SECOND SECTION

Application no. 15442/08 Mehmet Nuri TANIÅž against Turkey lodged on 21 February 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mehmet Nuri Tanı ÅŸ , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975 and who is currently serving a prison sentence in the Bolu F ‑ Type Prison . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Vargün and Ms D. Bay ı r , lawyers practising in Ankara.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 31 October 2006 the applicant, who was serving a prison sentence in the TekirdaÄŸ F-Type Prison, was informed by the prison authorities that he had received a parcel. While he was being accompanied by one of the prison guards to collect the parcel, he saluted a fellow inmate passing through the corridor. The guard, who was apparently very much annoyed by this brief interaction, started insulting and mocking the applicant. The applicant did not respond or react otherwise to the guard.

When they reached the parcel room, the guard ordered the applicant to wait outside, and the applicant complied. The guard then yelled at him to move further away from the door and to stand against the wall, following which warning he pushed the applicant forcefully against the wall. In response, the applicant told the guard that he had no right to touch him, at which point the guard allegedly started punching the applicant in the face and kicking him on the legs, while shouting insults at him. Although the applicant restrained himself from hitting back and sought only to protect his face with his hands, the guard called on his colleagues to intervene, claiming that the applicant was attacking him. A number of other guards in the vicinity ran towards them and started hitting the applicant. Upon being informed of the incident, the prison warden ordered for the applicant “to be taken away”.

The applicant was subsequently taken to an individual cell smaller than ten square meters, where a group of guards continued to insult and threaten him. After a couple of hours, a number of guards came to the cell to hand the applicant his belongings, and assaulted him once again. He was kept in that cell for ten days.

Arguing that he had sustained a broken nose, injuries on his upper and lower lips, serious wounds on his knee, swellings on different parts of his head and visible bruises on his eyes on account of the blows he had received from the prison guards, the applicant requested to be taken to the prison infirmary. On 1 November 2006 the applicant was examined by the infirmary doctor. Although he was not allowed to see the report, he had noticed the doctor noting down his injuries in detail.

Later on the same day, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the TekirdaÄŸ Public Prosecutor against the prison guards who had allegedly ill ‑ treated him.

On 6 November 2006 the applicant was sanctioned with five days of solitary confinement by the Prison Disciplinary Board as a disciplinary sanction for having insulted and threatened a number of prison officers. It was noted in the disciplinary decision that contrary to the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment by the prison guards, the medical report issued shortly after the incident had found no injuries on the applicant ’ s body.

It appears that based on the information available in the disciplinary decision regarding the outcome of his medical examination, the applicant lodged a further complaint with the TekirdaÄŸ Public Prosecutor against the prison doctor, whom he accused of misconduct for having issued a false medical report.

On 24 January 2007 the Tekirdağ Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the accused prison guards and doctor. The public prosecutor declared that contrary to his allegations, the applicant had not been assaulted by the prison guards on the relevant day, but had only been warned a number of times to stop interacting with the other inmates while waiting outside the parcel room. Instead of complying with these orders, the applicant had threatened and attempted to attack the guards. On account of his rowdy behaviour , he had been placed in a single-person cell for security reasons. The doctor who had examined him the next day had moreover noted no signs of physical violence on the applicant ’ s body. The public prosecutor highlighted in this connection that he had interrogated the prison doctor in relation to the applicant ’ s allegations, and the doctor had testified to the accuracy of his medical findings and denied all accusations against him. The public prosecutor lastly referred to the outcome of the disciplinary investigation instituted against the prison guards involved in the incident, which had cleared the guards of any wrongdoing. In the light of the evidence before him, the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded.

On 19 February 2007 the applicant objected to the decision of the TekirdaÄŸ Public Prosecutor. He argued that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts accurately and requested the review of the video footage from the cameras placed on the prison corridor as proof of his allegations of ill-treatment. He further suggested that the prison doctor might have changed his medical report under duress.

On 2 October 2007 the Çorlu Assize Court rejected the applicant ’ s objection.

On account of the breathing problems he continued to experience following his nose injury, which was not being treated in the prison, the applicant requested to be referred to a hospital. Accordingly, on 10 January 2008 the applicant was taken to the TekirdaÄŸ State Hospital. However, he was not subjected to a proper medical examination at the hospital: the doctor only prescribed him a medicine after listening to his complaints, without carrying out a physical examination.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article s 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was ill-treated at the TekirdaÄŸ F-Type Prison and that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was not conducted effectively .

The applicant also maintains under Article 3 that he was not provided with a proper medical treatment for his broken nose, which caused him severe breathing problems and psychological distress.

ITMarkFactsComplaintsEnd

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. ( a ) Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention by the prison guards at the TekirdaÄŸ F-Type Prison ?

  (b) Having regard to the procedural protection against ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 IV), did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment, in compliance with th e requirements of Article 3? Did the TekirdaÄŸ Public Prosecutor examine the video footage from the camera located in the corridor where the applicant claimed to have been beaten?

The Government are kindly requested to submit a copy of the file of the investigation conducted by the Tekirdağ Public Prosecutor into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, including the medical report(s) issued in relation to the applicant ’ s allegations and the statements taken from the applicant, the accused prison guards and the prison doctor.

2. Was the applicant provided with adequate medical treatment in relation to the injuries he sustained as a result of his alleged ill-treatment (in particular the breathing difficulties connected to the blow he claims to have received to his nose) as required by Article 3 of the Convention ( Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96 , ECHR 2000 XI )?

The Government are kindly requested to supply documents and reports pertaining to the medical treatment the applicant received within and outside the prison in relation to his health problems, including copies of his requests seeking treatment .