SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37298/05
Abdurrahman ARAZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Guido Raimondi,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdurrahman Araz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in İzmir. He was represented before the Court by Ms N. Bayraktar, a lawyer practising in İzmir.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events, the applicant was serving his prison sentence at the Sultanhisar Prison in Aydın. In August 2004, he saw baby snakes in his ward and killed them. According to the information in the case file, upon the applicant’s complaint, his ward was immediately cleaned with insecticides to repel snakes. The public prosecutor initiated an investigation and ordered a biological examination of these snakes.
On 23 August 2004 the public prosecutor sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice to have its instructions. In his letter, the public prosecutor explained that baby snakes had been detected in the ward of the applicant. He further stated that following the incident, the ward had been cleaned with insecticides, and the inspection carried out in the prison had revealed no other snakes in other parts of the prison. The public prosecutor further indicated that the applicant had refused to be transferred to another ward. Since he was imprisoned in connection with a terror-related crime, the prosecutor asked for instructions from the Ministry of Justice regarding his transfer to another prison.
On 24 August 2004 a biology professor from the Adnan Menderes University prepared an expert report. He indicated that the sample which had been sent to him for examination was a baby snake which was not poisonous. He stated that during summer time, snakes entered buildings to avoid hot weather, and that it was possible that this baby snake had entered the prison ward from water pipes. He indicted that as this type of snake was not poisonous, there was no need to take special security measures in the prison.
On 27 October 2004 the applicant filed a complaint against the prison director with the Sultanhisar Public Prosecutor. He complained that there were baby snakes in his ward. He further argued that his radio had been taken away by prison guards.
On 9 February 2005 the public prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution. He stated that the presence of baby snakes in the applicant’s ward was a coincidence, and that according to the expert report, the snakes had entered the building to avoid hot weather. Having regard to the fact that the ward had immediately been cleaned, the prosecutor held that no fault could be attributed to the prison authorities. As regards the applicant’s allegation concerning his radio, the public prosecutor stated that his radio had been taken by the prison guards for a security control and had been handed back to the applicant following the control.
On 21 April 2005 the Aydın Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection.
The applicant was discharged from prison on an unspecified date in 2005.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that because of the presence of baby snakes in his prison ward, he had suffered from psychological and emotional distress. He also alleged under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation regarding his complaints.
2. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant stated that his radio had been taken away from him by the prison administration.
3. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against. In his opinion, bad prison conditions had been imposed on him as a result of his political opinions.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleged that because of the presence of baby snakes in his prison ward, he had suffered from psychological and emotional distress. He also alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation regarding his complaints. In this respect, he relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court observes that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone.
According to the Court’s well-established case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000‑XI). The Court has emphasised on many occasions that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, and that the manner and the method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001‑VIII).
When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant. In the present case, the applicant complained that there were snakes in his ward. The Court is therefore called on to determine whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3. According to the information in the file, as soon as the baby snakes were detected, the applicant’s ward was cleaned with insecticides. Upon the instruction of the public prosecutor, a sample was sent for a biological examination and the expert report submitted by a professor from the Adnan Menderes University revealed that this type of snake was not poisonous. It was reported that during summer time snakes hid in buildings to avoid the heat and that it was possible that these baby snakes had entered the prison building from water pipes to hide from the heat. The report clearly indicated that no special measures were necessary to clean the building. The Court further notes from the letter of the Public Prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice that the applicant had refused to be transferred to another ward and that the prosecutor sought instructions from the Ministry of Justice regarding the applicant’s transfer to another prison.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the situation complained of by the applicant was not such as to raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention.
In respect of the applicant’s allegation that his complaint was not investigated thoroughly, the Court observes that upon the applicant’s complaint, the matter was investigated by the public prosecutor, who concluded that no fault could be attributed to the prison administration in the circumstances of the present case. Having examined the case file, the Court sees no shortcomings in the investigation.
The Court therefore finds that the applicant’s allegations are unsubstantiated, and should be rejected for being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention.
2. Relying on Article 10 of the convention, the applicant stated that his radio had been taken away from him by the prison administration.
The Court notes that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention. It reiterates that detention, like any other measure depriving a person of his liberty, entails inherent limitations on private life. Restrictions may be imposed on a detainee’s contact with the outside world, but they should be justified. Any such restriction must therefore be applied “in accordance with the law”, must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 of Article 8 and in addition, must be justified as being necessary in a democratic society (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 246, 9 October 2008).
In the present case, the Court observes from the documents in the case file that the applicant’s radio was taken away from him for a security control and was handed back to him following the control. In the Court’s opinion, this measure does not appear to be unreasonable. It therefore concludes that the applicant’s complaint is unsubstantiated and should be rejected for being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against. In his opinion, bad prison conditions were imposed on him as a result of his political opinions.
In so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds, in the light of all the material in its possession, that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosIsabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy