Violation Of The Procedural Aspect Of The Prohibition Of Ill-Treatment Due To Failure To Conduct An Effective Investigation Into A Complaint Of Exposure To Violence
Events
According to the applicant, who was in detention in a penal institution on the date of the incident, he was subjected to physical violence by the correction officers because he wanted to stage a sit-in protest and was penalised with disciplinary punishment for protesting against the violence.
The applicant filed a complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office) through the penal institution, alleging that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. In his complaint, the applicant requested that CCTV footage be monitored and that he be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institution for a medical report. The applicant also attached the petition of his roommate E.Y., which included his statements based on his observations about the incident, to the petition of complaint.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the penal institution to conduct an investigation into the complaint. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute the applicant after the execution institution reported that no evidence or sign was found to confirm the allegations in the investigation conducted on the applicant’s complaint. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the criminal court of peace.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated due to the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint of being subjected to violence by public officials in a penal institution.
The Court’s Assessment
Medical reports are one of the most important pieces of evidence taken for the purpose of determining whether a person held in a penal institution has been subjected to ill-treatment in case of a complaint. It is also a document that can prove that the state has not violated its obligation under the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Constitution. The reports prepared immediately after the incident by determining the findings based on observation independently of the claim and defence are the most important means of reaching the material truth.
Since the applicant, who is held as a convicted prisoner under the supervision and control of the State, has very limited opportunity to present evidence, it is a part of the obligation of effective investigation that the investigating authorities endeavour to reach the evidence that can shed light on the incident from the evidence he requested to be collected. The fact that the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office did not provide the medical report, which is one of the most important evidence in assessing whether the applicant’s claim is defensible or not, is not a defect to be attributed to the applicant.
Therefore, in the concrete case, it cannot be said that the obligation of effective investigation does not exist due to the absence of a report supporting the applicant’s allegations. In this context, since the absence of a medical report confirming the injury of the applicant, who submitted a detailed complaint petition and requested the collection of certain evidence, does not by itself render his allegations untenable, the applicant’s expectation for an effective investigation is considered legitimate.
.
Although the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation upon the applicant’s complaint, it did not ensure the applicant’s participation in the investigation by taking his detailed statement to determine his complaint and evidence, did not listen to the witnesses despite the applicant’s request and did not make efforts to obtain a medical report on the applicant.
On the other hand, for the effectiveness of the investigation into allegations of violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment by public officials, the independence and impartiality of the investigation in practice must also be ensured. The aforementioned principle requires that the investigation must be impartial and independent in practice as well as in law. In the concrete case, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, instead of conducting the investigation itself, contented itself with the research conducted by the penal execution institution and based its decision on the opinion it reached as a result of the research, which is incompatible with the principle that the investigation should be carried out by impartial and independent authorities.
When all these deficiencies are evaluated together, it is concluded that an effective criminal investigation was not carried out in order to shed light on the actions alleged to constitute ill-treatment against the applicant.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.