CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 prison accounts. Clothes brought by their relatives were duly accepted and delivered to the authors. The authors had access, for a fee, to the prison laundry service. Despite having the right to do so, they did not make any phone calls or send or receive any letters. On 3 June 2017, the authors were transferred to Denizli prison. Mr. Karaman was examined in the prison by his family physician on the same day. He was subsequently examined by a doctor at Denizli state hospital and was prescribed medication. On 21 September 2017, he was examined at a dental health centre. Mr. Özçelik was examined by his family physician on 3 June, 5 July, 10 August, 2 October and 30 November 2017. He was prescribed medication. On 12 July 2017, he was examined by a cardiologist at Denizli state hospital. Mr. Karaman had phone conversations with his father 13 times between June and December 2017. Mr. Özçelik had a phone conversation with his sister on 27 November 2017. There are no restrictions on the authors’ ability to receive and send letters and both authors have sent and received letters. The authors are also able to communicate with their counsel and have visitors. The authors have been provided with drinking water and nutritious and healthy food suitable for their age, health conditions and religious and cultural requirements in both prisons. The State party submits that the authors’ detention conditions are therefore in conformity with article 10 of the Covenant. The State party further notes that the authors have not raised their claims under article 10 before the domestic authorities. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 16 July 2018, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the complaint. 7.2 The authors note that the State party has not submitted any documentation such as relevant arrest warrants, extradition requests or detention decisions in support of its submission that the authors have not been subjected to treatment contrary to their rights under the Covenant. 7.3 The authors reiterate their submission that they have been arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of their liberty in violation of their rights under article 9 of the Covenant. They note that, according to information provided by their Malaysian lawyer, the Malaysian Special Branch covertly rendered them into the custody of Turkish intelligence officers on the evening of 11 May 2017, after which they were removed to Ankara without any notification to their families or legal counsel. They have not been informed of the concrete charges against them and are still unaware of the exact reasons why they are detained. It was only through the observations of the State party that they were made aware of some of the alleged evidence against them. They note that the only evidence listed concerning the charges against Mr. Özçelik is the alleged use of the ByLock application, an online communication platform used by more than a million people worldwide, and that he has deposited money in Bank Asya, which was, for years, the largest participation bank in Turkey. They note that the State party has not provided any information about any evidence against Mr. Karaman that would justify his detention. The authors submit that the evidence referred to by the State party clearly fails to meet the standard of reasonable suspicion. 7.4 The authors reiterate their statement that they have not been brought promptly before a judge. They note that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights is violated when a person is deprived for longer than four days from his or her freedom without access to a judge. 11 They also note that, since their first appearance before a judge, they have not had the opportunity to reappear in person or be represented by counsel before a court to have their detention reviewed. They do not know how the investigation is progressing, as they have no access to their case files. 7.5 With regard to their claims under article 7 of the Covenant, the authors note the State party’s argument that medical reports were issued upon their transfers to Sincan and Denizli prisons, which did not reveal any indications of torture or ill-treatment. The authors note that the State party has not submitted the medical reports in question with its 11 8 The authors refer to European Court of Human Rights, McKay v. the United Kingdom (application No. 543/03), 3 October 2006, para. 33.