SECOND SECTION
Application no. 24284/11
Rıdvan HEZER
against Turkey
lodged on 22 February 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rıdvan Hezer, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Şırnak. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Adıbelli, a lawyer practising in Şırnak.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.
On 15 August 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Metris No. 1 and 2 T Type Closed Prison (“Metris Prison”).
He was allegedly held in solitary confinement thereafter until 30 October 2008, the date on which he was transferred to the Amasya E Type Prison in accordance with ministerial orders. While staying in the Metris Prison, the applicant allegedly requested his transfer to a multi-occupancy cell and demanded information about the grounds on which he was placed in a single cell. In answer to his questions he was allegedly insulted and ill‑treated by the prison officers.
On 10 June 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prison staff. He alleged that he had been placed in solitary confinement which had lasted seventy-six days while in the Metris Prison, that his requests for his placement in an ordinary ward (multi-occupancy cell) had gone unanswered and that in reply to his requests he had been insulted and subjected to degrading treatment. He complained that he had been kept in a single cell without a television, tea pot and radio. He added that he had been transferred to the Amasya Prison without his consent. He asked the legal basis for his solitary confinement and forced transfer to another prison.
In its observations dated 29 June 2010, the Metris Prison Administration submitted that the applicant had been detained not in solitary confinement but in a single room located in the high security section of the prison by virtue of Article 9 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures.
On 9 July 2010, referring to the observations of the administration, the public prosecutor gave a decision of non-prosecution. He concluded that it was not established that the staff concerned had been at fault and had abused their power.
On 28 September 2010, the applicant filed an objection against this decision, claiming that his seventy-six day detention in a single cell had been unjustified.
On 8 December 2010 the Istanbul Assize Court upheld the decision of non-prosecution. On 14 January 2011 the final decision was served on the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 9 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures reads as follows:
“High-security closed prisons
Article 9
(1) High-security closed prisons are facilities which have internal and external security personnel, which are equipped with technical, mechanical, electronic and physical barriers against break-out, in which the doors of rooms and corridors are kept closed permanently, where contacts between convicts who are not staying in the same room and with the outside are allowed only in cases specified in the legislation, and where convicts under the strict security regime are accommodated in single or three-person rooms. In such institutions, individual or group rehabilitation methods shall apply.
(2) Persons sentenced to heavy life imprisonment and, irrespective of the length of imprisonment, persons convicted of establishing or leading a criminal organisation or persons convicted within the framework of the activities of such a criminal organisation of:
a) Crimes against humanity (Articles 77 and 78);
b) Intentional killing (Articles 81 and 82);
c) Drug trafficking (manufacture, distribution and sale) (Article 188);
d) Crimes against the security of the State (Articles 302, 303, 304, 307 and 308);
e) Crimes against the constitutional order and its functioning (Articles 309 to 315)
set out in the Turkish Criminal Code, shall serve their sentences in these prisons.
(3) Those who pose a danger in view of their actions and attitudes; those whose placement under special control and supervision is considered necessary; those who upset the order and discipline in the institutions in which they are detained; or those who persistently resist the rehabilitation measures, means and methods shall be transferred to these institutions.
(4) In cases in which the capacity of the institutions defined in the first paragraph is insufficient to meet the need, the high-security sections of other closed prisons shall be used.
(5) It may be decided to transfer those who were sentenced to life imprisonment but have served two thirds of the period required for release on probation; those who were sentenced to imprisonment but have served one third of the total sentence; those who were transferred to these institutions by virtue of the third paragraph, after having served one third of the rest of the sentence, maintaining good behaviour in these institutions, to other penal execution institutions suitable for their attitudes and characters.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 1, 3, 5 §§ 1 and 2, 7 and 13 of the Convention that he was detained in isolation in a single cell for seventy‑six days and that during this period he was ill-treated by the prison guards. He calls into question the conditions of his detention as well as its legal basis and claims that as a result he was traumatised.
The applicant alleges under Article 6 that his right to a reasoned judgment was violated.
Relying on Article 14, he further argues that he was subjected to solitary confinement, torture and ill-treatment on the ground that he was a Kurd who had been convicted of aiding and abetting the PKK.
QUESTIONS TO THE Government
1. Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Metris No. 1 and 2 T Type Closed Prison amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention?
a) Did he have any contact with other prisoners and/or prison staff and/or any other person such as his lawyer? If so, how often?
b) Did he receive any visit from his relatives?
c) Was the applicant allowed to use a television or radio or to buy newspapers?
d) What were the physical conditions in the single cell/room the applicant was held?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy