Individual Application

The Facts

The police officer M.A. visited the applicant’s tailor shop as a customer.  As a result of a dispute with the applicant over the shortening of trouser legs, M.A. called the police to the incident scene.  At around 4 p.m. the police teams arrived at the incident scene and took the applicant to the police centre by using force and took action against him for the offences of defamation, threat, resisting to prevent officers from performing their duties, and causing damage to property. The forensic examination report issued as a result of the applicant’s arrest by use of force indicated an injury on his body. It has been understood that there was not any order for the applicant’s placement in custody at the time of his arrest, that the Report on Communication between Judicial Police and Public Prosecutor was drawn up at 5.10 p.m. after the applicant had been taken to the police centre, and that an order was issued to release the applicant after his statement had been taken. At 6.58 p.m. the applicant was released.

An investigation was initiated upon the applicant’s complaint filed with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Communications Centre of the Presidency (“CİMER”) about the alleged battery against him by the police officers. Within the scope of the investigation, an inquiry was conducted to establish whether there was any video footage. However, no video recording was found. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and the objection filed by the applicant against this decision was rejected.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant alleged that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated on account of the unlawful use of force by the police officers.

The Court’s Assessment

As a result of the assessment of the acts imputed to the applicant and the statements of the parties as a whole, it has been considered that the incident giving rise to the police intervention was of a nature of a legal dispute and that there was not any conduct requiring the police officers to handcuff the applicant by forcing him to the ground and twisting his arms behind his back in his workplace in an environment where his child and his nieces were present and to force him to get into the police vehicle without applying the procedure of issuing a summons and inviting the applicant, whose identity and address were known, to the police centre to give his statement despite the fact that he had not carried out a physical attack, that he did not pose a risk of danger or absconding and that his identity and address had already been established. In this regard, it has been concluded that due diligence and caution was not shown in securing respect for the honour and physical integrity of the applicant who was proven to have been injured as a result of the treatment at issue.

Although as a result of the investigation carried out by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office it was concluded that the applicant’s injury had been caused by the lawful use of force, an assessment was not made as to whether the conditions for the use of such force by the public officers had been satisfied and whether the use of such force had been necessary. As a result of the assessment of the treatment against the applicant, it has been considered that the interference might have a humiliating or degrading impact and could thus be deemed to fall within the scope of treatment incompatible with human dignity, and it has been concluded that the State acted in breach of its negative obligation under Article 17 of the Constitution.

Within the scope of the investigation into the incident, no statement was taken from the parties and witnesses. The reports and documents drawn up by the police officers approximately one hour after the incident constituted the sole ground for the decision of non-prosecution.

In view of the established circumstances of the impugned incident, it appears that the public officers had recourse to the use of force and thus caused the applicant’s injury. It has been understood that the investigating authorities issued a decision of non-prosecution on the ground that the police officers did not exceed the limits of their power to use force during the incident resulting in the applicant’s arrest. However, the authorities were not able to provide a concrete reason requiring the use of force against the applicant by the suspected police officers. Moreover, an assessment was not made as to the alleged battery against the applicant after his handcuffing.

It has been considered that the authorities failed to fulfil the requirements that all the evidence capable of ascertaining the circumstances of the incident be collected and that the decision taken as a result of the investigation be based on a comprehensive, objective and impartial analysis of all the findings obtained during the investigation process.

It has been concluded that an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and, if necessary, punishment of those responsible was not carried out into the impugned acts amounting to treatment incompatible with human dignity.

Consequently, the Constitutional Court has found a violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity.