CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 observations and that the authors do not have access to the reports. They further argue that even if these reports were to exist, they do not prove that torture or ill-treatment has not taken place.12 7.6 Concerning their claims under article 10 of the Covenant, the authors claim that their lawyers and families were not informed of their transfer to Denizli prison. They further note that Denizli prison is located six hours away from their relatives in Ankara. They also reiterate their claims that they were not allowed to receive clothes from their families for three months and that contact with their families is so difficult and burdensome that they rarely have the opportunity to communicate with them. They claim that they have applied for permission to make telephone calls to their wives and children who live abroad but have not been allowed to do so. They have only been allowed limited and monitored phone calls with their parents in Turkey. When Mr. Karaman tried to insist on his right to make phone calls, he was threatened with solitary confinement by the prison warden. The only way they can communicate with their families abroad is through letters; however, some of the letters sent by their families are not delivered to the authors by the prison authorities, and those that are delivered have taken up to a month to be received by the authors. The authors further claim that they have been refused necessary medical treatment, which has a serious impact on their health and well-being. The authors also allege that they have to stay in overcrowded prison cells where 6 to 10 people must sleep on the floor, and that they lack access to basic food, hygiene and recreation. 7.7 With regard to their claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the authors argue that the questions posed to them during interrogation are insufficient for the purpose of informing them about the charges against them. They also note that their conversations with counsel were monitored and recorded.13 The authors further reiterate their claim that they do not have access to their case files or to effective legal counsel. They have no prospect of trial without undue delay as no progress has been made in the investigation against them. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the claims are admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication should be considered inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the 12 13 The authors refer to the report by Human Rights Watch entitled “A blank check, Turkey’s post-coup suspension of safeguards against torture” of October 2016, and to the report by Human Rights Watch entitled “In custody, police torture and abductions in Turkey” of 12 October 2017, in which it is noted that: “Detainees who alleged torture were brought before doctors for routine medical reports, but either the doctors showed no interest in physical evidence of torture or the presence of police officers inhibited them from conducting proper medical examinations and made it hard for detainees to describe their injuries or speak about treatment in custody.” They also refer to a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) entitled “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East: January – December 2017” of March 2018, in which it is noted in paragraph 83 (c) that: “OHCHR received credible reports that medical checks conducted by the designated doctors on detainees held in police custody were often done in the presence of police officers, violating the confidentiality of patients and impeding adequate documentation of possible torture or ill-treatment.” The authors refer to OHCHR, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey”, para. 83 (a), in which it is noted that: “Decree 667 significantly erodes detainees’ right to confidential legal advice. It provides that oral consultations between the detainees and their lawyers may be recorded for security reasons, and that the documents they exchange may be seized; the timing of such consultations may be regulated, and the lawyer may be replaced, at the request of the prosecution.” 9