Events
The vehicle in which the applicant was traveling with two friends was stopped by law enforcement officers. T he applicant and his companions were removed from the vehicle, judicial proceedings were initiated, and they were taken to the District Police Headquarters. The applicant was held there for a while and then taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch in the morning.
The applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office against the public officials who carried out the arrest on the night of the incident. Th e petition stated, in summary, that after the funeral burial procedures, the vehicle in which the applicant was traveling was stopped by law enforcement officers without any warning, that the applicant was punched and kicked in the head, and that the torture continued at the police station to which he was taken. It was stated that the forensic medical report prepared on the day of the incident indicated that the incident history was assault and battery.
Following an investigation into the applicant’s complaint, the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided that there were no grounds for prosecution, and the applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Criminal Court of Peace.
In the civil case that was filed, the High Criminal Court acquitted the applicant and his accomplices, and the decision became final.
Allegations
The applicant claims that the prohibition of torture was violated because he was beaten during the arrest by law enforcement officers and at the police station where he was detained, and that no effective investigation was conducted into this incident.
The Court’s Assessment
It is understood that the applicant’s claims are supported by the content of the forensic medical report prepared on the day of the incident. In its decision not to prosecute, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office accepted that the applicant had been injured by public officials whose names were not disclosed.
In their report prepared immediately after the incident, the law enforcement officers stated that the individuals who got out of the vehicle resisted when attempts were made to control them and that force was therefore used progressively. The police report indicates that at least sixteen police officers, including Special Operations police, were present at the scene. Three individuals were removed from the stopped vehicle. There is no indication that the applicants behaved aggressively towards law enforcement officers or attempted to flee during this period.
The forensic examination form completed immediately after the incident states that bruising and swelling were observed on the applicant’s left eye and bleeding from the nose, but that the injury could be treated with simple medical intervention. Th e detention admission report prepared by the State Hospital included the following findings: “bruising, swelling, redness, abrasion, redness in the left eye, bruising on the left shoulder, redness on the right shoulder and throat, redness on the back, bruising and abrasion on the left elbow, slight redness in the left kidney area, bleeding from the nose.” The report also states that a computerized tomography scan was requested, but the hospital’s device was not working.
As part of the investigation, no forensic medical report was obtained for the applicant, nor was he examined with a tomography device capable of advanced imaging. After being detained and subsequently arrested, the applicant received treatment for health problems while in prison. This casts doubt on the accuracy of the initial forensic medical examination form’s finding that the injury could be treated with simple medical intervention. Therefore, it must be accepted that the applicant suffered facial bone fractures as a result of the intervention by law enforcement officers during the arrest.
Although the police officers who carried out the arrest recorded that the applicant resisted during the arrest, this was not clearly demonstrated by other evidence such as video recordings or impartial witness statements.
The statements of the law enforcement officers on this matter were not taken during the investigation, and the decision not to prosecute accepted that the applicant resisted the law enforcement officers, as stated in the report. Even if it is accepted that the applicant resisted, it is clear that the outcome of the intervention to overcome the resistance must be explained, given that the resulting injury reached the level of a fracture in the facial area. On the other hand, considering the report and the development of the incident, it seems likely that the law enforcement officers’ proportionate intervention only caused minor injuries to the applicant.
In light of these findings, although the circumstances of the injury remain unclear due to deficiencies in the investigation, it is understood that the intervention by public officials against the applicant, who is not alleged to have committed physical assault, was disproportionate, even if it is assumed to have been necessary despite the difficult working conditions.
Upon the applicant’s complaint, the Chief Public Prosecutor
initiated an investigation and requested that certain evidence that could help shed light on the incident be collected. Despite the Chief Public Prosecutor’s request, it was observed that no investigation was conducted into whether there were any video recordings in the vehicles belonging to the law enforcement officers at the scene of the incident or in buildings such as nearby workplaces where security cameras might be present. It was understood that the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, which took over the investigation file following the decision of incompetence, did not take any action to remedy this deficiency.
Within the scope of the investigation, it was understood that the police officer who carried out the arrest was not taken as a witness, his views on the allegations were not asked, eyewitnesses to the incident were not identified, and their statements were not taken. These shortcomings raise doubts as to whether the Prosecutor’s Office seriously attempted to ascertain the truth.
Consequently, it cannot be said that an effective investigation was conducted into the allegations made by public officials that the applicant was injured during his arrest.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture had been violated for the reasons stated above.