Inadmissibility of claims regarding the imprisonment of a diabetic individual suspected of ties to a terrorist organisation

Facts

The author, a national of Türkiye, was taken into custody, detained, and subsequently arrested for alleged links to the Hizmet/Gülen movement, which the State party designated as a terrorist organization (FETÖ) following the 2016 coup attempt. The charges against her were based on her alleged use of the ByLock messaging application and financial transactions with Bank Asya. She was convicted by a penal court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Since her arrest, she has been hospitalized multiple times due to type 1 diabetes and has experienced significant health deterioration, including a 10 kg weight loss. She attributes this decline to her detention in an unsanitary and overcrowded ward. At the time of the communication, her appeal before the Court of Cassation and her complaint before the Constitutional Court remained pending. Despite submitting multiple petitions, both for medical examination and for release on health grounds, she received no official response.

The author further claims that she was held in custody without charge for an unreasonably long period, was not promptly brought before a judge, and was imprisoned without legal justification. She also alleges violations of her rights under the Covenant, stating that she did not receive a fair trial and was prosecuted for lawful conduct, in breach of the principle of legality.

The author claimed violations of several articles of the Covenant: article 6 (right to life), as her deteriorating health and lack of adequate medical care put her life at risk; article 7 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment), due to poor prison conditions; article 9 (right to liberty), as she was held without charge for eight days and without sufficient evidence; and article 10 (humane treatment of detainees), due to overcrowded, unsanitary conditions. She also invoked article 14 (fair trial), citing lack of access to her case file and an inability to prepare a proper defense. Under article 15 (legality), she argued that her alleged actions were not criminal at the time. She also cited articles 18 and 19 (freedom of thought and expression), and articles 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27, alleging discrimination and punishment based on her perceived affiliation with the Gülen movement.

Admissibility

The Committee considers that the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. The author lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), after submitting the present communication to the Committee, and that application remains pending before the ECtHR. The Committee notes that the author referred to the same basic set of facts and allegations that are at issue in the present communication. Noting that the ECtHR is currently examining the author’s application, the Committee considers that it is precluded from examining the author’s claims under articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 26 of the Covenant. Separately, the Committee considers that the author has not adequately described the basis of her claims under articles 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, or 27 of the Covenant, and declares those claims inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation.