Violation Of Prisoner’s Right To Protection Of Material And Spiritual Being In The Context Of Clothing Acceptance
Events
During the applicant’s detention, a decision of the Administration and Observation Board restricted the change of clothes for convicts and detainees. Accordingly, it was decided that worn-out clothing would only be allowed to be replaced with new ones, and that clothes that had been exposed to the washing machine or bleach or repaired would not be allowed into the penal institution. The applicant applied to the execution judge to lift this restriction. Execution judge rejected the request.
The heavy penal court also rejected the appeal on the grounds that the decision of the execution judge was not contrary to the procedure and the law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to protect and improve his material and moral existence was violated as his old clothes were not taken into the penal institution.
Assessment of the Court
The State’s obligation to respect the right of the individual to protect and develop his/her material and spiritual existence requires that public authorities should not arbitrarily interfere with this right and should not cause physical and mental harm to individuals. This is the negative duty of the state arising from the obligation to respect the physical and mental integrity of the individual.
In the concrete case, with the decision of the Administration and Observation Board, the change of clothes of convicts and detainees was restricted and it was forbidden to give non-new clothes to convicts and detainees. When this decision, which constitutes the basis of the implementation, is examined, it is understood that there is concern about the difficulties caused by the detainees’ and convicts’ handing over clothes to their families for washing and the security risk arising during the return of the clothes given for washing to the penal and execution institution.
It should be underlined that due to the increase in the occupancy rate of penal institutions after the coup attempt and the insufficient staff, the concern about the weakness in the supervision of the clothes delivered by the families to the penal institutions to be given to the detainees and convicts is not unfounded. Since the decision of the Administration and Observation Board states that only new clothes will be allowed to be accepted into the penal institution, it can be said that the purpose of the practice is to prevent detainees and convicts from handing their clothes to their families for washing. In this context, it should be considered reasonable to impose restrictive regulations on the delivery of clothes by families to detainees and convicts in order to ensure the security of the penal institution.
However, in order for the intervention to be compatible with the requirements of the democratic social order, the tool chosen for the intervention must be suitable for achieving the aim of ensuring the security of the penal institution. In the concrete case, there is no claim by the public authorities that the applicant handed over the clothes in the penal institution to his family for washing. The main claim of the applicant is that his clothes at home, which were wearable, were not taken into the penal institution.
Considering that the applicant was prevented from taking his clothes at home into the penal institution, not the clothes he had handed over to his family to be washed, it is difficult to accept that the chosen tool is suitable for the foreseen purpose, because in this case, it is not possible to serve the purpose of preventing detainees and convicts from handing over their existing clothes to their families to be washed, which is aimed by limiting the acceptance of clothes to new clothes. In this context, it is not understood what the difference is between the delivery of new clothes to the detainees and convicts by their families and the delivery of clothes that are not new but in a wearable condition.
On the other hand, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the measure in the concrete case responds to a compelling social need. Since the applicant wanted to receive his clothes in wearable condition at home, not the ones he had handed over to his family to be washed, it is difficult to accept that limiting the clothes to be admitted to the penal institution to new clothes responds to a social need.
Although it was stated in the decision of the execution judge that the term “new” in Article 7 of the Regulation on the Items and Substances that can be kept in Penal Execution Institutions should not necessarily be interpreted as new labelled clothes, the definitions in the decision of the Administration and Observation Board were taken as basis regarding what should be understood by new clothes. In the decision of the Board of Administration and Observation, it is stated that the clothes that have never been used or slightly used and have not been exposed to washing machines or bleach or have not been repaired – with or without labels – are considered new.
Although it can be justified to refuse to hand over clothes that are too old to be used, there is no reason that justifies the prohibition of taking old but usable clothes into the penal institution. Although it is understood in the decision of the Administration and Observation Board that slightly used clothes will be accepted within the scope of new clothes, there is no justifiable basis for not taking clothes that have been used for a long time but have not lost their wearability into the penal institution.
Moreover, the applicant claims that his financial means are not sufficient to buy new clothes. Forcing detainees and convicts with insufficient financial means to buy new clothes instead of using the ones they have at home may cause them anguish beyond being in a penal institution. Being in a penal institution does not entail a sacrifice of human dignity. Prisoners, like other individuals, have dignity worth protecting. Although penal institutions have wide discretionary powers to take measures to ensure security, the measures to be taken should not cause the detainees and convicts to suffer moral distress beyond what is required by the state of detention.
As a result, in the concrete case, it has been concluded that the interference to the applicant’s right to protect and improve his material and spiritual existence by not allowing the applicant’s clothes, which are at home and in usable condition, into the penal institution, does not respond to a compelling social need and therefore does not comply with the requirements of the democratic social order.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to protect and improve one’s material and spiritual existence was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.