Communicated on 18 February 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 66859/12 DiÄŸdem ARPALÄ° and others against Turkey lodged on 23 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants Diğdem A rpali , Çağlar Arpali and Necmiye A rpali , born in 1973, 1974 and 1951 respectively, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by M r Turgut Kazan , a lawyer practising in Istanbul .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows.

The first two applicants ’ father and the third applicant ’ s husband Enver Arpal i worked as the Deputy Secretary General of the Y ü z ü nc ü Yıl University in the city of Van. A criminal investigation was launched by a prosecutor following an anonymous complaint whereby it was alleged that there had been irregularities in the handling of a public tender concluded by the Y ü z ü nc ü Yıl University. In the course of the investigation, on 11 July 2005 Enver Arpal i was taken into pre-trial detention in a prison. The accusations against him included involvement in an illegal tendering and establishing an illegal organisation with a view to using force and intimidation to gain unlawful financial advantage.

On 19 August 2005 Enver Arpali ’ s request to examine the investigation file was refused on the grounds of confidentiality.

On 25 August 2005 and 26 September 2005 Enver Arpali submitted petitions objecting to his pre-trial detention. In his petitions he also stated, among other things, that his mental health was disturbed, his health deteriorated and he was unable to carry the burden of the accusations against him. Subsequently the Van Assize Court decided to prolong his pre-trial detention.

On 31 August 2005 the Van Prosecution Office gave a decision of non-jurisdiction for certain offences, but decided to continue investigating the accusations concerning the setting up of an illegal organisation and irregularities in tendering process.

On 19 September 2005 Enver Arpali filled in an order form to the prison administration to request two lengths of rope to use as a washing line in his cell.

On 13 November 2005 Enver Arpali committed suicide in his cell by hanging himself from a metal water pipe by using the two ropes supplied by the prison authorities. His body was discovered by his cell mates.

On the same day the Van Prosecution Office took witness statement f rom the detainee O.S. who was detained in the same cell as Enver Arpal i . O.S. stated the following:

“... As far as I know, Enver Arpal i had serious sleeping problems since the day of his arrival in the prison for which he was taking sleeping pills. From time to time he told me that he could not accept the accusations against him which, he added, were also causing grave concern to his family. For this reason he seemed to be in a state of depression. When we told him to go to the hospital he said that he did not want to go to a hospital with his hands cuffed ... If I am not mistaken, approximately one and a half month s ago, during a conversation he told me that one of his friends had a child that had committed suicide by hanging himself. We talked a lot about this; in fact he spoke to an official from the Directorate of Religious Affairs [ Diyanet Görevlisi ] who comes to the prison regularly, and asked him questions about suicide, destiny, and also some questions about religion ...”

During the preliminary investigation into Enver Arpal i ’ s death some of his family members , including two of the applicants , were also heard by the prosecution office . T hey maintained that they had been aware that Mr Arpali ’ s p s y cho logical health had deteriorated but added that he had not given any indications that he w ould commit suicide and th us his suicide had been unexpected.

On 16 January 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the Van Prosecution Office that during his det ention Enver Arpal i had not applied to any health cent re for his physical or psychological problems other than a visit to a dental unit for a problem with one of his tee th.

On 3 March 2006 the Van Prosecution Office decided not to instigate a criminal investigation on the grounds that Enver Arpali had committed suicide of his own volition and that no one had been responsible for his death.

On 15 March 2006 the applicants filed an administrative action and claimed compensation for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages stemming from the administrative authorities ’ alleged responsibility in Enver Arpali ’ s death. They maintained in their petition that Enver Arpali had explicitly expressed having psychological problems but that the prison administration had not taken any action to monitor his health or to prevent the suicide. They further maintained that the investigation had been delayed in a negligent fashion ; it had been the prosecution office ’ s statutory duty t o prepare the indictment promptly after 31 August 2005, the date it had been decided to continue with the investigation into the offences in question, but that had not been done. They maintained that Enver Arpali ’ s arrest had been unlawful because he had been the only person in the investigation arrested for setting up an illegal organisation , an offence which, according to the statute, could be committed by at least three persons. They also maintained that the decisions to continue Enver Arpali ’ s detention on remand had been taken without sufficient reasoning, contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. The combination of the foregoing, the applicants argued, had eventually caused his psychological problems.

On 29 June 2007 the Van Administrative Court decided , by a majority of two to one, to reject the case on the grounds that En ver Arpali ’ s death had been unexpected and unforeseeable. According to the administrative court, Mr Arpali had not demonstrated any tendency to commit suicide and his suicide and its preparation had taken place without anyone noticing. T herefore the public authorities could not be held responsible for not having taken any precautions to prevent the suicide.

The dissenting judge of the administrative court stated in her dissenting opinion that an administrative investigation had been carried out into the suicide and according to the file of that investigation, Mr Arpali had complained of having sleeping problems to the doctor who had temporarily worked for the prison. One of his cell mates had told the investigators that Mr Arpali had displayed symptoms indicating that he might have been depressed. The dissenting judge also noted that the prison wardens had described Mr Arpali as an introverted and distress ed person; his telephone conversations with his wife during his det ention had demonstrated his disturbed mental stat e. The dissenting judge noted that the deputy of the prison had stated that the psychologist C.G. working at the prison had not performed her duty well and had not examined Mr Arpali during his detention because she had been away often on sick leave or on annual leave. There had been no permanent doctor or health care specialist in the prison and the infirmary had been operated and the medicines dispensed by one of the wardens. Thus, Mr Arpali had never been examined by the prison psychologist and this failure had not been acted upon by the prison administration.

The dissenting judge added that, according to the Regulations on Arrest, Detention and Questioning of Suspects , all objects by which inmates could possibly harm themselves should be prohibited in prisons. However another set of regulations, namely the Regulation for Possession of Items and Materials in Penal Institutions, had allowed laundry ropes to be kept and used by the inmates and this regulation in itself had posed risks for detainees. Indeed, it had been established that Enver Arpali had ordered two laundry lines.

On 26 January 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal lodged by the applicants and approved the decision of the Van Administrative Court.

On 12 April 2010 the applicants applied for rectification of the decision. On 30 November 2011 their request was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court. On 8 March 2012 the decision was served on the applicants.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to take the necessary measures to protect Enver Arpali ’ s life. They maintain that, throughout the detention Enver Arpali ’ s psychological problems were apparent to the authorities. Indeed, although he expressed in his own petitions that his psychological wellbeing was disturbed, he was not provided with the necessary health care. They complain that the existence of metal pipes in the cells from which inmates can suspend themselves and the availability of laundry ropes eased his suicide.

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the failure to provide medical treatment for Enver Arpali during his detention constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that there is no effective remedy for the human rights breaches which take place in prisons. Although Enver Arpal i informed the domestic courts about his psychological problems, he was unable to obtain any help.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicants ’ relative ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

In this connection, were any reasonable steps taken to assess whether he had been a suicide risk ? If so, were all measures , judged as reasonable within the scope of the national authorities ’ powers, taken in order to avoid that risk and protect his right to life (see Çoşelav v. Turkey , no. 1413/07, §§ 57 and 62, 9 October 2012 , and Güveç v. Turkey , no. 70337/01, § § 92 and 97 , ECHR 2009 (extracts))?

2. Has the applica nts ’ relative been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment , in breach of Article 3 of the Convention ?

To that end, was he provided with adequate medical help for his alleged psychological problems (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95 , §§ 111 and 113, ECHR 2001 ‑ III , and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 50390/99, § 57 , ECHR 2003 ‑ V ) ?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII) and procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), w ere the proceedings in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention?