ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 110 any reasonable suspicion of an offence could have been held against Mr Altinkalem. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that there was none, other than the fact that he was a defence lawyer for PKK suspects before the State Security Court, together with the other applicants. 675. Turning to the question of the lawfulness of the applicants' detention, the Court observes that the evidence obtained by the Commission Delegates revealed a certain confusion and inconsistency between the various witnesses as to the requirements of domestic law governing the apprehension and detention of persons suspected of committing a criminal offence. 676. Mr. Hatipoğlu initially appeared to assert that he had the power of decision to detain suspects, but subsequently qualified this by saying that it was necessary to notify, among others, the Chief Prosecutor of the decision, and that the actual decision to detain had to be taken by a Prosecutor (paragraph 305 above). Mr. Gül initially appeared to suggest that the Prosecutor only had to be informed of the decision of the gendarmerie to detain a suspect but, later in his evidence, he confirmed that gendarmes could take persons into custody on their own initiative as long as the judicial authorities were informed and approved the decision. He claimed that such authority could be given orally, but would later be recorded in written form. He further claimed that such authority could be given in writing after the event but that, in such a case, the authority would be back-dated to the date when the suspect was in fact detained (paragraph 323 above). Mr. Haney appeared to assert that the prior authority of the Prosecutor was necessary but that, at least at the material time, such authority could be given orally, the law not requiring a written order (paragraph 353 above). 677. The Court further observes that there exists a dispute between the parties as to the effect, if any, of Law No. 1136 on Advocates on the detention of, and investigation of offences alleged to have been committed by lawyers. On the one hand, the applicants argued that the Law established a special regime which applied throughout Turkey, including the state of emergency areas, and which required that investigations relating to lawyers should be carried out directly by Public Prosecutors even in matters unrelated to their professional activities. In this regard, reliance was placed on the circular of the Ministry of Justice of 14 February 1994 (paragraph 586 above) which reiterated and emphasised this requirement. On the other hand, the Government argued, with the support of the evidence of Mr. Haney, that Law No. 1136 related exclusively to ordinary crimes committed by lawyers and had no application to suspected offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Court, the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of Law No. 2845 overriding the special procedural provisions of the Law on Advocates in this respect. 678. For the reasons which appear below, the Court does not find it necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties as to the effect, if any,