violation of the prohibition of torture due to the lack of an effective investigation into the beatings during detention and at the police station
Events
The vehicle in which the applicant was traveling with two friends was stopped by law enforcement officers. The applicant and his companions were taken out of the vehicle, arrested on criminal charges and brought to the District Security Directorate. The applicant was held there for a while and then taken to the Anti-Terror Branch Directorate in the morning.
The applicant’s lawyer filed a petition to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office complaining against the public officials who carried out the arrest on the night of the incident. In the petition, in summary, it was claimed that the vehicle in which the applicant was riding after the funeral burial was stopped by the law enforcement officers without warning, that the applicant was stepped on his head and beaten with punches and kicks, and that the torture continued at the police station where he was taken. In the forensic examination report prepared for the applicant on the day of the incident, the history of the incident was stated as beating and force.
As a result of the investigation into the applicant’s complaint, the Bismil Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the Criminal Judge of Peace.
In the public case, the High Criminal Court acquitted the applicant and his companions and the decision became final.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that there had been a violation of the prohibition of persecution as he had been beaten during the arrest process carried out by the law enforcement officers and at the police station where he was detained and that no effective investigation had been carried out in relation to this incident.
The Court’s Assessment
It is understood that the content of the forensic examination report issued on the day of the incident supports the allegations that the applicant was beaten. In the decision of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office not to prosecute, it was accepted that the applicant was injured by unnamed public officials.
The law enforcement officers stated in the report they prepared immediately after the incident that the people who were taken out of the vehicle resisted when they tried to take them under control, and therefore they gradually used force against them. It is understood from the police report that at least sixteen police officers, including Special Operations police officers, were present at the scene. Three people were taken out of the stopped vehicle. There is no evidence that the applicants displayed an aggressive attitude towards the police or tried to escape. prohibition .
In the forensic examination form issued immediately after the incident, the applicant’s left eye was bruised and swollen and his nose was bleeding, but it was stated that the injury could be treated with simple medical intervention. In the detention entry report issued by the State Hospital, the following findings were included: “bruise, swelling, redness in the left eye, abrasion, redness, bruising on the left shoulder, redness, bruising, redness on the right shoulder and throat, redness, bruising on the back, abrasion on the left elbow, slight redness in the left renal area, bleeding from the nose.” In addition, it was stated in the report that a computerized tomography scan was required but the device in the hospital was not working.
Within the scope of the investigation, no forensic medical report was obtained or the applicant was not examined with a tomography device with advanced imaging capabilities. The applicant, who was arrested after being detained, received treatment for health problems while in prison. This situation casts doubt on the accuracy of the finding in the first forensic examination form that the injury could be treated with simple medical intervention. Therefore, it must be accepted that the applicant was injured with bone fractures on his face due to the law enforcement intervention during the arrest process. prohibition .
Although the police officers who carried out the arrest recorded that the applicant resisted during the arrest, this was not clearly demonstrated by any other evidence such as video recordings or impartial witness statements. Within the scope of the investigation, the statements of law enforcement officers were not taken, and in the decision of no prosecution, it was accepted that the applicant resisted the police as stated in the report. Even if it is accepted that the applicant resisted, there is no explanation in the Prosecutor’s Office’s decision on this issue, while it is clear that it is in need of explanation what kind of intervention aimed at eliminating resistance has led to this result, since the injury has reached the extent of a fracture in the facial area. On the other hand, according to the report and the development of the incident, it seems probable that the proportionate intervention of the police caused only minor injuries to the applicant. prohibition .
In the light of these findings, although it is not clear how the injury was inflicted due to the deficiencies in the investigation, it is understood that the intervention made by public officials to the applicant, who is not accused of committing a physical attack, was disproportionate – even if it is assumed to be necessary, considering the severity of the injury, despite the difficulty of the duty conditions.
After the applicant’s complaint, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.