Communicated on 26 June 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 14355/13 Muhtasarhon HOLMATOVA and others against Turkey lodged on 14 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Muhtasarhon Holmatova and her two children, Sayfulloh Abdurayimov and Ayse Abdurayimova , are Uzbekistan nationals, who were born in 1977, 2007 and 2010 respectively and live in Balıkesir . They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Y ı lmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

In 2007 the first applicant and her husband, Mr S.K., left Uzbekistan along with their first child (the second applicant) due to the increasing pressure imposed on them on account of their religious beliefs. After initially residing in Russia for a while, on 3 August 2009 they arrived in legally Turkey, where their daughter (the third applicant) was born. The applicants continued to stay in Turkey illegally after their visas had expired.

On 14 July 2012 the first applicant was arrested in connection with an investigation launched against Mr S.K. concerning membership of Al ‑ Qaeda and taken to the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul security directorate together with the second and third applicants.

Following the first applicant ’ s interrogation at the Istanbul security directorate, all the applicants were taken to the Güvercin tepe Police Station, where they were charged with residing in Turkey without a residence permit. After Ms Holmatova ’ s statements had been taken, on 17 July 2012 the applicants were transferred to the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre.

Between 17 July 2012 and 15 August 2012 the applicants were detained at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre .

On an unspecified date the applicants filed an asylum application with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

On 7 August 2012 the applicants ’ representative lodged another request with the UNHCR, seeking the applicants ’ immediate release from the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre. In this letter, the applicants ’ representative further complained about the poor conditions of detention, claiming that the applicants ’ health had deteriorated during their stay at the removal centre .

On 15 August 2012 the applicants were released and given a temporary residence permit to live in Balıkesir .

According to the applicants ’ submissions, at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre they were detained in a room of approximately thirty square metres shared by as many as forty-five detainees . They had no opportunity for outdoor exercise and they fell ill as a result of the detention conditions . The first applicant alleged that her children, who were two and five years old at the time, had suffered from constipation and rectal bleeding due to poor nutrition and unhygienic conditions in the removal centre . She further maintained that she had been four months pregnant when she had been held at the removal centre . She contended that immediately after her release she had applied to a private clinic claiming to have suffered a miscarriage as a result of the inhuman conditions of her detention.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

The applicants allege under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints regarding the conditions of their detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre .

The applicants allege under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful.

The applicants contend under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that they were not informed of the reasons for their detention.

The applicants maintain under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in Turkish domestic law whereby they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

The applicants finally complain under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy capable of enforcing their right to compensation for the aforementioned violations of Article 5.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the conditions of the applicants ’ detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, in view of their age can those conditions be considered appropriate for the second and the third applicants?

The Government are invited to submit information, documents and photos/video footage indicating the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre . The documents should demonstrate in particular the capacity of the rooms and the number of occupants held in them during the applicants ’ stay, the opportunities for access to fresh air and daily exercise and the hygiene conditions. They should also indicate whether the conditions at the centre were suitable for young children.

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicants ’ detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners ’ Removal Centre comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their detention, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

6. Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in alleged contravention of Article 5, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?