ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 112 681. What is especially striking is the complete absence of any documentation recording either the request for authorisation of the applicants' detention or the authority or instructions given by Mr. Selçuk to detain the applicants. Despite the evidence of Mr. Gül that such a record would have been kept (paragraph 323 above), no document was produced indicating the name of the person who had informed the Prosecutor and sought his authority to detain. No written records were produced of any communications between the Prosecutor's Office and the gendarmerie relating to the decision to detain, whether in the form of requests or instructions or otherwise; the only written authorities to detain which were referred to in evidence were those of the gendarmerie itself, contained in the two warrants sent by fax to the police in Cizre and Istanbul (paragraphs 386 and 418 above). Nor were any documents produced recording the reasons for the detention of the applicants, the apprehension reports being silent on the point, despite the evidence of Mr. Yedekçi that the reasons should be stated in such reports (paragraph 349 above). 682. In the absence of any such material, the Court finds that it has not been sufficiently shown that the applicants' apprehension and their detention by the gendarmerie for periods of 7 to 25 days in November and December 1993 was duly authorised by a Prosecutor in accordance with the requirements of domestic law or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 683. The Court refers to the Government's reliance on its derogation under Article 15 of the Convention to the rights guaranteed by Article 5 (paragraph 589 above). Article 15 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.” 684. However, even if the derogation and the resultant legislative Decrees could be considered relevant to the facts of the present case, the Court is not persuaded that the applicants' unlawful detention could thereby be legitimised. The Government have not shown how the applicants' detention without adequate authorisation could have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation envisaged by Article 15 § 1 of the Convention (cf. mutatis mutandis Şen v. Turkey, no. 41478/98, §§ 22-29, judgment of 17 June 2003). 685. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants. 686. The Court is unable to take cognisance of the applicants' newly specified complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention as it has been lodged out of time (Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention; cf. judgments