CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 detention decision on 26 May. On 22 June, the Ankara 6th Criminal Magistrates’ Office rejected both appeals. 5.4 The authors note that filing a complaint before the domestic courts under article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to obtain financial compensation is not the remedy they seek. Their primary objective is not to obtain financial compensation but to ensure that the continuous violation of their rights ends and that they be released from detention. 5.5 The authors argue that filing an individual application before the Constitutional Court is not an effective remedy, as the Court is not competent to deal with measures imposed under the decree laws. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision on 13 October 2016 in which it rejected an appeal introduced in September 2016 by the Republican Peoples’ Party, the main opposition party, to review the constitutionality of Decree Law No. 667. The Court found it was not competent to conduct such a review. They further argue that pursuing a claim before the Constitutional Court would be unreasonably prolonged. According to the most recent figures available, over 100,000 cases are currently pending before the Court, while the Court has in the past dealt with a maximum of 20,000 cases a year.5 They note that, according to recent estimates, it will take the Court at least 10 years to review every case currently pending before it.6 5.6 The authors argue that, even if there would have been domestic remedies to exhaust, they are impeded from exhausting them as they cannot rely on actual legal representation and assistance. Finding counsel has been extremely burdensome. Most lawyers are too afraid to represent anyone allegedly connected to the Gülen movement. It is only after having been turned away numerous times that the authors’ family members managed to find counsel for the authors in Turkey. They note that Mr. Özçelik’s counsel visited him only once, in May 2017. Shortly thereafter, however, counsel was arrested because he was providing legal assistance to an alleged Gülenist. The authors’ friend, who arranged for contact with the lawyer, was also arrested. Upon his release, the lawyer withdrew from representing the author. The author was assigned another lawyer by the Turkish Bar Association. This lawyer did not take any action to defend his interests and instead kept trying to persuade him to confess to crimes he had not committed. The authors note that they have no legal background or knowledge of the Turkish criminal justice system and they are therefore not in a position to initiate domestic proceedings in the absence of legal assistance. 5.7 The authors also argue that domestic remedies in Turkey should be presumed to be non-effective owing to the gross and systematic violations of human rights in the country. They note that almost one third (4,424) of the judges and prosecutors have been dismissed on allegations of conspiring with the Gülen movement, while 2,386 judges and prosecutors have been detained.7 In its report of November 2016, the European Commission stressed that “these large-scale dismissals as well as large-scale recruitments of new judges and prosecutors raise a serious challenge to the performance and independence of the judiciary”.8 5.8 The authors submit that their claims under articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant are admissible despite the State party’s derogation under article 4, as the measures taken by the State party authorities pursuant to the derogation do not comply with the principles of proportionality, consistency and non-discrimination.9 The authors note that the principle of proportionality requires that measures adopted pursuant to a derogation do not go beyond what is strictly necessary in order to cope with a public emergency which threatens the life 5 6 7 8 9 6 The authors refer to an article by Suzy Hansen in the New York Times entitled, “Inside Turkey’s purge”, 13 April 2017. The authors refer to an article by Mehmet Y. Yilmaz in the Hurriyet Daily News entitled, “Constitutional Court’s decision on jailed journalists”, 1 April 2017. European Commission, “Staff working document: Turkey 2016 report”, 9 November 2016. Ibid., p. 19. The authors refer to the report of the Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 1/2017 concerning Rebii Metin Görgeç (Turkey) (A/HRC/WGAD/2017/1).