CASE OF İMRAK AND YILDIZ v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF İMRAK AND YILDIZ v. TÜRKİYE

(Application no. 19815/19)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

14 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of İmrak and Yıldız v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 19815/19) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 March 2019 by two Turkish nationals, Mr Feyyaz İmrak and Mr Deniz Yıldız (“the applicants”), who were born in 1992 and 1990 respectively, live in Istanbul and Batman respectively and were represented by Mr R. Demir, a lawyer practising in Istanbul;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by prison guards and the lack of an effective investigation into those allegations.

2.  At the relevant time, the applicants were detained in Antalya L-Type Prison in the F-2 Unit, together with 23 other detainees. On the morning of 5 August 2016, the prison guards entered the F-2 Unit to perform a search and headcount. Upon the detainees’ resistance to this, the prison guards started using force. During the intervention of the guards, at least three detainees in the unit were injured.

3.  According to the incident report drafted on the same day and signed by twelve prison guards, when the guards entered the F-2 Unit in the morning to conduct a headcount and search, the detainees in the unit resisted the search and started chanting slogans. The prison guards warned the detainees, stating that their conduct was illegal. However, they refused to comply with the search by holding onto each other’s arms, which led to a scuffle. To prevent further unrest, in particular in the neighbouring wards where the detainees were about to be transferred, the detainees in the F-2 Unit were taken out of their unit one by one and restrained by handcuffs, without exceeding the limits of the authorised use of force. Subsequently, they were moved to the yard of the F-9 Unit. Once order was restored, the detainees met with the prison director and were then transferred back to their units. The report noted that through their actions, the detainees attempted to obstruct the headcount and searches by using violence, thereby attempting to hinder the duties of the prison staff.

4.  Medical reports drawn up on 5 August 2016 in respect of three co‑detainees of the applicants noted several bruises on these detainees’ bodies, which could be treated by simple medical care. A medical report drawn up on the same day in respect of a fourth detainee noted no new signs of battery or assault. Other detainees who were in the F-2 Unit during the incident, including the applicants, were not taken for a medical examination.

5.  In the afternoon of the same day, family members of several of the detainees in the F-2 Unit came to the prison for an open visit. Subsequently, relatives of seven of the applicants’ co-detainees submitted a complaint to the public prosecutor, stating that the detainees they saw in the open visit had injuries on their hands, heads, and various parts of their bodies, one person had been brought to the visit on a stretcher, another had been unable to stand, and one had been assisted by others. The detainees had stated that the guards had tried to conduct a standing count, that they had been beaten as they had resisted, and that two of the guards, Y. and M., had struck them with batons and made them lie on the ground.

6.  A preliminary disciplinary investigation into the matter was initiated by the prison administration on the same day. On an unspecified date a video footage analysis was prepared by a prison guard. It was noted in the analysis that at 8.24 a.m. prison guards had entered the F-2 Unit for the morning roll call and body searches. Meanwhile, detainees had started resisting the guards, causing difficulty, as a result of which the guards had intervened and an altercation had occurred. The guards had then subdued the detainees in the unit corridor by handcuffing them and making them lie on the ground. Three of them had been taken by the officers to the Rapid Response Room, while the remaining detainees had been directed to the yard of the F-9 Unit.

7.  On 8 August 2016 the vice-director of the prison was assigned as an investigator. During the investigation, she heard statements from nine prison guards and examined the video footage analysis. The prison guards involved repeated the findings noted in the incident report. On 17 August 2016 the investigator advised the prison administration not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the prison guards, concluding that the physical intervention by the guards had been proportionate to the resistance put up by the detainees. The prison director decided not to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the basis of that report.

8.  On 9 August 2016 the applicants, together with the other detainees, submitted individual letters to the prison administration, stating that they had been assaulted by prison guards during the incident and had not been taken for a medical examination despite their requests to that effect.

9.  On 12 August 2016 the applicants submitted a complaint to the public prosecutor through their lawyer, claiming that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment. They stated that approximately fifty prison guards had taken them to the hallway while assaulting them. All the detainees in the corridor had been handcuffed behind their backs with plastic restraints, forced to lie down on top of one another in the corridor, and subjected to ill-treatment, insults and threats for two hours. They had then been allowed to go to the scheduled open visits, during which time their parents had seen signs of ill-treatment on their bodies.

10.  The applicants’ lawyer further submitted that she had visited the applicants after the incident and had noticed signs of battery on their wrists and arms. One of the applicants, Mr. Yıldız, had difficulty moving his left arm. The applicants had not been taken for a medical examination despite multiple requests submitted to the prison administration.

11.  Subsequently, the public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. Following his request, on 3 November 2016 the prison administration sent him the footage of the incident and its transcription. In records dated 5 December 2016, the prosecutor noted that although he had instructed the prison authorities to obtain medical reports in respect of all detainees concerned, the prison director Ş.T. had obtained reports for only four of the detainees. In that regard, although that act had been based on an alleged list prepared by the detainees themselves, as later confirmed by Ş.T. himself, there was no such list. Accordingly, the prison director Ş.T. was included in the investigation for neglection of duty.

12.  On 7 December 2016 the prosecutor heard the prison director Ş.T., who stated that when he had gone to the unit on the day of the incident, the detainees’ resistance had ended, and that they had been sitting calmly. He had then invited detainee K.B., who was the representative of the unit, to his office, where K.B. had told him that they had been assaulted by the guards. He had asked him to give him a list of the names of the persons who had been assaulted, and ordered the medical examination of the detainees whose names had been written on a piece of paper by K.B.

13.  On 20 February 2017 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any prison officials. Relying on the incident report signed by the prison guards and the preliminary disciplinary investigation report, the prosecutor found that the guards had used proportionate force to subdue the detainees’ resistance and to conduct the headcount and search in the unit. Regarding the accusations against the prison director Ş.T., the prosecutor stated that Ş.T. had ordered medical examinations of the individuals listed by K.B. and that the investigation revealed no evidence of him neglecting to obtain reports for other detainees. Accordingly, there was not sufficient evidence demonstrating that the prison officials had committed any crime. An objection lodged by the applicants against that decision was rejected by the Antalya Magistrate’s Court.

14.  The applicants lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of the prohibition of ill‑treatment under both its substantive and procedural limbs.

15.  On 24 September 2018 the Constitutional Court found the applicants’ individual application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Regarding the alleged ill-treatment of the detainees, including the applicants, who had not undergone medical examinations, it stated that the prosecutor had taken account of the prison director’s defence, which could not be disproven, and issued a decision of non-prosecution, finding no evidence other than abstract allegations. The prosecutor had taken the necessary steps to shed light on the incident and the applicants had been able to participate in the investigation.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

16.  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants claimed that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by prison guards and that the investigation into their allegations had not been effective.

17.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they had not submitted a complaint before the enforcement judge regarding the prison administration’s alleged refusal of their request for a medical examination. The Government further argued that the application was inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants could not provide any evidence, such as medical reports, showing that they had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicants had demonstrated passive resistance and the guards had used proportionate force. The public prosecutor had collected the video footage of the events, had questioned the prison director, and had therefore conducted an effective investigation.

18.  The applicants submitted that the absence of a medical report showing any signs of ill-treatment had resulted from the authorities’ failure to arrange a medical examination. The video footage included in the case file did not capture the entire incident, and the prosecutor had failed to obtain any further evidence, such as statements from the applicants, prison guards, or other witnesses.

19.  As for the Government’s objection regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court observes that the applicants submitted criminal complaints to the public prosecutor, thereby having recourse to the only remedy that could lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In that regard, the Court notes that the enforcement judges do not have the duty and authority to investigate allegations of ill-treatment in prisons. Moreover, in so far as the applicants complain about the authorities’ failure to obtain medical reports in their respect during the criminal investigation, the Court considers that that matter relates to the thoroughness of the criminal investigation (see Shishkin v. Russia, no. 18280/04, § 117, 7 July 2011) undertaken by the public prosecutor following the applicants’ criminal complaint, and cannot be considered as a separate issue that the applicants needed to litigate. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objection in this regard.

20.  The Court further considers that the arguments put forward by the Government regarding the application being manifestly ill-founded raise issues requiring an examination of the merits of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and not only of its admissibility (compare Durukan and Birol v. Türkiye, nos. 14879/20 and 13440/21, § 45, 3 October 2023, with further references).

21.  The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

22.  The Court refers to the general principles regarding the substantive limb of Article 3 which have been summarised in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015).

23.  As for the requirements under the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation, it refers to X and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 184‑90, 2 February 2021).

24.  In particular, allegations of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Bouyid, cited above, § 82).

25.  Where an individual claims on arguable grounds to have suffered acts contrary to Article 3, that Article requires the national authorities to conduct an effective official investigation to establish the facts of the case and identify and, if appropriate, punish those responsible. In order to be effective, the investigation must be thorough. The authorities must take reasonable measures available to them to obtain evidence relating to the offence in question. They must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill‑founded conclusions to close their investigation. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the facts or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard. Moreover, for an investigation to be effective, the institutions and persons responsible for carrying it out must be independent from those targeted by it (see X and Others, cited above, §§ 184‑87).

26.  In the present case, in determining compliance with the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints before the domestic authorities contained sufficiently specific information such as the identity of the alleged perpetrators, as well as the date, place and the nature of the alleged ill-treatment. Furthermore, the incident report drafted by the prison guards and the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicants’ co-detainees, alongside the statements of the detainees concerned and their relatives, demonstrated with sufficient precision that a physical altercation between the detainees in the F-2 Unit and the prison guards had occurred during the guards’ attempt to conduct a headcount and search in the said unit. The Court notes that the occurrence of such an incident is not disputed between the parties. Accordingly, it considers that the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment constituted an “arguable claim” in respect of which the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation (compare Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 66, 18 June 2015).

27.  As for the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court firstly observes that, during the investigation initiated after the applicants’ complaints, the public prosecutor did not obtain statements from the applicants. He did not question any of the prison guards, detainees, relatives of the detainees who had seen them in the immediate aftermath of the incident, or their representatives. He only took a statement from the prison director Ş.T., who had not been present when the incident in question had occurred (see paragraph 12 above).

28.  The Court also observes that the public prosecutor noted in his records of 5 December 2016 that he had instructed the prison authorities to obtain medical reports for all detainees concerned and initiated an investigation against prison director Ş.T. for his failure to do so (see paragraph 11 above). However, during the subsequent stages, the prosecutor failed to ensure that his instructions to carry out a medical examination of the detainees, including the applicants, were followed through. Moreover, in view of the applicants’ repeated submissions regarding their requests to go through a medical examination (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above) and the prosecutor’s instructions to obtain medical reports for all detainees concerned, the Court cannot consider that a list prepared by the representative of the prison unit of the persons who had been assaulted could sufficiently absolve the authorities from providing for the applicants’ medical examinations in order to sufficiently establish the facts of the case.

29.  The Court reiterates in this respect that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. Considering the fact that the applicants were under the control of the State at the time of the incident, the authorities’ failure to obtain a medical report prevented the establishment of a crucial aspect of the investigation, that is, whether the applicants sustained any injuries during the incident in question, and constituted a serious shortcoming capable of undermining the reliability and effectiveness of the investigation (see Shishkin, cited above, § 117).

30.  Furthermore, in establishing the facts of the incident, the public prosecutor relied heavily on the preliminary disciplinary investigation conducted by the vice-director of the prison (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above), which casts doubts on the independence of the criminal investigation, as the disciplinary investigation of the alleged misconduct potentially engaging the responsibility of a public authority and its officers was carried out by colleagues of those agents, employed by the same public authority (see Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 52, 2 October 2012). In that regard, the Court notes that the analysis of the video footage, used as evidence in the disciplinary investigation and submitted to the public prosecutor following his request, had been prepared by a prison guard, and lacked sufficiently precise information as to how the incident had unfolded. For instance, although the applicants submitted that they had been forced to lie down on top of one another and assaulted in the corridor outside their ward (see paragraph 9 above), the video analysis did not provide any information that could support or refute those claims. Furthermore, despite obtaining the video footage and its analysis from the prison administration, the prosecutor made no mention of that footage in his decision not to prosecute.

31.  In view of the above, the Court considers that the investigating authorities did not take all reasonable measures to shed light on the facts of the present case. The foregoing shortcomings are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation into the applicants’ claims of ill‑treatment was not effective.

32.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

33.  However, as for the compliance with Article 3 under its substantive limb, although the Court has found that the applicants’ submissions were sufficiently arguable so as to oblige the authorities to launch an official investigation (see paragraph 26 above), aside from the applicants’ and their lawyer’s submissions, there is no evidence in the case file demonstrating that they sustained any injuries during the incident, which could enable the Court to find “beyond reasonable doubt” that they were subjected to ill-treatment (see Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, §§ 59-60, 31 July 2014). Due to the domestic authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the incident, the Court cannot establish the specific circumstances under which the applicants were allegedly injured and rule on whether the prison guards’ use of force was necessary and proportionate (compare Daşlık v. Turkey, no. 38305/07, § 52, 13 June 2017, and Hovhannisyan v. Armenia, no. 18419/13, § 60, 19 July 2018).

34.  It follows that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

35.  The applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, and a total of EUR 4,800 jointly in respect of costs and expenses.

36.  The Government contested those claims, finding them excessive.

37.  Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

38.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, it considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to both applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
 Deputy Registrar President