Communicated on 8 October 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15770/19
Selim UYGUR
against Turkey
lodged on 1 March 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the allegedly poor conditions of the applicant’s detention in Menemen T-type Prison. The applicant claims, in particular, that he suffers from overcrowding in the multi-occupancy cell which he shares 35 square meters with 20 people. He also complains of the inadequacy of the sanitary facilities and lack of overall hygiene.
The applicant raised his claims concerning the conditions of detention in domestic law and requested improvements. The sentence-execution judge acknowledged the problem of overcrowding, but rejected the applicant’s claims. The Constitutional Court rejected the application in a summary decision.
Relying in particular on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that he is still being detained in inadequate conditions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the number of inmates placed in the same multi-occupancy cell, alleged inadequate sanitary conditions, lack of hygiene and ventilation amounted separately or cumulatively to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Rezmiveș et autres v. Roumania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, §§ 71-79, 25 April 2017; Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 136-140, 20 October 2016; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-159, 10 January 2012)?
The Government are invited to submit information, documents and photos/video footage indicating the conditions of detention at the Menemen T Type Prison where the applicant is being held. This information should demonstrate in particular the size and capacity of the units and the number of occupants held in them since the beginning of the applicant’s detention, information on the ventilation in the unit where the applicant is held, and the hygiene conditions therein.
2. In view of the introduction of an increasing number of applications concerning the conditions of detention against Turkey, the Government are invited to provide information and to answer the following questions in the light of the principles enunciated in the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, no. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Ananyev and others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 180-240, 10 January 2012); and Rezmiveş and others v. Romania, no. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017):
(a) What are the general measures that the Government have taken or plan to take in order to improve the conditions of detention and prevent the introduction of new applications of this category to the Court (see the action plans of the Governments concerned regarding the implementation of the judgments and the resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers in Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, 18 January 2005; Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, 6 December 2007; Ananyev and others, cited above; and István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, 15707/10, 17 January 2012. For example, the adaptation of national legislation, ways and means of encouraging frequent use of preventive measures other than pre-trial detention, alternative sanctions and alternatives to criminal sanctions, practical measures for accommodation in prisons, preventive measures to improve conditions of detention, compensatory remedies, reductions applicable to sentences according to the time spent in inadequate conditions of detention as a compensatory measure (Rezmiveş, cited above, § 125), the creation of working groups in the administration of prisons and the judiciary in order to disseminate the Court’s case-law on the matter and ensure its implementation at the national level)?
(b) Are there any preventive and compensatory national remedies available for complaints regarding the conditions of detention (Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 93-98, 10 January 2012)? If so, what is the case law of the judicial authorities on the matter (civil, criminal and administrative courts, as well as the Constitutional Court)? Are there differences depending on whether or not the conditions of detention have ended with respect to the person concerned (improvement of conditions, transfer, release of the applicant etc.)?
(c) What is the total capacity of prisons in Turkey and the current number of inmates held?
(d) What are the capacities, quarterly occupancy rates and quarterly average personal space (area per inmate in units) of the ten largest prisons in Turkey, since 2016?
(e) What are the regulations and practices in the following prison regime subjects since 2016: measures in case of overcrowding; personal and collective hygiene; cleaning common areas; cleaning inmates’ clothing; restrictions on socio-cultural activities, sports activities, family visits, phone interviews, and correspondence; ventilation and heating; health; water restrictions; nutrition; passive smoking.
(f) Among the prisons visited by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 6 to 17 May 2019 (Diyarbakır D-type High-Security Prison, Diyarbakır E-type Prison, Diyarbakır T-type Prison No. 2, Istanbul Bakırköy Prison for Women, Istanbul-Metris T-type Prison No. 1, Istanbul-Silivri Prison No. 5, Istanbul-Silivri Prison No. 6, Istanbul-Maltepe L-type Prison No. 1, Istanbul-Maltepe L-type Prison No. 3, Şanlıurfa E-type Prison, Şanlıurfa T-type Prison No. 1, Şanlıurfa T-type Prison No. 2),
- what are the capacities of these institutions as regards the number of inmates?
- what are their quarterly occupancy rates since 2016?
- what is the quarterly average of personal space in these institutions since 2016?
- what has been the practice in these institutions with regard to the topics mentioned in the above point (e) since 2016?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy