Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant, who was a university student and living in Eskişehir with his family at the material time, complained that he had been heavily beaten by police officers and a civil person at a demonstration he had participated in within the scope of the Gezi Park events. In this regard, he obtained a medical report from the military hospital, stating that he had been battered and thus suffered loss of teeth. The chief public prosecutor’s office (“the prosecutor’s office”) launched an investigation into the incident. As a result of the disciplinary investigation conducted against the police officers, three officers who had been involved in the incident were given disciplinary punishment of suspension of promotion. The prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution with respect to four police officers who had allegedly injured the applicant. The applicant, whose challenge against the decision of non-prosecution was dismissed by the magistrate judge, lodged an individual application.

In addition, as a result of the criminal case, a police officer was acquitted; two police officers were imposed judicial fines but the pronouncement of the said judgment was suspended; and the civil person in question was imposed a judicial fine. The sentences of all accused were reduced by 1/6 through discretionary mitigation in accordance with Article 62 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant’s appeal against the suspension of the pronouncement of judgment was dismissed by the assize court. The applicant lodged an individual application in this regard. He also challenged the acquittal of a police officer as well as the final conviction of the civil person.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that he had been battered during the Gezi Park events, in breach of the prohibition of torture.

The Court’s Assessment

Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees everyone’s right to protect and improve their corporeal and spiritual existence, as well as it provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or mal-treatment and that no one shall be subjected to penalties or treatment incompatible with human dignity.

In the present case, the criminal court convicted the accused of actual bodily harm. Thus, it was found established by the court that the applicant had been subject to ill-treatment by three persons two of which had been police officers. The Court therefore limited the scope of its review to whether the substantive and procedural obligations under the prohibition of torture, depending on the sufficiency of the sanctions imposed on the perpetrators, were fulfilled.

Even though the injuries sustained by the applicant, except for those related to his teeth, could be treated with a simple medical intervention, it should not be disregarded that the incident had been committed by more than one person using sticks and truncheons in the middle of the street at night. Since the fractures and losses of teeth amounted to injuries that could not be treated with a simple medical intervention and this situation might further damage the applicant's dignity, the said act was considered within the scope of the prohibition of torture.

The trial court failed to provide any justification as to why the judicial fine at the minimum level was imposed on three of the accused while there had been another alternative sanction such as prison sentence. It has been concluded that the sanction imposed on the police officers for battering the applicant, who was found not to have violated the peaceful nature of the demonstration and thus against whom no investigation was conducted, was disproportionate to the prohibition of torture.

The sanction imposed on the police officers failed to create the impression that the acts of ill-treatment would not be tolerated in any way. Rather, a disproportionate judicial fine was imposed as well as the pronouncement of the judgment was suspended, which mitigated the consequences of the impugned act. Thus, the procedural obligation of conducting an effective investigation under the prohibition of the torture has been infringed.

Given the fact that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment with regard to two police officers as well as the judicial fine imposed on the relevant civil person did not provide sufficient redress for the applicant, the applicant did not lose his victim status. Hence, the substantive aspect of the prohibition of torture was also violated. 

Consequently, the Court has found violations of both procedural and substantive aspects of the prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution.