SECOND SECTION

Application no. 759/13 Halil TURÄžUT against Turkey lodged on 22 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Halil Tur ÄŸ ut , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1986 and who is currently serving a prison sentence at the Buca F ‑ Type Prison in Ä° zmir .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence at the Edirne F-Type Prison and was on a hunger strike.

On 24 August 2011 the applicant requested to be taken to the infirmary because he was feeling sick. When two prison guards unlocked his cell to escort him to the infirmary, the applicant attacked them with a razor, wounding one on the arm and the other on the stomach, apparently to avenge an earlier insult by another prison guard. Fifteen or twenty other prison guards intervened shortly afterwards to restrain the applicant and beat him severely, including by kicking him while he was on the floor. The beatings continued at the infirmary where he was subsequently taken, including by the medical officer in charge. He was eventually locked in an isolation cell, where he stayed for three days.

On 5 September 2011 the applicant went to the prison infirmary to obtain a medical report attesting his injuries, but could not demand one out of fear of reprisal , when he saw that the medical officer who had ill ‑ treated him was manning the infirmary. On his way back from the infirmary, a number of prison guards, including one of those whom he had wounded, beat him severely in the stairwell.

Upon his return to his cell, the applicant ’ s cellmate S.A. recorded the injuries on the applicant ’ s body and wrote a letter to the Edirne Public Prosecutor to that effect .

On 6 September 2001 the applicant was taken before the Edirne Enforcement Judge in connection with a different matter. The applicant used this opportunity to complain about the ill-treatment he had been subjected to in the prison, including the beatings of the previous day, and requested to see the public prosecutor. The applicant also stripped off his top to show the enforcement judge his injuries. It appears that the enforcement judge reported the applicant ’ s allegations to the Edirne Public Prosecutor, but took no separate action.

On 9 September 2011 the applicant ’ s siblings addressed a petition to the Edirne Public Prosecutor, raising their concerns about the applicant ’ s state of health and complaining about the violence he had been subjected to in the prison.

On 14 September 2011 the applicant was beaten again in the stairwell by three prison guards, who kicked him on the legs and the ribs after pushing him on the ground.

Following a disciplinary investigation ini tiated into the incidents of 24 August 2011, on 15 September 2011 the applicant was sanctioned with solitary confinement for twenty days for wounding two prison officers.

On 19 September 2011 the applicant was summoned by the Edirne Public Prosecutor to give a statement in relation to his allegations of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant gave a total of two statements on that day. In the first statement, he simply claimed that he had no personal safety at the Edirne F-Type Prison, without making any specific complaints. In the second statement, after acknowledging the injuries he had inflicted on two prison guards on 24 August 2011, he complained about the severe beatings he had received during and after that incident, which he said could be verified from the security camera footages. He gave the names of five prison officers who had ill-treated him, and said he could identify the others if needed. In this second statement the applicant also complained that he had been beaten by six or seven guards on 5 September 2011 and by three guards on 14 September 2011, and that despite his requests, he was not referred f o r a medical examination after any of those incidents . He then made two further claims which he did not repeat b efore the Strasbourg Court: ( i ) that on 26 August 2011 two prison officers, one of them being the medical officer, hit him on the ear and kidneys, which was captured by the surveillance cameras; and (ii) that on 5 September 2011 he requested the prison doctor to refer him to specialists on otolaryngology and orthopaedics for examination, but the doctor granted his request only in relation to the otolaryngologist. After taking his statement, the public prosecutor referred the applicant to the Edirne Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination, noting that no such examination had been made following the incident on 24 August 2011.

The applicant was examined on the same day by a doctor at the Edirne Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted no signs of ill-treatment on his body, except for the pain he felt on the left side of his chest and left shoulder upon pressure. He recommended the applicant ’ s referral to the Edirne State Hospital for further exami nation by an orthopaedist and a specialist i n thoracic and cardiovascular diseases.

At 4.05 p.m. on the same day the applicant was examined by a specialist i n thoracic and cardiovascular diseases at the Edirne State Hospital, who detected no ecchymosis on the chest area, and no fracture on his arm. The applicant was examined at 4.15 p.m.by another doctor, who did not observe any signs of beating or injuries consistent with the use of force on his bod y, but only scars from old cuts [1] .

On 19 September 2011 the Edirne Public Prosecutor also took the statement of the applicant ’ s cellmate S.A., who claimed to have noted the following injuries on the applicant ’ s face an d body as of 5 September 2011 : bruising in both eyes; bruising at the back of both ears; nail scratches on the face; bruising on the left shoulder and nine bruises on the left side of the back towards the kidney; five bruises on the right shoulder and around the ribs and the liver; bruising on the chest and nail scratches and bruises on both feet.

In the context of the investigation initiated by the Edirne Public Prosecutor, on 19 October 2011 the applicant was asked by the prison administration to identify from photographs the prison guards or other officers who had ill-treated him. Although the photographs included all officers on duty at the relevant time, the applicant did not identify any one of them as having ill-treated him and signed a statement to th at effect. There is, however, a handwritten note by the applicant on the statement, declaring that he was forced into not identifying any of the prison officers.

Upon the request of the Edirne Public Prosecutor, on 21 October 2011 the prison administration provided copies of video footage from the relevant parts of the prison pertaining to the dates of the alleged incidents .

On 24 October 2011 the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Edirne Public Prosecutor, claiming that the prison authorities were applying pressure on him to refrain from identifying any of the perpetrators and to withdraw his complaints altogether . It app ears that he submitted a thirty ‑ nine page description of the events and perpetrators along with his complaints.

On 26 October and 1 November 2011 the Edirne Public Prosecutor interrogated seven prison officers, including one prison director, on the basis of the applicant ’ s complaints, all of whom denied the allegations against them. They stated that the force u sed against the applicant on 24 August 2011 had been strictly proportionate to the aim of restraining him, as well as preventing him from causing any further harm, as he continued to act violently even after being captured. Any injuries observed subsequently on the applicant ’ s body would, therefore, have been incurred as a result of his violent resistance. Some of the interrogated officers stated that the applicant suffered from psycho logical problems and had a self ‑ destructive and aggressive character. A number of them also stat ed that the applicant had been on a hunger strike at the relevant time. It appears that the relevant prison officers were not asked any separate questions regarding the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment on 5 and 14 September 2011.

On 3 November 2011 the Edirne Public Prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the accused officers on the basis of insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations of ill-treatment. The public prosecutor noted at the outset that the applicant had lodged hundreds of similar complaints since his recent transfer to the Edirne F-Type Prison, all of which had been carefully examined and found to be groundless. The current complaints, which the applicant had presented in a thirty-nine page letter, had similarly been examined with great scrutiny. The public prosecutor noted that the security camera footages from the relevant dates did not reveal any evidence in support of the applicant ’ s allegations. Moreover, while the applicant ’ s friend S.A. had given a detailed description of the applicant ’ s injuries, the bruises and scratches noted were consistent with the official account of events from 24 August 2011, which attributed the injuries incurred by the applicant to his violent resistance against the attempts to restrain and hold him under control. The public prosecutor underlined that the force used against the applicant had not been excessive in the circumstances. The medical reports obtained from the Edirne State Hospital similarly did not corroborate the applicant ’ s version of the events. The public prosecutor lastly recalled that t he applicant himself had stated during identification that none of the prison officers had ill-treated him, but did not refer to the applicant ’ s complaint of 24 October 2011 regarding the alleged pressure he had faced from the prison authorities to make a declaration to that effect .

On 15 June 2012 Kırklareli Assize Court rejected the applicant ’ s objection to the decision of the Edirne Public Prosecutor.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain s under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment at the Edirne F-Type Prison. He also claim s , without invoking any particular provisions of the Convention or offering any further explanations, that he was deprived of his right to life and right to complain .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment at the Edirne F-Type Prison within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention , particularly on 24 August, 5 September and 14 September 2011 ? Was the force used by the prison officers on 24 August 2011 to restrain the applicant excessive in the circumstances of the case? How many prison guards intervened to constrain the applicant? Was the applicant on a hunger strike at the relevant time?

2. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants ’ complaints of ill-treatment in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to a medical examination after the incident on 24 August 2011? Did the applicant request to see a doctor on 5 September 2011 at the prison infirmary or on 6 September 2011 before the Edirne Enforcement Judge? Did the investigation conducted by the Edirne Public Prosecutor focus solely on the incident of 24 August 2011, or did it also cover the applicant ’ s complaints of ill-treatment on 5 and 14 September 2011?

The Government are requested to submit all the medical reports issued in relation to the applicant ’ s complaints, including legible copies of the medical reports dated 19 September 2011. The Government are also requested to provide the case-files of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against the applicant following the incident of 24 August 2011, as well any medical reports obtained by the prison officers subsequent to that incident.

[1] 1. The last two lines of the medical report are mostly illegible.