CCPR/C/125/D/2980/2017 Magistrates’ Office. An arrest warrant was issued for Mr. Karaman on 21 March 2017, by decision of the Ankara 2nd Criminal Magistrates’ Office. The arrest warrants were issued under article 314 (2) of the Criminal Code, as the authors were suspected of being members of an armed terrorist organization. The authors were taken into custody upon their arrival in Turkey on 12 May 2017. On 18 May 2017, the custody period was extended for an additional seven days upon the instruction of the Public Prosecutor. During the custody period, the authors were notified of their rights. The authors’ relatives were informed of their arrest on 12 May 2017. On 17 May 2017, upon his request, Mr. Özçelik was provided with counsel appointed from the Bar Association. He met with his lawyer on the same date and his statement was taken by law enforcement officials in the presence of his counsel. On 19 May 2017, Mr. Karaman likewise met with his counsel, at which time his statement was taken by law enforcement officials in the presence of his counsel. 4.5 The authors were held in custody from 12 to 23 May 2017. They were medically examined before and after their detention, and medical reports were issued. On 23 May 2017, the authors were brought before the Ankara 5th Criminal Magistrates’ Office in the presence of their counsel and were detained by order of the Court. They were taken to Sincan prison (a T-type closed prison) where they were held until 3 June 2017, when they were transferred to Denizli prison (also a T-type closed prison), for reasons of security and capacity. They are currently being held in Denizli prison. 4.6 During their detention period in Sincan prison, Mr. Karaman and Mr. Özçelik had access to emergency health services 24 hours a day. They could watch television in the ward, there was a toilet, a bathroom and kitchen facilities. They had unlimited access to open air and sunlight. Mondays were the visiting day at the prison; however, their relatives did not visit the authors. Despite having the right to do so, the authors did not make any phone calls or send or receive letters. Mr. Özçelik met with his lawyer on 28 May 2017 for 57 minutes and on 30 May for 66 minutes. Mr. Karaman met with his lawyer on 26 May for 30 minutes. In Denizli prison, the authors are held in a ward for 20 persons. There are no restrictions concerning telephone conversations or visitations. Mr. Özçelik was visited by his parents on 6 June 2017. Mr. Karaman had a telephone conversation with a relative on 12 June. 4.7 The State party submits that the authors’ claims are inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as the authors did not appeal the detention decision of the Ankara 5th Criminal Magistrates’ Office. The State party further argues that claims relating to alleged arbitrary custody and detention and to the non-communication of the reasons for arrest can be reviewed under domestic law by courts of first instance under article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State party further notes that individuals can submit complaints before the Constitutional Court regarding alleged violations that fall within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols after the exhaustion of all administrative and judicial remedies. It notes that in cases submitted to the European Court of Human Rights following the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, the European Court has found that submitting complaints before the Constitutional Court is an effective remedy that an applicant must exhaust prior to submitting a complaint to the European Court. 4 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 25 September 2017, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. 5.2 The authors claim that none of the domestic remedies invoked by the State party constitutes an adequate or sufficient remedy. 5.3 The authors note that they have appealed the detention decision of the Ankara 5th Criminal Magistrates’ Office. On 30 May 2017, Mr. Karaman’s counsel appealed the decision while the lawyer assigned to Mr. Özçelik by the Bar Association appealed the 4 The State party refers to European Court of Human Rights, Mercan v. Turkey (application No. 56511/2016), 8 November 2016; and Zihni v. Turkey (application No. 59061/2016), 29 November 2016. 5