Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited. The gravity of an alleged offence, security considerations or a person's conduct cannot justify torture. Protection does not cover physical violence alone: severe psychological suffering, conditions of detention and, in certain circumstances, the failure to provide medical assistance may also engage this prohibition. In an application, the act itself and the failure to conduct an effective investigation should be set out as separate alleged violations. [1; 2]
This article is for general information only. Where there is a continuing risk to health or safety, medical assistance and urgent protection should be assessed before any later compensation claim.
What does the absolute prohibition mean?
Article 17(3) of the Constitution and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit treatment that severely violates human dignity. In this area no test of restriction for legitimate aims is applied, unlike in freedom of expression or freedom of assembly. Under Article 15 of the Constitution and Article 15 of the ECHR, torture is not permitted even in times of emergency. [1; 2]
However, not every rude act or every unlawful act reaches the severity required by ECHR Article 3. The duration of the treatment, its physical and psychological effects, the person's age, health and vulnerability, and the context of the event are all assessed. Conduct that remains below that threshold may still be unlawful with respect to personal rights, private life or other safeguards.
Are the offences of torture, torment and ill-treatment the same?
The constitutional prohibition of ill-treatment and the offence types in the Turkish Criminal Code do not cover the same scope. The TCK (Turkish Criminal Code) regulates torture in Articles 94 and 95, torment (eziyet) in Article 96 and ill-treatment in Article 232 as separate offences. The use of "ill-treatment" as the general concept in constitutional review does not mean that the event necessarily falls under TCK Article 232. The competent authorities determine the legal classification according to the characteristics of the act. [3]
An applicant who cites the wrong criminal provision should not let this weaken the core account of events. The time, place and duration of the act, the method used, the position of the officials and the effects that resulted should be stated clearly. The legal classification is then discussed on the basis of those facts.
The state's three basic obligations
State officials must not commit ill-treatment. Authorities must take reasonable protective measures against serious risks that they know of or ought to know of. Where an arguable claim of ill-treatment arises, an effective investigation must be carried out. These three obligations may call for different documents and different requests. [5]
Law enforcement officers may claim that they had to use force. In that case, the applicant's resistance, the nature of the danger and the necessity of the force used are examined. Force used after the person has submitted or been rendered helpless must be separately explained. The purpose of maintaining public order does not make excessive or disproportionate force lawful.
The authorities' duty to explain injuries sustained by a person deprived of liberty is especially important. Differences between the admission and discharge examinations, the period during which the person was under control and the consistency of any alternative explanations are assessed. This does not mean that the applicant need not submit any statement or document.
How is a claim documented?
Health records and the Istanbul Protocol
In examinations, not only visible injuries but also pain, loss of function and psychological symptoms should be accurately described. The date of the examination, the findings, the person's account and any necessary specialist assessments should be recorded. An independent assessment by a health professional is essential; the applicant or the lawyer should not steer the content of the report.
The Istanbul Protocol is an international guide for the effective investigation and documentation of torture allegations. It is not an automatic rule of evidence that by itself secures a conviction. The absence of visible marks does not refute the allegation on its own; the method of the treatment, the effect of time and psychological findings are also relevant. [7]
Footage, witnesses and duty records
Camera recordings, custody entry and exit logs, transfer documents, vehicle records, duty rosters and witness statements can complement one another. Because the retention periods for records may be limited, a request for their preservation should not be delayed. Without resorting to unlawful access to or alteration of records, the competent authority should be asked to obtain the evidence.
| Allegation | Document or investigation | Relationship to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Injury in custody | Entry and exit examinations, footage, witnesses | The period of control during which the injury occurred |
| Failure to provide medical care | Request and referral records, specialist opinion | When the authorities learned of the need and what they did |
| Degrading treatment | Minutes, instructions, witnesses, time records | The necessity of the practice and its effect on the person |
| Lack of investigation | Evidence petitions, interlocutory decisions, reasons for rejection | Which important inquiry was not made, and why |
Originals and reliable copies of documents should be protected, and the health or identity details of third parties unconnected with the event should not be made public. Public exposure on social media is no substitute for effective legal remedies.
Criminal investigation and the enforcement judgeship route
Acts giving rise to a suspicion of a criminal offence are reported to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. In a complaint, facts that are known are separated from assumptions. Where the name of the perpetrator is unknown, the place of duty, the time and any distinctive information are stated. From the prosecutor, the complainant requests the preservation of specific records, the hearing of relevant persons and the resolution of contradictions. [4]
Against a decision of non-prosecution, the current general period under Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) is two weeks from notification. An objection should not merely repeat the investigation petition; it must show which missing inquiry or which erroneous inference the decision rests on. It is provided that the statute of limitations does not apply to the offence of torture under TCK Article 94; nevertheless, the preservation of evidence and other procedural time limits remain urgent where delay is harmful. [3; 4]
For matters concerning an action or conditions in a penal institution, the enforcement judgeship route is also important. Under Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, the general complaint period is fifteen days from learning of the action and, in any event, thirty days from the action or activity. An application does not automatically suspend the action; where the conditions are met, deferral or suspension may be requested. The nature of continuing conditions and of new actions is assessed separately in the review of time limits. [8] Review of disciplinary penalties imposed for protest in prison is explained in our article on prison protest and hunger strike.
Where a complaint of torture is made together with complaints about food, hygiene, accommodation or health services in the same petition, the appropriate route for each must be determined separately. A general petition to the administration does not mean that all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
The Cezmi Demir judgment: why delay in the investigation matters
In the Constitutional Court's judgment in Cezmi Demir and Others, Application No. 2013/293, 17 July 2014, ill-treatment in police custody and the investigation of that ill-treatment were examined together. The Court found a violation of the prohibition of torture in both its substantive and its procedural dimension. That the investigation and trial lasted more than eleven years, that some charges became time-barred and that the penalties became final very late were important in the assessment of effective investigation. [5, §§ 80–104, 110–138]
The practical lesson of the judgment is that opening an investigation is not enough on its own. The inquiry must be carried out diligently and promptly. However, the duty of effective investigation does not guarantee that every person the applicant names will be convicted. The historical criminal and procedural provisions discussed in the judgment should not be carried over directly to the present file.
Can the deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) apply in ill-treatment cases?
As of 12 October 2026, Article 231(14) of the CMK, in force on that date, excludes the provisions on the deferment of the pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) for the offences of torture and torment. The prohibition also covers offences committed by a public official because of their duty that may be accepted as ill-treatment within the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution. For this reason, looking only at the name of the offence in the file is not enough: the constitutional nature of the act, the official's duty and the connection with that duty should be examined together. The provision should not be read as a general HAGB ban for every offence committed by a public official. [4, Art. 231(14)]
This provision was amended by Law No. 7589 dated 16 July 2026. A guide published in earlier years stating that HAGB may apply in a file concerning torture, torment or ill-treatment in the course of duty is not a sufficient basis for a current application. The dates of the act and of the decision, the date of entry into force and the transitional rules should be examined separately. In a complaint of ineffective investigation, the nature and deterrent effect of the sanction should also be discussed on the basis of the concrete decision. [4; 5]
Admissibility and interim measures in a Constitutional Court application
An individual application requires a personal and current alleged violation attributable to public authority, and the appropriate effective remedies must have been used. The thirty-day period is assessed by reference to the learning of the relevant final decision, depending on the nature of the application. In a file where the investigation is alleged to have become ineffective, waiting indefinitely is not always safe. The applicant must explain when they became aware of the ineffectiveness and what steps they took. [6]
The form submitted to the Constitutional Court must link the event, the violation, the documents and the request. A statement that "Article 17 of the Constitution has been violated" is not sufficient on its own. It should show which request for treatment was refused, which footage was not collected or which contradiction was left unanswered. Claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation must also be justified.
Where there is a serious danger to life or to material and moral integrity, a request for an interim measure may arise under Article 73 of the Constitutional Court's Rules of Procedure. Urgency, current medical records and the concreteness of the danger must be shown. Requesting an interim measure does not remove the admissibility conditions of the main application, and it cannot be assumed that an interim measure will be granted for every complaint. [9]
Lawyers may file applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Attachments must be legible and correctly classified, representation documents must be submitted, and the completion of the application record must be verified. Fees and legal aid are regulated separately. For the general electronic procedure, the Constitutional Court individual application article may be consulted. [10]
Removal, non-refoulement and the risk of ill-treatment
A claim that a person will face real torture or inhuman treatment in another country is also important in removal proceedings. General conditions in the country should be linked to the individual's own situation. Political activity, earlier ill-treatment, a search warrant, health condition or personal threats must be explained with reliable documents. [2; 11]
Under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, the principle of non-refoulement and the judicial remedy specific to a deportation decision are separate from an objection to administrative detention. For an action against a deportation decision before the administrative court, a special period of seven days is provided. The content of the notification and the safeguard in the law against enforcement before review should be followed in the specific file. Leaving administrative detention alone does not mean that the deportation decision has been annulled. [11, Arts. 4, 53, 57]
The deterrent function of the investigation safeguard
The study by Özge Balcıoğlu emphasises that the prohibition of ill-treatment cannot be made effective by legislation alone; the practical application of the duty to investigate is important for deterrence. For this reason, the existence of an investigation number in a file should not by itself be treated as adequate protection. Concrete investigative steps, the identification of the officials involved and a response to the substance of the allegation should be monitored. However, an effective investigation is not the same thing as an expectation of conviction; the outcome of the inquiry must rest on evidence. [12]
How should difficulty of proof be handled in an ill-treatment claim?
Preservation of records in events under state control
In events that take place during detention, transfer, a penal institution or a removal centre, a significant part of the records is in the hands of public authorities. An investigation cannot be left undone on the basis that the applicant is expected personally to submit every document they cannot access. However, the applicant should state the time, place, conduct and accessible evidence as far as possible. The petition to the prosecutor should specify the time window for which camera footage is requested, which duty roster is important and which witnesses may be heard. [5; 7]
Preservation of camera footage should be requested before its retention period expires. If it is reported that a recording cannot be found, the request should be followed up: from which unit it was requested and when, and whether the explanation for its deletion or a malfunction was investigated. The existence of a set of minutes does not make it unnecessary to discuss their content. If there is a contradiction between the health record, the footage and the witness account, that contradiction should be shown under a separate heading. A staff member's name or a detail of the event should not, however, be added without documentary support.
Psychological effects and a delayed medical examination
Not every form of ill-treatment leaves lasting physical marks. Threats, sexually humiliating conduct, intense fear or prolonged conditions incompatible with human dignity may cause psychological effects. Any delay in the examination, any limitation in the scope of the first report, or the person's inability to speak freely in the presence of officials should be explained separately. Requesting a current expert assessment does not mean that the past event is automatically proven; the link between the report and the account of events, and the limits of the assessment, should be stated. [5; 7]
The applicant should not disregard differences between earlier and later statements. If trauma, translation problems, fear or incorrect recording of the minutes is relied on, these should be explained with concrete facts. The lawyer's task is not to make the account artificially flawless, but to separate the events that are correct, the information that can be documented and the points still to be clarified.
Duration and intensity in complaints about conditions of detention
Overcrowding of the ward, ventilation, light, cleanliness, access to toilets, health services and the person's particular situation may be assessed together. An application should not merely say that "conditions were bad"; it should describe which condition continued, for how long, when it was reported to the administration and what response was received. The failure to obtain photographs does not automatically invalidate the complaint; room dimensions, the number of persons, bed arrangements and institutional records may be made the subject of inquiry. [7; 8]
A request for an interim measure must be justified not to punish a past event that has been completed, but to prevent a continuing serious danger. The current nature of the risk, the seriousness of the health condition and the reason why the protective step requested is necessary should be shown. Prosecutor's investigation, a complaint to the enforcement judgeship and an interim measure from the Constitutional Court should not be presented as three equivalent options that replace one another. [8; 9]
Recording the complaint in minutes and the importance of the first account
In an ill-treatment claim, the first account should be as concrete as possible. The place of the event, its approximate time, the conduct applied, the words used and the physical or psychological effects that followed should be set out separately. Where the name of the perpetrator is unknown, the application should not be postponed on that account; the place of duty, clothing, vehicle, shift time or the persons present during the event may assist the investigation. Matters that are not known with certainty should not be presented as established facts, and what the person saw should be separated from what they learned from someone else. This distinction strengthens the reliability of the account and the direction of the investigation.
If a statement or complaint minute contains a material omission, a correction should be requested; if no correction is made, a supplementary explanation should be submitted. Gaps in the first account may be explained later, but the reason for the change must be stated. Trauma, fear, lack of an interpreter or a health condition should be discussed concretely. It cannot be accepted that every contradiction automatically refutes the claim, nor that every contradiction is automatically unimportant. The assessment is made together with the whole account and the other evidence. [5; 7]
The relationship between a statement obtained by force and an ill-treatment investigation
Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) is based on the principle that the statement of a suspect or accused must rest on free will, and it regulates prohibited methods such as ill-treatment, torture, administering drugs, fatigue, deception, force or threats. Statements obtained by prohibited methods cannot be evaluated as evidence, even if consent was given. Therefore, where it is claimed in a criminal file that a statement was taken under pressure, both an objection to the use of that statement as evidence and an investigation of the act may arise. These two requests do not share the same purpose: one concerns the lawfulness of the evidence in the trial, the other concerns the investigation of the treatment and the identification of those responsible. [4, Art. 148]
The lawyer should not leave the claim of pressure in the last sentence of the defence. In what conditions, in what environment and with whom present was the statement taken? Why is a later statement different? Do the examination, interview and entry and exit records support this account? The answers to these questions should be visible in the file. The fact that a statement is not used in the judgment does not by itself remove the ill-treatment claim. Likewise, the fact that an ill-treatment investigation has not yet concluded is no general justification for a criminal court to fail to assess an objection to the lawfulness of evidence before it.
How should uncertainty in a health report be handled?
A short report does not by itself mean that it is contrary to the facts. The scope of the examination, the time that elapsed between the event and the examination, and the manner in which the findings were recorded should be investigated. If the applicant described psychological effects but the report concentrated only on visible injury, this gap in scope may justify a request for further assessment. If reports conflict, the same body region, examination time and method should be compared. A mere difference in wording is not sufficient; a contradiction that requires a medical explanation should be shown. [7]
The Istanbul Protocol is an important framework guiding the evaluation; it is not a document that automatically confirms the applicant's allegation. The conditions of the examination, the person's ability to speak in safety and a holistic assessment of the findings are important. One cannot move directly from "no marks were found" to the conclusion that no treatment occurred, nor can every bodily finding be assumed to have been caused by the alleged act. The consistency between the account of events, the examination and the other records must be examined. [5; 7]
Duration and the effect of the investigation in the Cezmi Demir judgment
The problem discussed in the Cezmi Demir judgment was not only the length of the file. The effect of the period on the effective determination of responsibility and on the deterrent effect of the sanction is also important. The judgment should be read together with the assessments made on the substantive prohibition and on the duty to investigate. This approach requires that, rather than setting out only start and end dates in a complaint, the complaint shows the periods in which no action was taken, the inquiries that were postponed and their consequences. [5]
A claim of lack of investigation must be established separately in the application. The fact that the treatment cannot clearly be proved by the existing evidence does not in every case make the complaint that an arguable claim was not properly investigated meaningless. On the other hand, the fact that an investigation did not reach the desired result is not in itself proof of ineffectiveness. The application should explain which essential step was not taken, which important contradiction remained unanswered and how the gap affected the outcome. Setting out the substantive violation and the procedural obligation separately also helps to identify more accurately the redress the court should award. [5, 6]
For further details, see our articles on the right to life and on freedom of expression and the right of access to publications in prison. For our firm's work in this field, see the page on Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications.
Conclusion
Effective protection of the prohibition of ill-treatment requires that the event be correctly classified, that evidence be protected in time and that the appropriate route be used. In an application, the gravity of the treatment, public responsibility and gaps in the investigation should be shown separately. Averting an imminent danger and remedying a past violation are pursued together, but through different legal instruments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an application be made if the health report shows no marks?
Yes. The type of treatment, the effect of time, psychological findings and the other evidence are assessed together.
Does a security justification make torture lawful?
No. The prohibition is absolute; even extraordinary circumstances do not make torture legitimate.
Does every rough treatment fall within ECHR Article 3?
No. A certain threshold of severity is required; conduct below that threshold may still violate other rights.
Does an application to the prosecutor replace an enforcement judgeship complaint?
Not in every case. Complaints about criminal allegations and complaints about enforcement actions or conditions have separate routes.
Does the Constitutional Court always award compensation?
No. The violation, the damage, the request and the appropriate redress are assessed; the result depends on the specific application.
Are deportation and administrative detention reviewed in the same decision?
No. They are subject to separate decisions and separate routes of application; applying against one does not automatically remove the other.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 15, 17. Text.
2 — European Convention on Human Rights, Arts. 3, 13, 15, 35. Text.
3 — Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code, Arts. 94–96, 232. Text.
4 — Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 148, 158–173 and 231. Text.
5 — Constitutional Court, Cezmi Demir and Others, Application No. 2013/293, 17 July 2014. Decision.
6 — Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Text.
7 — Constitutional Court, Precedent Decisions on the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment, Effective Investigation and Istanbul Protocol Assessments. Official compilation.
8 — Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Arts. 4–6. Text.
9 — Constitutional Court Rules of Procedure, Art. 73. Text.
10 — Constitutional Court, Guide to Individual Application through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Guide.
11 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection. Text.
12 — Özge Balcıoğlu, “İşkence ve Kötü Muamele Yasağı Kapsamında Soruşturma Yükümlülüğü ve Türkiye’nin Soruşturma Yükümlülüğünü İcrası” (“Investigation Duty under the Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment and the Performance of Türkiye’s Investigation Obligation”), Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (TİHEK) Academic Journal, 5/9, 2022, pp. 173–189. Article.