A/HRC/41/35/Add.2 terrorist organization without being a member, journalists and others have been subjected to exceptional conditions of detention as expanded through emergency decrees. These conditions have included lengthy pretrial detention periods, long delays in the judicial review of appeals and restrictions on access to lawyers and due process. Several of these exceptional conditions were authorized by Law No. 7145 of July 2018, in which the scope of investigative powers relating to counter-terrorism legislation was also extended. 22. While those detained in such cases have been able to challenge their detention, which is also subject to review every 30 days, lengthy periods of pretrial detention remain extremely common. The possibility of effective appeals, which are directed through a horizontal system in which the Criminal Judgeships of Peace review detention orders issued by one another, has been criticized by the Venice Commission 4 and civil society. The severity of these issues grows in the light of concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary, in particular following changes to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors effected through the constitutional reforms of 2017. Those detained are frequently presented with sparse, unclear information on the case against them, while decisions to release detained persons can be appealed by prosecutors. 23. In many cases, individuals have been pursued solely on the basis of acts of expression, including expression online. Amendments made in March 2018 to Law No. 6112, imposing a traditional broadcast licence framework on online content providers, along with continued, intensive use of takedown requests and blocks on online content, in particular on the basis of article 8A of Law No. 5651, have severely restricted free expression on the Internet. 24. Concerns surrounding Internet freedoms must be considered in the light of the closure of traditional media outlets and the seizure of their assets through emergency decrees. As at the date of the finalization of the present report, approximately 190 media outlets and publishing houses had been closed down, with few granted permission to reopen. Pro-government takeovers of media outlets have further restricted traditional platforms for freedom of expression and journalistic work, adding weight to concerns relating to the public’s right to information. 25. Remedies to challenge the legality of measures taken pursuant to emergency decrees, while available, have remained ineffective. The Inquiry Commission on State of Emergency Measures, established through emergency decree No. 685 in January 2017 with a remit to review dismissals of public sector employees, has failed to result in any significant improvement in the situation. The Commission began working on 22 May 2017. As at the end of 2018, it had received 125,600 applications, reached 50,500 decisions and provided judgments leading to the reinstatement of dismissed public employees in 3,750 cases. By 15 March 2019, the Commission had rendered decisions of reinstatement in 4,750 cases. The Special Rapporteur notes with serious concern several shortcomings in the Commission’s operation. In particular, he is concerned by reports that applicants seeking to apply to the mechanism must do so without concrete information as to the reason for their dismissal, a fixed time frame for the processing of their applications, the possibility of putting forward their cases at an oral hearing, and without support for legal representation or the right to appeal. The significance of these issues is heightened in the light of the decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights recognizing the Commission as a domestic remedy that must be exhausted before cases submitted to those courts may be accepted. 26. The Special Rapporteur expresses his extreme concern at these developments, which approach the effective normalization of restrictions on freedom of expression through its conflation with criminal and terrorist activity. The recommendations made subsequent to the visit remain relevant and have only grown in urgency. They stand as initial steps, which the State could implement on many levels immediately, to improve the situation concerning freedom of expression in the country. 4 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), “Turkey: opinion on the duties, competences and functioning of the Criminal Peace Judgeships”, available at https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD%282017%29004-e. 7