A Decade of Violence against Women in Turkey
A Decade of Violence against Women in Turkey
Violence against women is a part of the social agenda thanks to the uninterrupted struggle of the women’s movement in Turkey since the beginning of the 1990s. In the last decade, gender-based violence has been carried to the political agenda, and has also become a subject of various meetings, seminars, action plans, research and debates. The number of independent women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex (LGBTI) organisations, which struggle against violence, is day by day on the rise as they also increase their activities. In 2012, despite the shortcomings, new changes that reflect the recent international human rights norms and approaches were introduced domestically; and Istanbul Convention was signed. Despite all these arrangements and developments, violence against women in Turkey has a dramatic and rapid increase in the last decade resulting in the death of five women every day. While new laws are introduced and counter-measures are taken, why violence against women is increasing to a level of carnage, rather than decreasing is the main question of this paper.
It is a fact that gender-based violence has the globally valid multifaceted causes. However, this paper will focus on the role of the state policies –which aim is to conservatise Turkish society and to protect family during the last decade through female body and gender roles– and their contribution to this rise.
There is no doubt that the direct relationship between patriarchal conservatism, which is approaches life over women ‘morality,’ and violence against women in Turkey has not came into existence in the last ten years. Family-oriented conservative social policies that dismiss female identity and that is reconstructed upon the already existing social fabric, which is fed by gender inequality, triggered the violence. These policies have been systematically legalised and put into practice in social life. On the other hand, the international human rights agreements, and in particular, agreements against gender discrimination remain on paper, while the basic principles of fighting against violence and discrimination are ignored.
The struggle of independent organisations in the fight against gender-based violence is ignored
Women’s organisations have played an important role in the creation of institutions with a focus on addressing problems of violence against women and gender inequality and making legal arrangements. These organisations have achieved considerable success, even though they do not have a long history (approximately 25-30 years) and they are isolated by the hostility towards feminism that is widespread across all segments of the society. For example, the persistent requests of the organisations were decisive for establishing the Directorate General for the Status of Women and then the Ministry of State Responsible for Women. In the first half of 2000, the amendments of the Civil Law and the Turkish Criminal Code that included arrangements for gender mainstreaming are achievements of independent women’s organisations. The achievements of the organised women such the annulment of ‘man is the head of the family’ statement from legal texts, equal partition of the acquired properties between spouses and increased penalty for honour killings can be considered as revolutionary gains, considering the circumstances of women in Turkey. The same organisations also tried hard to ensure that the society would embrace these changes. Furthermore, they had a big role in the creation of the content, publicising and implementing Law No. 4320, which is the first special arrangement to fight against violence.
During the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’s (Justice and Development Party) (AKP) ruling tenure, women’s organisations participated effectively in the approval of the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) and the process of enactment of the Law No. 6284 on the Protection of Family and Prevention of Violence against Women. The Law No. 6284, which was put into action on 8th March 2012, is an effective legal arrangement, although it does not include all proposals from women organisations, thanks to the last minute amendments pushed by women organisations that provide opportunities to prevent violence and protect the women and children who are subject to violence ’The contribution of the organisations was extremely important for the law to incorporate the experience of 30 years of combating violence directly and the holistic approaches based on universal principles of gender equality. For the same reasons, the implementation of these laws is only possible with the participation and contribution of independent civil organisations.
However, these kinds of cooperation that can be considered as a ‘good example’ for the civil society-government dialogue are no longer in practice approximately since 2012. Contrarily, the process is reversed; the experiences and opinions of the organisations are ignored and devalued through various discourses and obstructions. The high-level state discourse with an aim to marginalise and trivialise the struggle of independent women’s organisations and the feminist movement is mirrored as violence and intimidation directed against these organisations and activist women.1 These women and organisations are sued because of the articles they write, silenced during meetings they attend, being threatened and even assaulted in front of the courts.2 Some municipalities held by the government party also try to displace women’s organisations from their premises within the municipal buildings where they provide consultancy and support to women who were subject to domestic violence for years and force these organisations to unilaterally terminate their contracts.3
It is not even possible to mention ‘good examples’ about the inclusion of LGBTI rights in the legal acts. Despite all the efforts, neither during the debates on the constitutional change in 2010, nor during the previous legislation periods, gender equality could not be defined with a reference to gender identity and sexual orientation of individuals. The complete removal of the clauses recommended by the LGBTI organisations from the delayed Discrimination Regulation and the Draft Law on Equality Board, a part of the process of legal harmonisation with the EU law, just before the voting is the most concrete example of this.4 While the implementation of Istanbul Convention, which forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, is in general delayed; the entire Convention is also contested because of this anti-discrimination statement.5 While no measures are taken against homophobic discourse such as ‘homosexuality is a treatable disease,’ increasing hate crime and transgender murders, hate speech has been reproduced personally by some public officials. The most recent examples of this discourse has revolved around the issue of the candidacy of LGBTI individuals in the 7th June legislative elections.6
Despite the effective policy solutions offered by the LGBTI rights organisations and the increasing visibility of the anti-homophobia and transphobia struggle, especially after the Gezi Resistance in 2013, it is not possible to mention any state program implemented by the government for the prevention of violence against LGBTI individuals in the last decade. For example, there is no title or subtitle on this subject in the 2012-2015 National Action Plan on the Fight against Violence, published in 2012 and revised in April 2015 by the Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı (Ministry of Family and Social Policies) (ASPB).7
The society-wide conservative policies are implemented through women’s identity and roles
The first feminist movement against violence took place in Yoğurtçu Park in Kadıköy, İstanbul on 17th May 1987 after the Judge Mustafa Durmuş wrote on a court record in Çankırı that “a woman’s tummy should not be left without a child and her back without a stick.”8 This incident can be considered naïve, compared to the examples of the sexist law scandals and speeches that we often come across in recent years. However, this sentence demonstrates a typical example of the causal relationship between the gender-based violence and the male-dominated cultural superstructure. More importantly, it points out a very important difference between a sexist statement of this kind used among the ordinary people and a deliberate sexist discourse adopted by public authorities who hold positions with a power to shape the value judgements of people. The already dominant patriarchal and heterosexist societal culture is extremely vulnerable to this kind of deliberate manipulation by public institutions and people.
When people who have an opportunity to guide the public perceptions on gender issues share their message with the public effortlessly, through statements such as “women and men are not equal by creation,” “women are God’s trust to men,” “laughing in public is unchastely,” “it is not appropriate for a pregnant woman to walk in the street,” “the part above knee level seduces even if it belongs to your mom,” “what is abortion anyway, let the woman die instead of the baby” the societal reflection of these statements is violence in women’s lives.9 Such manipulation of public within the context of an already existing gender inequality, reinforces an ideology that easily finds ‘a reason’ for masculine violence and normalises the violence itself. The evident proof of this effect can be found in the decrease in the final sentence given to the convicts of female murders, due to the alleged “provocation” by the murdered or defence by many men perpetrators based on statements like “unchastely” and “she did not obey me.”10 The perpetrator of a female homicide case, who is about to get divorced in Kayseri, said “I used my right to kill” when he was arrested after killing his wife. This incident demonstrates how effective all kinds of provocative discourse on male domination can become on individuals.11
On the other hand, promoting three or even five children and discourses like ‘motherhood is a career,’ ‘unemployment increases because of women, who look for jobs,’ ‘a working woman is led to prostitution’ also normalise inequality and aim to prevent the participation of women in public life. These understanding and discourses are partially supported by the law as well. Family and Dynamic Population Structure Conservation Program,12 known shortly as “family package,” implemented legislation and action plans that deter women from full participation in the workforce, such as support for home care services without social security contribution, flexible and precarious working.13 On the other hand, despite the insistent claims regarding the inadequate number of nurseries, which is one of the biggest obstacles for women’s participation in work life, no measures have been taken. While there are no nurseries for employees in many public institutions, the Presidency of Religious Affairs offers services in some mosques on matters outside of its expertise, as widely reported in the press.14
One of the important topics of gender inequality and violence against women is related to girls forced into marriage or “forced to consent marriage” and child sexual abuse problems that have significantly increased.15 The fact that discourses like ‘girls can marry at the age of six’ are expressed publicly and face no sanctions gives clues about the unseen dimension of the problem. The most important practice encouraging early marriage of girls is the change in the education system introduced in 2012, known as the 4+4+4 system. The new education system ended 12 years of uninterrupted compulsory education by replacing it with an arrangement that would encourage school dropouts in the first or the second 4-year period. Data confirm the expert estimates that these changes would facilitate the early school dropouts of girls from conservative and/or economically weak families; marriage at young age and child labour.16
The religious wedding (imam nikahı) has no legal value in Turkey; it is not banned as it is considered as a part of personal religious practice; but, it is conditional that it follows a civil marriage. The Türk Ceza Kanunu (Turkish Criminal Code) (TCK) foresees a jail term (2-4 months) both for the religious authority that performed the marriage ceremony and parties that married without an official ceremony. Despite this, there is much cohabitation through only religious ceremony. Even though the minimum marriage age is 18 and a second wife is strictly forbidden by civil law, such religious marriages commonly take place in illegal terms. Supreme Court cancelled this rule in the TCK on 29th May 2015.17 Thus; there is no longer any legal obstacle in front of the widely-practiced child marriages and second wives. Whilst organisations claim that there is a rapid increase in marriages at a young age and this claim is confirmed officially, 18 it is not hard to predict the outcomes of this decision. Negative results will not be limited to child marriages and illegal second wives. Since marriages through only religious ceremony will increase, since it is possible to get away without an official ceremony, many women will be deprived of their rights protected by the civil law. For example, these women could not be able ask protection in case of domestic violence and will not be able to claim their equal share of the acquired property during the marriage.19
Another dimension of the domination on women’s bodies by the state is the virtual ban on abortion. The draft law on the abortion ban was withdrawn due to the intense reaction of the women’s movement in 2012. Abortion within the recommended medical period is not banned by the law; but women are prevented from benefiting this right with indirect methods utilised by the Ministry of Health. The reports of Mor Çatı Women’s Shelter Foundation and The Foundation for Women’s Solidarity have confirmed the existence of a virtual ban on abortion.20
The main axis of the violence against women is shifted away from international human rights law and gender equality goals
In 2010, then prime minister declared that he did not believe in equality of men and women at a meeting where several women organisations were also present. This was the beginning of the shift away from international gender equality norms and human rights in the prevention of violence against women towards a new understanding based on religious and heterosexist culture, which only became more evident with the attempt to replace ‘women’ with the word ‘family’ in the name of the relevant ministry in 2011. Political actions, called as ‘prevention against violence,’ intensified since 2012 when they are restructured by adding a new dimension every year. Giving these policies a social and legal basis reached its peak in 2014, a process that still continues in the first half of 2015. However, these actions aggravated, rather than improving, the gender equality problem in Turkey. For example, family package21 was publicised in 2014, and misogynist discourses have increased since then. Dialogue with independent women’s organisations has been cut out. Ministry of Family and Social Policies wanted to exclude independent women’s organisations from the process of proposing the candidates (July-December 2014) for the Istanbul Convention Expert Committee Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) from Turkey.22
Furthermore, towards the end of 2014, high-level official discourses were repeated that ‘men and women are not equal by nature’ and the concept of ‘gender justice’ was officially promoted as a great unique invention to replace the notion of ‘gender equality.’ The concept of ‘gender justice’ was put forward to slow down and change the direction of the struggle for gender equality that is the main axis of struggle the global feminist movement and social sciences for nearly 40 years. Since Turkish society has not even widely internalised the concept of gender equality, the concept of gender justice has been confusing; and, it strengthened the common understanding that frames gender equality through biological differences between men and women.
With public expression of the concept of gender justice at the official level, state-supported ‘non-governmental’ organisations, which used to maintain relatively closed activities for a while and work against gender equality in favour of family policies, started to position themselves openly against independent women and LBGTI organisations. The ASPB, by establishing close cooperation with these organisations, has continued to ignore independent organisations even after the process of nominating the GREVIO candidate. The ASBP attempted to prevent the participation of representatives of independent women organisations in international platforms (Beijing+20, United Nations Women Council Meetings). 23 24 As a result of the reactions, participation of seven representatives were allowed; but, those representatives were not granted the right to speak during the sessions.
In combating violence against women, one of the most important indicators of drifting apart from the norms of international law and gender equality by the deliberate efforts of the state is the activities of the Aile İrşat Büroları (Family Guidance Bureaus) of the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Presidency of Religious Affairs) (Diyanet).25 The practice of taking issues of women in the family to these bureaus seems for the benefit of women at first glance. Yet, since the approach ignores women’s identities and lives, the practice contributes to the gender inequality. The ASPB employs female chaplains (vaize) with the protocol signed with the Diyanet in the Şiddeti Önleme Merkezi (Violence Prevention Offices) (ŞÖNİM) and the provincial directorates of the ministry.26 It is known that these employees work not just to facilitate practising religious duties of women that take refuge in women’s shelters, but also to infuse women with traditional norms (like saving the family), while ignoring their declarations. We are not able to reveal the source of this information, since independent organisations are not allowed to control the ŞÖNİMs.
It is not possible to end domestic violence in families through women’s obedience. Obedience only helps to increase violence by confirming secondary and unequal position of women and by strengthening men’s sense of sovereignty. Actually, this perception that does not prioritise women’s protection cannot protect the family either, since there are other family members who are negatively affected from domestic violence. A study by Songül Tosun Altınöz, conducted in the prisons in Ankara, revealed that male prisoners, who physically abused or killed women, declared that they engaged in violence because of honour (36.6 percent), hegemony (29.3 percent) and economic problems (17 percent). ‘Honour’ as an excuse is actually another dimension of the ‘hegemony’ excuse. In the same study, the author makes the following assessment: “Men internalise violence as a method to control women who try to gain autonomy and to strengthen their authorities.”27
On the other hand, it is a widespread and problematic attitude to relate combating violence to reasons such as immigration, unemployment and economic problems. This attitude that is far from relating violence to gender mainstreaming and equality in Turkish society (the perception that only women in lower socio-economic classes experience violence) prevents us from focusing on the main causes of the problem. We cannot deny indirect effects of these factors; but presenting these factors as the only and most important reason justifies violence. In fact, as existing research revealed several times, violence against women is widespread across all occupational groups, educational levels and among the upper socio-economic classes as well.
Furthermore, it is common to overshadow the main reasons of violence, by evaluating gender-based crimes as individual deviance, cruelty and disease. Thus, when preventing violence against women is debated, people who are not familiar with human rights law and gender equality suggest increased penalties, execution and castration as the first solution. Following society-wide reactions, primitive penalties such as the death penalty and the castration have been discussed in the social media and press, after the murder of Özgecan in Mersin in February 2015. Even though the death penalty has already been banned in Turkey through international agreements, it is bizarre that these penalty methods have been first put forward by state representatives.28 These attitudes overshadow the fact that that gender-based crimes are political and a result of the male-dominated system. It should be clear that taking away the right to live of individual offenders or the punishment of their bodies through emasculation is not deterrent by looking at the steady levels of violence against women in countries where these methods are implemented such as India.
Increasing violence with its entire destructive process as outlined here, has become an urgent social problem that no misleading rhetoric, such as ‘women are killed in Germany too,’ ‘women are also engaged in violence,’ can hide. As evidently emphasised in the Istanbul Agreement (İstanbul Sözleşmesi) in effect as of 1st August 2014, the main reason of violence against women stems from the resulting effects of everyday gender inequality. It is an undisputable fact that violence is increasing due to the deepening discrimination, unrealised justice and discourses and actions that strengthens inequality. The sentiments promoted by the state on top of the existing patriarchal social structure, which endorses that women should be submissive and should not destroy the family, result in murder of women who want to divorce.29 For a long time, strategies based on traditional and religious norms that support male dominance has been tested to reduce violence. On the contrary, violence has increased through such attempts. Insisting on these policies that can be summarised as women’s imprisonment to the position of ‘caretakers of the conservative society’ encourages gender based crimes.
Laws are not implemented
There are all kinds of national and international legal instruments in Turkey to prevent all kinds of discrimination and violence against women and to protect those affected by violence. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was signed in 2000 and has been in effect since 2003. Similarly, Istanbul Convention is the most comprehensive regulation that focuses on the prevention of violence and protection of victims of violence. Law No. 6284 Ailenin Korunması ve Kadına Yönelik Şiddetin Önlenmesi Kanunu (Protection of Family and Prevention of Violence against Women), is largely compatible with the Istanbul Convention. According to Article 90 of the Constitution, in case of a conflict between international agreements and domestic laws, international agreements have primacy. The criminal code foresees deterrent punishment to the perpetrators of violence against women, except the problems that are introduced by the 2014 amendment in the Turkish Penal Code against the objections of 254 women’s organisations. The problems are related to non-implementation or the way of implementation of these laws.
Besides not taking necessary steps for the implementation of Istanbul Convention, discriminatory statements and actions are widespread against the spirit of the Convention and there are several obstacles for the full implementation of Law No. 6284 due to the reluctance of public officials who are responsible for ensuring the implementation.31 Failure to punish crimes or partial justification of these crimes through excuses play an encouraging role for perpetrators. The principle of unjust provocation, which is part of the criminal law, is only implemented in a sexist way in favour of male perpetrators, while highest punishments are given to women who kill men in self-defence. The punishment that is given to Nevin Yıldırım proves this male-dominated thinking.32 Practice of granting a decrease in the sentence for excuses such as ‘she cheated on me’ ‘or ‘she never obeyed me’ shows that male domination can be superior to justice. Except in self-defence, the basic principle that violence cannot have a reasonable excuse, is left aside by some practitioners of the justice system through decreased penalties to male perpetrators who put forward such excuses: ‘was wearing jeans,’ ‘was not cooking’ and ‘went out to the street.’ These practitioners reproduce violence and leave women facing violence helpless and alone. Impunity discourages women and prevents them from seeking their rights. Of course, unjust results do not occur all the time. However, the number of cases where the perpetrator is given proper punishment is not sufficient to overcome the mistrust in the society.
As a natural result of the deliberate effort to make the reasons and scope of violence invisible, it is hard to reach reliable statistical data that the state provides. Minister of Justice made an official statement on the data in 2009. As a response to a parliamentary interpellation, The Minister of Justice stated that the rate of female homicides increased about 1.400 percent from 2002 to 2009; 66 women were killed in 2002; and in the first seven months of 2009, this number reached to 953.33 In the last period, we can say that there is 33 percent increase in 2014 compared to the previous year, based on the data provided to the Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Kadına Yönelik Şiddetin Sebeplerini Araştırma Komsiyonu (Grand National Assembly of Turkey Research Commission on the Causes of Violence against Women), established on 25th November, 2014.34 This figure is cited in the report submitted to the Commission by then Head of Police Department Tarık Çetiner, an official at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Police Department, Directory of Fight against Domestic Violence. The report stated that 118.014 women, 29.419 men and 16.140 children were victims of domestic violence in 2014; 133 women, 76 men and 25 children were killed due to violence; and there is a 33 percent increase in domestic violence in 2014 compared to the previous year. It is crucial to emphasise that these numbers represent only the people who file a complaint with the police. Records that are not included in the report of the police department have long been demanded from the ASPB. Instead of sharing data with the public, the ministry has just stated that ‘violence has not increased, became more visible to public, thanks to our efforts.’ However, after increasing public sensitivity due to the Özgecan Aslan murder (February, 2015), which played the role of the last straw, ASPB shared the results of research conducted by the Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü (Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies) (HÜNEE) in April, 2015.35
The study by the HÜNEE, first conducted in 2008 for the ASPB, then in 2014, stated that every 4 women out of 10 are exposed to physical violence in Turkey; and 89 percent of victims of violence did not seek official help or filed a complaint. The same research revealed that 80 percent of women who experienced violence stated that they knew how to seek help. Although there was no public information campaigns on the Law No.6284, women who experienced violence learn their rights granted by law through their own efforts. According to the Law No. 6284, many public institutions such as the police office, family court and governorship, are authorised to accept complaints and statements about violence. Yet, it is important to highlight that the number of women requesting support from public institutions is just 11 percent. First result to be inferred from this figure is that women do not trust the state. The 2008 report of the same survey reveals that the rate of women who experienced violence, but did not seek any official assistance is 92 percent. In six years, there is only a 3 percent increase in this figure, although a new law was introduced. It demonstrates that state does not convey confidence to women and laws cannot be implemented.
Also, according to feedbacks in the records of women’s organisations, practitioners are not aware of the Law No. 6284 adequately. Hence, women do not seek assistance from state, because they know that state does not provide any support to them; and they cannot enjoy their rights even though they know their rights. However, it is known that the ASPB has a large budget for training the public authorities responsible for implementing the law. Despite large training expenses within the context of combating violence, unawareness and aversion of officials who received training towards the legal framework generate question marks about the quality of these training programs. These questions about the quality increase, because the programs are conducted without consulting the experienced independent women organisations and experts who could contribute to the content and quality and these programs are not open to civil society scrutiny.’ One of the most concrete indicators is that women who are under protection are also killed. In 2014, according to the records of the Directorate General of Security, 23 women were killed while under protection.
Gender equality is not a privilege, it is a right
Women show by losing their lives that it is not possible to prevent violence against women by implementing policies built on the role of woman in the family and the idea that women should be obedient and modest. Implementation of a systematic ‘fight against violence program’ that is based on the framework of universal values and an understanding of integrated gender equality is an urgent need. Istanbul Agreement and the CEDAW are legal tools to implement such a program. This program should be built on an understanding that does not perceive women’s liberation as a gift of the free, not reduce the gender equality to mere economic freedom and not treat it as an ornament of other liberation movements. Building blocks of this program must be established by the independent civil society organisations that aim to promote gender equality and fight with violence against women. There are no obstacles for all social segments to embrace the issue within the framework of ‘the right to free and equal life.’ On the contrary, it is a requirement of democracy that this issue is accepted by all without obliterating the difference between being a part of the struggle and being a subject of the struggle. In fact, gender equality is not a privilege only for women and LGBTI individuals, but an issue of democracy and human rights for all gender identities and sexual orientations. Therefore, it is a concern for the entire society. In short, gender equality is a must for everywhere and everyone.
Özgül Kaptan, The Foundation for Women’s Solidarity (KADAV)
Please cite this publication as follows:
Kaptan, Ö. (September, 2015), “A Decade of Violence against Women in Turkey.” Vol. IV, Issue 9, pp.31-45, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (Research Turkey), London, Research Turkey. (http://researchturkey.org/9742)
President’s speech addressing local governors, February 17, 2015. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
2Women were not allowed into to the courthouse to follow Nevin Yılmaz’s case. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
3Municipality of Adana aims to seize the Advisory Office of Adana Women’s Solidarity Centre (AKDAM) of : http://www.ekspresgazete.com/?/haber/oku/69152
4Homosexual rights have been removed from the anti-discrimination law. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
5The declaration of the family platform: [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
6Hate speech against the LGBTI candidates for 2015 General Elections: [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
7The National Action Plan of Ministry of Family and Social Policies 2012-2015. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
8The first campaign action against domestic violence. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
9Sexist Discourses. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
10The Sexist applications of unjust provocation excuse. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
11News on the Kayseri murder case. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
12The Program on Preservation of Dynamic Population Structure of Family. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
13Women’s Labour and Employment Initiative, Precarious Work Report.
14Religious nursery news.
15Child marriages, Turkish Statistics Institute. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
16 Girls leave education early. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
17The Decision of the Constitutional Court. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
18Dikasum Survey on Child Brides. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
19Review of the decision by the Constitutional Court. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
20Virtual Abortion Ban. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
21Commentary on Maternity Package. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
22For developments during the GREVIO process. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
23Beijing +20 Evaluation. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
24Beijing +20 and Women Organizations. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
25Family Guidance Offices. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
26 Status of shelters of the Ministry. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
27Prison Research. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
28Debates on Death Penalty. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
29 Women who want to divorce are killed. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
30Amendment of the relevant law on Sexual Offenses. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
31On the Law No. 6284. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
32News on the Nevin Yıldırım case. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
33Milliyet.7 Ayda 953 kadın öldürüldü (In 7 months 953 women were killed). [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
34The reports submitted to the parliamentary inquiry commission. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at:
35Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Report on Violence. [Accessed on 15th September 2015], Available at: