Events
The applicant in detention in a penal institution in the history of the event, according to the narrative action by the prison guards have suffered physical abuse because he wants to do, he was punished with the penalty due to disciplinary protest the violence he sees.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Prosecutor’s Office) through the penitentiary institution, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicant requested that the camera images be monitored in the complaint petition and that a medical report be prepared by being referred to the Forensic Medicine Institution. The applicant also had a roommate, E.Y.he added his petition to the complaint petition, which includes statements based on his views about the incident.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has requested the investigation to be carried out in relation to the subject of the complaint from the penitentiary institution. After the execution institution reported that no evidence or evidence confirming the allegations had been found in the investigation conducted into the applicant’s complaint, the Prosecutor General’s Office decided that there was no place to prosecute. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the criminal magistrate.
Count
The applicant alleged that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated due to the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the complaint of being subjected to violence by public officials in the penitentiary institution.
The Court’s Assessment
Medical reports are one of the most important evidence taken to determine whether a person held in a penitentiary institution has been subjected to ill-treatment if he complains and will form the basis for evaluation. 17 of the Constitution of the state. it is a document that can prove that he has not acted contrary to his obligation in the third paragraph of the article. The reports prepared immediately after the incident by detecting observation-based findings independently of the claim and defense are the most important tool that allows reaching the material truth.
Since the applicant, who is being held as a convict under the supervision and control of the state, has a very limited opportunity to present evidence, it is part of the obligation of an effective investigation to make efforts to reach those who are considered capable of illuminating the incident from the evidence he has requested to be collected by the investigative authorities. The fact that the medical report, which is one of the most important pieces of evidence in assessing whether the applicant’s claim is defensible, has not been provided Jul-tainly by the Prosecutor General’s Office is not a defect to be attributed to the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to the absence of a report supporting the applicant’s claims in the concrete case, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation does not exist. 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 some evidence, would not make his claims defensible by itself, the applicant’s expectation for an effective investigation was considered legitimate.
Although the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated an investigation upon the applicant’s complaint, it did not ensure his participation in the investigation by taking a detailed statement of the applicant’s complaint and evidence, despite the applicant’s request, it did not listen to witnesses and did not make efforts to obtain a medical report on the applicant.
On the other hand, for the effectiveness of the investigation conducted into allegations of violation of the prohibition of mistreatment by public officials, it is also necessary to ensure the independence and impartiality of the investigation in practice. The aforementioned principle requires that the investigation be de facto impartial and independent as well as legal. In the concrete case, it was assessed that the Prosecutor General’s Office did not comply with the principle that the investigation should be conducted by impartial and independent authorities, based on the opinion that the investigation was based on the research made by the penitentiary institution instead of conducting the investigation personally.
When all these shortcomings were evaluated together, it was concluded that an effective criminal investigation was not carried out in order to clarify the incident regarding the alleged acts of ill-treatment against the applicant.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the procedural dimension of the prohibition of ill-treatment has been violated on the grounds described.
By clicking here, you can access our other article examples and petition examples.