1- The Government has made detailed submissions on how the ByLock application was used by FETÖ. However, the Working Group observes that these explanations are rather broad and concern how the ByLock application was used by the Gülen group in general, but do not provide any detailed explanation as to how the alleged use of the application by either Mr. or Ms. Göksan could be equated with a criminal act. Nor has the Government presented any evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Göksan were indeed members of FETÖ. (Para.72)

2- It is also beyond doubt that many organisations affiliated to this movement, which were closed after 15 July, were open and legally operating until that date. (Para.76)

3- The Working Group notes the failure by the Government of Turkey to show how the mere use of a regular communications application such as ByLock by Mr. and Ms. Göksan constituted an illegal criminal activity, as well as the absence of any evidence that they were in fact part of FETÖ. Noting the widespread reach of the Gülen movement, the Council of Europe High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that it would be rare for a Turkish citizen never to have had any contact or dealings with this movement in one way or another. (Para. 78)

4- In the present case, it is clear to the Working Group that, even if Mr. and Ms. Göksan did use the ByLock application, which is an allegation denied by them, it would have been merely an exercise of their freedom of expression. (Para. 79)

5- The Working Group recalls that this is not the first time it is examining the arrest and prosecution of Turkish nationals on the basis of alleged use of the ByLock application as the key manifestation of an alleged criminal activity. The Working Group recalls that, in those instances, it concluded that, in the absence of a specific explanation of how the alleged mere use of the ByLock application constituted a criminal activity by the individual, their detention was arbitrary. The Working Group regrets that its views in those opinions have not been respected by the Turkish authorities and that the present case follows the same pattern. (Para. 81)

6- In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Melike Göksan and Mehmet Fatih Göksan, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. (Para. 97)

7- The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Melike Göksan and Mehmet Fatih Göksan immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. (Para. 99)

8-The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Melike Göksan and Mehmet Fatih Göksan and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights. (Para. 100)

To whole UN HRC WGAD opinion: