Facts
The applicant is currently in custody on charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. During a search of the applicant’s cell conducted by correctional facility staff, a handwritten document belonging to the applicant and described as a diary was seized. Following an examination of the handwritten document by correctional facility staff, a record was drawn up stating that certain words contained in the document constituted defamation and slander; a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was sentenced to 7 days in solitary confinement. The applicant filed an objection with the enforcement court seeking the annulment of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him; the enforcement court ruled to dismiss the objection. A higher court to which the applicant appealed also ruled to dismiss the appeal, stating that the decision subject to the appeal was in accordance with procedure and law.
Allegations
The applicant alleged that his disciplinary punishment, based on statements contained in a handwritten document seized during a search of his cell at the correctional facility, violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
In this specific case, the disciplinary committee assessed the applicant’s use of the word “Avarel” in his personal diary—referring to correctional facility staff—and his cursing of the prosecutor and judge in the case against him as an insult to institutional officials, and decided to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant.
The applicant stated that the document seized during the search was a diary. There is no finding by the correctional facility that the document was not a diary. The Constitutional Court also concludes, based on the content of the document and the findings made by the correctional facility, that the document in question is a diary. On the other hand, neither the correctional facility nor the lower courts have made any finding regarding whether the document in question was shared with other inmates at the facility.
An act of insult committed within a correctional facility may be directed against any person employed at the facility. While it is possible for the act constituting the insult to be spoken directly to facility staff, it is also possible for it to be spoken behind their backs. However, for an insult committed in absentia to be subject to disciplinary action, it must be learned by others.
In the specific case, it was determined that no assessment was made regarding the impact of the words contained in the document written by the applicant—which were not alleged to have been learned by others—on the institution’s order and security merely because they appeared in a written document. Furthermore, the relevant administrative and appellate courts failed to provide a justification that the imposition of a disciplinary penalty on the applicant for his action met a necessary social need. It was determined that the unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression through the imposition of solitary confinement is inconsistent with the requirements of a democratic society.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had been violated based on the aforementioned grounds.