VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE DUE TO BEATING SOMEONE ON INVESTIGATION AT THE POLICE STATION AND NOT CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATION EFFICIENT

26 Sep VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE DUE TO BEATING SOMEONE ON INVESTIGATION AT THE POLICE STATION AND NOT CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATION EFFICIENT

Events

The applicant’s vehicle, in which he was with two friends, was stopped by law enforcement officers. The applicant and those with him were removed from the vehicle and arrested as part of a criminal charge and brought to the District Police Department. The applicant, who had been held here for a while, was taken to the Counter-Terrorism Branch Directorate in the morning.

The applicant’s lawyer complained to the public officials who carried out the capture on the night of the incident with a petition to the Prosecutor General’s Office. In summary, the petition alleges that the vehicle the applicant was riding in after the funeral burial procedures was stopped by law enforcement without warning, the applicant was punched and kicked in the head, and the torture continued at the police station where he was taken. The applicant’s incident history is stated in the forensic examination report issued on the day of the incident in mints and algebra.

As a result of the investigation conducted in relation to the applicant’s complaint, the Bismil Public Prosecutor’s Office decided that there was no room for prosecution. The applicant’s objection to this decision was rejected by the decision of the Magistrate’s Court.

In the public case filed, the Heavy Criminal Court decided that the applicant and his associates should be acquitted, and the decision was finalized.

Count

The applicant submitted that the prohibition on torture had been violated due to the fact that it was carried out during the arrest process carried out by law enforcement and at the police headquarters where he was detained, and that no effective investigation had been conducted in connection with this incident.

Assessment of the Court

It is understood that the applicant supports the allegations that the contents of the forensic examination report issued on the day of the incident were tampered with. In the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office that there was no room for prosecution, it was accepted that the applicant had been injured by public officials, whose names were not specified.

Law enforcement officials stated in their minutes immediately after the incident that the people who were taken out of the vehicle resisted when they tried to take control, so they gradually forced themselves to use it. It is understood from the law enforcement record that there were at least sixteen police officers at the scene, including Special Operations policemen. Three people were lowered from the stopped vehicle. There is no finding that the applicants had an aggressive attitude towards the armrest at this time or tried to escape.

In the forensic examination form issued immediately after the incident, bruising and swelling of the applicant’s left eye and bleeding in his nose were detected, but it was stated that the injury could be removed with simple medical intervention. “Left eye bruise, swelling, redness, left shoulder scrape, redness, bruise, right shoulder and throat rash, back rash, bruise, left elbow scrape, left renal area slight redness, nose bleeding, ” the detention entrance report organized by the State Hospital said.”the findings are given in the form of. In addition, the report stated that a computed tomography scan was required, but the device in the hospital did not work.

Within the scope of the investigation, no report was received from the forensic medicine about the applicant or the examination of the applicant with a tomography device with advanced imaging capability was performed. The applicant, who was arrested after being detained, was treated for health problems while he was in the penitentiary institution. This situation casts a shadow on the accuracy of the determination that the injury indicated on the initial forensic examination form can be eliminated by simple medical intervention. For this reason, it should be accepted that the applicant was injured in such a way that bone fractures occurred on his face due to law enforcement intervention carried out during the capture process.

Although the police officers who carried out the capture recorded that the applicant resisted during the capture, this situation was not clearly revealed by any other evidence, such as video recordings or unbiased witness statements. Within the scope of the investigation, the statements of law enforcement officers on this issue were not taken, and in the decision that there was no room for prosecution, it was accepted that the applicant resisted the armory, as indicated in the minutes. Although it is accepted that the applicant resisted, it is clear that it is necessary to explain what kind of intervention aimed at eliminating resistance caused by the fact that the injury that occurred has reached the size of a fracture in the facial region, but there is no explanation in the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office on this issue. On the other hand, according to the edited minutes and the development of the incident, it seems that it is possible that the applicant caused only minor injuries with the proportional intervention of the armband.

These observations in the light of the deficiencies in the investigation is performed in the manner of specificity is not achieved due to injury, if you are not in charge of the applicant performs a physical attack that intervention by public officials-required, assuming that the weight of even considering injuries from occurring, despite the difficulty of the task requirements – it is understood that disproportionate.

After the applicant’s complaint, the Prosecutor General’s Office launched an investigation and requested the collection of some evidence that could help to clarify the incident. Despite the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, there has been no investigation into whether there is video recording in vehicles belonging to the security guard at the scene or in buildings that are likely to have security cameras, such as surrounding workplaces, despite the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office. It was understood that the Prosecutor General’s Office, which took over the investigation file upon the decision of unauthorized access, also did not take a step to correct this deficiency.

It was understood that even if the guard who carried out the capture as a witness was not asked if they would say their statements about the allegations, and also that people who might be eyewitnesses of the incident were identified and their statements were not consulted. These shortcomings raise doubts that the Prosecutor’s Office is seriously trying to find out the truth.

As a result, it is not possible to mention that an effective investigation was conducted by public officials during the applicant’s arrest in connection with the allegations he had been injured.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the material and procedural dimension of the prohibition of torture has been violated on the grounds described.