The Facts
The applicant is currently in custody on charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. During a search of the applicant’s cell conducted by prison staff, a handwritten document described as a diary was seized. Following an examination of the handwritten document by prison staff, a report was filed stating that certain words in the document constituted defamation and insults; a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was sentenced to 7 days of solitary confinement. The applicant filed an objection with the enforcement court seeking the annulment of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him; the enforcement court rejected the objection. The higher court to which the applicant appealed also rejected the appeal, stating that the decision subject to appeal was in accordance with procedure and law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the disciplinary penalty imposed on him due to statements contained in a handwritten document seized during a search of his prison cell violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
In this specific case, the disciplinary committee deemed the applicant’s use of the word “Avarel” in reference to prison staff in his personal diary, as well as his use of profanity against the prosecutor and judge in the case against him, to be an insult to institutional authorities and decided to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant.
.
The applicant stated that the document seized during the search was a diary. Prison administration did not make any finding that the document was not a diary. The Constitutional Court also concluded, based on the content of the document and the findings of the prison administration, that the document in question was a diary. On the other hand, neither the prison administration nor the lower courts made any finding regarding whether the document in question was shared with other inmates in the prison.
An act of insult committed in a prison may be directed at any person working in the prison. While the act constituting the insult may be spoken directly to prison staff, it may also be spoken behind their backs. However, for an insult committed in absentia to be subject to disciplinary action, it must be learned by others.
In the present case, it was determined that no assessment was made regarding the impact of the words contained in the document written by the applicant—which was not alleged to have been learned by others—on the order and security of the institution, solely because they appeared in a written document. Furthermore, the relevant administrative and appellate courts failed to provide a justification that the imposition of a disciplinary penalty on the applicant for his act served a necessary social need. It was determined that the imposition of solitary confinement, which constituted an unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, was incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had been violated based on the aforementioned grounds.