Events
The applicant is under arrest for the offence of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. As a result of a search conducted by the prison officials in the room where the applicant was staying, a handwritten document belonging to the applicant, which was stated to be a diary, was seized. As a result of the examination of the handwritten document by the penal institution officials, a report was made stating that some of the words in the document were in the nature of insult and slander, and a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was sentenced to solitary confinement for 7 days. The applicant appealed to the execution judge for the cancellation of the disciplinary punishment; the execution judge rejected the appeal. A higher court, to which the applicant appealed, decided to reject the appeal, stating that the decision subject to the appeal was in accordance with the procedure and the law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated by the disciplinary penalty imposed on him for the statements in a handwritten document seized during a search of his room in the penal institution.
Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the disciplinary board considered the applicant’s use of the word “Avarel” in his diary, referring to the staff of the penal execution institution, and his cursing the prosecutors and judges in the case he was on trial as insulting the staff of the institution and decided to punish the applicant with disciplinary punishment.
The applicant stated that the document seized as a result of the search was a diary. There was no determination by the penal institution that the document was not a diary. The Constitutional Court is also of the opinion that the document in question is a diary in terms of its content and the determinations made by the penal institution. On the other hand, neither the penal institution nor the courts of appeal have determined that the document in question was shared with other prisoners in the penal institution.
It is possible to commit an insulting act in a penal institution against any person working in the institution. It is possible to say the insulting act in question directly to the officials of the institution, or it is possible to say it behind their backs. However, in order for the insulting act committed in absentia to be subject to disciplinary punishment, it is necessary for others to learn about the insulting act in question.
In the concrete case, it is understood that no evaluation was made in terms of the effect on the order and security of the institution of the words in the document written by the applicant, which were not claimed to have been learnt by others, and which were only included in a written document. In addition, the relevant administration and the courts of first instance did not show any justification that the disciplinary punishment of the applicant for his action met a compelling social need. It is considered that an unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression by imposing solitary confinement is not in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.