Being held in prison does not remove the right to benefit from necessary health services. The need of a convicted person or a pretrial detainee for examination, diagnosis, treatment, medication and appropriate care must be assessed in time. Where a request for referral to hospital or for treatment has gone unanswered, the route to follow is determined by the nature of the medical need, the act being challenged, and whether the person is a pretrial detainee or a convicted person. Urgent danger must be reported without delay to the competent authorities, together with concrete health records. 1 2
Successful file preparation in health applications does not consist merely of writing the name of an illness. It must be explained why a test recommended on a specific date was not carried out, for what reason an appointment was cancelled, for how many days a medication was not provided, or under what conditions the person is able to manage daily life. A legal request becomes capable of being examined to the extent that it is directed at the problem whose remedy is sought.
The Scope of the Right to Health and the State’s Obligation
Continuity of Examination and Treatment
Article 71 of Law No. 5275 regulates the protection of a convicted person’s physical and mental health, and the person’s access to examination and treatment facilities and to medical equipment for diagnosis. Under Article 78 of the Law, urgent or routine examination and treatment are carried out by the institution’s physician; the results are entered on the health monitoring card and kept in the file. Under Article 80 of the Law, the need for referral to hospital is reported by the institution’s physician to the administration immediately, by means of a report. This recording system is also important for establishing the events in a later application. 1 The article on leave for convicted persons may also be reviewed in connection with this topic.
Access to services does not consist of the initial examination alone. The continuity of the checks, tests, medication and care recommended by a specialist physician is examined together. For example, the fact that an appointment has been given does not show that treatment was actually provided if the referral has not been carried out. Conversely, the fact that a person was not sent to the hospital of their preference does not by itself prove that the service is inadequate. The medical adequacy of the existing service and the consequences of delay are assessed on the basis of concrete records.
Pretrial Detainees and Persons with Special Care Needs
Article 116 of Law No. 5275 provides that those health-related provisions that are compatible with pretrial detention also apply to pretrial detainees. However, a request for access to treatment and a request for the lifting of pretrial detention are different legal matters. For a pretrial detainee, the assessment of release or judicial control is made by the judicial authority competent in the criminal investigation or prosecution; for a convicted person, deferral of enforcement because of illness is examined within the framework of Article 16 of Law No. 5275. 1
Disability, old age, pregnancy or mental illness may increase a person’s need for individual care. Functional difficulties, such as being unable to eat without help, being unable to maintain personal hygiene, being unable to use stairs and being unable to follow a treatment regimen, should be stated in the report. The name of an illness and the need that arises under the current conditions of the institution are not the same thing. The application should connect the diagnosis with the institution’s actual means.
Hospital Referral and Follow-Up of Treatment
Referral from the Institution’s Infirmary to Hospital
The initial assessment is, as a rule, carried out in the institution’s health unit. The examination and treatment of illnesses that cannot be treated in the institution are carried out in state or university hospitals. Article 57 of Law No. 5275 and Article 99 of the Enforcement Regulation (İnfaz Yönetmeliği) contain details on referral and hospital conditions. Situations in which there is urgent danger cannot be handled in the same way as the ordinary appointment system. 1 3
In the application, instead of the statement “I want to be sent to the hospital,” the medical specialty, the date of the previous report, the test requested and the postponed appointment should be shown, if possible. If it is asserted that the cancellation of a referral was due to security, vehicle, staff or hospital reasons, it may be requested that this reason be determined in writing. In this way, a situation in which medical necessity is absent is separated from a situation in which the necessary service is delayed because of a deficiency in organization.
Medication and Care Requests
As regards a medication problem, the prescription date, the name of the medication, the usage regimen determined by the physician and the dates on which it was not delivered should be recorded. It should be investigated whether a change of medication was based on a medical decision or on difficulty of supply. A legal application should not make a medical judgment that a particular medication must be used; it should request the physician’s assessment and that the necessary treatment be provided without delay.
The same method applies to diet, assistive devices, rehabilitation or continuous care needs. The reasoning given in the report for the requested service, the reason it could not be provided in the institution and the effect of the shortfall on the person are shown together. In a chronic illness, presenting a current assessment in addition to the old report makes it easier to understand the changed need.
Privacy and Health Records
The obtaining and sharing of health information must be carried out with regard for patient privacy. It should not be assumed that relatives have automatic, unlimited access to every kind of health document on behalf of the person in prison. The authority to apply and the authority relating to taking delivery of health data are assessed separately. Powers of attorney, consent and legal representation documents should be prepared to suit the scope of the request. As regards the security conditions of an examination, the justification for the measure applied and its effect on the medical assessment should be set out. 2 3 For a separate assessment of the subject, the article on transfer from a prison to another institution may be consulted.
Which Documents Should Be Prepared for a Health Application?
| Document | What It Shows | Purpose of Use in the File |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge summary (epikriz) and specialist report | Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up recommendation | Explaining medical necessity |
| Prescription and medication delivery record | Recommended and actually provided treatment | Establishing the dates of interruption |
| Referral and appointment records | Planned and carried out procedures | Examining the reason for the delay |
| Petition submitted to the institution | When the need was notified | Showing the administration’s knowledge and its reply |
| Rejection decision and notification document | The challenged act and the date it became known | Establishing the competent authority and calculating the time limit |
| Current care assessment | Need for support in daily life | Requesting suitable conditions of detention |
The documents should be matched in a chronological chart. A statement in the form of “a test was recommended on May 5; the May 20 appointment was cancelled; it was requested again on May 22; a reply was given on June 3” is more verifiable than a vague claim of delay. These dates are examples; dates taken from the actual documents should be used in the application.
If it is known that records that cannot yet be accessed exist, it may be requested that they be obtained from the institution or the hospital. It should be explained which event the missing document would clarify, and the period relevant to the dispute should be determined, instead of requesting the entire health history without purpose.
Application to the Enforcement Judgeship and Urgent Protection
Subject of the Complaint and Time Limit for Application
A complaint under Law No. 4675 concerning health-related acts and institutional conditions is directed to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) within fifteen days of learning of the relevant decision, act or activity, and in any event within thirty days of its being carried out. These time limits are not a general rule to be applied in a single way to every request that can be made because of illness; it must be determined which act is being complained of. In the case of a continuing omission, the start of the event, later requests and new acts are assessed separately. Where there is uncertainty about the time limit, it is not appropriate to postpone the application. 4 In connection with this subject, the article on complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison may also be read.
The application may be made directly to the enforcement judgeship or through the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı) or the directorate of the institution. In addition to the convicted person or pretrial detainee, the Law also provides for the possibility of application by the spouse, mother, father, a child with the capacity to discern, or sibling, and by the defense counsel, the legal representative and the monitoring board (izleme kurulu). In a concrete application, status and authority must be documented. 4
For the general framework of the procedure, the article Application to the Enforcement Judgeship and Objection may be read together with this one.
Does the Application Automatically Suspend the Act?
A complaint does not automatically suspend the act. The enforcement judge may order postponement or suspension where the occurrence of consequences that are difficult or impossible to remedy and clear unlawfulness are both present. For this reason, an urgent request should not be left to a general sentence at the end of the petition; the risk, the current report and the interim protection sought should be explained separately. 4
In urgent medical situations, immediate notification must be made to the institution’s health unit and the administration; the health service must not be delayed by waiting for the judicial review to conclude. The legal review requested from the enforcement judgeship and the medical intervention expected from the physician may be pursued simultaneously.
Objection to the Decision
An objection may be made against a decision of the enforcement judge within two weeks of notification. The review is carried out by the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) within the judicial district of the enforcement judgeship. The seven-day period in older sources should not be applied automatically to current applications. In the objection, it is not enough to repeat the first petition; the report that the decision did not assess, the delay it did not explain and the incomplete inquiry should be shown clearly. 4 For details on the subject, see the article on enforcement at home, on weekends and at night.
The Difference Between Deferral of Enforcement Because of Illness and a Treatment Request
A request that treatment be provided in the institution or in hospital does not necessarily result in the sentence being enforced outside. Under Article 16 of Law No. 5275, deferral based on illness is dealt with together with the report and the authority framework. In particular, a definite danger to the person’s life, or situations in which a person with a serious illness or a disability cannot sustain life alone in institutional conditions, are assessed under all the conditions of the relevant paragraph. 1
For this reason, it must be clear in the petition what the primary need is: hospital referral, remedying an interruption of treatment, suitable care conditions, or deferral of enforcement. If there are several requests, the legal basis of each and the decision of the authority sought are stated. The special conditions of this subject are explained in the article Postponement of Enforcement: Illness, Pregnancy and Application.
What Do Real Constitutional Court Decisions Show?
Murat Karabulut: A Pace Appropriate to the Deterioration in Health
In its decision of February 18, 2016 in Murat Karabulut, Application No. 2013/2754, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) examined deficiencies and delays in the assessment of the condition of a convicted person with cancer. The Court held that, in a process prolonged between reports and referrals, the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity had been violated because care appropriate to the person’s worsening health was not shown. The separate complaint concerning the right to life was found inadmissible because the remedies had not been exhausted. 5
The decision does not mean automatic release in every serious illness. The lesson to be drawn for a specific file is that it cannot be considered sufficient that procedures have merely been initiated; given the course of the illness, they must be carried out with a speed and care capable of producing a result.
Abdulkadir Durmuş: Healthy Housing Conditions
In its decision of November 3, 2022 in Abdulkadir Durmuş, Application No. 2018/35662, the Constitutional Court assessed a request to move to a non-smoking room. The administration’s explanations on capacity and security were found insufficient with regard to the person’s health condition and alternative solutions. A violation of the right to protect and develop one’s material and spiritual existence was found. 6
The practical importance of this decision is that the right to health is not limited to hospital visits. The effect of a housing condition on health may also be the subject of an application. However, this outcome cannot be generalized to mean that every request for a room change will be accepted. For further information, see the article titled overcrowded wards and housing conditions in prison.
Merve Aydeniz Çokyılmaz: An Interim Measure Decision and a Merits Review Are Different
In its decision of December 15, 2020 in Merve Aydeniz Çokyılmaz, Application No. 2018/24061, the Constitutional Court examined the records of pregnancy monitoring and of access to health services. Although an interim measure had previously been granted for suitable conditions and immediate access to health services, the complaint concerning detention on account of health was found manifestly ill-founded. The separate allegation concerning adverse conditions of detention was also found inadmissible because the remedies had not been exhausted. 7
The granting of an interim measure does not mean that a violation decision will necessarily be issued at the end of the application. The subject of each complaint, the remedy that must be exhausted and the documentary support should be established separately.
How Is an Individual Application File Prepared?
After the ordinary remedies have been exhausted and the final decision has been learned of, the general time limit for an application to the Constitutional Court is thirty days. An urgent request for an interim measure does not remove the application’s admissibility requirements. In the application, the nature of the current risk, earlier requests, decisions, and documents of notification or of learning of the decision should be submitted. 8
Instead of merely piling medical documents before the court, each document should be linked with a particular allegation. For example, it is explained which concrete treatment was disrupted by the referral delay or which report the court did not respond to. The article Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in a Criminal Case presents the general framework of this filing method.
Defining the Dispute Correctly When Treatment Falters
Distinguishing a Medical Decision from a Failure to Provide the Service
Failure to carry out a check determined by a specialist and the choice of a different treatment method are not the same problem. In the first, it is examined whether the service was actually provided despite the prescription or referral decision. In the second, an objection concerning the medical assessment needs to be supported with specialist knowledge. In a legal application, instead of choosing a treatment in place of the physician, it may be requested that the reasoning for the decision be explained, that a current examination be carried out and that the necessary specialist assessment be provided.
For example, for a person for whom an imaging test was recommended but who was not taken to the appointment, the test order, the appointment date and the reason the referral did not take place are shown together. If it is claimed that the physician no longer considers the test necessary, the medical record of this change is requested. In this way, a deficiency in organization and a change in the medical plan are not confused. This example is not a test recommendation for any particular illness; it is a filing method concerning the implementation of an existing physician decision.
Follow-Up After Each Step in a Chronic Illness
In a situation requiring regular medication use and check-ups, the date of the first request alone should not be kept. Renewal of the prescription, actual provision of the medication, notification of the check-up day and evaluation of the results by the specialist are separate stages. The effect of a delay at one stage on the subsequent stage should be explained. These records should be compared with the documents kept by the health unit; personal notes should not be treated as a substitute for official records.
When a change occurs in the health condition, the date and symptoms of the new situation are reported to the health unit. Even if a legal application made on the basis of the earlier report is continuing, the new medical assessment should not be postponed. If, in particular, a care need that was not foreseen in the first report has emerged, the legal request may also need to be updated. Repetition of an application does not by itself revive a legal remedy, the time limit for which has been missed, against a past rejection.
Relatives’ Information and the Patient’s Privacy
A telephone call made by a relative with the institution can be an important starting point; however, the information conveyed in the call does not have the same evidentiary weight as an examination record or a physician’s report. In the application, from whom and when the information was obtained should be stated clearly, and it should not be presented as if a medical assessment had been made. The representation or consent position necessary for sharing information with the patient’s relatives and for the attorney’s obtaining of documents is dealt with separately.
Only the health documents necessary to explain the dispute should be placed in the file. Unrelated diagnoses of other family members or the whole of the past health records should not be shared without purpose. Copies of documents should be transmitted by a secure route, and information serving to identify a person should be removed from accounts of events to be published outside the court. This approach protects personal privacy without weakening the application.
Matching Requests and Evidence in a Health File
The matching below is a working method for preparing the file; it is not necessary for every row to apply to the same person.
| Specific Problem | Priority Record | Direction of the Legal Request |
|---|---|---|
| Referral not carried out | Physician’s order and referral cancellation record | Provision of the necessary service and explanation of the delay |
| Interruption in medication supply | Prescription and delivery schedule | Provision of continuity of treatment in line with the physician’s plan |
| Inadequate daily care | Report explaining the functional care need | Care and conditions of detention suited to the person |
| Prolongation of the report process | Correspondence on dispatch and missing documents | Completion of the process at a pace suited to the health risk |
The core review in the Murat Karabulut decision is not based on an acceptance that every hospital procedure was defective. The Constitutional Court assessed whether the report and decision process concerning the manner in which enforcement was continued, in the face of a worsening health condition, was carried out with reasonable speed and care. For this reason, using the decision in a file requires not only showing the same illness name, but explaining a comparable delay and its effect on health. 5
Conclusion
Protecting the right to health in prison requires that medical need be identified in time and remedied effectively. The strength of a legal application arises from the connection between a current report, a clear chronology, the correct authority and specific requests. Requests for access to treatment, suitable conditions of detention and deferral of enforcement should be assessed separately, and if there is an urgent risk, protection appropriate to it should be requested without delay. As a related subject, the article on the right to petition and access to court in prison may also be considered.
Related articles: Examination in Handcuffs and Patient Privacy in Prison; Consular Rights of Foreign Pretrial Detainees and Convicted Persons.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Every Health Problem in Prison a Ground for Release?
No. First, it is examined whether the necessary treatment and suitable conditions have been provided or could be provided. The release of a pretrial detainee and the deferral of a convicted person’s enforcement on health grounds are assessed within the framework of different authorities and rules.
Can the Family Apply Against a Failure to Provide Health Services?
The relatives listed in Law No. 4675 may use the complaint route. However, the authority to take delivery of health records and the privacy conditions must be examined separately.
Is It Enough That a Hospital Appointment Has Been Given?
It is also important that the appointment actually takes place and that the necessary follow-up services are provided. The reasons for cancellations and postponements and their effects on health should be documented.
Is an Application to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) Alone Sufficient for a Health Complaint?
General administrative application channels should not be used on the assumption that they take the place of an enforcement judgeship complaint or an application to a legal remedy. The relevant judicial time limits must also be protected separately.
When Can an Objection Be Made to a Rejection Decision of the Enforcement Judgeship?
According to the current Law No. 4675, an objection may be made within two weeks of notification of the decision. The notification document should be kept in the file.
If the Constitutional Court Grants an Interim Measure on a Health Matter, Has It Also Found a Violation?
No. Interim protection is different from the admissibility review and the merits review. The Merve Aydeniz Çokyılmaz decision shows this distinction.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), arts. 2, 6, 16, 57, 71, 78–81, 116. Current text checked: October 13, 2026.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), arts. 17 and 20.
- Regulation on the Administration of Penal Institutions and the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarının Yönetimi ile Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Yönetmelik), health services and art. 99.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), arts. 4–6.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Murat Karabulut, Application No. 2013/2754, February 18, 2016, in particular paras. 67–87 and the operative part.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Abdulkadir Durmuş, Application No. 2018/35662, November 3, 2022, in particular paras. 41–53.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Merve Aydeniz Çokyılmaz, Application No. 2018/24061, December 15, 2020, para. 4, paras. 25–39 and the operative part.
- Law No. 6216 (6216 sayılı Kanun), arts. 45, 47 and 49. Sources last accessed: October 13, 2026.