Individual Application

The Facts

The applicants’ son M.P., shortly after having been put in the military penitentiary institution, had been taken to hospital, as his health condition had deteriorated. He afterwards died at the hospital. Within the scope of the investigation launched by the military prosecutor’s office, statements of many people were taken. They stated that M.P., who had been beaten with a thick wooden stick for five or six minutes, had been taken to hospital, as the bleeding in his head had not stopped. He had been diagnosed with body and head trauma, and then he had lost his consciousness and could not be saved despite all medical efforts.

In subsequent stages of the investigation, the investigation file was sent to the chief public prosecutor’s office for lack of jurisdiction. Within the scope of the subsequent criminal case, the assize court did not classify the offence as aggravated torture, but intentional murder. Hence, it sentenced the guardian H.G. to life imprisonment and reduced it to 25 years for the latter’s good conduct. The assize court acquitted the other guardians as well as the military officers taking office in the institution, of torture.

The applicants unsuccessfully appealed against the assize court’s decision, stating that their son had died as a result of torture. The Court of Cassation finally upheld the assize court’s decision.

The Applicants’ Allegations

In the present case, it was found established that M.P. had died as a result of the treatment he had been subject to in the military penitentiary institution. The inferior courts concluded that M.P. had died as a result intentional ill-treatment. Considering all these, it has been understood that M.P. had died under the control and protection of the State as a result of certain acts inflicted in the absence of reasonable explanations. Thus, the substantive aspect of the right to life had been violated.

The fact that the military prosecutor’s office took an action ten days after M.P. had been taken to hospital was a significant negligence. The failure of the military prosecutor’s office to take an action immediately and ex officio caused the inability to take statement of M.P., who would later fall into a vegetative state and lose his life, by independent investigation authorities.

Failure to take M.P.’s statement may have resulted from the failure on the part of the military officers and hospital staff to report the incident to the incumbent prosecutor’s office or from the failure of the incumbent prosecutor’s office to take an immediate action into the incident. However, since there was a fault on the part of the public authorities in both cases, nothing will change as to the responsibility of the State. In addition, it has been understood that there was a camera system in the military penitentiary institution at the material time; however, no footage could be obtained pertaining to the said period.

The indictment issued by the chief public prosecutor’s office stated that similar incidents such as the ill-treatment inflicted on M.P. had frequently occurred in the military penitentiary institution and been continuing for a long period; it was concluded therein that the offence of aggrieved torture had occurred within the scope of the death of M.P. While the assize court had to make a comprehensive assessment on the issues set forth in the indictment as well as making a reasonable explanation as to why it disagreed the conclusions therein, it failed to make a comprehensive analysis in this regard. Moreover, the acts and reactions, regarding the incident, of all guardians in the dressing room where the incident had taken place were not evaluated separately.

It is obvious that whether the military officers in the military penitentiary institution had been involved in the incident resulting in the death of M.P. should have been investigated rigorously by the inferior courts and that the findings obtained should have been evaluated. It was a significant deficiency that the arguments put forth in the indictment to prove that the authorities in the military penitentiary institution had acted in an effort to protect the guardians were not addressed to in the reasoned decision. In addition, the Court convicted a number of guardians of intentional injury in relation to some battering incidents that occurred in the said period. The inferior courts failed to provide sufficient justifications as to why the death of M.P. was examined independently of the other battering incidents.

Furthermore, given the importance of the subject matter of the case as well as the fact that applicants had no part in the prolongation of the proceedings, it has been concluded that the length of the proceedings that lasted 9 years and 7 months was not reasonable.

Considering all these together, it has been concluded that the failure on the part of the military prosecutor’s office to take an action immediately and ex officio resulted in a certain negligence in terms of the collection and preservation of evidence; that the inferior courts failed to make a comprehensive analysis of the evidence obtained at the end of the investigation; that the investigation and prosecution into the incident had been conducted at a reasonable speed; and that thus, the procedural aspect of the right to life has been violated due to the deficiencies in question.

Considering the circumstances of the present case, it has been understood that alleged violations of the right to life and the prohibition of torture intertwined with each other. Therefore, it has been concluded that the procedural as well as substantive aspects of the prohibition of torture have also been violated.

Consequently, the Court has found violations of the right to life and prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution.