Muršić v. Croatia (application no. 7334/13) (AİHS md. 3)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne göre, “Hırvatistan’da bir mahkum ile ilgili alan (/yer) eksikliği, o kişinin spor tesislerine erişimi ve hücresi dışında yeterli zaman geçirmesi ile telafi edilmiştir.”

Muršić v. Croatia kararı, hapishanedeki kötü koşullar ve aşırı kalabalık olma ile ilgilidir. Bu karar, kayda değerdir; çünkü hapishanedeki aşırı kalabalıklık meselesi ile ilgili genel ilkeleri tekrar teyit etmiştir. Özellikle, bir mahkum, üç metrekarenin altında bir alanda tutuluyorsa; bu, kural olarak Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 3. maddesine aykırı olacaksa da; bu durum, tutulma şartlarının kümülatif etkileri ile, örneğin dolaşım serbestîsi ve tutulma tesisinin uygunluğu ile, telafi edilebilecek; başka bir deyişle, 3. maddeye aykırılığın önüne geçilebilecektir.

Muršić v. Croatia kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.
 
Muršić v. Croatia kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5035303-6187643” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir

Lack of space for a prisoner in Croatia was compensated for by him having access to sports facilities and sufficient time out of his cell
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Muršić v. Croatia (application no. 7334/13) the European Court of Human Rights held by majority (six votes to one) that there had been:
no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned an allegation of prison overcrowding and generally poor prison conditions in a Croatian prison.
The Court found in particular that, whilst there were some elements for concern with regard to Mr Muršić’s lack of personal space during certain short non-consecutive periods of his detention, his overall conditions of detention – including in particular three hours a day outside of his cell in an otherwise entirely appropriate facility – had not met the threshold of severity required to characterise his detention as inhuman or degrading.
The judgment is noteworthy in that it re-affirmed the general principles on the question of prison overcrowding and clarified the Court’s related case-law. In particular, whilst there is a strong presumption of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention when a detainee disposes of less than 3 square metres of personal space, this could sometimes be compensated for by the cumulative effects of the conditions of detention, such as freedom of movement and the appropriateness of the detention facility.