Events
The applicant, who was held in a T-type closed penal institution, complained that the conditions were not appropriate due to the large number of people in the room where he was being held, and that the newspaper he requested had not been sold; he applied to the execution judge with a request to reduce the number of people in the room and sell the newspaper. Judge rejected the applicant’s request on various grounds. The applicant’s appeal against the judge’s decision was also definitively rejected by the high criminal court.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment due to his being kept in a crowded room at the penitentiary institution violated his freedom of expression due to the refusal of his request to purchase periodicals through the institution’s management on his behalf. cost.
Court’s Assessment
A.The Alleged Violation of the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment Hk.
17 of the Constitution. the article also protects the conditions of a prisoner’s detention in a penitentiary institution in a manner befitting human dignity. The method of execution and the behavior during the execution process should not cause prisoners more distress or pain than the inevitable level of suffering that is a natural consequence of deprivation of liberty. In this context, three factors are taken into account in complaints of overcrowding and lack of personal space. These are that there should be at least 4 m2 of Decking area for each prisoner, there should be a separate sleeping area for each prisoner, and the general surface of the ward should be such that prisoners can move freely between furniture. The absence of any of these three factors alone would constitute a strong presumption that the conditions of detention violate the prohibition of ill-treatment.
In addition, in multi-person wards, the minimum living space for a single person falls below 4 m2, which is accepted to occur in the case of 17 of the Constitution. the presumption of a strong violation of the article will be able to disappear if three factors coexist. Dec. First of all, the Decrement of the minimum personal space below 4 m2 should be short-term, small and occasional. Secondly, such reductions should be supported by adequate freedom of movement outside the ward and adequate out-of-ward activities. Finally, the applicant is generally required to be held in a penal institution where there is no other aggravating element of an appropriate nature.
In the concrete case, the applicant was held for 280 days in the penitentiary institution where he filed a complaint. During this period, the minimum personal space required to be provided to the applicant Decayed below 4 m2 for a total of eight consecutive months. This reduction in the minimum personal living space alone constitutes a strong presumption that the conditions of detention violate the prohibition of ill-treatment. The first issue that should be evaluated in this context is the duration, frequency and scope of reducing the minimum personal area below 4 m2. It cannot be said that the lack of personal space over an eight-month period is short-term, insignificant and occasional. Dec. Therefore, considering the individual and cumulative effects of the conditions of detention on the applicant, it has been concluded that the restriction of place has reached a severity that can be characterized as a ban on ill-treatment.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court ruled that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated.
B. About the Alleged Violation of Freedom of Expression
Recep Bekik and others ([GK], B. No: 2016/12936, 27/3/2019) in the case, the Constitutional Court determined the constitutional principles to be applied by examining an application whose facts and conditions resemble a concrete application. In this decision, it was concluded that the freedom of expression was violated on the grounds that there is no mechanism to prevent arbitrariness in the delivery of periodicals to prisoners and convicts in penitentiary institutions and to ensure that the same practice is applied to prisoners and convicts. To be in the same legal situation and to guarantee clear, guiding and consistent administrative practices.
Although a number of measures have been taken with the Law No. 7242 and related regulatory arrangements after the decision of Recep Bekik and others, it is understood that the current practice is related to interventions before the above-mentioned legal and practical changes. Therefore, there is no need to deviate from the principles and conclusion reached in the said decision.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.