Non-Violation of the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment in Terms of Conditions of Detention in the Penitentiary Institution
Events
Applicant, who was detained in a T-type penal institution, complained that the conditions were not appropriate due to the large number of people in his room and applied to the execution judge to reduce the number of people in the room and abolish the penal institution. restrictions have been placed on examination in the infirmary. Judge rejected the applicant’s request. The applicant’s objection to the judge’s decision was definitively rejected by the high criminal court on the grounds that the decision was in accordance with the procedure and the law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that she was unable to benefit from health services, was kept in an overcrowded room at the prison and that the ban on ill-treatment had been violated.
The Court’s Assessment
Situations that constitute ill-treatment in prison institutions can occur in different ways. In order for a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment to be determined, the conditions of detention must have reached a minimum level of severity beyond the inevitable level of suffering caused by the nature of the practice and the natural consequence of deprivation of liberty.
In the concrete case, it was observed that the applicant had been staying in wards with a personal area of just under 4 m2 (3.95 m2) for eight and fourteen consecutive days, and that the dimensions of these wards were insufficient and below the minimum standard. Dec. However, although the personal living space provided to the applicant was not sufficient, the detention in this area was temporary and short-term.
On the other hand, this treatment took place while the applicant had sufficient freedom of movement and was being held in an appropriate facility. Therefore, taking into account the individual and cumulative effects of the conditions of detention on the applicant individually and collectively, Article 17 of the Constitution. it was concluded that the level of severity that can be characterized as a prohibition of ill-treatment in the sense of the article is as follows: It was not reached in short-term, small and occasional Decrements that occurred in consecutive and two periods during approximately thirty months of detention Decrees.
It was found that the applicant had been housed in a personal space between 4 m2 and 5 m2 for almost two years of his thirty-month detention. Dec. While the Constitutional Court evaluates within the scope of the prohibition of ill-treatment in cases where prisoners have a minimum personal space, emphasizing that it is not always sufficient for the size of the personal living space to meet the minimum standard, the adequacy/inadequacy of other dimensions of the conditions of detention should be examined.
In the concrete case, it was determined that the applicant had the opportunity to exercise outdoors beyond what is desirable in international standards during the twenty-four-month period in which he had a minimum personal living space, and did not experience any problems in access. he stated that there is natural light and natural air, there are no deficiencies in the private use of toilets and bathrooms and compliance with basic health and hygiene rules. In the light of this information, when the physical and mental effects of the conditions of detention are evaluated separately and the collective effects on the applicant are taken into account, it is concluded that the minimum threshold in question has not been exceeded.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the prohibition of ill-treatment had not been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.