Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant, a prisoner in a T-type penitentiary institution, complaining about the poor conditions of detention due to the high number of inmates, applied to the execution judge, seeking the reduction of the number of inmates and lifting of the restrictions regarding medical examination facilities in the infirmary. However, the judge dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was also dismissed with final effect by the assize court, on the grounds that the judge’s decision complied with the procedure and the law.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated due to the denial of his access to health services and his being placed in an overcrowded ward.

The Court’s Assessment

The conditions that are likely to constitute ill-treatment in penitentiary institutions may come up in different ways. In order for a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment to be found, the conditions of detention must attain a threshold of severity exceeding the inevitable level of suffering inherent in the very nature of the impugned practice and being the inevitable consequence of deprivation of liberty. In the present case, it has been observed that the applicant was placed in wards with a personal space of under 4 square meters (3.95 square meters) for eight and fourteen non-consecutive days and that the size of these wards was inadequate and below the minimum standard. However, although the personal living space afforded to the applicant was inadequate, he was held there temporarily and for a short period of time. Besides, this was at the same time accompanied with sufficient freedom of movement and the confinement in an appropriate detention facility. Therefore, in consideration of the individual and cumulative effects on the applicant of the conditions of detention, which were related to two separate and non-consecutive short periods within approximately thirty months of detention, it has been concluded that the alleged treatment did not attain the threshold of severity required to constitute an ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 17 of the Constitution.

It has been determined that the applicant was placed in a ward where he had a personal space of 4-5 square meters for almost two years of his thirty-month detention period. The Court, while making an assessment within the scope of the prohibition of ill-treatment in cases where prisoners are afforded a minimum personal space, has stressed that the size of the personal living space per se may not be sufficient to meet the minimum standard, and therefore, the other aspects of the conditions of detention should also be taken into account. In the present case, it has been found out that in the course of the twenty-four-month period during which the applicant was provided with the minimum personal living space, he had access to outdoor exercise to the extent beyond the international standards, that he was able to access daylight and natural air, and that he could privately use the toilet and bathroom and experienced no deficiencies in terms of basic sanitary and hygienic rules. In view of the explanations above, given the separate and cumulative effects of the conditions of detention on the applicant’s mental and physical situation, it has been concluded that the required minimum threshold was not exceeded.

Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.