CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 communications must exercise due diligence in the pursuit of available remedies, 17 but it notes that in the present case the authors have not provided any specific information or substantiation of having raised these claims before relevant domestic authorities, or of having instructed their counsels to do so on their behalf. The Committee accordingly, finds the authors’ claims under articles 6, 7, 10 and 14 inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the authors’ claims under article 9 should be found to be inadmissible, as the State party has made a derogation under article 4 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that before a State moves to invoke article 4 of the Covenant, two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. 18 The Committee notes that the State party proclaimed a state of emergency on 20 July 2016 and also notes its position that the coup attempt and its aftermath have posed severe dangers to public security and order, amounting to a threat to the life of the nation. It notes that the authors have not contested that the situation amounted to a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 of the Covenant. It further notes that the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Turkey have found that the attempted coup disclosed the existence of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation within the meaning of article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution. 19 The Committee considers that the derogation was therefore made in a situation that amounted to a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 of the Covenant. However, the State party fails to explain how the authors were linked to or posed, in any way, dangers that were envisaged under the declaration of the state of emergency in the territory of the State party, or how their pretrial detention under the emergency decree laws was strictly required by the exigencies of the security situation. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that the measures adopted by the State party in their case did not comply with the principles of proportionality, consistency and non-discrimination. The Committee considers that the assessment as to whether the measures taken in the authors’ case were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation needs to be examined in the context of the merits of the communication. 8.9 The Committee further notes the authors’ claims that their rights under article 9 of the Covenant were violated, as they were removed from Malaysia to Turkey by individuals acting under the control or instructions of the Turkish authorities without any judicial procedure for extradition having been initiated by Turkey. The Committee notes that, according to the limited information on file, it appears that the authors were detained by Malaysian authorities prior to their removal to Turkey. The Committee notes that the information on file does not allow it to conclude that the authors were removed to Turkey under the effective control of Turkish authorities. It therefore finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 8.10 The Committee notes that I.A. has withdrawn his complaint before the Committee. It therefore decides to discontinue the communication as it pertains to him. 8.11 In the absence of any other challenges to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the rest of the authors’ claims under article 9 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 17 18 19 See, inter alia, V.S v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/115/D/2072/2011), para. 6.3, García Perea v. Spain (CCPR/C/95/D/1511/2006), para. 6.2, and Zsolt Vargay v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3. General comment No. 29 (2001), para. 2. European Court of Human Rights, Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, paras. 88–93; and Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, paras. 72–78. 11