7 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Süleyman ÖZAR of expression and dissemination of thought” laid down in Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution.17 The limitations of the right as well as the enjoyment and abuse thereof must be determined according to the provisions of Article 26 and the framework set in Article 13 of the Constitution.18 This acknowledgement is also in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”), which sets forth that freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”), which applies not only to the content of expression but also to the means of its dissemination.19 There is no controversial issue up to this point: the “problem” comes into play when the hunger strike leads to a life-threatening situation. Some of the jurists argue that in case of a life-threatening situation, it is the State’s duty to put an end to the hunger strike by way of medical intervention with recpect to the striker, whereas some others argue that such a medical intervention would constitute a violation of human rights. We will thoroughly discuss this issue in the subsequent parts of this paper within the scope of the distinction made in terms of prisoners and those who are not deprived of liberty. It should be also considered whether the hunger strikers intend to commit an act of suicide. It should be primarily noted that the right to life is undoubtedly the most basic right that the State is to protect. Moreover, the State must protect this right even against the person himself, when necessary. For this very reason, it is incumbent on the State to prevent persons from committing suicide, and assisting a person to commit suicide constitutes an offence. However, it should be ascertained whether death fast is a suicide and whether the person 17 Feyzioğlu, p. 162. 18 Article 13 of the Constitution reads as follows “Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law and in conformity with the reasons mentioned in the relevant articles of the Constitution without infringing upon their essence. These restrictions shall not be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the requirements of the democratic order of the society and the secular republic and the principle of proportionality”. 19 Oberschlick v. Austria, 23.5.1991 (Hasan Tahsin Gökcan, “Hasta Haklarının Bireysel Başvuru Yoluyla Korunması”, Sağlık ve Tıp Hukukunda Sorumluluk ve İnsan Hakları (“Protection of Patients’ Rights through Individual Application Mechanism”, Responsibilities and Human Rights in Health and Medical Jurisprudence), edited by Özge Yücel & Gürkan Sert, Ankara 2018, p. 171.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1