CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 9.2 Concerning the State party’s derogation under article 4 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls that a fundamental requirement for any measures derogating from the Covenant is that such measures be limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The Committee further recalls that the mere fact that a permissible derogation from a specific provision may, of itself, be justified by the exigencies of the situation does not obviate the requirement that specific measures taken pursuant to the derogation must also be shown to be required by the exigencies of the situation.20 The fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is nonderogable, insofar as even situations covered by article 4 cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances. The existence and nature of a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation may, however, be relevant to a determination of whether a particular arrest or detention is arbitrary. 21 9.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim under article 9 of the Covenant. It notes that the authors have not claimed that their detention in Turkey was unlawful under the decree laws. The question before the Committee is therefore to consider whether their detention is arbitrary. The Committee recalls that the notion of “arbitrariness” must be interpreted broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality, and that remand in custody on criminal charges must be reasonable and necessary in all circumstances.22 9.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have not been informed of the charges against them and are unaware of the exact reasons why they are detained, that they do not have access to their case files and that the State party has not provided evidence of grounds for reasonable suspicion that the authors have committed a criminal offence that necessitates pretrial detention. It notes the State party’s argument that the detention of the authors cannot be considered to be arbitrary or groundless when 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. It further notes the State party’s argument 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. The Committee recalls that persons arrested for the purpose of investigating crimes that they may have committed or for the purpose of holding them for criminal trial must be promptly informed of the crimes of which they are suspected or accused.23 The Committee notes that the State party has not submitted any documentation, such as the detention order, arrest warrant or transcripts of judicial proceedings, to substantiate its claim that the authors were promptly informed of the reason for their arrest or of the charges against them. It further notes that the State party has not provided any information on the questions posed to the authors during the investigation or records of such interviews. The Committee further notes that the State party has not provided any information on the evidence against Mr. Karaman that would justify his detention and that the only evidence against Mr. Özçelik is the use of the ByLock application and the deposition of funds in the Bank Asya. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has not established that the authors were promptly informed of the charges against them and of the reason for their arrest, nor has it substantiated that their detention meets the criteria of reasonableness and necessity. It recalls that a derogation under article 4 cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary.24 The Committee therefore finds that the authors’ detention amounted to a violation of their rights under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee further notes the authors’ claim that it took the Turkish authorities 19 and 21 days respectively to bring them before a judge and that they have not had the opportunity to reappear in person or be represented by counsel before a court to have their detention reviewed. It notes the State party’s submission that the authors were taken into 20 21 22 23 24 12 General comment No. 29 (2001), para. 4. General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 66. Ibid., para. 12. Ibid., para. 29. Ibid., para. 66.