* Photo: Pixabay
Click to read the article in Turkish
The Constitutional Court has announced its ruling on the individual application of Sinan Gül, who was prevented by the prison administration from talking to his attorney on the phone. The Court has concluded that the prevention in question did not violate the rights of Gül.
In its detailed ruling, the Constitutional Court has noted, "As a natural result of being in prison, it needs to be considered that the administration has a wider discretionary power." The ruling has also emphasized that Gül has the right to make a face-to-face meeting with his attorney.
Precedent ruling not taken into account
In fact, in a previous Constitutional Court ruling on another applicant named Mehmet Koray Eryaşa, it was concluded that arrestees had the right to communicate with the attorney or counsel on the phone and there was not adequate legal regulation to prevent this right.
In its ruling on Sinan Gül, the Constitutional Court has indicated that the Constitution does not clearly state which communication devices shall be used by the prisoner and the attorney and all types of communication can be evaluated within this context:
"Still, given the nature and aim of the penal institution, it is acceptable that public authorities have a wider discretionary power in determining the freedom of communication in penal institutions. In this context, it is clear that all types of communication devices are not within the scope of freedom of communication of the arrested and convicted persons."
What happened?
Sinan Gül is currently held in Kırıkkale Type F High-Security Closed Prison. He is convicted of "attempting to separate a part of the territory under the sovereignty of the state from its administration."
His request for having a phone call with his attorney was rejected by the Prison Administration and Observation Board on January 26, 2016.
In justifying the rejection, the Board referred to the Article 88 of the By-law on Administration of Penal Institutions and Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, which stipulates the following:
"On the condition that they can document it, convicts have the right to make a phone call with their spouses, blood relatives to the second degree and kins by marriage to the first degree, their guardians or trustees."
Accordingly, it was note that the by-law foresaw no phone calls with an attorney and Sinan Gül could only phone a person foreseen by the by-law.
Sinan Gül objected to the rejection, noting that his right to make a phone call with his attorney was prevented, his Constitutional rights were violated due to the unlawful act of the Penal Institution and there were precedent rulings given by the Judgeships of Execution in Adana and Adıyaman.
However, first the Kırıkkale Judgeship of Execution, then the Kırıkkale Heavy Penal Court rejected his application by referring to the by-law. In response, Gül made an individual application to the Constitutional Court on March 22, 2016, arguing that his freedom of communication was violated.
The Constitutional Court ruling dated February 27, 2020 was announced today (April 9). According to the ruling, the Constitutional Court has concluded that "his freedom of communication guaranteed by the Article 22 of the Constitution was not violated." (AS/SD)
