CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 authors failed to appeal the detention decisions of the Ankara 5th Criminal Magistrates’ Office. The Committee notes, however, the authors’ submission that they appealed these decisions to the Ankara 6th Criminal Magistrates’ Office, which rejected their appeals on 22 June 2017. The Committee notes that the State party does not refute the authors’ assertion in this regard and that it has not identified any further avenues of appeal against the authors’ detention order. The Committee finds that the authors have therefore exhausted this remedy. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not submitting an individual application before the Constitutional Court. It further notes the State party’s submission that the European Court of Human Rights has held, in cases concerning pretrial detention after the declaration of the state of emergency, that an individual application before the Constitutional Court constitutes an effective remedy.14 8.5 The Committee notes the authors’ argument that filing an individual application before the Constitutional Court is not an effective remedy as: (a) the Court is not competent to deal with measures imposed under the decree laws; (b) the process would be unreasonably prolonged; and (c) they are unable to rely on effective legal representation and assistance in order to appeal to the Constitutional Court. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any information on the effectiveness of the remedy of an individual application to the Constitutional Court in cases concerning pretrial detention imposed under the decree laws. It further notes that the State party has not refuted the authors’ claim that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court would be unduly prolonged. In addition, it notes that the State party has not provided any specific information refuting the authors’ claim that their lack of access to effective legal representation prevents them from submitting a complaint before the Constitutional Court. It also notes that the European Court of Human Rights has expressed concern as to the effectiveness of the remedy of an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court in cases concerning pretrial detention, owing to the non-implementation, by lower courts, of the Constitutional Court’s findings in two cases in which the Constitutional Court had found violations of the applicants’ rights.15 The Committee further notes that the European Court of Human Rights noted that it would be for the Government to prove that the remedy of an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court was effective, both in theory and in practice. 16 In the absence of any further information on file that would support the effectiveness of the remedy of a complaint before the Constitutional Court, the Committee finds that, in the circumstances of the authors’ case, the State party has not shown that an individual complaint before the Constitutional Court would have been effective to challenge the authors’ detention under the decree laws. 8.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not filing a compensation claim under article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee notes, however, that a remedy provided under this provision would not end the authors’ pretrial detention and could therefore not be an effective remedy under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that, concerning the authors’ claims under articles 6, 7, 10 and 14, the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not raising these claims before a domestic authority. The Committee notes the authors’ claims that they have been subjected to ill-treatment, that Mr. Özçelik informed his counsel of this and that the counsel appointed by the Turkish Bar Association did not take any action to defend his interests and tried to persuade him to confess to crimes he had not committed. It also notes the authors’ claim that they have no legal background or knowledge of the Turkish criminal justice system. The Committee recalls that authors of 14 15 16 10 European Court of Human Rights, Mercan v. Turkey and Zihni v. Turkey. Ibid., Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (application No. 13237/17), 20 March 2018, para. 142; and Şahin Alpay v. Turkey (application No. 16538/17), 20 March 2018, para. 121. Ibid.