Events
By the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board at the time of the applicant’s detention, a restriction was placed on the change of clothing of convicts and detainees. Accordingly, it was decided that old clothing items will only be allowed to be replaced with new ones, and clothes that have been exposed to a washing machine or bleach or repaired will not be allowed to be taken to a penitentiary institution. The applicant applied to the execution judge and requested that this restriction be lifted. The execution judge rejected the request.
The high criminal court also rejected the appeal on the grounds that the decision of the execution judge was not contrary to procedure and law.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his right to protect and develop his material and spiritual existence was violated due to the fact that his old clothes were not taken to the penitentiary institution.
Evaluation Of The Court
The obligation of the state to respect the right to protect and develop a person’s material and spiritual existence primarily requires that public authorities do not arbitrarily interfere with this right and do not cause physical and spiritual harm to people. This is the negative duty of the state, which arises from the obligation to respect the integrity of the body and soul of the individual.
In a concrete case, by the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board, a restriction was imposed on the change of clothes of convicts and detainees, and the provision of non-new clothes to detainees and convicts was prohibited. When this decision, which is the basis of the application, was examined, it was understood that prisoners and convicts were concerned about the difficulties caused by the inspection of delivering clothes to their families for washing, and the security risk posed during the retrieval of clothes given for washing to the penitentiary and execution institution.
After the coup attempt, the increase in the occupancy rate of the penitentiary by families due to lack of staff and prisoners to be given to the control of the penitentiary there is a weakness in clothes that are delivered to it should be underlined that the concern is not misplaced. Since the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board stated that only new clothes will be allowed to be admitted to the penitentiary institution, it can be said that the purpose of the application is to prevent detainees and convicts from handing over their clothes to their families for washing. In this context, it should be considered reasonable to make restrictive arrangements for the delivery of clothing to detainees and convicts by families in order to ensure the safety of the penitentiary institution.
However, the compliance of the intervention with the requirements of the democratic social order depends on the fact that the tool chosen for the intervention is convenient in order to achieve the goal of ensuring the security of the penitentiary institution. In the concrete case, there is no claim by the public authorities that the applicant handed over the clothes in the penitentiary institution to his family for washing. The main claim of the applicant is that his clothes, which are at home and are wearable, are not taken to the penitentiary institution. It is difficult to accept that the selected vehicle is suitable for the intended purpose when it is observed that the applicant has not handed it over to his family to be washed, but that his clothes at home are prevented from being taken to the penitentiary institution.Because in this case, it does not serve the purpose of preventing detainees and convicts who are targeted by limiting the acceptance of clothing to new clothing from handing over their existing clothes to their families for washing. In this context, it is not understood how there is a difference between the delivery of new clothes by the family to the prisoners and decicts and the delivery of non-new but wearable clothing.
On the other hand, in these conditions, it cannot be said that the measure in a concrete event responds to a mandatory social need. It is difficult to accept that limiting the clothes to be accepted to the penitentiary institution to new clothes responds to a social need, since the applicant wants to take delivery of his wearable clothes that are at home, not those that he has handed over to his family to be washed.
Article 7 of the Regulation on Articles and Substances that may be Kept in Penitentiary Institutions in the decision of the execution judge. although it was stated in the article that the term “new one” should not necessarily be interpreted in the form of a new labeled outfit, the definitions in the decision of the Administration and the Supervisory Board were based on what should be understood from the new outfit. In the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board -labeled or unlabeled- it was stated that clothes that have never been used or underused and have not been exposed to a washing machine or bleach or have not been repaired are considered new. Although it may be justified not to hand over obsolete clothes that cannot be used to prisoners, there is no reason to prohibit the taking of old but usable clothes to the penitentiary institution. Although it is understood that underused clothing will also be accepted as part of the new clothing in the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board, there is no justifiable reason why clothes that have been used for a long time but have not lost their wearability should not be taken to the penitentiary institution.
Moreover, the applicant claims that his financial means are not suitable for buying new clothes. Forcing detainees and convicts who do not have sufficient financial means to buy new clothes instead of using those in their homes can lead to suffering beyond being in a penitentiary institution. Being in a penitentiary institution does not require a waiver of human dignity. Prisoners, like other individuals, have dignity worthy of protection. Although prisons have wide discretion in taking measures to ensure security, the measures to be taken should not lead to spiritual sadness beyond what is required by the state of detention of detainees and convicts.
As a result, a concrete case of clothes that are available in the house to the penitentiary taken by the applicant in the applicant’s physical and spiritual existence, and the interference with the right to development a mandatory protection did not respond to the needs of society and, therefore, it was decided that does not comply with the requirements of the Democratic social order.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to protect and develop a person’s material and spiritual existence has been violated on the grounds described.