Since the 15 July 2016 failed coup, Turkey has seen the mass arrests and detention of hundreds of thousands of individuals; among them are judges and prosecutors, military personnel, police officers, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and opposition politicians who have been deprived of their liberty on an array of terrorism-related charges. While this has raised numerous human rights issues, this article focuses on those relating to pre-trial restrictions imposed on the right to liberty and security of individuals during the post-coup state of emergency. Building on the theory and use of the reasonableness concept in the field of pre-trial detention through a particular focus on the ‘reasonable suspicion’ test under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), the article analyses the role of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the ECtHR) in enforcing the guarantees of the right to liberty in the Turkish post-coup cases of Mehmet Hasan Altan, Şahin Alpay, Alparslan Altan and Kavala. Against the background of pre-existing Convention standards on pre-trial reasonable suspicion in states of emergency, it finds that the ECtHR has adopted a stronger supervisory stance regarding the compatibility of Turkish post-coup detention practices than the more hesitant approach shown in the prior derogation context of Northern Ireland. While these decisions give some cause for optimism in the hope for a judicial boldness on the part of the ECtHR in condemning Turkey’s arbitrary detention practices during the state of emergency, the article argues that there is further scope for the Court to strengthen its protection in this respect. Notably, despite the positive aspects in the Court’s approach, by continuing to support the notion that the Turkish legal landscape is capable of addressing Article 5 violations and not tackling the underlying structural issues so clearly at play, the Court leaves a glaring gap in rights protection for those seeking justice.

中文翻译：

---

根据《欧洲人权公约》对土耳其政变后紧急规则的“合理怀疑”检验

自 2016 年 7 月 15 日未遂政变以来，土耳其已有数十万人遭到大规模逮捕和拘留；其中包括因一系列与恐怖主义有关的指控而被剥夺自由的法官和检察官、军事人员、警察、记者、律师、人权维护者和反对派政客。虽然这引发了许多人权问题，但本文重点讨论政变后紧急状态期间对个人自由和安全权施加的审前限制相关的问题。通过特别关注《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR 或《公约》）第 5 条第 1 款 (c) 项下的“合理怀疑”测试，建立在审前拘留领域合理性概念的理论和使用基础上, 文章分析了欧洲人权法院（法院或欧洲人权法院）在土耳其政变后的 Mehmet Hasan Altan、Şahin Alpay、Alparslan Altan 和 Kavala 案件中在执行自由权保障方面的作用。在先前存在的关于紧急状态下审前合理怀疑的公约标准的背景下，它发现欧洲人权法院在土耳其政变后拘留实践的兼容性方面采取了更强的监督立场，而不是之前表现出的更加犹豫的方法。北爱尔兰的贬损语境。虽然这些决定让人感到乐观，希望欧洲人权法院方面在谴责土耳其在紧急状态期间的任意拘留做法方面表现出司法勇气，文章认为，法院在这方面还有进一步加强保护的空间。值得注意的是，尽管法院的方法有积极的方面，但通过继续支持土耳其法律环境有能力解决违反第 5 条的问题而不是解决如此明确的潜在结构性问题的观点，法院在权利保护方面留下了明显的差距对于那些寻求正义的人。