Communicated on 26 March 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 160/18 Abdulkadir YAPUQUAN against Turkey lodged on 3 January 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Chinese national and an ethnic Uighur Muslim from Xinjiang/East Turkistan region of China. He was born in 1954 and is currently allegedly detained at the Tekirda ğ Foreigners ’ Removal Centre. In 2007 the applicant was recognised as a mandate refugee by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Turkey, where he lives since 2001. The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant ’ s alleged detention at the Tekirda ğ Foreigners ’ Removal Centre from 19 October 2017 onwards and his alleged unfitness for detention on account of his heart condition and state of mental health.

On 23 February 2018 the Court (the duty judge) rejected the applicant ’ s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court asking the Court to secure his release from detention on the grounds that he suffered from coronary artery disease and mental health issues and that his detention was unlawful. The Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

The applicant alleges under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his detention constitutes ill-treatment and puts his life at risk given that he suffers from a serious heart condition. He further alleges under the same head that he was being held in solitary confinement which has had an adverse effect on his mental health. The applicant complains under Article 5 that his detention from 19 October 2017 onwards at the Tekirda ğ Foreigners ’ Removal Centre has been unlawful given that according to the national legislation his detention cannot exceed a period of twelve months and that he has been detained for sixteen months. He lastly complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Tekirda ğ Magistrates ’ Court failed to render a decision concerning his allegation of unlawfulness of his detention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Is the applicant currently deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In that regard:

(a) What is the relevance of the document dated 19 October 2017 signed by Mr E.A., Mr K.Y., Mr B.G., officers from the Provincial Directorate of Migration Management and Mr R.Ö., a police officer?

(b) What is the reason for the absence of the applicant ’ s signature on that document?

3. If the applicant is deprived of his liberty, what is the legal basis for the applicant ’ s detention? Has the applicant ’ s detention from 19 October 2017 onwards been extended “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

4. Does the applicant ’ s detention from 19 October 2017 onwards fall within paragraph (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

5. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s detention from 19 October 2017 onwards?

6. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his dete ntion, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the Second Chamber of the Tekirda ğ Magistrates ’ Court conduct an adequate examination the applicant ’ s allegation that he was being held despite the fact that according to the national legislation his detention could not exceed a period of twelve months (case no. 2017/4219)?

7. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged unfitness of the applicant for detention on account of his heart condition and/or his alleged mental health issues due to his alleged solitary confinement?

The parties are requested to submit all documents in support of their replies.