Verdict of Right Violation for Student Injured by Tear Gas Canister During Gezi

* Photo: Twitter

Click to read the article in Turkish

Pronouncing its judgement on Duran Eren Şahin, who was injured by a tear gas canister during Gezi Park protests in 2013 in Ankara, the Constitutional Court has defined his injury as "inhuman and degrading treatment" and concluded that his right to assembly and demonstration and prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment have been violated.

As reported by Alican Uludağ from Cumhuriyet newspaper, Duran Eren Şahin, who was a university student in the capital city of Ankara at the time of incident, was struck by a tear gas canister and wounded in the head in Kızılay on June 2, 2013. Doğukan Tonguç Cankurt, the attorney of Şahin, filed a criminal complaint against the police officers.

The Security Directorate informed the Prosecutor's Office that the videos captured by the Mobile Electronic System Integration (MOBESE) were deleted and it could not be detected which personnel used the equipment firing tear gas canisters. Three years later, the Prosecutor's Office gave a decision of non-prosecution for the criminal complaint. The decision of the office argued that the officer was doing his duty.

Şahin to be paid 20,000 TRY in non-pecuniary damages

The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court has concluded that "the right to assembly and demonstration of Şahin was violated by the intervention of the police." Referring to his injury with a tear gas canister, the Chamber has further concluded that the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment has also been violated.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Court has ruled that a copy of the verdict shall be sent to the Ankara Public Prosecutor's Office to launch a new investigation so that the consequences of the right violation in question could be eliminated. Şahin will also be paid 20,000 Turkish Lira (approx. 3,100 Euro) in non-pecuniary damages.

"It is seen that the public authorities did not openly put forward that the applicant was not peaceful while using his right to assembly", the Court has indicated and emphasized, "In that case, the force used against the applicant cannot be considered necessary". (RT/SD)