Events
The applicant, who was detained in a T-type penal institution, complained that the conditions were not appropriate due to the excessive number of people in the room where he was staying; he applied to the execution judge with a request to reduce the number of people in the room and remove the restrictions on being examined in the infirmary. The judge rejected the applicant’s request. The applicant’s objection to the judge’s decision was definitively rejected by the high criminal court on the grounds that the decision was in accordance with the procedure and the law.
The Allegations
The applicant claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated, stating that he could not benefit from access to health services and was kept in a crowded room at the penitentiary institution.
The Court’s Assessment
The issues that will be accepted as ill-treatment in penal institutions may arise in different ways. In order to be able to say that the prohibition of ill-treatment has been violated, the conditions of detention must have reached a minimum degree of severity beyond the inevitable level of suffering caused by the nature of the practice and which is the natural result of deprivation of liberty.
In the concrete case, it was found that the applicant was housed in wards with a personal area of just under 4 m2 (3.95 m2) for eight and fourteen non-consecutive days, the size of these wards was not sufficient and remained below the minimum standard. However, although the personal living space provided to the applicant is not sufficient, the state of detention in this area is temporary and short-term. On the other hand, this treatment occurred while the applicant had sufficient freedom of movement and was being held in an appropriate facility. For this reason, in a non-consecutive manner during the eclipse period of about thirty months and in short-term, small-scale and occasional Decrements during two periods, the conditions of the eclipse are taken into account separately and collectively, taking into account the effects on the applicant, Article 17 of the Constitution. it was concluded that the level of weight required to qualify as a prohibition of ill-treatment in the sense of the article was not reached.
It was determined that the applicant was housed in a personal space between 4 m2 and 5 m2 for almost two years of his thirty-month detention. Dec. The Constitutional Court emphasized that when making an assessment within the scope of the prohibition of ill-treatment in cases where prisoners have a minimum personal space, it is not always enough for the size of the personal living space to meet the minimum standard alone, and stated that the adequacy / inadequacy of other aspects of the conditions of detention should be examined. In the concrete case, it was determined that the applicant had access to outdoor exercise facilities beyond what is desirable in international standards during the twenty-four months in which he had a minimum personal living space, did not have any problems accessing natural light and natural air, had no lack of private use of the toilet and bathroom, compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic rules. In the light of this information, when the physical and mental effects of the conditions of detention are evaluated separately and taking into account the collective effects on the applicant, it is concluded that the minimum threshold in question has not been exceeded.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the prohibition of ill-treatment has not been violated on the grounds described.