Events
Police officer M.A. as a customer, he came to the applicant’s tailor shop. It is understood that there was a dispute between the applicant and M. About the trousers he dec to be shortened.A. he must have called the police to the scene. At around 16:00, the police teams who arrived at the scene took the applicant to the police station using force and initiated proceedings against him for insulting, threatening, resisting to not perform his duty, damaging property. In the forensic examination report organized after the capture process carried out using force, it was determined that the applicant was injured. It was understood that there was no detention order against the applicant at the time of his arrest, the Interview Minutes of the Public Prosecutor of the Judicial Law Enforcement Agency were prepared at 17.10 after the applicant was taken to the police headquarters, and an instruction was received to release the applicant by taking his statement. The applicant was released at 18:58.
An investigation was initiated after the applicant filed a complaint with the prosecutor General’s office and the Presidential Communication Center (CIMER) about the incident, alleging that it was discovered by police officers. During the investigation, it was investigated whether there was a camera recording of the incident, but no camera recording was found. The prosecutor general’s office decided that there was no room for prosecution regarding the applicant’s complaints, and the applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected.
Claims
The applicant alleged that the prohibition on ill-treatment had been violated due to the unlawful use of force by police officers.
Evaluation Of The Court
Statements and actions that were attributed to the applicant of the parties as a whole are considered to be in the nature of the events that lead to police intervention when the litigation, were not included in the attack physically, might not or escape danger but without a doubt, the applicant’s identity and address by editing the call sheets for the receipt of statement that is determined to be invited to the police station without applying the procedure to the child and nephew at the workplace is of the ground by bending arm back in an environment where, and to be admitted to the mounting clamp, it was assessed that there was no act to require him to be forced into the team car, that the necessary care and attention were not taken to respect the dignity and body integrity of the applicant, who was found to have been injured due to the aforementioned treatments.
Although the investigation conducted by the prosecutor general’s office concluded that the applicant’s injury was caused by the use of legal force, no assessment was made as to whether the conditions of use of the force used by public officials had been established, whether the use of force was mandatory. Considering the action to which the applicant was subjected, it was considered possible that the intervention could have a humiliating or humiliating effect, therefore, it could be qualified as treatment incompatible with human dignity, and the state was required to comply with Article 17 of the Constitution. it has been concluded that it has acted contrary to its negative obligation within the scope of the article.
As part of the investigation initiated in connection with the incident, no statements of parties and witnesses were taken. The minutes and documents issued by the police officers who were parties about an hour after the incident occurred constitute the only justification for the decision that there is no room for prosecution.
Within the scope of the circumstances of the occurrence of the concrete incident, there is a use of force carried out by public officials and an injury caused to the applicant in the face of this. As a result of the applicant’s injury, it was understood that the investigating authorities decided that there was no room for prosecution on the grounds that they had not exceeded the authority of law enforcement officers to use force in the incident. However, no concrete reason has been put forward that would require suspicious police officers to use force against the applicant. In addition, there was no evaluation in terms of the applicant’s claims that he was discovered after wearing handcuffs.
During the investigation, it was assessed that the requirements of collecting all kinds of evidence that will help determine the circumstances of the incident and the decision made as a result of the investigation should be based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all the findings obtained in the investigation were not met.
It has been concluded that an effective criminal investigation has not been carried out to identify and, if necessary, punish those responsible for actions that constitute treatment incompatible with human dignity against the applicant.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the material and procedural dimension of the ban on treatment incompatible with human dignity has been violated on the grounds described.