Events
Saturday Saturday mothers, a group called “saturday mothers” in public and claiming that their relatives have been forcibly lost, hold a sit-in protest in Galatasaray Square on Saturdays and make a press statement. Although their relatives have not disappeared, some people who claim to be human rights defenders also support the mentioned group.
Beyoğlu District Governorship 10 of the Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches. and 17. 32 of the Provincial Administration Law No. 5442 with its articles. in accordance with the article, it has decided that unauthorized sit-ins, press releases and similar events should not be allowed throughout the district on Saturday, 22/9/2018. According to the minutes dated 22/9/2018 organized by some police chiefs and officers, the group that started waiting in front of the Istanbul Branch of the Human Rights Association (Association) on the same day wanted to make a press release. The police told the group that marching and press releases would not be allowed by mentioning the Beyoğlu District Governorship’s ban decision; they warned the group with sound amplifying devices upon the group’s insistence to gather and make a press release. The group, whose body was directed into the Association using force, was dispersed at 13.00. There are also applicants in the intervened group.
Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav, who claims to be a human rights defender, has requested that an investigation be conducted against the police chief and his officers who were working on Çukuklu Çeşme Street on the date of the incident in terms of torture, intentional wounding, threats and abuse of office crimes due to the police intervention. The Prosecutor General’s Office has immediately launched a criminal investigation into the matter. According to the forensic report obtained within the scope of this investigation, the applicant Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav was injured to an extent that could not be remedied by a simple medical intervention.
The applicant Ali January, who claimed that his brother had been forcibly lost, also submitted a copy of the petition submitted by the applicant Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav to the chief prosecutor’s office on 8/10/2018 to the chief prosecutor’s office. The forensic report taken as part of the investigation described pain and tenderness in the left shoulder.
As a result of the investigations, the prosecutor general’s office has decided that there is no place for prosecution. The applicants’ objection to this decision was rejected by the criminal court of peace (closed) stating that the minutes issued by law enforcement officials should be respected unless otherwise fixed by concrete evidence, and according to these minutes, interference was made within the limits of the authority to use force against the applicants who resisted in the incident.
The Allegations
The applicants claimed that the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches was violated due to the ban on ill-treatment, the prohibition of press releases by the civil authority and the interference of law enforcement officers with the press release requested due to this ban, due to the injury of some people as a result of the use of force by law enforcement officers and the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted on this incident.
The Court’s Assessment
From the Direction of the Applicant Ali January
In the concrete incident, the applicant claimed that he was injured, Decapitated, and pinned between the shields and the wall for a long time despite having difficulty breathing as a result of disproportionate use of force. Despite this, the applicant did not receive any medical report on the day of the incident and waited until 8/10/2018 to apply to the prosecutor general’s office. There was also no mention of a physical finding in the report prepared sixteen days after the incident that was the subject of the application. The cause of the pain and tenderness in the left shoulder described in the report is unclear. The applicant claimed that he had not received a judicial report after the incident, but that some people had received a judicial report on the effects of the intervention they had been subjected to on the day of the incident. However, it is clear that these reports do not prove that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment. Interfering with a meeting or demonstration march by using law enforcement force, even if it is peaceful, does not automatically violate the ban on ill-treatment of persons who participate in a meeting or demonstration march but have not been subjected to the force used.
Under these circumstances, it should be accepted that the applicant cannot have a justified expectation of conducting a more in-depth investigation, since his claim that he was subjected to ill-treatment is not defensible and he did not provide the prosecutor general’s office with more solid grounds for his claim. Because in a situation where the claim that the prohibition of ill-treatment has been violated is not defensible, the investigative authorities cannot be obliged to identify a responsible person and conduct an investigation aimed at ensuring that this person is punished.
The Constitutional Court decided that the claim that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated by the applicant Ali January was inadmissible on the grounds explained.
From the Direction of the Applicant Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav
There is a determination made by law enforcement that the applicant had actions that would cause the use of force in the concrete incident, and there is no evidence in the investigation file subject to the application. In addition, law enforcement officials directed the group, including the applicant, only to the Association and did not open a space for group members who did not want to join the Association to Decamp. As a result of this, the applicant was stuck between the shields and the wall along with other people in a very narrow street and was injured to an extent that could not be remedied by simple medical intervention. Dec. Since force was not used in a mandatory situation and in a proportionate manner, the treatment to which the applicant was subjected was characterized as torture.
As for the allegations regarding the violation of the procedural dimension of the torture ban regarding the obligation of effective investigation, the prosecutor general’s office immediately initiated a criminal investigation after the applicant’s complaint. However, it has been determined that there are some important shortcomings in the investigation. Despite the fact that the requirements of the document written to the Istanbul Police Directorate were not fully fulfilled in this regard, the prosecutor general’s office did not make any effort to fulfill the instructions that were not fulfilled. As a result, this situation led to the Istanbul Security Directorate sending only the camera recordings taken by law enforcement officers to the investigation file and the statements of the law enforcement officers who used force against the applicant could not be taken because their identities were not identified. In addition, the external memory containing the video recordings related to the incident subject to the application submitted by the applicant to the chief prosecutor’s office was not examined by the chief prosecutor’s office and was not examined by an expert witness.
Despite the judicial reports prepared about the applicant, the prosecutor general’s office did not make any statement that force was used against the applicant in a mandatory situation and in a proportionate manner. Furthermore, he decided that there was no room for prosecution by stating that the evidence and evidence that required a public trial to be opened against the law enforcement officers on the grounds that they had hit the applicant could not be obtained. However, although there was no indication in the law enforcement records that the applicant had taken actions that would lead to the use of force, the judge’s office stated that law enforcement officials had intervened within the limits of their authority to use force.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the material and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture have been violated in respect of Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav on the grounds described above.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking