Violation Of The Procedural Aspect Of The Prohibition Of Ill-Treatment Due To Failure To Conduct An Effective Investigation Into The Incident Of Injury
Events
The applicants were allegedly subjected to physical and verbal violence by law enforcement officers while they were in a café in Kızılay on the date of the incident when the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects held a press statement in Kızılay.
The applicants filed a complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office), claiming that while they were sitting in the café, law enforcement officers sprayed pepper spray inside the venue, forced them to go to the garden, where they were beaten with physical force and batons. In the forensic reports prepared for the applicants, it was stated that the applicants claimed that they had been beaten by law enforcement officers and that the first applicant had a minor injury and the second applicant had tenderness on his body.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the opinion of the Forensic Medicine Institution in order to determine the nature of the applicants’ injuries. According to the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution, the first applicant’s injury was mild to the extent that it could be eliminated by simple medical intervention. No lesion was found on the body of the second applicant.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute the suspect “Ankara Security Directorate” on the grounds that “security officers did not exceed the limit of their authorisation to use force”. The applicants’ objection to the decision of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was rejected by the Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated because their complaints were not effectively investigated despite the injuries they sustained as a result of the use of force by law enforcement officers.
The Court’s Assessment
In the event that an allegation that a person has been subjected to treatment by a state official in violation of Article 17 of the Constitution is communicated to the investigating authority, the first requirement for the commencement of the obligation to conduct an effective investigation is that the allegation in question is defensible. The defensibility of the allegation is only possible if it is supported by reasonable evidence, as well as being clear and detailed as to the facts. When the applicants’ complaints based on detailed explanations shortly after the incident and the medical reports they presented as evidence of their injuries are considered together, it is clear that the allegations of ill-treatment are defensible.
As a matter of fact, it is observed that the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office immediately initiated an investigation upon the applicants’ complaint and took the statements of the applicants in order to determine their complaints and evidence. On the other hand, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office did not investigate sufficiently in order to reveal the material truth and did not investigate whether there were camera footage or witnesses at the scene of the incident.
Furthermore, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor remained inactive in terms of identifying the persons responsible for the applicants’ injuries and did not clarify the reason and manner in which the law enforcement officers intervened in the applicants. Although it is stated in the decision of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor that the police intervened due to the applicants’ “behaviour disrupting public order”, these behaviours are not explained. On the other hand, since there are no minutes, footage or other evidence regarding the intervention to the applicants, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has not concretised the behaviour of the applicants that required the intervention of the police.
In this case, it was concluded that the injury of the applicants did not constitute an offence without discussing the reason, manner and weight of force that should have been used against the applicants. As a result, it is difficult at this stage to say that the conclusion reached by the investigating authorities is the product of an objective assessment due to the deficiencies in the investigation. It is considered that the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office did not make the necessary efforts to clarify the incident.
On the other hand, considering the lack of sufficient data on the circumstances of the incident subject to the applicants’ complaint (especially the quality of the medical reports) due to the deficiencies in the investigation, it is considered that it is not possible to make an examination in terms of the material dimension of the prohibition of ill-treatment at this stage.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the procedural dimension of the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.