Violation Of The Prohibition Of Ill-Treatment Due To Unlawful Use Of Force
Events
Police officer M.A. came to the applicant’s tailor shop as a customer. M.A., who apparently had a dispute with the applicant about the trouser cuffs he wanted to be shortened, called the police to the scene. The police teams who arrived at the scene at around 16.00 took the applicant to the police station by force and initiated proceedings against him on the charges of insult, threat, resisting against duty and damaging property.
In the forensic examination report issued after the arrest by force, it was determined that the applicant was injured. It was understood that there was no detention warrant for the applicant at the time of his arrest, that the Minutes of Meeting with the Public Prosecutor were issued at 17.10 hours after the applicant was taken to the police station, and that the applicant was instructed to be released after his statement was taken. The applicant was released at 18.58.
An investigation was initiated after the applicant filed a complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Presidential Communication Centre (CIMER) alleging that he had been beaten by police officers. During the investigation, it was investigated whether there was any CCTV footage of the incident, but no CCTV footage was found. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of non-prosecution on the applicant’s complaints, and the applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated due to the unlawful use of force by the police officers.
The Court’s Assessment
When the actions attributed to the applicant and the statements of the parties are evaluated as a whole, it is concluded that the incident that caused the police intervention was of the nature of a legal dispute, that the applicant, who was not physically attacked, did not pose a suspicion that he posed a danger or would flee, and whose identity and address were determined, was invited to the police station by issuing a summons to take the statement of the applicant without applying the procedure of inviting him to the police station at his workplace address,
In the presence of his child and nephews, it was assessed that there was no act that required the applicant to be placed on the ground with his arm bent behind his back, handcuffed and forced into a squad car, and that the necessary care and attention was not shown in respecting the honour and body integrity of the applicant, who was injured due to the aforementioned treatments.
In the investigation conducted by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, although it was concluded that the applicant’s injury occurred as a result of the legal use of force, no assessment was made as to whether the conditions for the use of force by public officials were met and whether the use of force was compulsory. When the action to which the applicant was subjected was evaluated, it was deemed possible that the intervention could have a humiliating or degrading effect, therefore it was considered possible to qualify it within the scope of treatment incompatible with human dignity and it was concluded that the state acted in violation of its negative obligation under Article 17 of the Constitution.
No statements of parties or witnesses were taken within the scope of the investigation initiated in relation to the incident. The minutes and documents organised by the police officers, who were the parties, approximately one hour after the incident took place constitute the sole justification for the decision of non-prosecution.
Within the scope of the identified circumstances of the concrete incident, there was a use of force by public officials and an injury to the applicant as a result. It is understood that the investigation authorities decided not to prosecute on the grounds that the law enforcement officers did not exceed their authorisation to use force in the incident that resulted in the applicant’s injury. However, no concrete reason has been established for the use of force by the police officers against the applicant. In addition, the allegations that the applicant was beaten after being handcuffed were not evaluated.
It was assessed that the requirements of collecting all kinds of evidence to determine the circumstances of the incident in the investigation carried out and that the decision made as a result of the investigation must be based on a comprehensive, objective and impartial analysis of all the findings obtained in the investigation were not fulfilled.
It was concluded that an effective criminal investigation was not carried out to identify and, if necessary, punish those responsible for the acts that constituted treatment incompatible with human dignity against the applicant.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the material and procedural aspects of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity were violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.