Events
The vehicle in which the applicant was traveling with his two friends was stopped by law enforcement officers. The applicant and his companions were taken out of the vehicle and were caught under a criminal charge and brought to the District Police Department. The applicant, who was held here for a while, was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch in the morning.
The applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint with the public officials who carried out the arrest on the night of the incident, with a petition he submitted to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor. In summary, it was claimed in the petition that after the funeral burials, the vehicle in which the applicant was riding was stopped by the law enforcement without warning, the applicant was hit on the head with punches and kicks, and the torture continued at the police station where he was taken. In the applicant’s forensic examination report prepared on the day of the incident, the incident history was stated as assault and force.
As a result of the investigation carried out regarding the applicant’s complaint, the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the decision of the Criminal Judgeship of Peace.
In the civil case opened, the High Criminal Court decided to acquit the applicant and his accomplices, and the decision became final.
allegations
The applicant alleges that the prohibition of torture was violated due to the fact that he was beaten during the arrest process carried out by the law enforcement and at the police station where he was detained, and that an effective investigation was not carried out regarding this incident.
Court’s Evaluation
It is understood that the applicant supports the allegations that the content of the forensic examination report prepared on the day of the incident was damaged. In the decision of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor not to prosecute, it was accepted that the applicant was injured by unnamed public officials.
In the report they prepared immediately after the incident, the law enforcement officials stated that the people who got out of the vehicle resisted when they tried to be taken under control, and therefore they gradually used force against them. It is understood from the police report that there were at least sixteen police officers at the scene, including the Special Operations police. Three people were unloaded from the stopped vehicle. There is no indication that the applicants exhibited an aggressive attitude towards law enforcement or tried to escape during this time.
In the forensic examination form prepared immediately after the incident, it was stated that bruises and swelling in the left eye of the applicant and bleeding in the nose were detected, but it was stated that the injury could be repaired with simple medical intervention. In the detention entry report issued by the State Hospital, “bruises, swelling, redness in the left eye, abrasion, redness, bruises on the left shoulder, redness in the right shoulder and throat, redness on the back, bruise, graze on the left elbow, slight redness in the left renal region, bleeding in the nose.” findings are included. In addition, it was stated in the report that computed tomography was required but the device in the hospital did not work.
Within the scope of the investigation, no forensic medicine report was received about the applicant or the applicant was not examined with a tomography device with advanced imaging capability. The applicant, who was arrested after being taken into custody, received treatment for health problems while he was in the penitentiary institution. This situation casts a shadow on the accuracy of the determination that the injury stated in the first forensic examination form can be repaired with a simple medical intervention. For this reason, it must be accepted that the applicant was injured in such a way that bone fractures occurred on his face due to the police intervention applied during the arrest process.
Although the police officers who carried out the arrest recorded that the applicant resisted during the arrest, this situation was not clearly demonstrated by any other evidence such as video recordings or impartial witness statements. In the scope of the investigation, the statements of the law enforcement officers were not taken on this issue, and in the decision not to prosecute, it was accepted that the applicant resisted the law enforcement as stated in the report. Even if it is accepted that the applicant resisted, it is clear that what kind of an intervention aimed at eliminating the resistance needs explanation, since the injury that occurred has reached the size of a fracture in the face area, while there is no explanation in the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office regarding this issue. On the other hand, according to the report drawn up and the development of the incident, it seems probable that the applicant would only cause minor injury with the proportional intervention of the law enforcement.
In the light of these findings, although it has not been clarified how the injury was committed due to the deficiencies in the investigation, it is understood that the intervention by public officials to the applicant, who was not accused of committing a physical attack, was disproportionate even if it was assumed that it was necessary, despite the difficulty of the job conditions, considering the severity of the injury.
Following the applicant’s complaint, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation and requested the collection of some evidence that could help to shed light on the incident. Despite the request of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor, it has been observed that there has been no research on whether there is a video recording in the vehicles belonging to the law enforcement at the scene or in the buildings where there is a possibility of security cameras such as workplaces in the vicinity. It has been understood that the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor, which took over the investigation file upon the decision of lack of jurisdiction, did not take any steps to remedy this deficiency.
Within the scope of the investigation, it was understood that even if the police officer who carried out the arrest process was in the capacity of a witness, their statements were not taken and what they had to say about the allegations was not asked, and that the eyewitnesses of the incident were not identified and their statements were not consulted. These deficiencies raise doubts that the Prosecutor’s Office is trying to learn the truth seriously.
As a result, it is not possible to mention that an effective investigation was carried out within the scope of the allegations made by public officials regarding the injury of the applicant during his arrest.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the material and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture have been violated for the reasons explained.
