CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 October 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 51124/10 Belkiza BEŞTAŞ EPÖZDEMİR against Turkey lodged on 26 July 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the alleged excessive length of her pre-trial detention, the alleged absence of effective remedies to challenge the lawfulness of the orders for her detention and the alleged breaches of her rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly and association on account of her arrest and pre-trial detention within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against her on the charge of membership of a terrorist organisation, i.e. the KCK (the Kurdistan Communities Union) investigation. At the material time, the applicant was a member of the General Assembly of Siirt Province ( Siirt İl Genel Meclisi ) and a member of the BDP ( Barış ve Demokrasi Partisi – Peace and Democracy Party). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the investigation file (Siirt public prosecutor’s office – 2009/4388) contain facts and information which would satisfy an objective observer that the applicant might have committed the alleged offence?   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal a remedy by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles   10 and/or 11 of the Convention on account of her arrest, her pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings brought against her?