Holding a person in a single-occupancy cell in prison cannot be described merely as “solitary confinement” (hücre cezası) or “isolation” without knowing the reasons for and the consequences of the practice. A single-occupancy cell may be a form of placement; a disciplinary sanction, by contrast, is subject to separate conditions and safeguards. The focus of the legal review is not only the name of the decision but also the conditions under which, for how long and on what grounds the person is actually held.
Are a single-occupancy cell and the solitary confinement penalty the same thing?
No. Depending on the type of institution and the person’s situation, accommodation in a single-occupancy cell may be involved. Confinement in a cell, on the other hand, is regulated in Law No. 5275 as a disciplinary sanction. An application against a placement decision and the review of a disciplinary decision may proceed on different bases. [1]
How is the legal basis of the measure determined?
First, the written decision, the authority that made the decision, the reasons, the start date and, if any, the duration should be requested. If the person does not know why he or she is being kept apart, this uncertainty should be stated in the application. An oral statement that it is “for security” may not show which decision is in the file.
Placement for protection, a decision relating to the order of the institution, a health necessity and a disciplinary sanction should be distinguished from one another. If it is claimed that the person needs to be protected from other prisoners, it is examined how this is achieved and whether less restrictive options were considered. The purpose of protection does not automatically justify removing the person’s other rights without reasons.
The enforcement regime for aggravated life imprisonment is examined separately
Some enforcement regimes are specially regulated by law. For aggravated life imprisonment, special provisions such as Article 25 of Law No. 5275 are taken into account. Such a file cannot be assessed on the same assumptions as a general placement decision. Even so, conditions consistent with human dignity and the necessary safeguards of health care remain important.
Which conditions matter in assessing isolation?
Physical conditions
The usable area of the cell, lighting, ventilation, toilet and shower facilities, cleanliness and access to the open air are assessed. That a single element is adequate does not show that all the conditions are sufficient. Likewise, the mere fact that there is a single bed in the cell does not by itself result in ill-treatment.
If the measurements are not known exactly, estimates should be clearly identified, and the institution’s records or, where necessary, an on-site inspection should be requested. If the cell that is the subject of the application changed, the start and end dates of each period should be written separately. It should not be assumed that a photograph from another period shows the current conditions.
Social contact and communication with the outside world
Family and lawyer visits, use of the telephone, time in the open air, shared activities and the opportunity for contact with other people are examined together. That a right exists in the legislation is not the same as the person actually benefiting from it. If a visit request was refused, a program was not implemented or there is a long-term restriction, these should be shown by records.
Instead of merely saying “I am not allowed to meet anyone” in the application, it should be explained which visits were or were not held on which dates. Withholding the existing visits does not strengthen the application; it should be argued in legal terms why their frequency and nature are not considered sufficient.
Duration and individual effects
The duration and purpose of the practice and its physical or mental effects on the person matter together. It may be asked whether the reason put forward on the date of the first decision is still valid months later. It should also be shown in the chronology if repeated short decisions in practice form an uninterrupted application.
If there are mental complaints, an expert assessment should be requested. The observations of the person or the family are important, but they do not replace a medical diagnosis. Health findings, medication used or recommended follow-up should be submitted to the relevant authorities only to the extent necessary. If there is a current serious risk, the health assessment should not wait for the result of the complaint.
The Şükrü Durmuş decision: a single-occupancy cell is not automatically a violation
In the Constitutional Court (AYM) decision in Şükrü Durmuş, Application No. 2017/18047, March 24, 2021, the allegation concerning holding in a single-occupancy cell was assessed separately from the other complaints. The Court examined together the physical conditions, access to the open air, family and lawyer visits and telephone facilities. It found this complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. [2]
What is the limit of the decision?
In that file, the Constitutional Court did not conclude that the person had been sensorially and socially isolated, and it considered that there was not sufficient concrete data showing the person-specific effects of the practice. The decision does not say that every single-occupancy cell practice is lawful. Another person’s health condition, opportunity for contact, length of holding or cell conditions may be different.
The practical result is to document the practice as a whole rather than merely stating the type of cell. Even in the same person’s applications in different periods, conditions may change. An earlier rejection does not mean that new and concrete problems that arise later cannot be examined at all; however, the subject of the repeat application and the new facts must be clearly separated.
How is an application against a placement decision prepared?
Reasons and a request for reassessment
The institution’s management may be asked to explain the decision and its reasons, to assess the person’s current conditions and to examine suitable placement options. In the application, instead of merely saying “I want to move to a ward,” it should be explained why the current practice has become unnecessary or burdensome.
If there is a threat to the person’s life safety, it should be assessed who or what situation it stems from, to what extent protection is provided by the current method and whether there are other options. Details concerning the security of prisoners should be conveyed to the competent authorities without being made public.
Separate requests concerning daily conditions
Even if the placement does not change immediately, requests for health follow-up, open air, communication and suitable activities can be made separately. It is not necessary to make all rights depend on the outcome of a single request for a change of cell. Instead of an overly broad but undocumented request, it should be explained which deficiency will be remedied by which measure.
| Matter to be examined | Information to attach to the application |
|---|---|
| Basis of the decision | Decision, reasons, authority and start date |
| Duration | Changes of cell and renewal decisions |
| Physical conditions | Concrete description of area, light, ventilation and hygiene |
| Social contact | Records of visits, telephone, open air and activities |
| Health impact | Examinations, reports, follow-up and expert recommendations |
What additional review is carried out if there is a solitary confinement penalty?
In a disciplinary decision, the conduct alleged, the evidence, the defense, the reasons for the decision, its notification and the conditions of enforcement should be examined. Being content with a complaint about the single-occupancy cell may cause the time limit against the disciplinary decision to be missed. Special provisions on the finalization of the decision and on enforcement procedure are assessed separately.
An allegation of de facto punishment outside a disciplinary sanction
Even if the administration describes the act as a placement, why and under what conditions the person is kept apart can be investigated. However, an allegation of de facto punishment must be supported by concrete events. The reasons in the decision, the start of the practice, whether it followed a disciplinary incident and the restrictions placed on other rights should be presented together.
Review by the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) is not an automatic route that necessarily secures the cell the person has requested. The aim is to have the legal basis, reasons and conditions of implementation of the decision reviewed. A clear link should be established between the desired result and the facts supporting it.
Frequently asked questions
Is staying in a single-occupancy cell always a solitary confinement penalty?
No. The basis of the measure and the actual conditions must be examined. A disciplinary sanction and a placement decision are different.
If there are family visits, can an allegation of isolation not be made?
The opportunity for visits is important in the assessment; however, it does not make it unnecessary to examine the other conditions. Duration, health effects and all opportunities for contact are considered together.
For a health problem, is it necessary to wait for a decision on a change of cell?
No. A current health need is followed up separately; if there is a serious risk, an assessment is requested without delay.
How are application routes and time limits protected?
Complaint to the enforcement judgeship about an institutional act
If it is claimed that a decision, act or activity within the scope of Law No. 4675 is unlawful, a complaint to the competent enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) is considered. The general time limit is fifteen days from learning of the act and in any event thirty days from the date of the act. An objection against the enforcement judgeship’s decision is provided for within two weeks of notification. Jurisdiction, who may apply and when the time limit starts should be checked according to the specific act. [3]
A complaint does not stop the act automatically. If the statutory conditions are met, a request for postponement or suspension is separately reasoned. Continuing situations, renewed decisions and one-off incidents should not be treated under the same time-limit calculation. It should not be assumed that the time limits for other applications are suspended while waiting for an answer to an earlier application.
Application to the prosecutor’s office for a criminal allegation
For conduct by officers alleged to constitute a crime, an application to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Cumhuriyet başsavcılığı) may be considered. This route is not the same as a request to set aside an institutional act. The incident, the evidence, the investigative requests and the applicant’s legal position must be stated clearly. The two-week time limit for a person harmed by the offense to object, from notification, to a decision of non-prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı) under Article 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) must also be observed separately. [4]
An application to the Constitutional Court is not a first application that replaces the ordinary routes. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the exhaustion of effective remedies and the admissibility conditions are examined. It cannot be said that every incident can be taken directly to the Constitutional Court, or that exhausting the same route is sufficient in every application. It should also not be assumed that extraordinary applications renew the time limits automatically.
Related articles: Frisk, Cell and Detailed Searches in Prison: Legal Limits and Complaint Routes; Handcuffed Examination in Hospital and Patient Privacy: Rights of Detainees and Convicted Prisoners; Ill-Treatment in Prison Transfer and Transport Vehicles: Conditions, Evidence and Application; Disciplinary Penalties in Prison: Complaints and Objections, Defense, Time Limits and Legal Review; Crowded Prison Wards and Living Conditions.