because they could not touch us. We are just
asking for our rights, nothing more. We just want to be treated like human
beings, not like animals.”82
LGBT asylum seekers reported facing persistent barriers to services because of their
sexual orientation or gender identity. Interviewees also described being subjected to
degrading treatment by service providers and other consumers. In a typical case, a
MTF transgender asylum seeker who had sought assistance at the local governor’s office
reported being asked by an employee if she was Bulent Ersoy (a transgender Turkish
celebrity). She was called “abnormal and sick” and was told to “go find a boyfriend
to take care of [her]” since the governor’s office could not. She added that she had been
forced to “go to the mosque and sleep with people” to pay her bills.
Alienated from the Classroom
“We would rather not attend educational courses of any kind because we
are scared of other refugees from our country. They laugh at us all the time
and some of them have threatened us. Why would we want to put ourselves
through this?”83
Adult asylum seekers and refugees may benefit from language and vocational classes
offered at public education centers throughout Turkey.84 In order to be eligible, they
must present a valid residence permit,85 which, as noted, many lack. A small number
of non-governmental organizations also provide private language instruction and vocational
training to asylum seekers.
Only one interviewee reported that he had been denied access to language education
due to his sexual orientation, stating that police had refused to refer him to a
class despite his repeated efforts to enroll. Many others, however, described being effectively
denied access because of prevalent harassment by other refugees in the classroom.
They consistently reported dropping out of classes after having been ridiculed
or shunned by other refugees.
Mistreatment by Local Communities
“Our relationship with the local population is horrible. The police told us
that [if we wanted to be safe] we should change our appearance and our
clothes. We changed ourselves, but the locals view and treat us the same
way. I always feel like I am in danger. Every day of my life here I feel that I
could be attacked.”86
Perhaps the most significant problem identified by LGBT asylum seekers in Turkey is

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
the violent targeting and harassment they face by local townspeople. Almost all of the
LGBT asylum seekers interviewed identified threats to their physical safety as their
most pressing and enduring concern.
Most of those interviewed reported having been subjected to at least one incident
of violence, and some reported having been physically attacked two or more times.
Others reported being threatened with death. Notably, a group of gay and transgender
Iranians residing in Kayseri reported that stones were regularly hurled at them
through their apartment windows. They reported feeling afraid to sit in their own living
room. One said that she no longer leaves her home. Many others similarly said that
they minimize their time outside the house due to fear of physical harassment and
violence, made all the more threatening because of a lack of police protection.
The vast majority of interviewees also reported being ostracized and mocked by
neighbors and other local residents. They reported being called top (a derogatory
Turkish term for gay men) by local people of all ages and sexes. Others described being
regularly propositioned for sex or accused of engaging in prostitution. Some also described
that their neighbors regularly lodged frivolous police complaints against them.
Still others said their neighbors had complained about them to their landlords without
cause, sometimes leading to their eviction.
The lesbians interviewed reported taking great care to conceal their sexual orientation
from the general population to avoid harassment and abuse by local residents.
They expressed a fear of local residents, particularly men. As lone single women, they
described feeling vulnerable to attack, sexual harassment, and assault by male neighbors.
This is largely the case in conservative satellite cities, where unmarried women
rarely reside alone or with other women. A number reported that male neighbors had
attempted to enter their homes late at night. One interviewee reported that a neighbor
had sexually assaulted her in the hallway of her apartment building.
The two main strategies LGBT asylum seekers
and refugees employed to avoid being targeted were
dressing in a manner viewed as consistent with their
gender and simply staying at home—the very advice
provided by many police officers.
In addition to experiencing verbal harassment
and physical attacks from members of the local
population, LGBT asylum seekers also described
being ostracized by other refugees. A number of interviewees
said they were treated more abusively by
other refugees than by the local Turkish population.
An interviewee living in a free municipal dormitory
reported that he had been targeted and harassed by
other refugees there because he was gay. Interviewees
commonly reported being harassed and ridiculed
by other refugees when they signed in with the

In addition to
experiencing verbal
harassment and
physical attacks
from members
of the local
population, LGBT
asylum seekers
also described
being ostracized
by other refugees.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
foreigners’ police. An Iranian lesbian in Kayseri, for example, reported that another
refugee had struck her in the face and called her a prostitute while she waited to sign
in.
LGBT asylum seekers may, like all others, lodge complaints with the police or the
local prosecutor’s office.87 However, few of those interviewed felt empowered to take
legal action in response to harassment or physical violence. Despite the consistent violence,
harassment, and threats they endured, only two interviewees had lodged formal
complaints with the police, for fear of retaliation or police inaction.
Recommendations
Our study suggests that many changes are needed in the asylum process in Turkey.
These include revision of procedures, reconfiguration of priorities, and re-allocation
of resources. Some of the changes are predicated on uneasy challenges to entrenched
preconceptions. Yet, in the absence of such shifts, real protection for LGBT asylum
seekers and refugees in Turkey will continue to be an elusive goal.
Most importantly, LGBT asylum seekers’ and refugees’ physical safety and security
must be protected. The government of Turkey should take affirmative measures to prevent,
stop, and prosecute acts of violence against this community. A key means of doing
so is through the training of local police on sexual orientation and gender identity,
preferably with the assistance of domestic LGBT rights organizations. Training should
focus on alternatives to advising LGBT asylum seekers to hide their sexual orientation,
conceal their gender identity, or stay home in order to avoid being targeted. Training
should also reinforce the need for police to respond appropriately and in a timely
fashion to complaints lodged by LGBT asylum seekers. Models of community-based
policing should be introduced as a means of encouraging input from LGBT refugee
communities on their protection needs and developing links between local police officers
and LGBT refugees.
On a practical level, LGBT asylum seekers and refugees should be provided the opportunity
to sign in with the local foreigners’ police on different days or in different locations
than other asylum seekers and refugees. Similarly, UNHCR should assure LGBTs’
freedom from harassment at and near its premises. Specifically, UNHCR should
make available a safe, private space for LGBT asylum seekers to wait for registration
or status determination interviews. LGBT refugees and asylum seekers should also be
assigned to live in the cities least hostile to them, and be re-assigned from locations
where they cannot be effectively protected. In particular, they should be permitted to
live in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and the few other large Turkish cities with significant
local LGBT communities and advocacy organizations.
The government of Turkey should also take broader legislative steps to signal its
willingness to protect LGBTs, including asylum seekers and refugees. These include
amending legislation (including in Turkey’s Constitution and Penal Code) to explicitly
prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and government service provision on

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Similarly, the government should
add sexual orientation and gender identity to protected categories under Turkey’s existing
“hate crime” legislation enumerated in Article 216 of the Penal Code, and sign
the United Nations declaration calling for global decriminalization of homosexuality.
The Turkish government can also take steps to ease the economic hardships faced
by all asylum seekers and refugees in Turkey, giving special attention to barriers that
have a particularly devastating impact on LGBTs. As a starting point, residence permit
fees should be waived for all indigent asylum seekers to allow them to freely access
other social services.88 The administrative and financial requirements for securing
work permits should similarly be eased for asylum seekers, allowing LGBTs to secure
a modicum of protection in the workplace. In addition, the government should take
the necessary steps to ensure that LGBT and other asylum seekers and refugees have
access to health care and social support consistent with services provided to similarly
situated Turkish citizens.
Furthermore, asylum and resettlement procedures,
whether carried out by UNHCR, the government
of Turkey, or resettlement countries, must be accelerated
for LGBT refugees. All these bodies should also
institute trainings focused on developing an understanding
of the issues around sexual orientation and
gender identity. Interviewing techniques should be
implemented which are not only inoffensive to asylum
seekers, but which also elicit the presentation of bona
fide LGBT-based claims. Except where essential to a
specific persecution claim (forced sexual relations, for
example), interviewers should be trained to avoid unnecessarily
invasive or intimidating sex-related questions
(including questions on sexual positions, acts, or
numbers of partners). Interviewers should be further
trained not to focus on appearance or other behavioral
stereotypes (e.g., that gay men are effeminate or that
lesbians are masculine) as a means of assessing credibility regarding sexual orientation
or gender identity. In addition, interviews should be conducted in private areas to
protect confidentiality. Lastly, resettlement countries should increase the number of
LGBT refugees they accept.
Trainings should also be conducted in the health, public assistance, and education
sectors to increase receptivity toward LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, and to create
environments where discrimination against them is not tolerated. To these ends, domestic
LGBT groups should be encouraged to continue including LGBT refugees and
asylum seekers in their platforms.
Finally, in order to ensure sufficient service provision to LGBT and other asylum
seekers and refugees, government agencies, service providers, NGOs, and UNHCR

...asylum and
resettlement
procedures,
whether carried
out by UNHCR,
the government
of Turkey, or
resettlement
countries, must
be accelerated for
LGBT refugees.

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
should recruit and maintain sufficient numbers of trained interpreters able to communicate
in relevant languages. Interpreters should also be trained on confidentiality
and employing appropriate terminology for use with LGBT asylum seekers and refugees.
They should not be recruited from the local refugee population unless absolutely
necessary.
Conclusion
LGBTs are among the most marginalized and vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees
in Turkey today. The protections extended by the government of Turkey and UNHCR
allow these individuals to escape the severe mistreatment, torture, and death they face
in their countries of origin. Unfortunately, their physical survival is often mired in
new dangers and deprivations in Turkey. Some of these perils and threats stem from a
dearth of resources at the local, national, and international levels. Others result from
fear, lack of knowledge, and deeply-ingrained societal prejudices. Together, these factors
conspire to form a woefully deficient protection environment for Turkey’s LGBT
asylum seekers and refugees. The determined application of education and training
could set both UNHCR and the Turkish government on a path toward according these
persons a modicum of dignity and security. Only then will the treaties and laws which
comprise the international refugee regime be imbued with real meaning for these highly
vulnerable individuals.
Endnotes
* The authors would like to thank Ariel Travis for her research and editing assistance.
1 A gay asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
2 Robert Spencer, “Complicity in Iran’s Anti-Gay Jihad,” FrontPage Magazine, March 17,
2008, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=e30eea88-e6f7-4299-
81fa-c76bf1a4c49a (accessed February 5, 2009).
3 “‘No Homosexuals in Iran’: Ahmadinejad,” Agence France-Presse, September 24, 2007,
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw (accessed
January 31, 2009); Helene Cooper, “Ahmadinejad, at Columbia, Parries and Puzzles,”
New York Times, September 25, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/
middleeast/25iran.html?hp (accessed January 31, 2009); Brett Stephens, “The Queerest
Denial,” The Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2007, http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/
bstephens/?id=110010679 (accessed February 8, 2009).
4 Human Rights Watch, “‘We Need a Law for Liberation’: Gender, Sexuality, and Human
Rights in a Changing Turkey,” May 2008, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/
turkey0508_1.pdf (accessed February 1, 2009); European Commission, “Turkey 2008
Progress Report,” November 5, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/
key-documents/reports_nov_2008/turkey_progress_report_en.pdf (accessed
February 5, 2009), 73; KAOS GL, Press Release, “Platform of LGBTT Rights, Situation in
Turkey in 2008,” January 29, 2009, http://news.kaosgl.com/item/2009/1/29/platformof-
lgbtt-rights-situation-in-turkey-in-2008 (accessed February 2, 2009); LGBTT Hakları
Platformu [Platform of LGBTT Rights], “LGBTT Bireylerin İnsan Hakları Raporu [Report
on the Human Rights of LGBTTs],” January 24, 2009, http://kaosgl.com/resim/KaosGL/
Yayinlar/lgbt_bireylerin_insan_haklari_raporu_2008.pdf (accessed February 2, 2009);

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Transgender activist murdered,” March 12, 2009, http://
www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/12/turkey-transgender-activist-murdered (accessed
April 22, 2009). See also, Bawer Cakir, “Transsexual Melek’s Killer Arrested,” Bia News
Center, April 23, 2009, http://bianet.org/english/gender/transsexual-melek-s-killerarrested
(accessed April 28, 2009).
5 Amnesty International USA, “Background Information on Turkey and LGBT Rights Group
Lambda Istanbul.” http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/background-information/
page.do?id=1041177 (accessed February 2, 2009); Federation of Young European
Greens, “Closing of Lambda Istanbul – Another Human Rights Violation in Turkey,” June
5, 2008, http://www.fyeg.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=487
(accessed February 2, 2009).
6 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “States Parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.” http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/
protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id=3b73b0d63 (accessed April 28, 2009).
7 In 2008, UNHCR resettled 3,832 people, mostly to the U.S., with smaller numbers going
primarily to Canada, Australia, Finland and Sweden. 63% of those resettled were Iraqis,
31% were Iranians, 3% were Somali, and the remainder originated from ten other African
and Asian nations.
8 Timothy Randazzo, “Social and Legal Barriers: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the
United States,” in Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossings,
eds. Eithne Luibhéid and Lionel Cantú, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press, 2005), 38.
9 Interviews took place in June and July 2008 in Eskişehir, Nevşehir, Kayseri and Isparta—
the cities in Turkey with the highest concentration of LGBT asylum seekers and refugees.
10 At their request, the nationalities of the non-Iranians, most of whom are the only asylum
seekers from their countries of origin where they live, are not named here.
11 International Lesbian and Gay Association, “State-sponsored Homophobia: A World
Survey of Laws Prohibiting Same-Sex Activity Between Consenting Adults,” April 2007,
http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/State_sponsored_homophobia_ILGA_07.pdf (accessed
February 5, 2009).
12 Ibid.
13 Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International
Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles,” Human
Rights Law Review 8, no. 2 (2008): 208. http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/
full/8/2/207 (accessed January 20, 2009).
14 UN General Assembly, “Question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment,” July 3, 2001, A/56/156, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.
nsf/0/a10fc68f4899ebe0c1256ace004b6207/$FILE/N0144579.pdf (accessed January
20, 2009), para. 17.
15 Jenni Millbank, “The Role of Rights in Asylum Claims Based on Sexual Orientation,” Human
Rights Law Review 4, no. 2 (2004): 193-228, http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/
reprint/4/2/193 (accessed February 12, 2009).
16 ILGA, “State-sponsored Homophobia.” See also, Barry O’Leary, “‘We Cannot Claim Any
Particular Knowledge of the Ways of Homosexuals, Still Less of Iranian Homosexuals…’:
The Particular Problems Facing Those Who Seek Asylum on the Basis of Their Sexual
Identity,” Feminist Legal Studies 16, no. 1 (2008): 87, http://www.springerlink.com/content/
m970222705n58673/ (accessed January 30, 2009).
17 O’Flaherty and Fisher, “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human

PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
Rights Law,” 210.
18 ILGA, “State-sponsored Homophobia.”
19 O’Flaherty and Fisher, “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human
Rights Law,” 209.
20 Ibid., 222.
21 Ibid., 211-213.
22 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Guidelines on International Protection No. 2:
‘Membership of a Particular Social Group’ Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951
Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” May 7, 2002,
HCR/GIP/02/02, http//www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3d36f23f4.html (accessed January
22, 2009).
23 Ibid., para. 7.
24 Ibid., para. 11.
25 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “UNHCR Guidance Note on Claims for Refugee
Status Under the 1951 Convention Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,”
November 21, 2008, paras. 8, 9, in UNHCR Refworld, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/
docid/48abd5660.html (accessed January 22, 2009).
26 Arwen Swink, “Queer Refuge: A Review of the Role of Country Condition Analysis in
Asylum Adjudications for Members of Sexual Minorities,” Hastings International and
Comparative Law Review 29, no. 2 (2006): 251.
27 See Sean Rehaag, “Patrolling the Borders of Sexual Orientation: Bisexual Refugee Claims
in Canada,” McGill Law Journal 53 (2008), http://osgoode.yorku.ca/osgmedia.nsf/0/EB
E6DA512667DAD4852574F1004FAEDA/$FILE/Patrolling%20the%20Borders%20of%20
Sexual%20Orientation%20--%202008%2053%20McGill%20L%20J%2059.pdf (accessed
April 20, 2009).
28 Victoria Neilson, “Uncharted Territory: Choosing an Effective Approach in Transgender-
Based Asylum Claims,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 32 (2005): 265, http://www.immigrationequality.
org/uploadedfiles/Fordham%20neilson%20pdf%20final.pdf (accessed
January 23, 2009).
29 Ibid., 277.
30 Ibid.
31 Joseph Landau, “‘Soft Immutability’ and ‘Imputed Gay Identity’: Recent Developments in
Transgender and Sexual-Orientation-Based Asylum Law,” Fordham Urban Law Journal
32 (2005): 237, http://www.articlearchives.com/international-relations/national-security-
foreign/610505-1.html (accessed February 12, 2009).
32 Human Rights Watch, “Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct,” November
21, 2005, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-
conduct, (accessed February 12, 2009).
33 Ibid.
34 Robert Spencer, “Complicity in Iran’s Anti-Gay Jihad,” FrontPage Magazine, March 17,
2008, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=e30eea88-e6f7-4299-
81fa-c76bf1a4c49a (accessed February 5, 2009). See also, U.S. Department of State,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “2008 Human Rights Report: Iran,” February
25, 2009, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119115.htm (accessed
March 1, 2009), confirming the existence of judicially-ordered executions for homosexuality.

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
35 Human Rights Watch, “Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct.”
36 U.S. Department of State, “2008 Human Rights Report: Iran.”
37 Human Rights Watch, “Iran: Private Homes Raided for ‘Immorality,’” March 28, 2008,
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/28/iran18385.htm (accessed February 11, 2009).
38 Stephens, “The Queerest Denial.”
39 Human Rights Watch, “Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct.”
40 Home Office U.K. Border Agency, “Country of Origin Information Bulletin Iran: Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,” April 21, 2008, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
rds/country_reports.html (accessed February 12, 2009).
41 Vanessa Barford, “Iran’s ‘diagnosed transsexuals,’” BBC News, February 27, 2008, http://
news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fre/-/2/middle_east/7259057.stm (accessed February 8, 2009).
42 The Safra Project, “Country of Information Report: Iran,” 2004, http://www.safraproject.
org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf (accessed February 10, 2009),
15; Barford, “Iran’s ‘diagnosed transsexuals.’”
43 The Safra Project, “Country of Information Report: Iran,” 2004, 15.
44 Doug Ireland, “Transsexual and Stuck in Iran,” Gay City News, February 9, 2006.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17007893&BRD=2729&PAG=461&de
pt_id=568864&rfi=8 (accessed January 31, 2009); Arsham Parsi, “New Women in Iran,”
Lecture at Depaul University, May 20, 2008, http://www.irqr.net/English/142.htm (accessed
January 28, 2009).
45 Barford, “Iran’s ‘diagnosed transsexuals.”; Parsi, “New Women in Iran.”
46 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. IB(1) (a) & (b), http://
www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf (accessed April 28, 2009).
47 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “States Parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.”
48 Ibid. The others were the Congo, Madagascar and Monaco.
49 Ibid.
50 Turkey’s accession to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulated that
the Government of Turkey maintained the limitation of Article I, Sec. B, according to
which Turkey applies the 1951 Convention only to persons who have become refugees as a
result of events occurring in Europe. Multinational Treaties Deposited with the Secretary
General, Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, http://untreaty.un.org/sample/EnglishInternetBible/
partI/chapterV/treaty5.asp (accessed April 29, 2009).
51 A male-to-female transgender asylum seeker in Nevşehir, Turkey.
52 Regulation No. 1994/6169 on the “Procedures and Principles Related to Population Movements
and Aliens Arriving in Turkey Either as Individuals or in Groups Wishing to Seek
Asylum Either from Turkey or Requesting Residence Permission in order to Seek Asylum
From Another Country” (“1994 Asylum Regulation”).
53 The list of “satellite cities” is periodically reviewed and altered by the MOI. It currently includes:
Afyonkarahisar, Ağrı, Aksaray, Amasya, Balıkesir, Bilecik, Burdur, Çankırı, Çorum,
Eskişehir, Gaziantep, Hakkari, Hatay, Isparta, Karaman, Kastamonu, Kayseri, Kırıkkale,
Kırşehir, Konya, Kütahya, Mersin, Nevşehir, Niğde, Şırnak, Sivas, Tokat, Van and Yozgat.
54 The cost of a residence permit is set by the Ministry of Finance each year and established
in the Law on the Collection of Fees (No. 492). As of April 2009, a sixth-month residence
permit cost 273.80 YTL per person plus an additional one-time fee of 81 YTL for the resi60
VOLUME XXIV - 2009
PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security
dence permit “booklet.” This amounted to approximately 218 USD.
55 Ministry of Interior General Directorate of Security Circular No.57, “Implementation
Directive,” June 22, 2006 (“2006 Circular”), Article 9. As per the 1994 Asylum Regulation,
Article 3, if the applicant falls into the definition of “refugee” set out in Article 1 of the 1951
Convention, MOI will grant the applicant “temporary asylum seeker” status.
56 Depending on the city, asylum seekers are required to “sign in” with police anywhere from
every day to once every few weeks.
57 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination
Under UNHCR’s Mandate,” September 2005, Sections 3.2, 4.3, http://www.unhcr.
org/publ/PUBL/4316f0c02.html (accessed January 22, 2009).
58 Ibid., Section 4.3.5.
59 Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly - Turkey, “An Evaluation of UNHCR Turkey’s Compliance
with UNHCR’s RSD Procedural Standards,” September 2007, http://www.hyd.org.tr/
staticfiles/files/hca_procedural_standards_report.doc (accessed January 22, 2009), 10.
60 UNHCR, “Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination Under UNHCR’s Mandate,”
Section 4.6.3.
61 Ibid., Sections 7.1, 9.2.
62 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating
to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” November 21, 2008, http://www.unhcr.
org/refworld/docid/48abd5660.html (accessed January 31, 2009).
63 Ibid., para. 37.
64 Derogatory Turkish term for gay men, literally “ball,” referring to the “submissive” partner
in sexual relations between men.
65 A gay asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
66 The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Articles 10, 12.
67 The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Article 36.
68 A male-to-female transgender asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
69 The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Articles 10, 12.
70 The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Article 36.
71 A gay Iranian refugee in Isparta, Turkey.
72 2006 Circular, Article 19. See also, The Law on Work Permits for Foreigners (No. 4817).
The Law on Work Permits for Foreigners requires an applicant to have a residence permit
that is valid for at least six months, which few are able to afford. It also stipulates that
only those foreigners who are able to perform work for which a qualified Turkish national
cannot be identified will be granted work permits. In practice most asylum seekers have
neither the language ability nor the specialized skills that would enable them to fulfill this
requirement. Even the rare asylum seeker who holds the necessary qualifications, has
to first find an employer wiling to initiate and pursue a burdensome procedure with the
Ministry of Labor.
73 U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, “2008 World Refugee Survey – Turkey,”
June 19, 2008, http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?id=2175 (accessed January
2, 2009).
74 Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Article 36; Criminal Procedure Code (No. 5271),
Article 158.

Unsafe Haven: Security Challenges Facing LGBT Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Turkey
75 2006 Circular, Article 19.
76 USCRI, “2008 World Refugee Survey – Turkey.”
77 “Implementing” partners receive partial funding from UNHCR to carry out their designated
activities.
78 The Human Resource Development Foundation provides psycho-social services in Istanbul,
Ankara, Eskişehir, Bilecik and Kütahya. The Association for Solidarity with Asylum
Seekers and Migrants provides similar counseling in Ankara, Aksaray, Kayseri, Kırşehir,
Nevşehir and Niğde.
79 2006 Circular, Article 19.
80 Ibid. See also, the Law on the Encouragement of Social Assistance and Solidarity (No.
3294), Article 1. Provincial “Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundations” are regulated by
a board consisting of representatives from the provincial and municipal education, health
and social services departments, as well as NGOs, benevolent citizens, mukhtars (local
leaders) and mufti (religious scholars).
81 The Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law (No. 5510), which came into
force on November 1, 2008, provides health insurance to all people in Turkey. However,
only those who have been “recognized” as “asylum seekers and stateless” will be granted
free health care. See Article 3, para. 27. As discussed above, MOI routinely issues positive
decisions on “temporary asylum” applications only a few days before an asylum seeker is
granted exit permission to depart Turkey for a resettlement country. The practical impact
is that most asylum seekers, whose applications for “temporary asylum” remain pending
for months or years, will not be eligible for state-funded health care. At the same time,
the provincially-based “Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundations,” which previously
assessed and provided medical assistance to destitute asylum seekers and refugees, will no
longer provide that support.
82 A male-to-female transgender asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
83 A gay Iranian asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
84 Ministry of National Education, Directive on Public Education Institutions, 14 February
2006 / 26080, Article 54; Occupational and Technical Education Directive, 3 July 2002 /
24804, Article 45(b).
85 Ibid.
86 A gay asylum seeker in Kayseri, Turkey.
87 Criminal Procedure Code (No. 5271), Article 158.
88 Fee waivers for residence permits are permitted under Article 88 of the Law on the Collection
of Fees (No. 492), but currently are rarely granted.

Jila Baniyaghoob’s Open Letter to Mohammad Javad Larijani

Jila Baniyaghoob’s Open Letter to Mohammad Javad Larijani

Friday, 26 February 2010

“Mr Larijani, prove that I was in prison for violence and destruction, and I will spend the rest of my life in Evin prison.”

Mr. Mohammad Javad Larijani Head of the Judiciary’s Human Rights Headquarters,

I watched and read Ms. Christiane Amanpour’s interview with you. I read your comments on the imprisoned journalists many times, and each time, I was surprised more than before. You may be completely unaware of the records of the imprisoned journalists. Or maybe you are aware but prefer to present your preferred version of the facts.

In the interview, Christiane Amanpour tells you that more than 90 journalists are in prison in Iran today, the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world, and then asks you why this has happened. You said the reason for their imprisonment was not because they protested, but because of the violence and damage they inflicted on people’s properties.

Christiane Amanpour asked you whether journalists have been imprisoned simply for having been present on the streets to observe what was happening. You said, “No reporter or journalist has been imprisoned for journalism. But if a journalist has been advocating violence, he/she has been prosecuted by the judiciary.”

I am writing you to inform you where the records of myself, my spouse, and several other colleagues of mine can be found. Please go to the Revolutionary Court branch 26 on Shariati Avenue and also pay a visit to the same court’s branch 15. You are the head of the judiciary’s human rights headquarters. The respectable judges in those branches are sure to make our records available to you.

Please leaf through the records of my spouse, Bahman Amhadi-Amouie. See if and when he ever destroyed public property. Also have a look at Massoud Bastani’s record in branch 15. Also, don’t forget the records of Saied Laylaz and Ahmad Zeidabadi. Visit Evin prison’s 3rd interrogation branch and ask for Shiva Nazar Ahari’s record. Which one of these people has resorted to violence or destroyed public property? These are not the only journalists who have been imprisoned for their professional activities.

If you have the time, take a look also at my record, for I was in prison for sixty days and now I am awaiting my trial. I don’t know where my record is, but it should not be difficult to find. If you find the slightest evidence that I have resorted to destruction or violence, or even advocated violence, I will voluntarily spend the rest of my life in Evin prison.

One of the interrogators in charge of my file once spoke to me and condemned the destruction that had taken place on the streets. I responded that I too condemned the destruction, but asked the interrogator if he meant that I or my spouse was in prison for involvement in the destruction. The interrogator who, unlike many other interrogators at Evin’s ward 209 [where political prisoners are held], always had a cheerful and smiling face, and compared to some of his colleagues, was also fairly polite. He laughed and said, “No, I didn’t mean that. You and your husband are not competent enough to set fire to anything or destroy it.”

I said, “Thank God that we’re not competent enough to do such things.”

All the charges in Bahman Ahmadi-Amouie’s records have to do with his profession as a journalist. You have said that no journalist has been imprisoned because of attending a gathering. One of the most important charges against me and my spouse is that we attended a few gatherings as reporters, carrying our professional IDs and assignment letters from newspapers where we worked.

Now, Bahman has been sentenced to jail for, in Christiane Amanpour’s words, “watching the gatherings.” The other charge against my spouse is “conspiracy against national security”, based on his position as editor of Khordad-e Now website. The website was shut down days after the [June 2010 presidential] election.

You see? Every page of his record has something to do with his profession as a journalist.

I do not know about judicial matters as much as you do, but I have learned enough to know that “conspiracy” requires secret activities, and I cannot understand how one can engage in secret activities through journalism and publishing material on an internet site. Is there anything as public as journalism? How could open work in the media be construed as conspiracy and secret activity against national security?

Now, if you still have the time and patience, please leaf through my spouse’s folder. Some “moral evidence” of “conspiracy against national security” was charged against him. Do you know what evidence has been cited to support that charge? His contribution to “extremist” newspapers such as Nowrouz, Yas-e Now, and Khordad. Those were also journalistic activities; weren’t they? I cannot understand how contribution to newspapers that were published ten to twelve years ago, with the government’s permission, can be considered criminal evidence against my spouse in 2009.

Please be patient and leaf through his record a little bit more. Another piece of “moral evidence” presented to prove the charge of “conspiracy” against Bahman Ahmadi-Amouie is that in July 1999, he was briefly present at the University of Tehran dormitory [where there was a clash between security forces and student protesters]as a reporter. His reports were published in the newspaper where he worked at the time. Could this be taken as “moral evidence” of “conspiracy against national security” in June 2009?

There are also other charges against Bahman Ahmadi-Amouie: his critical articles about the ninth administration [led by Mr. Ahmadinejad], written within the framework of the constitution, have been described as “insults against the president.” The critical articles have now led to an imprisonment and lashing sentence.

Mr Larijani, around seventy journalists are now in the prisons of the Islamic Republic, and many others, like me, are free on bail, lacking any security. We are afraid that anything that we write may be used as evidence of “propaganda against the system” or “conspiracy against national security.” My colleagues and I try to write as little as possible.

When I showed this open letter to several colleagues before its publication, they all warned me against publishing it. They said, “Because of this letter, you might end up back in prison. You might end up with a bigger record in court and a longer prison sentence.”

In spite of all that, Mr Larijani, I have decided to publish this letter, because I still hope that if my voice reaches you, you will pause for a moment, only for a moment, and try to restore the rights of my colleagues.

I still have a little hope left. I hope that you may be saddened by the fact we [Iranians] have broken the world record of jailed journalists, in front of China that has a population of more than a billion.

I still believe that you may not know the truth about the records of imprisoned journalists.

Student Activist Ali Kantoori Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison

RAHANA – Ali Kantoori’s lawyer was notified of the 15-year prison sentence on February 23, 2010. The student activist and his lawyer have 20 days to file an appeal. During his trial, student activist Ali Kantoori denied all charges, and according to his lawyer, there was no evidence in the file that pointed to his guilt.

According to the Committee of Human Rights Reporters, Kantoori’s case had been originally assigned to branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran but was sent later to the Sanandaj court.

Ali Kantoori was arrested in December of 2007 near his house in Qazvin and released on $150,000 (USD) bail after spending five months in Evin prison and Ghezel Hesar prison. This is the second prison sentence for the student activist, who had previously received a 32 months for other national security related charges.

In August 2009, Kantoori’s house was raided by six plainclothes agents who seized a number of his personal belongings after searching the house.

Report on Executions in Iran: Nabi Dadtajik Can’t Afford ‘Blood Money’

PHOTO:Human rights attorney Mohammad Mostafaei

Iranian human rights attorney Mohammad Mostafaei’s client, a young Afghan [-Iranian] man named Nabi Dadtajik, was sentenced to death in 2005 for manslaughter. He killed a man (unintentionally) in a fight, most probably over a girl in Dadtajik’s family that he was interested in. Mohammad Mostafaei was assigned to the case last year.

When Mostafaei became his lawyer, he tried to gain forgiveness from the victim’s family to spare Dadtajik’s life. Now, the victim’s family have forgiven Dadtajik, under the condition that they receive blood money for the approximate amount of $15,000 USD.

Mostafaei has yet to raise the $15,000. Unfortunately, Dadtajik’s family cannot afford to pay the $15,000. Mostafaei needs to raise this money before Dadtajik’s life is spared.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

At a time when momentum is gathering across the world to abolish capital punishment, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) currently ranks second for number of executions, after China, and first for per capita executions in the world.

According to the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, Iran executed at least 317 people in 2007, almost twice as many as in 2006 and four times as many as in 2005. In 2008, at least 346 executions were recorded. From January through the end of March 2009, Amnesty International has recorded 120 executions. (1)

These numbers are affirmatively believed to be below reality, since there are no publicly available statistics on executions carried out in the country. (2)

The Iranian legal system distinguishes between punishments considered to be the sole ‘right of Allah’ and those considered to be the ‘right of the people’. An example of the ‘right of people’ is qesas (Qesas is a retributive ‘an eye for an eye’ punishment meted out for a range of offences). (3)

In international law there is no such distinction. A death sentence is a death sentence, whereas in Iranian law, murder is treated as a private dispute between two civil parties, and the state’s role is to facilitate the resolution of the dispute through the judicial process.

In this sense, the death penalty is regarded as being imposed by the state, whereas qesas is imposed by the family of the victim. As a result, sentences of qesas are not open to pardon or amnesty by the Supreme Leader, whereas most other death sentences can be reversed by the Supreme Leader.

Murder by someone with diminished responsibility may be punishable by the payment of diyeh, a form of compensation. (Diyeh, also known as ‘blood money’, is a financial compensation determined by Sharia law and paid to the victim or his/her survivors). (4)

Actor Jeremy Irons, who is also an advocate against executions stated: “The death penalty targets the economically disadvantaged, those who can’t afford good legal council, those without a voice in society. There is a saying in the US: Capital punishment means that those without a capital get the punishment. Statistics show this is true.”

Thank you to Save Children from Execution

• Source: 1,2,4: FHID – Iran/ Death Penalty: A State terror of policy
• Source: 3: Amnesty International

Hamid Rohani: “Confrontation methods for 1988 Executions should be repeated”

In an interview with a student publication, Hojatoleslam Hamid Rohani said that confrontation methods similar to the ones used in the executions of 1988 should be repeated to counteract the new revolt.

According to Vatan Emrooz, in an interview with a student publication Hamid Rohani (devout Ahmadinejad supporter), while referring to the executions of the Monafeqin (the term used for Mojahedin-e Khalq) during the summer of 1988, noted:

In 1988, the Monafeqin who were in prison tactically announced their repentance. After the ceasefire [in the Iran-Iraq war], when the Monafeqin attacked Iran (referring to Mojahedin-e Khalq’s attack on Iran’s western border in July 1988), the prisoners rioted as well. They set the prison on fire as a defense tactic so when they [Mojahedin] reached Tehran, they would be able to finish the work together. Imam [Khomeini] declared that those who are involved in the issue are Mahdoor Al-dam (meaning their blood can be spilled with impunity) and must be tried and punished. I think that if the recent insurrections are not dealt with in the same decisive, serious, and revolutionary manner, this problem will persist.

HRANA notes

The summer of 1988 was one of the darkest and bloodiest eras in Iran’s history. Thousands of political prisoners were executed across Iran. Although the exact number of political prisoners executed remains unclear, Amnesty International has recorded the names of over 2,000 prisoners killed during this time and survivors and opposition groups have placed the number of executions at as high as 30,000. The atrociousness of the situation led Ayatollah Montazeri to write a series of open letters, most notably to then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, denouncing the executions. As a result, Montazeri (who had until then been the heir to Khomeini), was asked to resign and eventually pushed out of the government completely. He remained a powerful political force and influential voice for reformists. He passed away on December 19, 2009.

Mohammad Pour-Abdollah’s Family Urges Ban Ki Moon to Help

RAHANA – Mohammad Pour-Abdollah’s family has asked Ban Ki Moon and all human rights organizations to help save the detained student from the dangerous conditions of Ghezel Hesar prison, where he is serving a 6-year prison term.

Ghezel Hesar Prison is reserved for dangerous inmates convicted of drug trafficking and murder. Iran’s own laws require separation of prisoners based on the severity and nature of their crimes.

The following is the English text of Pour-Abdollah’s Family’s letter:

To the United Nations’ secretary general, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and all international human rights organizations.

With greetings,

We would like to bring to your attention that our son Mohammad Pour-Abdollah, a Tehran University chemical engineering student, was first arrested on January 14th, 2008 at his home for participating in the Student Day demonstrations held a few months prior. He was taken to Evin Prison, and on February 24th of the same year, after spending 41 days in prison, he was released on $80,000 bail.

For our family, however, Mohammad’s release on bail was the beginning of the coming days which would be filled with anxiety. He was constantly interrogated and threatened over the phone; over time the threatening phone calls became more and more ominous and began to target other members of our family. Mohammad’s mother was overcome by anxiety, and even now she is under treatment.

In the winter of 2009, the phone interrogations became more frequent and Mohammad was threatened over writing articles that reflected his own perceptions of the social issues.

Finally, on February 12th, 2009 at 7 pm, after searching his house, Intelligence agents posing as mailmen took him away along with his computer, books and other items.

As soon as we heard the news, we immediately came from Rasht (where we reside) to Tehran. The condition of his room indicated to us that he had been arrested. We spent the next few days in complete darkness about his situation. The nightmarish possibility that they would follow through with their phone threats haunted us every moment.

Finally, Mohammad called us to say that he was being held in solitary confinement in Evin Prison. He spent the next 30 days in solitary confinement and was subjected to long interrogation sessions that were combined with torture.

During that time, Mohammad’s mother was allowed to visit with him only once, and with the interrogator at his side.

Seeing Mohammad’s shaven head and eyebrows that day devastated his mother and made us more concerned than ever about his treatment in prison.

On March 18th, 2009, two days before the Persian New Year, with only a few days after the conclusion of his interrogation and his transfer to the public ward, and as we were doing every possible thing to secure his release before Norooz, the phone rang and Mohammad gave us the news of his transfer to Ghezel Hesar.

That day, the interrogator, without showing him his name on the release list, had asked Mohammad to put on his clothes and get ready to be released. As soon as Mohammad got ready, happily awaiting his release, he was attacked by prison guards, who blindfolded him and sent him to

Ghezel Hesar after savagely beating and injuring him.

Mohammad spent the next 48 hours in the quarantine section (admission section) of Ghezel Hesar, along with 150 other prisoners, as the solstice came and went.

On April 12th, 2009, after being held for two months on a temporary detention order, Mohammad was taken to the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s office, where he was asked to sign an indictment that contained baseless charges. His refusal to comply resulted only in an extension of his detention.

Mohammad was subsequently taken to a solitary cell in Evin and subjected to additional pressures in order to sign the indictment. After 10 days of resistance and refusal to sign, he was taken back to Ghezel Hesar where he was abandoned.

Despite efforts by his lawyers, the judge in charge of the case refused to release him on bail and even postponed the court hearing, which had been scheduled for June 1st, 2009. A new court date was not announced.

Eventually, after eight months of uncertainty in Ghezel Hesar, on October 12th, 2009, Mohammad was tried by judge Salavati at branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran. Two endless months later and two days after Student Day 2009, on December 9th, the Revolutionary court handed him a 6-year prison term – the maximum punishment allowed under articles 500 and 610 of the penal code – for taking part in the Student Day demonstrations in 2007.

We still do not know the reasons for the second time he was arrested (while he was out on bail).

Almost one year after he was arrested the second time, Mohammad is spending his days in Ghezel Hesar while waiting for the Appeals Court’s ruling that will decide how he will be spending the best years of his life.

We are worried. We worry for his health, his mental well-being, and above all, we worry for his life in a prison which is reserved for violent inmates.

We urge the secretary general of the United Nations, and all international human rights organizations to help us save our son from this dangerous situation and the six years of imprisonment that will ruin the best years of his life.

Yours truly,

Lotfollah Pour-Abdollah & Sima Salno, parents of Mohammad Pour-Abdollah.

Leader of Evangelical Church in Iran Detained

PHOTO: Reverend Wilson Issavi

Reverend Wilson Issavi, the Assyrian leader of the Evangelical Church of Kermanshah, has been detained since early February 2010.

RAHANA – The pastor was arrested on February 2, 2010 by agents from the Ministry of Intelligence while visiting one of his friends in Shahin Shahr, Isfahan. He was taken to an undisclosed location.

According to the Farsi Christian News Network (FCCN), security agents entered the house unannounced and took him, the host couple, and a visiting guest away. FCCN stated that shortly after the arrests, the host’s wife was released.

Since the day of the arrest, it has proven impossible for Reverend Issavi’s friends and family to inquire about his whereabouts or well-being.

Iranian authorities for unknown reasons regularly arrest members of Iran’s religious minority groups.

Koohyar Goodarzi Under Heavy Pressures to “Confess”

RAHANA – According to Parvin Mokhtareh, her son Koohyar Goodarzi continues to resist heavy pressures to accept the Moharebeh charge given to him. He has insisted that all of his media and human rights activities have been legal.

Parvin Mokhtareh told Hammihan News: “On Thursday, after waiting several hours, I was able to have a seven minute visit with him. Unlike the previous visit, Koohyar looked tired and distressed and his lips were dry.”

According to Mokhtareh, during the short visit, her son stated that he is currently under heavy pressure to accept the Moharebeh (waging war against God) charge, but he continues to reject the false accusation and insists that all his activities have been within the law.

Mokhtareh added, “Compared to last week’s visit, my son had lost a considerable amount of weight. When I asked him about it, he jokingly replied that he has been exercising.”

Two months after his arrest, Goodarzi’s lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei has not been able to meet with his client or review his file.

The mother of the detained CHRR member said she wants the authorities to stop accusing the children of Iran of false accusations. “With Norooz approaching, we do not even know what our children have been accused of and no one [authorities] wants to be accountable,” she said.

Koohyar Goodarzi remains in Tehran’s Evin prison since his arrest on December 20, 2009.

Zia Nabavi Writes Detailed Case Report for Ayatollah Larijani

Zia Nabavi’s Letter to the Judiciary Chief Sadeq Larijani

Your Excellency Ayatollah Larijani, Chief of the Judiciary,

My name is Ziaoldin Nabavi. I was born in 1983 in the city of Qaemshahr [county in the province of Mazandaran]. I was arrested in the wake of the presidential election on the night of June 14th while I was at a relative’s house. After spending 100 days in the Ministry of Intelligence ward 209 in Evin prison, I was transferred to the general ward. Currently I am being held in ward 350.

I graduated with a chemical engineering degree from the University of Technology of Babol, and I was prevented from completing my master’s degree in sociology (I am a so-called “starred” student) [i.e. a system developed by Iran’s Ministry of Advanced Education so students with disciplinary issues get penalized with stars. After a certain number of stars, those students are prevented from continuing their education. The system is primarily used against student activists].

Here is a summary of the charges against me and the sentence I received for each:

1. Conspiracy to act against national security (three years in prison)
2. Propaganda against the regime (one year in prison)
3. Disruption of public order (one year in prison)
4. Agitation of the public’s peace of mind (74 lashes)
5. Ties and cooperation with Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) (ten years in prison to be served in the city of Izeh, Khuzestan)

There are three main reasons why I am writing you this letter:

First, to appeal such an unbelievably harsh sentence and to protest such irrelevant charges.

Second, to defend and restore the reputation and clear the names of “starred” students who were only defending their rights. They were never part of any political group that supported or opposed the ruling establishment.

Third, to raise concern about my situation (from the time of my arrest to the interrogations and trial). I have a responsibility to open a debate that would possibly lead to a change in (prison) procedures. It is very likely that methods employed have become the norm and are also practiced against other detainees. Justice directly affects the fate of people. Any mistake made is an unforgivable one.

Since the officials’ pursuit of starred students was, in my opinion, the main reason for my arrest, I would like to offer an explanation.

The trend to “star” students and deprive them of their education, as far as my generation can remember, started in 2006. In that same year, some of the students (activists or members of university Islamic student unions and who wanted entry to further their education) were disqualified despite meeting the academic criteria of admission.

Student activists took their grievance to the evaluations office (responsible for overlooking all post-secondary qualifying exams). There they discovered that although they should have been able to gain admission, they were labelled as “unqualified” to continue their education. I became a star student in 2008.

Since 2006, the students deprived from their education have exercised many possibilities to restore their rights. They have met and talked with officials at the Ministry of Advanced Education, members of delegation that deal with violations from the ministry, parliamentary committees responsible for education, cultural organizations, the National Security, members of the Supreme Cultural Council, the Expediency Council, and high officials such as Messrs. Hashemi, Khatami, and Karroubi.

PHOTO: Imprisoned student Zia Nabavi

The banned students even took their call for justice to the Government Administrative Tribunal (The tribunal that adjudicated on cases by citizens against government offices). The students’ statements were not only regarded as trivial by the officials, but the existence of starred students was completely denied.

After three years of unsuccessful attempts to restore their rights, students were obliged to set up an organization called “The Council to Defend the Right to Education”. They collectively pursued their cases at a time that coincided with the presidential election. They were hoping the election campaign atmosphere would make it easier for their voices to be heard, since there would be a larger public presence. Students decided to write letters to officials, in addition to contacting presidential candidates and collecting data on “starred” students.

In the wake of the election and the events that followed, the goal of the students was not accomplished. Instead, eight of the most active members were arrested, imprisoned, and tried on false and irrelevant charges like Moharebeh [fighting against God. A charge brought against members of armed opposition groups], affiliation with armed opposition groups, and conspiracy to overthrow the government.

As you know, education and acquiring knowledge have been highly recommended and encouraged by our religious traditions. On the one hand, the right to education is enshrined in various articles in the (Iranian) constitution, as well as in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also considered a fundamental and undeniable right. Therefore, deprivation of the right to education cannot be legally and reasonably justified as punishment.

On the other hand, if we agree that the deprivation of education is a legitimate punishment, then the officials need to explain the legal process in which the students were tried, convicted, and banned from their education. Moreover, it is clear that the deprivation measures were taken as a response to the activities of students during their post-secondary studies. For example, in the report by the Ministry of Intelligence against me, it states: ‘The individual who had an operational role in student protests and the strike in Babol University (which by the way was not a political protest and simply concerned the poor quality treatment of students), is suspended from his education for the year 2006.”

Even if we do not accept the argument that a trial is necessary before a student can lose their right to education, the question still remains why students, who had already faced punishment from the university disciplinary committee (I was suspended for two semesters), get additionally punished by having their right to education revoked.

The most unfortunate and painful matter is the denial of the existence of starred students by the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Evaluations Office, and even the president himself while in the media. However, this is not the end of the story. This tragedy was concluded by the arrest and trial of some of the students charged with Moharebeh. Now, a mistake on the part of the officials was complemented by a bigger one. A problem that could have been avoided by a little leniency from the officials has turned into a catastrophe that manifested into a cruel 15-year imprisonment sentence. The amount of years given to me is unprecedented for a student activist.

PHOTO: Judiciary chief Sadeq Larijani

In the text of the verdict and sentencing read out by the judge, some noteworthy points appear. It seems these points have been the basis for the verdict. We were never provided the written text, and as a result, I rely on my memory to lay out as many of these points that I can remember:

• The accused has given no confession with regard to the allegations.
• Some of the members of the family and relatives of the accused have been a member of the MKO, and are currently residing in Camp Ashraf (MKO’s base in Iraq).
• The accused has formed a society along with other students deprived of education, and has engaged in political activities and meetings.
• The accused has been interviewed by foreign media regarding the deprivation of education.
• The accused prepared reports of the conditions of some of the deprived students and sent them to Amirkabir news site (belonging to Tehran’s Polytechnic University students).
• Last year, someone from Iran News Agency contacted the accused, but the accused considered the call suspicious and did not respond.
• In 2009, an individual called Ashkan who had returned from Camp Ashraf, contacted the accused and asked him to establish contact with the MKO. The accused refused his request.
• In June 2009, someone that introduced himself as a freelance journalist contacted the accused, but the accused considered the contact suspicious and did not respond.
• The accused was present on the June 25th [demonstration] from 4:30 to 5:30pm between Enqelab Square and the Ministry of Labour.

Here are my explanations about these points:

I have never stated anything but the truth during the course of my interrogation, despite severe psychological and sometimes physical pressures (sit ups, kicks, blows to the back of the head, insults, and humiliation, etc.) . I have not confessed to crimes I never committed. My activities have always been apparent and open for everyone to see.

Every person is, without a doubt, responsible for their own actions. Therefore, condemning someone for the actions and records of his relatives is illegal and unjust [referring to the regime's accusation that Zia is Mujahedin] . If such a condemnation was justified, there would be no innocent person on earth [due to every person's likely affiliation with at least one person who has committed an offence].

I have never denied my membership to the Council to Defend the Rights to Education, and as I said during the interrogations, I was the one with the most responsibilities in the group. However, the point is that the actions of this group was only concerned with restoring the right to education for starred students. No illegal activity ever took place, especially any that could be considered hostile toward the establishment.

Since the officials denied the existence of starred students, and national media (due to national restrictions) did not report on the students’ deprived situation, which if they did, could have helped demonstrate that the injustice students endure is real. The students were left no choice but to speak to foreign media. What was said in the interviews cannot be considered instances of lies, propaganda against the regime, or agitation of the public’s peace of mind.

Due to the susceptibility of my family, I was always careful not to, even unconsciously, establish contact with the MKO. Also, as it has been noted in the Ministry of Intelligence report, I never responded to any suspicious contact (even when it came from a news agency). It is unbelievable that my refusal to establish contact has been used against me to justify a 10-year prison sentence on the charge of collaboration with the MKO.

I was only present at the June 25th gathering at 4:30 to 5:30pm, between Enqelab Square and the Ministry of Labour. I decided to participate on my own, and was not coordinated with any group. In this period of time, no violence broke out, thus a charge of conspiracy to act against national security and disturbing public order cannot hold.

Since my arrest seven months ago, I have not seen any arrest warrant or any renewal thereof (if such renewal took place at all). The only written document I have ever seen was shown to me on the 70th day of my detention, titled: Request for Reduction [of bail]. The space for the amount of bail was left empty. I hastily signed the document due to the insistence of a ward 209 guard. The document is available in my file, and the space for the amount now reads $500,000 (USD).

During the interrogations, I was under pressure to [falsely] accept the Council to Defend the Rights to Education as an organization by the MKO, and I was their operative. However, I clearly stated during the interrogation and the course of the trial that I have no common interest or belief with the MKO, and I resent any political ideology based on violence and blind obedience. I have repeatedly stated that if there was the smallest evidence of my ties with this group (phone calls, e-mails, etc.), or even if one of my friends or co-defendants stated that I was a supporter or sympathizer of the MKO, I would not even object to a death sentence.

Moreover, whoever knows me is aware that I have a critical personality, and I am not able to be a blind follower of a group or association. This personality trait is evident in my writings as well as in my conduct and activities during my studies. This matter cannot be unknown to the Ministry of Intelligence, and that is why I am perplexed about the logical basis behind the harsh sentence I have received.

In any case, for the sake of justice, the dignity of deprived students, and the call for justice from an oppressed person, I implore you to take a look at my case to see the injustices I have endured. I welcome, in advance, any attempt to shed light on my case, even by publishing to the media the text of the interrogations and the contents of my case. This way, my claim regarding the lack of any evidence pertaining to charges against me can be proven.

Since adjudicating is a complicated form of acquiring knowledge, the conduct of the judicial system emanates from the common theoretical and knowledge-based presumptions in society. Therefore, as an individual interested in theoretical discussions, I find it necessary to draw attention to a point:

One of our main problems is understanding the social phenomenon of reductionism: the analysis of complex issues by simplifying and focusing on one factor of a problem. The motive behind the reductionist approach, aside from uncovering the truth, is to release oneself from the stresses caused by when facing a new phenomenon dishonestly. Unfortunately, I witnessed this way of thinking during the course of my interrogations.

Experts [expert is the term used to refer to the person who is in charge of the case and/or the interrogation] who are supposed to dissect problems to find the root of it and who were faced with the issue of ‘educationally deprived students’, chose to simplify the solution by denying such students exist entirely. After the denial plan failed, the experts then linked students to opposition and hostile political groups.

Although a thousand reasons can be offered to show that making such attributions to students is horribly illogical and unjustified, the only advantage here is the peace of mind that intelligence and security officials receive for their formed (albeit incorrect) understanding of the problem that causes them to raise the price for the pursuit of the right to education.

Believe me that during the course of my interrogations, my wish was not to be released, but to find an opportunity to have a conversation with the expert of the case. I wanted to explain to him how the problem of the starred students started, and what they endured all these years, in addition to many other issues. This never became possible due to the environment of the interrogation sessions and the prevalent pressures. Every conversation was contingent on confessing to a crime I had never committed or imagined.

In any case, this is a request that has been left unanswered, and all these years that we have been deprived from pursuing our studies, no officials from the Ministry of Advanced Education, the judiciary, or the Ministry of Intelligence has called on us to explain our grievances or to express our demands. We hope that after the many anguishes and distresses on our parts, this letter becomes the pretext under which conversations can take place.

Honourable Chief of the Judiciary,

Please put yourself in the place of a person, who despite possessing academic skills and qualifications, is deprived from continuing education and advancing academically. What is more unfortunate is that students, due to their endeavour to restore their rights, have received harsh sentences such as imprisonment. You can see that the hidden repression in this injustice is truly painful.

Again, I implore that my case and the cases of other starred students be reviewed from a completely legal perspective, away from any political bias. Also, justice should be carried out in the appeals stage, and at least the charge of ties with the MKO be eliminated so other starred students and I can reclaim our dignity and clear our names.

Furthermore, since many students have fruitlessly taken their case to Government Administrative Tribunal, I would like to ask you that in line with other positive changes in the judicial system, the way these cases are handled should change as well. Such changes will make it possible for students to return to university and pursue their studies. Freedom is sweet, but freedom without the possibility to study and acquire knowledge is void of any joy.

I thank you in advance for your considerations.

Seyed Ziaoldin Nabavi
Ward 350 of Evin Prison

Translation by: Siavosh J. | Persian2English.com

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Source for scanned copy of Zia Nabavi’s letter: International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran