Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant’s son, S.M., fell sick for being a drug addict while he was held in a prison. Following the check of his pulse and blood pressure at the prison’s infirmary, he was taken back to his ward.

On the same day, after falling sick again, his ward-mates tried to intervene in his sickness by pouring cold water on him. Despite the medical intervention by 112 emergency team arriving at the incident scene upon a call by the prison officers, S.M. lost his life. The chief public prosecutor’s office (“prosecutor’s office”) launched an immediate investigation into the incident. At the end of the investigation, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. The applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor’s decision was dismissed, and thus the said decision became final.

Besides, at the end of the disciplinary investigation conducted by the prison disciplinary authority against the officers in charge (chief guardians, guardians and health officer) and S.M.’s ward-mates, the former found no ground to impose any sanction on these persons, and the relevant decisions also became final.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that the right to life had been violated due the failure on the part of the prison administration to take measures in order to prevent the death of his son who had been a prisoner, as well as the failure of the investigation authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.

The Court’s Assessment

Having been taken to the prison, on 20 January 2015, S.M. was examined by the infirmary doctor and was prescribed drugs with the diagnosis of "substance dependence". As can be understood from the witness statements taken within the scope of the investigation conducted into the incident, S.M. had been a drug addict and had many times experienced crisis due to the lack of narcotic drugs since the time he had been admitted to the prison. Moreover, S.M. had fallen sick in the morning on 24 January 2015 due to his drug dependence, and then he was taken to the infirmary by the prison officers. Under these circumstances, the prison administration cannot be said to have had been unaware of S.M.'s disorder.

The applicant also claimed that there had been interruptions in the camera footage obtained from the prison and that there was no information that the officers had intervened in the incident on time and in an appropriate manner.

The prosecutor’s office received expert reports after having the footages obtained within the scope of the investigation examined. Relying on the findings established in the said reports, the prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. In the examination of the said reports, it was discovered that the footages of the incident and of the period before the incident had been analysed but no finding had been reached regarding the alleged interruptions in the footages.

In the present case, although the general condition of S.M. had been checked through security cameras, he had not been treated appropriately. Nor had he been taken to a health-care institution. In view of these findings, it appears that the prison administration had failed to take reasonable measures so as to prevent the real and imminent danger posed to the deceased’s life, thus failing to fulfil their obligation to protect life.

As for the effectiveness of the investigation, the applicant claimed that despite the lack of information regarding the fact that the deceased had undergone a proper treatment and subjected to an appropriate medical intervention in the prison, a decision of non-prosecution had been issued through an insufficient examination.

According to the autopsy report issued by the İstanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, the exact cause of the impugned death had resulted from drug withdrawal syndrome. The prosecutor’s office, referring to the relevant autopsy report, examined the time elapsed since the deceased had fallen sick until his death and found no negligence attributable to the prison administration, thereby issuing a decision of non-prosecution.

The prosecutor’s office failed to make an assessment as to the failure to provide a medical treatment to S.M. who had been diagnosed with substance dependence after being admitted to the prison. It disregarded whether the failure to closely follow the health condition of S.M., who had not been referred to the health-care institution, in a way that would enable a medical intervention could be considered as a simple error of judgment or negligence.  As a result, the criminal investigation into S.M.'s death had not been conducted effectively.

Consequently, the Court has found violations of the obligation to protect life as well as the procedural aspect of the right to life.