CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 of the nation.10 They argue that the decree laws have been adopted with the specific purpose of eliminating all individuals or organizations that have been even slightly linked to or are inspired by the ideas of the Gülen movement and that the derogation is therefore contrary to the objective and purpose of derogations under article 4. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 27 February 2018, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. It reiterates its arguments concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and submits that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims for the purpose of admissibility. 6.2 The State party reiterates that the authors’ claims under article 9 of the Covenant fall within the scope of its derogation made under article 4 of the Covenant and that the derogation should therefore be taken into account in examining the complaint. It notes that the investigation against the authors is still pending. It further notes that, in its decision on detention, the Ankara 5th Criminal Magistrates’ Office noted that Mr. Özçelik was using the ByLock application, an encrypted communication system utilized by members of FETÖ/PDY, and that he had deposited money in Bank Asya in 2014 with a view to supporting FETÖ/PDY. The State party submits that the detention of the authors cannot be considered to be arbitrary or groundless, taking into account the state of emergency, the declaration of derogation, the scope of the investigation against the authors and the serious and complex nature of the alleged crimes. 6.3 As to the authors’ claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the State party notes that access to a case file may be restricted under article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that: “At the request of the public prosecutor, the defence lawyer’s right to examine the content of the case file and to make copies may be restricted by decision of the judge, if his examining the contents of the file or taking copies is likely to jeopardize the aim of the ongoing investigation.” The State party notes, however, that the restriction does not extend to statements by the suspect, expert reports and records of judicial proceedings at which the suspect is entitled to be present. It argues that the authors were informed of the accusations against them through the questions asked during the police interrogation and through the hearings before the public prosecutor’s office and the court. It further notes that once an indictment is issued, the restriction on the file is lifted and defence counsel can examine the contents of the file and make copies. The State party submits that the authors have not been deprived of the right to a fair trial. It further notes that the authors have not raised their claims under article 14 before the domestic authorities. 6.4 Concerning the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant, the State party notes that article 9 of the “By-law on Apprehension, Custody and Taking of Statements” stipulates as a mandatory requirement that medical reports be issued for persons arrested or detained in order to prevent ill-treatment. A medical report is also issued before the transfer of a suspect, as well as upon the extension of the custody period or upon release from custody. The authors received medical examinations before their detention and medical reports were issued. In addition, they were examined at both Sincan and Denizli prisons. There was no indication that they had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The State party further notes that the authors have not raised their claims under article 7 before the domestic authorities. 6.5 Concerning the authors’ claims under article 10 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the authors were detained on remand in Sincan prison from 23 May to 3 June 2017. During this time they could communicate with their relatives and they received medical examinations. Mr. Karaman made no claims of having any health problems. Mr. Özçelik was diagnosed with “KAH [coronary artery], DM [diabetes mellitus] and HT [hypertension]” on 30 May 2017. He was prescribed medication accordingly. The authors were able to purchase basic clothing from the prison canteen from funds deposited in their 10 The authors refer to European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey (application No. 21987/93), 18 December 1996; Demir and Others v. Turkey (application Nos. 21380/93, 21381/93 and 21383/93), 23 September 1998; Nuray Şen v. Turkey (application No. 41478/98), 17 June 2003; and Bilen v. Turkey (application No. 34482/97), 21 February 2006. 7