Ruling on convict requesting a smoke-free ward

The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (TİHEK) has ruled that the denial of a convict's request to stay in a non-smoking room due to prison capacity constitutes a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.

According to TİHEK's decision, M.T., a convict at the Patnos L-Type Closed Penal Institution, moved to a non-smoking ward upon his request in 2019, but in 2023, individuals who smoke were also placed in the ward.

After receiving no response to the petition he submitted to the institution's administration, M.T. applied to TİHEK, reporting that 15 of the 22 people in the ward smoked, that they were disturbed by the smoke, and that this was causing health problems.

TİHEK initiated an investigation and requested a written opinion from the prison. The prison administration stated that the institution was built according to a 2-story room system and that the number of convicts and detainees arriving at the institution had increased in the last 3 months.

In the opinion, it was stated that two non-smoking wards had been allocated for individuals belonging to the judicial crime category, and that given the type and capacity of the institution, there was no possibility of opening a new non-smoking ward, adding that the applicant's request would be fulfilled if conditions allowed in the future.

The institution also interviewed the applicant to see if there had been any change in his situation.

The applicant, who reported that 13 of the 25 people staying in the ward smoked and that 3 people in the same room did not smoke, stated that the ventilation door, which opens at 06.00, closes at 18.00, and that they were disturbed by the cigarette smoke spreading through the ward despite the window in the room.

AYM'S VIOLATION RULING POINTED OUT

Concluding the application, TİHEK ruled that the rejection of the convict's request to stay in a non-smoking ward was a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.

The ruling pointed out that according to the Constitution, the state is obliged to protect the individual's material and spiritual existence from all kinds of danger, threats, and violence.

Noting that the applicant's request to stay in a non-smoking ward was rejected by the administration on the grounds that there was no non-smoking ward suitable for the applicant's crime type and due to the institution's type and capacity, the decision noted that it was understood that the administration had rejected the request for the purpose of ensuring institutional security and discipline.

Pointing out that the Constitutional Court (AYM) had issued a violation ruling in a similar application, the decision included the following statements:

"Pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution, titled 'Personal liberty and security,' certain limitations on the private and family lives of prisoners are an inevitable and natural consequence of being held in a penal institution in accordance with the law. However, being in a penal institution does not require the renunciation of one's physical and mental health. Like other individuals, prisoners have the right to protect their physical and mental health. Although there is broad discretion in taking measures to ensure the security and discipline of penal institutions, the measures to be taken should not lead to prisoners suffering mental distress beyond what is required by their state of detention or living in unhealthy conditions."