CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no.   49012/21 Rojda BARIŞ KARABULUT against Türkiye lodged on 22   September 2021 communicated on 18   November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant describes herself as a human rights activist focusing on violence against women, discrimination against women and children’s rights. The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of a criminal investigation opened against her for membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Democratic Society Congress ( Demokratik Toplum Kongresi , “DTK”). The applicant alleges that her pre-trial detention violated Article   5 §§   1,   3 and   4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that she had committed an offence, within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 (c) of the Convention (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v.   the   United Kingdom , 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no.   182)? Was the evidence that was available in the file at the time of the applicant’s pre-trial detention sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that she may have committed the offences attributed to her (see, mutatis mutandis , Mergen and Others v. Turkey , nos. 44062/09 and 4 others, §§   46-55, 31   May 2016, and Yüksel and Others v. Turkey , nos. 55835/09 and 2   others, §§ 51-60, 31   May 2016)?   2.     Did the magistrates who ordered the applicant’s initial and continued pre-trial detention fulfil their obligation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in support of the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5   July 2016)?   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? In particular, was Article 5 § 4 of the Convention violated by reason of the fact that the decisions to extend her detention and her objections to those decisions had been examined without a hearing (see, mutatis mutandis , Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §   216, 3   March 2020)?