Events
While the applicant was in detention, a restriction was imposed on the change of clothes of convicts and detainees by the decision of the Administration and Observation Board. Accordingly, it has been decided that worn-out clothing will only be replaced with new ones, and that clothing that has been exposed to washing machines or bleaches or has been repaired will not be allowed to be taken to the penitentiary institution. The applicant applied to the execution judgeship and requested the removal of this restriction. The execution judge rejected the request.
The high criminal court also rejected the objection on the grounds that the decision of the execution judge was not contrary to procedure and law.
allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to protect and develop his material and moral existence was violated because his old clothes were not taken to the penitentiary institution.
Court’s Evaluation
The state’s obligation to respect the right to protect and develop a person’s material and spiritual existence primarily requires that public authorities not arbitrarily interfere with this right and not cause physical and mental harm to individuals. This is the negative duty of the state arising from the obligation to respect the physical and mental integrity of the individual.
In the concrete case, with the decision of the Administration and Observation Board, restrictions were placed on changing clothes of convicts and detainees, and it was forbidden to give non-new clothes to detainees and convicts. When this decision, which constitutes the basis of the practice, is examined, it is understood that there is a concern about the difficulties caused by the fact that detainees and convicts deliver clothes to their families for washing, and the security risk that arises during the return of the clothes given for washing to the penitentiary and execution institution.
It should be underlined that, due to the increase in the occupancy rate of the penitentiary institutions and the lack of personnel after the coup attempt, the fear of a weakness in the control of the clothes delivered to the penitentiary institution by the families to be given to the detainees and convicts is not unfounded. Since it was stated in the decision of the Administration and Observation Board that only new clothes would be allowed to be admitted to the penitentiary institution, it can be said that the purpose of the practice is to prevent detainees and convicts from delivering their clothes to their families for washing. In this context, restrictive arrangements for the delivery of clothing by families to detainees and convicts should be considered reasonable in order to ensure the security of the penitentiary institution.
However, the intervention’s compliance with the requirements of the democratic social order depends on the tool chosen for the intervention being suitable for achieving the purpose of ensuring the security of the penitentiary institution. In the concrete case, the public authorities have no allegation regarding the applicant’s handing over the clothes in the penitentiary institution to his family to have them washed. The main allegation of the applicant is that his clothes, which are at home and in a wearable condition, are not taken to the penitentiary institution. It is difficult to accept that the vehicle chosen is suitable for the foreseen purpose, considering that the applicant’s clothes, which are at home, are prevented from being taken to the penitentiary institution, not the clothes that the applicant handed over to his family to have them washed. is out of the question. In this context, it has not been understood what kind of a difference there is between the delivery of new clothes to the detainees and convicts by their families and the delivery of clothes that are not new but in a wearable condition.
On the other hand, under these conditions, it cannot be said that the measure in the concrete case responds to a compulsory social need. It is difficult to accept that limiting the clothes to be accepted to the penitentiary institution to new clothes meets a social need, since the applicant wants to receive the clothes that are in wearable condition at home, not the ones handed over to his family to have them washed.
Although it is stated in the decision of the court of execution that the term “new one” should not necessarily be interpreted as a new labeled clothing in Article 7 of the Regulation on Goods and Items that Can Be Kept in Penal Institutions, the definitions in the decision of the Administration and Observation Board are based on what should be understood from the new clothing. In the decision of the Administration and Observation Board, it is stated that clothes that have never been used or used lightly, with or without labels, and that have not been exposed to washing machines or bleaches or have not been repaired, are considered new. Although it may be justified not to hand over unusable clothing to prisoners, there is no justification for prohibiting the admission of old but usable clothing to the penitentiary institution. In the decision of the Administration and Observation Board, it is understood that lightly used clothes will also be considered as new clothes, but they are not used for a long time.
There is no justification for not taking the clothes that work but do not lose their wearable feature to the penitentiary institution.
Moreover, the applicant claims that his financial means are not suitable for buying new clothes. Forcing detainees and convicts with insufficient financial means to buy new clothes instead of using the ones in their homes may cause them to feel anguish beyond being in the penitentiary institution. Being in a penitentiary institution does not require a waiver of human dignity. Prisoners, like other individuals, have dignity worthy of protection. Even though penitentiary institutions have wide discretion in taking measures to ensure security, the measures to be taken should not cause detainees and convicts to suffer moral distress beyond what is required by the detention.
As a result, in the concrete case, it was concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to protect and develop his material and spiritual existence by not taking the applicant’s clothes, which were at home and in useable condition, to the penitentiary institution did not meet a compulsory social need and therefore did not comply with the requirements of the democratic social order.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right of the person to protect and develop his/her material and spiritual existence was violated.