CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 custody upon their arrival in Turkey on 12 May 2017, that the custody period was extended for an additional seven days on 18 May 2017 upon the instruction of the Public Prosecutor and that the authors were detained on 23 May 2017. The Committee notes that, based on the information on file, it appears that the authors were detained by Malaysian authorities prior to their removal to Turkey, according to the author’s claims, at the request of Turkish authorities (see para. 8.9 above). However, in the absence of any concrete information in the file that would suggest that the authors were under the effective control of Turkish authorities before their removal to Turkey, the Committee considers that the detention period attributed to Turkish authorities started on 12 May 2017. The authors were brought before a judge on 23 May 2017, 11 days after having been taken into custody by Turkish authorities. 9.6 The Committee recalls that any person arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. This right is intended to bring the detention of a person in a criminal investigation or prosecution under judicial control. It is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. Accordingly, a public prosecutor cannot be considered as an officer exercising judicial power under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 25 While the exact meaning of “promptly” may vary depending on objective circumstances, delays should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest. Any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. 26 The Committee notes that any derogation from this time frame in times of public emergency must be justified as strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. After an initial determination has been made that pretrial detention is necessary, there should be periodic re-examination of whether it continues to be reasonable and necessary in the light of possible alternatives.27 9.7 The Committee notes that in the authors’ case, it took 11 days before they were brought before a judge and that consequently they were not brought promptly before a judge or judicial officer. The Committee further notes the authors’ claims that, since the detention hearing on 23 May 2017, they have not had the opportunity to reappear in person or be represented by counsel in order for the detention decision to be re-examined, a period amounting to almost two years. It notes that the State party has not refuted the authors’ claims in this regard and that the State party has also not provided any information on whether the detention decisions against the authors have been periodically re-examined. The Committee considers that such a delay and the lack of re-examination of the necessity and reasonableness of the authors’ continued detention, especially taking into account its findings concerning the authors’ claims under article 9 (1) and (2), cannot be considered as strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. The Committee accordingly finds a violation of the authors’ rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the authors’ rights under article 9 (1–3) of the Covenant. 11. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to release the authors and provide them with adequate compensation for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take all necessary steps to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future. 12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the 25 26 27 Ibid., para. 32. Ibid., para. 33. Ibid., para. 38. 13