Non-Violation of Freedom of Expression Due to Disciplinary Punishment Based on Hunger Strike at the Penitentiary Institution
Events
Applicants who were detained or convicted of terrorism offenses in prison institutions had started a hunger strike with similar petitions and generally on the grounds that the ringleader of a terrorist organization was being kept in isolation. These actions took place on dates close to each other, and some applicants even made more than one protest on different dates. Upon this, the penal enforcement agency initiated a disciplinary investigation against the applicants and other detainees.
As a result of the disciplinary investigation, it was decided to impose an isolation disciplinary penalty on the applicants on the grounds that they committed a disciplinary offense by carrying out propaganda activities of a criminal organization. The applicants filed a complaint to the execution judge against these sentences. The execution judge accepted the applicants’ complaint and decided to remove the disciplinary penalties. Public prosecutor’s office appealed the decisions of the execution judge. High criminal court accepted the objection and lifted the decisions.
The Allegations
Applicants claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated due to the disciplinary punishment given to them due to the hunger strike they had carried out in the penitentiary institution.
The Court’s Assessment
Considering that the detainees who participated in the action in the concrete incident were convicted or imprisoned for a terrorist crime and went on a hunger strike collectively on a matter that did not concern their personal situation, it was assessed that the action in question was an action that strengthened organizational motivation and was carried out around the name of a person who is an undisputed symbol of the existence, goals and actions of a terrorist organization, and that the action in question was related to an activity targeting the existence, goals and actions of a terrorist organization.
to glorify the founder of the organization, to announce the name of the organization and its founder to the people in the execution institution and to other people to whom information about the hunger strike can be transmitted, and to spread the meanings implied by this name. Therefore, it has been concluded that the evaluation of the said action as carrying out propaganda activities of criminal organizations is not arbitrary, and in this context, the disciplinary punishment given to the applicants has a legal basis.
On the other hand, considering that penal institutions are special areas under the control of the state and that the state is obliged to protect the health and safety of convicts and detainees and ensure discipline, it is understood that convicts and detainees do not have this authority. the freedom to protest as he wishes in prisons. It is clear that hunger strikes carried out by large groups, as in the concrete case, will require the adoption of a number of non-routine measures in the field of health and safety and will prevent the maintenance of regular life in penitentiary institutions. Therefore, it should be considered reasonable to intervene in such actions in order to restore the deteriorating order in the penitentiary institution and prevent continuous hunger strikes.
As a result, when the Decrees put forward to justify an exceptional way such as a hunger strike were evaluated together, it was concluded that the applicants did not act in accordance with the responsibility required by being in a penal institution. It was concluded that the punishment given to the applicants met a mandatory need, and that the balance between the expected benefit from the hunger strike and the provision of discipline in the penitentiary institution was achieved. Dec. On the other hand, when evaluated together with the appreciation share of the prison administration, it was accepted that the disciplinary punishment of solitary confinement given to the applicants for their actions was proportionate and that the intervention was not unlawful for these reasons. The requirements of a democratic social order.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had not been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.