I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KILICI v. TURKEY.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-11-27
• Communication date: 2014-01-14
• Application number(s): 32738/11
• Country:   TUR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 11, 11-1, 13
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.842709
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Kadri Kılıcı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.
He is represented before the Court by Ms Şehnaz Turan Dündar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by him, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a member of the Workers’ Union of Municipality and Local Authority Services (Tüm Belediye ve Yerel Yönetim Hizmetleri Emekçileri Sendikası; TÜM BEL SEN).
On 16 March 2009 the applicant, together with approximately 200 fellow members of his Union, gathered in Beyoğlu district of Istanbul.
They wanted to walk to nearby Haliç neighbourhood, where the 5th World Water Forum was being held and where they wanted to read out a press release in order to protest against the Forum.
They wanted to express their disagreement with the attempts to commercialise and privatise water resources.
Before the applicant and his fellow Union members started their walk and while they were still in Beyoğlu district, police officers asked them not to walk to Haliç as doing so would disrupt the flow of traffic.
Police officers told them, however, that they could hold a press meeting at their present location in Beyoğlu.
The applicant and the other Union members present there considered that their democratic rights were being curtailed, but agreed with the police officers’ proposal and issued a press release in Beyoğlu.
While they were in the process of dispersing, however, the police officers suddenly attacked them with their truncheons, sprayed them with tear gas and opened fire at them with plastic bullets.
A number of them were beaten up and some were arrested.
The applicant was shot in the back with a plastic bullet which did not penetrate his body but caused injury and pain.
He was also affected by the tear gas sprayed by the police officers and another plastic bullet skimmed his arm.
He was not arrested.
The following day the applicant made an official complaint to the Beyoğlu prosecutor and asked for the police officers who had fired at him with plastic bullets and sprayed him with tear gas to be prosecuted.
The same day the Beyoğlu prosecutor questioned him and referred him to the Forensic Medicine Institute.
In his referral letter the prosecutor asked the Forensic Medicine Institute to clarify whether the applicant’s injury fitted the description of injuries set out in section 87 of the Criminal Code, or whether it was so insignificant that it “could be treated with a simple medical intervention”, as explained in “section 88 [sic.]
of the Criminal Code”.
The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute.
The doctor who examined the applicant stated in his report that “on the upper back of the [applicant] there is an ecchymosed area, measuring approximately 3x2 centimeters.
This injury does not endanger his life.
It is of a nature that could be treated with a simple medical procedure”.
The report was forwarded to the Beyoğlu prosecutor.
On 26 August 2010 the Beyoğlu prosecutor decided not to prosecute any of the police officers.
The prosecutor stated in his decision that, according to the medical report, the injury on the applicant’s body was “of a nature that could be treated with a simple medical procedure”.
According to the prosecutor, the injury was caused when the police officers used their statutory right to resort to the use of force and used plastic bullets in order to arrest the applicant who had been taking part in an unlawful gathering.
The applicant lodged an objection to the prosecutor’s decision and argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion was devoid of any basis because no attempts had been made by the police to arrest him and there had thus been no cause for the police to resort to the use of force.
Furthermore, no proceedings had been brought against him for having taken part in the allegedly unlawful demonstration.
In his objection the applicant also alleged that his rights under Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention had been breached.
The objection lodged by the applicant was rejected by the Bakırköy Assize Court on 22 November 2010.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was shot and injured with a plastic bullet.
He submits that no attempts were made to arrest him and there was therefore no reason for him to put up any resistance to the police officers.
Indeed, no criminal proceedings were ever brought against him for having attended an unlawful demonstration.
Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that on account of the police officers’ use of force, he was unable to enjoy his right to freedom of assembly.
Finally, the applicant complains that the national authorities did not investigate his complaints adequately and they thus deprived him of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.