Published on 15 December 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 2287/25
Ayşe Nesibe YAZAR
against Türkiye
lodged on 14 January 2025
communicated on 25 November 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the applicant during the intimate body search conducted by the prison authorities while she was visiting a client in her capacity as a lawyer, as well as the lack of an effective investigation by the domestic authorities.
On 9 January 2023 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Batman public prosecutor, claiming that she had been subjected to rub-down and intimate body search on 7 December 2022, while visiting her client who was detained in Batman prison. The applicant argued that she had been subjected to an intrusive rub-down search by the officer in question and had been requested to remove her top in the presence of others, including officers and another lawyer, in breach of the relevant legislation concerning body searches. The public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute, stating that the searches had been conducted in line with the regulations to ensure the security of the prison. The Batman Magistrate’s Court rejected an objection by the applicant to that decision. In a decision of 20 September 2024, the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s individual application from the standpoint of the prohibition of ill-treatment alone and found it inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
Relying on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of having been forced to accept a strip search in the presence of other people and while carrying out her duties as a lawyer. She submits that the body search was unnecessary, arbitrary, disproportionate and humiliating, contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and her right to respect for her private life. She further complains that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the rub-down and intimate body search carried out by the prison authorities? In particular, have the authorities put forward any legitimate purpose for the applicant’s intimate body search (see Frérot v. France, no. 70204/01, §§ 35-48, 12 June 2007, and Roth v. Germany, nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 64-72, 22 October 2020)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, generally, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-123, ECHR 2015)?
3. Alternatively, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, §§ 43-49, ECHR 2006-X, and Dejnek v. Poland, no. 9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1 June 2017)?
In particular, taking account of section 86 § 3 of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures, what was the legal basis for carrying out a body search on the applicant, who was visiting the prison in her capacity as a lawyer?
The Government are invited to provide information on any guidelines that must be respected during such searches.