ITEMID: 001-75285
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CINTOSUN v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Until September 1993 the applicants lived in Kayabaş, a hamlet of the Dağcılar village, in the district of Silvan, in Diyarbakır.
In September 1993 security forces destroyed the applicants’ properties and forcibly evicted the applicants from their hamlet.
On 2 February 1996 Abdulhamit Çintosun lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Diyarbakır requesting redress for the damages they had suffered due to the destruction of his property and permission to return to their village. He further requested that an investigation be initiated into the destruction of their properties.
On the same day his petition was received by this office.
The applicant received no response to his petition.
Until May 1994 the applicants lived in Alauşak, a village of the Silvan district, in Diyarbakır. It is to be noted that the documents attesting ownership of property, which Meliha Esatoğlu, Sabiha Yabancı, Türkan Vuran, Kini Elmacı used in Alauşak, bear the name of their brother, İsmet Sönük.
In May 1994 security forces destroyed the applicants’ property and forcibly evicted the applicants from their village.
On 17 January 1996 one of the applicants, İsmet Sönük lodged a petition with the Governor’s office in Diyarbakır requesting redress for the damages they had suffered due to the destruction of their properties and permission to return to their village. He further requested that an investigation be initiated into the destruction of their properties.
On 22 January 1996 his petition was received by this office.
The applicant received no response to his petition.
Until May 1994 the applicants lived in Dolapdere, a village of the Silvan district, in Diyarbakır. It is to be noted that the documents attesting ownership of property, which Medeni Açık, Belkisa Nergiz, Nezife Nergiz, İhsan Nergiz, Sakine Nergiz and Zinet Nergiz used in Dolapdere, bear their fathers’ and brothers’ names.
In May 1994 security forces destroyed the applicants’ property and forcibly evicted the applicants from their village.
On 17 January 1996 and 18 January 1996 two of the applicants, Hakki Nergiz and Mehdin Açık lodged petitions with the Governor’s office in Diyarbakır requesting redress for the damages they had suffered due to the destruction of their properties and permission to return to their village. They further requested that an investigation be initiated into the destruction of their properties.
On 26 January 1996 their petitions were received by this office.
The applicants received no response to their petitions.
The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages on their own will. The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village.
The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages. Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages.
On 14 July 2004 the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by the Grand National Assembly and entered into force on 27 July 2004 (“Compensation Law”). That Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the Convention grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages.
In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in seventy-six provinces. Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation.
The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained approximately 170,000. A further 800 persons, whose applications were pending before the Court, had also applied to the compensation commissions. Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained.
A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Court’s decision of İçyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02, §§ 44-54, 12 January 2006) and in its judgment of Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 88038811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, §§ 31-35, ECHR 2004-VI).


ITEMID: 001-89508
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: UKR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF KUSHNARENKO v. UKRAINE
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
JUDGES: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Rozdolne, the Crimea.
5. On 4 July 2000 the applicant lodged complaint with the Rozdolne District Court against two private agricultural companies “Chernyshevsky” (C.) and “Prymorsky” (P.), seeking to recover salary arrears.
6. The first hearing was fixed for 12 October 2000.
7. Between October 2000 and October 2003 eight out of fifteen hearings were postponed due to the respondents’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.
8. In May 2001 the proceedings were suspended as the term of office of the presiding judge had expired.
9. The proceedings were resumed in March 2003.
10. On 7 October 2003 the applicant’s claims were allowed in full.
11. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 7 November 2003.
12. The applicant was provided with a written copy of the judgment on 18 November 2003.
13. In the course of 2004 the amount awarded to the applicant against C. was paid in full.
14. The enforcement proceedings against P. were suspended on an unspecified date as the company was insolvent and this part of the judgment of 7 October 2003 remains unenforced.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6


ITEMID: 001-97516
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: BRAGIN v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bragin, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in the village of Makarovka, the Kursk Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms E. Liptser, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 July 2003 the applicant was sent to correctional facility OX-30/3 in Lgov of the Kursk Region to serve his sentence.
On his arrival at the facility he was placed in quarantine. Two days later R., a facility administration official, invited him to become a member of the so-called “секция порядка” (literally, “order section”, an informal category of prisoners who cooperated with the prison administration). The applicant refused. Then R. threatened him with rape. The applicant insisted on his refusal. As a result of his refusal he was beaten by R. and other facility officers whose names he did not know but who, according to him, he would be able to identify.
In the applicant's submission, he was then taken to unit no. 6. Security unit officers V.R., O.Z., A.O. and O.O. tried to persuade him to write a statement on adhesion to the “order section”. Following his refusal, for half an hour V.R. and O.O. beat and kicked the applicant in different parts of his body but not his face. Then V.R. told O.O. that if the applicant had not written a statement by the evening, O.O. should bring him to the security unit tomorrow morning. Every morning for the next twenty days the applicant was taken to the security unit where he was beaten by V.R. and O.Z., who continued to demand that he join the “order section”. The beatings continued throughout the applicant's detention in the facility.
According to the applicant, on several occasions he requested medical aid, which was not provided to him. His injuries were not recorded either. He lodged written complaints concerning the actions of the facility officials. However, he received no replies and was not even provided with the numbers of his complaints in the facility register.
On the night of 26 and 27 June 2005 approximately 400 inmates at the facility self-inflicted injuries (they cut their veins and stomachs) as a protest against ill-treatment on the part of the facility administration. Nothing in the materials of the case suggests that the applicant self-inflicted any injuries.
According to the applicant, on 27 June 2005 he and other inmates sent a complaint to the Prosecutor's Office of the Kursk Region alleging that the inmates had been systematically beaten by the facility officers and asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the head of the facility and the officers, including V.R. The applicant did not submit a copy of the complaint in question.
On 1 July 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and three other inmates under Article 321 of the Russian Criminal Code (disruption of penitentiary facilities' work).
On either 22 or 23 July 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-46/2 of Lgov, in the Kursk Region.
On 17 August 2005 he was charged with disrupting penitentiary facilities' work.
According to the applicant, on 27 July 2005 he complained to A., deputy head of the regime unit of remand prison IZ-46/2, that the conditions of detention in his cell were poor. He claimed that water was constantly leaking from the ceiling, and that his cell was wet and damp. The applicant asked that he and the other inmates be transferred to a different cell. In response A. hit the applicant in the face three times and said that he was beating him for what they had done in facility OX-30/3 and that he would not get out of there alive.
According to the applicant, in the remand prison he was often placed in a disciplinary cell in the absence of any grounds for disciplinary measures. He had to spend from five to ten days in the cell at least three times a month. The cell was unfit for living as it was always very cold and damp.
According to the applicant, he sent a number of complaints concerning the actions of the remand prison officers to the Prosecutor's Office of the Kursk Region, the Lgov Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office and the Ombudsman. However, he received no replies and was not even provided with the numbers of his complaints in the remand prison register. The applicant has not submitted any information on the nature of such complaints or their dates.
In the Government's submission, between 8 August and 21 September 2005 the applicant was visited by his lawyers five times. During the applicant's detention in remand prison IZ-46/2 he was questioned first as a witness and then as an accused in the criminal proceedings concerning the disruption of the work of correctional facility OX-30/3. However, he was never questioned in relation to criminal proceedings opened following the numerous complaints lodged by the inmates with regard to unlawful actions on the part of the OX-30/3 administration.
On 21 December 2005 the applicant was convicted of disrupting penitentiary facilities' work.
Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that inaction by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in criminal proceedings or prevent access to a court may be the subject of a complaint to a court. The court has the power to declare such inaction unlawful and indicate to the investigators and/or prosecutors which deficiencies are to be rectified.
Article 91 § 2 of the Criminal Code, as amended on 8 December 2003, provides that all incoming and outgoing correspondence of detainees is subject to censorship by the administration of the correctional facility. Correspondence with courts, prosecutors, penitentiary officials, the Ombudsman, the public monitoring board and the European Court of Human Rights is not subject to censorship. Correspondence of convicted persons with their counsel is not subject to censorship unless the administration of the correctional facility has reliable information to the effect that it is aimed at initiating, planning or organising a crime or involving other people in the commission of a crime. In this case the correspondence is subject to control on the basis of a reasoned decision by the head of the correctional facility or his deputy.


ITEMID: 001-108395
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: BEL
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF RIAD AND IDIAB v. BELGIUM
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes);Violation de l'art. 5;Violation de l'art. 3;Préjudice moral - réparation
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Paul Martens;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 6. The applicants were born in 1980 and 1981 respectively.
7. The first applicant arrived in Belgium at Brussels National Airport on flight SN 211 from Freetown (Sierra Leone) on 27 December 2002, carrying a Lebanese travel document stating that he was a Palestinian refugee. He was refused entry to Belgium as he did not have the necessary visas. The carrier which had provided the flight was informed that, pursuant to section 74(4) of the Aliens (Entry, Residence, Settlement and Expulsion) Act of 15 December 1980, it was responsible for paying the costs of his return to his country of origin.
8. On the same date the first applicant requested recognition of his refugee status, maintaining that his life was in danger in Lebanon, and was issued with a document certifying that he had applied for asylum.
9. Also on the same date, 27 December 2002, a decision to keep the first applicant in a designated place at the border was taken on the basis of section 74/5(1)(2) of the Act of 15 December 1980. Pursuant to that decision, the first applicant was taken to Transit Centre no. 127 on the premises of Brussels National Airport.
10. A decision refusing asylum was taken on 31 December 2002 by the Aliens Office and served on the first applicant on the same date. The first applicant lodged an appeal with the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.
11. On 21 January 2003 the Commissioner General's Office upheld the decision refusing asylum; it pointed out the inconsistencies between the various accounts given by the applicant in question and concluded that on the evidence he had no reason to fear that he was in personal danger in Lebanon.
12. An application for judicial review of the decision of 21 January 2003 of the Commissioner General's Office and an application to stay its execution were lodged with the Conseil d'Etat on 19 February 2003. At the hearing before the Court, the parties explained that those applications were declared inadmissible in 2005 on the ground that the first applicant was no longer on Belgian territory and the continued examination of his case was thus devoid of purpose.
13. This applicant arrived in Belgium at Brussels National Airport on a flight from Freetown on 24 December 2002 at 5.12 a.m. As he did not have a transit visa allowing him to travel onwards to London, steps were taken to refuse him entry to Belgian territory and the carrier which had provided the flight was requested to take him, or have him taken, back to the country of origin or to another State where he could be allowed entry. The second applicant was rerouted to Beirut, via Budapest.
14. When he underwent a check in the transit zone on the same date this applicant stated that he did not wish to go to Beirut and requested recognition of his refugee status, maintaining that his life was in danger in Lebanon. He was issued with a document certifying that he had applied for asylum.
15. Also on the same date, 24 December 2002, a decision to keep the second applicant in a designated place at the border was taken on the basis of section 74/5(1)(2) of the Act of 15 December 1980. Pursuant to that decision, the second applicant was taken to Transit Centre no. 127.
16. A decision refusing the application for asylum was taken by the Aliens Office on 6 January 2003. That decision was served on the same date on the second applicant, who lodged an appeal with the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.
17. On 21 January 2003 the Commissioner General's Office upheld the decision refusing asylum, as it was not familiar with the Palestinian organisation to which the second applicant claimed to belong. An application for judicial review and an application for a stay of execution were also lodged with the Conseil d'Etat on 19 February 2003. Like the applications lodged by the first applicant, these applications were dismissed in 2005 as they had become devoid of purpose.
18. The first applicant remained in Transit Centre no. 127 from 27 December 2002 pursuant to the decision to keep him in a designated place at the border (see above). The second applicant remained there, on the same basis, from 24 September 2002.
19. Following an attempted collective break-out from Transit Centre no. 127 during the night of 21 to 22 January 2003, the two applicants and three of their compatriots were transferred on 22 January 2002 to the Closed Centre for Illegal Aliens in Bruges (the Government explained that this institution was, by a legal fiction, treated as a centre at the border).
20. In January 2003 their lawyer lodged an application for release on behalf of each of them before the chambre du conseil of the Brussels Court of First Instance, by registered letter posted on 14 January 2003. The chambre du conseil allowed that application by an order of 20 January 2003, being of the view that the grounds put forward by the administrative authorities to justify the deprivation of liberty were not sufficient.
21. On the same day on which that order was made, State Counsel's Office notified the Aliens Office, by means of a form, that it had decided to lodge an appeal, which it did on the following day. On account of that appeal, the applicants remained in the closed centre, and any procedures for their repatriation were suspended pending the judgment of the Indictment Division.
22. On 24 January 2003 the authorities arranged for both applicants to be booked on a flight to Freetown on 6 February 2003.
23. By a judgment of 30 January 2003 the Brussels Indictment Division upheld the order made on 20 January for the first applicant's release, being of the view that the detention order did not contain “sufficient reasons in concreto”.
24. Following that judgment, Principal State Counsel at the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered the first applicant's immediate release. As a result of that decision, the Aliens Office had him transferred to the transit zone at Brussels National Airport (see below).
25. On 3 February 2003 a similar judgment was delivered in respect of the second applicant. On the same date Principal State Counsel and the Aliens Office took decisions identical to those taken in respect of the first applicant, whom the first applicant rejoined in the transit zone at Brussels National Airport on 3 February 2003.
26. On 30 January 2003 the first applicant, as explained below (see paragraph 28), was placed in the transit zone in Brussels National Airport. He was taken there at 6.45 p.m., together with Ab., another Palestinian national who had arrived in Belgium on 25 December 2002 in the same circumstances as the first applicant.
27. They were informed that they were being released, their luggage was returned to them and they were each given an envelope containing their personal possessions, with the exception of their passports, which remained in the possession of the federal police at the airport, and were allowed to make a telephone call to a person of their choice. They stated that they wished to telephone their lawyer.
28. On 1 February 2003 at 1.30 p.m. they went to the federal police border inspection post and declared that they had no money or food. They were told that they could go on a voluntary basis to the “INADS Centre” at the airport and remain there pending their removal. They were taken to that centre, where the first applicant signed a statement, after the content thereof had been translated for him, agreeing to remain voluntarily at the centre and to observe its rules. According to a document from the centre, the first applicant arrived there on 1 February 2003 and left on 3 February 2003; in fact, an unsuccessful attempt to remove the applicant to Freetown was made on 3 February 2003, but he refused to board the aeroplane. Following his refusal to board, he was taken back to the transit zone.
29. Also on 3 February 2003, the lawyer acting for the first applicant and Ab. wrote to the Minister for the Interior, claiming that her clients had suffered degrading treatment by having to spend three days in the transit zone without food or drink. She explained that a few hours after arriving in the “INADS Centre” they had simply been returned to the transit zone and told to fend for themselves in order to obtain food, drink and a return ticket.
30. On the same date, 3 February 2003, at 6.40 p.m. the first applicant and Ab. were joined in the transit zone by the second applicant (see paragraph 28 above). Upon being transferred there he was given the same explanations as the two others and stated that he was “no longer happy with that decision” and wished to contact his lawyer. He also stated that he had no money and had only a telephone card. He again asked where the “other men” were.
31. On 4 February 2003 the applicants' counsel applied under the extremely urgent procedure to the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance, who dismissed the application on 9 February 2003 on the ground that the applicants did not have a personal right of access to the territory, as such a right was not conferred either by the submission of an application for asylum or by the orders for their release.
32. In the meantime a fresh attempt to remove the three persons to Freetown had been made on 6 February 2003. A further attempt to remove two of them was made on 8 February 2003. The first applicant refused to board the plane but Ab. did board it.
33. On 9 February 2003 the applicants' counsel lodged an application to shorten the period of notice of a hearing, arguing that keeping her clients in the transit zone constituted an illegal act that infringed their right to liberty, a right confirmed by the decisions delivered in respect of their detention in the transit centre. She further maintained that keeping them in the transit zone constituted a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. By an order of 10 February 2003 the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance granted leave to summon the Belgian State to appear at a hearing on 12 February 2003.
34. On 11 February 2003 the applicants summoned the Belgian State, represented by the Minister for the Interior, to appear before the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting as the urgent applications judge, for the purpose of securing an order for the State to allow them to enter Belgian territory, together with a penalty of 1,000 euros (EUR) per hour from notification of the order in the event of failure to comply. The applicants submitted that by keeping them in a closed space, despite the fact that the chambre du conseil of the Indictment Division had ordered their release, the State was in breach of the domestic and international provisions guaranteeing the right of personal liberty. In addition, they were completely destitute, without lodging or resources and left to their own devices in the transit zone, where they had no proper facilities and for several days had had neither food nor drink, which constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. They further submitted that some members of the federal police had violently struck and beaten them inside the Muslim place of worship in the transit zone.
35. On 12 February 2003 the authorities arranged for the applicants to be booked on a flight to Beirut on 15 February 2003.
36. In submissions filed with the President of the Court of First Instance, counsel for the State objected, in particular, that the applicants had not applied for judicial review of the decisions of the Commissioner General's Office or for a stay of their execution.
37. By an order of 14 February 2003 the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered the State to allow the applicants to leave the transit zone freely and without restriction, with a penalty of EUR 1,000 per hour with effect from notification of the order in the event of failure to comply.
The decision delivered in the context of application no. 29787/03 reads as follows:
“It is common ground that the applicant is at present subject to a decision of 3 January 2003 to remove him from national territory, upheld on 21 January 2003.
The time-limit for bringing an action for a stay of execution and for judicial review does not have suspensive effect; nor does the application for regularisation under section 9(3) of the Act of 15 December 1980 which the applicant submitted on 28 January 2003.
As the applicant's administrative status is binding on the court, it must take note of the fact that the applicant is therefore not entitled to remain on Belgian territory.
Nonetheless, the decision of the Indictment Division is also binding on the court and in the present case, that division ordered the applicant's immediate release.
It is also common ground that the Indictment Division was aware of the applicant's administrative status and in particular of the decision of the CGRA and therefore ordered his release with full knowledge of the facts.
It is not for this court to adjudicate on that status but, rather, on the way in which that decision to release the applicant is implemented by the Belgian State, all other things being equal.
The defendant maintains that, in view of the fact that the applicant has not been authorised to enter national territory as such, it was correct to take the view that the applicant's release should be effected in the transit zone, since that zone is not an area where the law does not apply but is in fact part of the Belgian Kingdom for persons in transit in Belgium and those who have not yet been authorised to enter the national territory as such.
The Court of Cassation has held that 'as regards the access, residence, establishment and removal of aliens, it does not follow from the legal distinction between the port area and the rest of the territory of the Kingdom that the transit zone is not part of the Kingdom and that the law referred to does not apply there' (Court of Cassation, 22 June 1999, Pas. 1999, 957).
The closed centres are in reality nothing more than extensions of the transit zones, antechambers to the territory of the Kingdom, the only difference being that, unlike the transit zone, they are designed to be capable of accommodating persons for a more or less long period in what are assumed to be decent conditions.
While the defendant's reasoning can therefore be followed in so far as it considers that by being present in the transit zone the applicant was in fact on Belgian territory, that reasoning cannot be followed where it considers that such presence amounts to 'release'.
It cannot be accepted that the legislature, by creating centres at the borders, specially equipped to accommodate persons who are being held pending leave to enter the Kingdom or pending deportation, and by providing that persons held in those centres have a right of appeal to the chambre du conseil, took the view that if their release was ordered by the chambre du conseil and then by the Indictment Division, those persons could be sent to the transit zone, which is wholly unequipped to receive them, since this would place them in an even more precarious and adverse situation.
If release limited to the transit centre were to be accepted, that would amount to allowing the Belgian State unilaterally to block a court decision ordering release on the basis of a person's administrative status, when that administrative status had been taken into consideration by that court and must have constituted a ground of its decision ordering release.
Since 21 January 2003 the parties have both known that the removal order is enforceable, since the applicant's appeal to the CGRA was rejected and no urgent application for a stay of its execution was made.
Since then the applicant has shown no intention of complying voluntarily with the removal order.
Nor has the Belgian State forcibly removed him since then.
Since the State is now required to comply with the decision ordering the applicant's release, there are two possibilities: either the defendant prefers to wait until the applicant decides to leave voluntarily, but in that case, while awaiting his departure, the State must allow him to move freely within the territory (in observance of res judicata), or the defendant assumes its responsibilities and provides itself with the means to enforce the order for the applicant's return in order to ensure compliance with its own administrative decisions.
In that regard, the Law allows the Belgian State to order the alien in question to reside in a specified place pending implementation of the order for his removal (section 73 of the Act of 15 December 1980).
What is unacceptable and contrary to the rule of law in the present case is that the Belgian State should place the applicant in another closed place (the transit zone) in which the living conditions are inhuman and degrading, in the hope that the applicant will then decide to implement the removal order 'voluntarily'.
In transferring the applicant from the closed centre at Melsbroek to the transit zone, the Belgian State committed an illegal act.
On the basis of the file as it currently stands, the release ordered by the Indictment Division necessarily means that, until such time as he is removed, the applicant is free to leave the transit zone, without prejudice to the Ministry's right to order the applicant to reside in a specific place (section 73).
That solution to a wholly contradictory situation is the only one possible if the procedure under section 71 of the Act of 15 December 1980 is not to be reduced to a farce.
In the light of the foregoing, the application must be allowed in accordance with the operative part of the present order.”
The decision delivered in connection with application no. 29810/03 is based on the same reasoning.
38. The applicants' lawyer sent that decision by fax on 14 February 2003 to the Aliens Office, which cancelled the booking made for the flight on 15 February 2003. On 15 February 2003 the Office was instructed to allow the applicants to leave the transit zone, without restriction.
39. The orders of 14 February 2003 were served on the Belgian State, by bailiff, first on 17 February 2003 to the office of the Minister of Justice; the order made in favour of the first applicant was served for a second time, on 28 February 2003, on the federal police border inspection post at Brussels National Airport.
40. Both applicants left the transit zone on 15 February 2003, in the late morning; the precise time was not stated.
41. The parties differed as to the situation which the two applicants encountered in the transit zone.
42. The applicants stated that the transit zone had no bedrooms and, a fortiori, no beds, and that they were housed in the mosque located there. They were taken in by the Muslim counsellor, who took them in again after the various attempts to remove them. They remained for several days without food or drink, receiving food only irregularly from the cleaning staff, the company running the airport, the Muslim counsellor or the lay counsellor at the airport. The two counsellors explained in their testimony that the applicants' situation was unbearable, mentioning that they had been abandoned or “deserted” by the authorities. The applicants were unable to wash themselves or to launder their clothes. They were often checked by the airport police; on several occasions they were placed in a cell and left there for several hours without food or drink, in an attempt to force them to agree to leave the country voluntarily, then taken back to the transit zone. They were also violently struck and beaten inside the mosque by certain members of the federal police.
43. The Government submitted that, following the criticisms in a report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (“the CPT”) in 1993, the situation in the transit zone at Brussels National Airport had been remedied by, inter alia, setting up the “INADS Centre” on the airport premises. The centre was able to take in, on a voluntary basis, persons staying in the transit zone and provide them with bed and board. In its 1997 report on its visit to Belgium, the CPT observed that the material conditions and the activities offered in the “INADS Centre” could generally be described as satisfactory for a stay of not more than a few days, with just one exception (the lack of provision for those staying in the centre to enjoy fresh air). In addition, persons in the transit zone awaiting a reservation on a flight for the purpose of their removal were able to receive meals via the control services. A federal police circular of 31 October 2003 confirmed that practice and reminded the various services of their obligations in that regard. It was apparent from that circular that the team dealing with the case of a particular alien was responsible for distributing meals to him or her and that upon arriving in the transit zone aliens were informed that they could go to the “arrivals” level three times a day to be given a meal. The team responsible ordered three meals per person per day at the “INADS Centre”. Although that procedure had been properly confirmed only by the circular of 31 October 2003, the fact nonetheless remained that the first applicant had been informed on 1 February 2003 that he could be housed and fed on a voluntary basis in the “INADS Centre”.
44. On 15 February 2003 at 11.30 a.m. the applicants, after leaving the transit zone, were subjected to an identity check by officials of the federal police responsible for border control. After finding that the applicants were not in possession of a valid residence permit, the police drew up an administrative report for each of them. The reports stated that the applicants were travelling together and that they spoke English in addition to their mother tongue. The police contacted the Aliens Office at 12.30 p.m. and were instructed to detain the applicants so that they could be served with an order to leave the territory together with a decision ordering their removal and a decision ordering their detention for that purpose. A decision to that effect was served on them on the same date, at an unspecified time, by an officer from the Aliens Office. Both applicants refused to sign.
45. The first applicant was informed of those measures and was told that, with a view to their implementation, he was being taken to the Merksplas centre for illegal aliens. He stated that he objected, on the advice of his counsel. During the journey to Merksplas this applicant complained that the handcuffs placed on him were too tight around his wrists. The journey was interrupted at 2.45 p.m. so that the handcuffs could be loosened.
46. The second applicant was informed of those measures and told that he would be taken to the centre for illegal aliens and he too stated that he objected, on the advice of his counsel, and resisted the police who were putting him in the van being used to transfer the two applicants. A few minutes after the van was closed, it was noted that, although he was handcuffed, the second applicant had intentionally injured himself by banging his head against the van window, which was protected by a grille. It was then decided to take him to Merksplas in a police vehicle and Velcro bands were placed round his arms and legs to prevent any mutilation. According to the report drawn up on that occasion, the applicant told the members of the escort that he would use his self-inflicted injuries as evidence to support a complaint against the police. Upon arriving at Merksplas he was examined by the doctor at the centre, who noted the presence of external injuries, namely a bruise and a small wound (“klein wondje”) on his forehead.
47. On 19 February 2003 the lawyer representing the two applicants wrote to the Minister for the Interior to complain about his clients being placed in a closed centre in spite of the orders made on 14 February 2003. On the same date he had lodged an application with the Conseil d'Etat for judicial review of the decision of 21 January 2003 of the Commissioner General's Office and an application for a stay of its execution (see above).
48. On 20 February 2003, measures were taken to remove the first applicant to Beirut, but the order for his repatriation was subsequently set aside. On 24 February 2003 the Aliens Office instructed the Border Inspection Department to make arrangements for his removal as soon as possible. His repatriation was rearranged for 8 March 2003.
49. On 8 March 2003 the first applicant left Merksplas and his personal effects, his luggage and the sums of EUR 45, 250 United States dollars (USD) and 1,000 Lebanese pounds which he had been carrying on his arrival were returned to him. He had previously been informed of the repatriation procedure that would be followed and of the measures of physical restraint that might be taken. Following a discussion, he stated that he no longer objected to being repatriated, but expressed the wish that certain conditions should be observed. He asked, in particular, that he should not be handcuffed and that he should carry his passport. He was told that those conditions could not be met, in view of the circumstances.
50. The applicant was repatriated on a flight to Beirut, via Moscow, escorted by three police officers. The first applicant was placed in fabric handcuffs before being taken on board. The handcuffs were removed after take-off. During the flights and while waiting in the transit zone at Moscow Airport he was given food and drink. The members of the escort reported no incident.
51. On 21 February 2003, measures were taken to remove the second applicant to Beirut, but the order for his repatriation was subsequently set aside.
52. The second applicant was repatriated on 5 March 2003. Upon his departure from Merksplas, his personal effects, his luggage and a sum of EUR 150 were returned to him. According to the report drawn up in connection with his removal, he arrived at the airport at 4.45 p.m. He was searched and placed in a cell. At 8.35 p.m. the officials in charge of his repatriation questioned him in order to determine the extent of his cooperation with the removal order. During that interview, he indicated that he had realised that he had to return to Beirut. He allegedly added that he had not been happy with his situation for two months and that he had the impression that he had been a pawn in a game between his lawyer and the Ministry officials. He was allowed to telephone his family and contacted his sister, who was informed of the precise details of the flight and of the scheduled time of arrival. In order to prevent any attempt at resistance, the members of the escort decided, in view of the information in their possession and the circumstances of the transfer on 15 February 2003, to use measures of physical restraint. The applicant was wearing fabric handcuffs and had Velcro around his ankles when he boarded the flight to Beirut via Moscow. The boarding of the plane, the flight and the transit passed without incident. The applicant was released from his restraints as soon as the plane reached cruising altitude and he was given food, drink and cigarettes during the journey. Upon his arrival in Beirut his passport was returned to him. Members of his family were waiting for him there. The Belgian consul in Beirut was also present at the airport.
...
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3
5


ITEMID: 001-81138
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SVK
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF MACKO AND KOZUBAL v. SLOVAKIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: No violation of Art. 6-1
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 7. Mr Viktor Macko, the applicant in application No. 64054/00 (the first applicant), was born in 1965 and lives in Humenné. Mr Miroslav Kozubaľ, the applicant in application No. 64071/00 (the second applicant), was born in 1963 and lives in Hanušovce.
8. Between 19 November 1993 and 29 January 1996 the second applicant was the representative of the company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o. and he was entitled to act on the company's behalf in that capacity. On 30 January 1996 he was replaced by the first applicant who carried out that function until 2 September 1997. Prior to that, on 14 August 1995, the second applicant had authorised the first applicant, then director of company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o., to act on the company's behalf. From 3 September 1997 to 13 September 1998 Mr I. succeeded the first applicant as the above company's representative.
9. On 16 December 1998 Mr T., a police investigator of the Regional Office of Investigation in Prešov, accused Mr I. of unauthorised trading in foreign currency. I. was accused of having authorised, as a co-owner of the company ILaS Vranov, a sale of bills of exchange in Austria without the approval of the central bank. The transaction had been carried out in 1994. The investigation file had the number KÚV-80/20-98.
10. On 2 July 1999 investigator T. accused Mr I. of a different offence in the context of proceedings KÚV-80/20-98. I. was accused of fraud and money laundering on the ground that he had unlawfully obtained and used a sum of money while acting as the representative of companies Classinvest Slovakia o.c.p., a.s. and C.S.I. Slovenka Vranov, a.s. According to the accusation, I. had issued bills of exchange which had been uncovered and void. The transaction had allegedly been made in Vienna in 1997 and it had involved the same person as the above transaction of 1994.
11. The police investigator summoned the first applicant to an interview as a witness in the case against I. The first applicant appeared before the investigator and indicated that he wished to avail himself of the right under Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to remain silent with a view to avoiding any criminal proceedings against him. This fact is recorded in the minutes of the first applicant's interview of 5 October 1999.
12. On 23 November 1999 investigator T. issued a decision, under Article 66 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he imposed a procedural fine of SKK 20,000 on the first applicant. The decision stated that the applicant had refused, on 5 October 1999, to make a witness statement in the criminal case against I. concerning fraud. The decision also stated that the applicant had relied on Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the investigator had concluded, after having considered the position in the case, that the applicant's statement as a witness could not result in the initiation of criminal proceedings against him. The decision had the number KÚV-80/OVEK-98.
13. The second applicant, like the first applicant, was summoned to an interview by investigator T. in the context of criminal proceedings brought against Mr I. On 18 November 1999, prior to interviewing the second applicant, the investigator informed him that he could remain silent, pursuant to Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if his statement could result in his or his close relatives' prosecution for a criminal offence. The second applicant used that right. According to the minutes, he had stated that he would not mention the reasons for his decision to remain silent.
14. In a decision of 23 November 1999 the investigator imposed a procedural fine of SKK 20,000 on the second applicant under Article 66 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision stated that the applicant had refused, without justification, to make a witness statement in a criminal case and that he had been warned that he could be fined therefor. According to the decision, the applicant had not indicated any reason for his refusal and the investigator concluded, after having considered the evidence in the case, that his witness statement had not been susceptible of resulting in his prosecution.
15. On 22 February 2000 the police investigator accused the first applicant of conspiracy to defraud on the ground that he had been involved in the fraudulent elaboration of a contract with a view to obtaining a considerable sum of money from the State. The decision had the file number KÚV4/OVEK2000.
16. On 1 August 2000 investigator T. issued two decisions under investigation file number KÚV-83/20-98 accusing several persons of criminal offences.
17. In the first decision Mr I., the two applicants and five other persons were accused of conspiracy to defraud. The case concerned the transfer of securities of the joint stock company Transpetrol, a.s. The alleged offence had been committed in 1998. A public prosecutor at the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Prešov quashed the investigator's decision on 7 August 2000. No further criminal proceedings have been brought against the second applicant subsequently.
18. In the second decision dated 1 August 2000 investigator T. accused the first applicant, together with Mr I. and another person, of preparatory acts relating to money laundering. It was imputed to the first applicant that, as representative of the company Brilant, a.s., he had participated in the fraudulent elaboration of a contract in 1996, and that he had transferred securities of the company Transpetrol, a.s. to his company.
19. On 2 August 2000 the police investigator joined to a single set of proceedings the above cases against Mr I. and, inter alios, the first applicant registered under file numbers KÚV-80/20-98, KÚV-83/20-98 and KÚV4/OVEK-2000. On 2 July 2001 the investigator discontinued the proceedings against Mr I. (file number KÚV-80/20-98) brought on 16 December 1998 as no offence had been committed.
20. On 10 December 2001 the public prosecutor indicted the first applicant, Mr I. and six other persons before the Regional Court in Prešov in the context of transfer of securities of Transpetrol, a.s. The first applicant was charged with two offences.
21. Firstly, the applicant was accused of fraud, together with Mr I. and two other persons, on the ground that they had fraudulently elaborated a pre-dated contract, in 1996, after a tax authority had issued a warrant with a view to securing a possible debt of company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o. As the warrant had prevented the company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o. from complying with its obligations under the above contract, the State had later been ordered to pay SKK 43,265,591 as compensation for the fine foreseen under that contract. The State's alleged debt had subsequently been enforced by means of a transfer of securities of the company Transpetrol, a.s. The public prosecutor concluded that, as a result, the Ministry of Economy had suffered a financial loss totalling SKK 2,184,000 million.
22. Secondly, the first applicant was accused of having engaged in preparatory acts relating to money laundering in that he had acquired, as representative of the company Brilant, a.s., 98 shares in the company Transpetrol a.s. which had been obtained by means of the above transasction and that he had intended to sell those securities abroad through his co-accused Mr I.
23. On 3 August 2004 the Regional Court in Žilina returned the case to the public prosecutor for further investigation.
24. On 25 May 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's decision of 3 August 2004 and ordered the first-instance court to proceed with the case. In its decision the Supreme Court referred to the fact that the second applicant had refused to make statements as a witness at interviews on 11 February 2000, 10 May 2000 and 20 March 2001 with reference to Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further questioning of the second applicant would in such situation amount to undue pressure with a view to forcing him to make a statement which he had refused to make in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court concluded that any evidence obtained in those circumstances could not be used in subsequent proceedings.
25. The criminal proceedings are pending.
26. On 10 December 1999 the first applicant filed a complaint against the decision of 23 November 1999 to impose a fine on him. He argued that he had availed himself of his right to remain silent as he had considered that his statement could give rise to criminal proceedings against him. He had not been warned that a fine could be imposed on him, and the investigator had not informed him that the position in the case excluded the bringing of criminal proceedings against the first applicant.
27. On 30 December 1999 the Prešov Regional Deputy Prosecutor dismissed the complaint. The decision stated that the first applicant had not indicated the reason for his refusal to make a statement. Under Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness was obliged to inform an investigator why he or she refused to make a statement. Where the investigator did not accept the reasons invoked, the witness was obliged to answer the questions.
28. The first applicant requested that an extra-ordinary complaint be filed against the above decision imposing a fine for his refusal to make statement as a witness.
29. On 19 February 2001 a public prosecutor at the General Prosecutor's Office dismissed the request. In his letter the public prosecutor summed up the relevant facts as follows. On 5 October 1999 the first applicant had to be heard as a witness in the context of criminal proceedings KÚV-80/20-98 against Mr I. Those proceedings concerned an unlawful sale of bills of exchange, in 1994, which had resulted in the transfer of approximately SKK 19 million to the account of the company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o. on 7 July 1994. The offences imputed to the accused comprised also several other actions including the misuse, in 1996, of bonds issued by a company of which Mr I. had been the director and transfer of that company's assets to several persons including the applicant. The police investigator had joined the above proceedings, on 2 August 2000, as both the applicant and Mr I. had been accused in the case registered under file number KÚV-83/20-98. However, the actions imputed to Mr I. in proceedings KÚV-80/20-98, in the context of which the applicant had refused to make a witness statement, were entirely unrelated to the facts of the other cases.
30. The public prosecutor held that a witness could remain silent only to the extent that a specific part of his statement was susceptible of resulting in the introduction of criminal proceedings against the witness or his or her next of kin. As the first applicant had had no apparent reason for refusing to make a witness statement, and since he had given no specific reason for such a refusal, the decision imposing a procedural fine had been justified.
31. The second applicant filed a complaint against the decision imposing a fine on him. He argued, with reference to the record of the interview with the investigator, that he had remained silent as he had considered that a statement could give rise to criminal proceedings against him. The fine amounted to the application of psychological pressure to him.
32. On 30 December 1999 the Prešov Regional Deputy Prosecutor dismissed the second applicant's complaint. The decision stated that the applicant had not given any reason for his refusal to make a statement. Under Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness was obliged to inform the investigator why he or she refused to make a statement. Where the investigator did not accept the reasons invoked, the witness was obliged to answer the questions.
33. On 12 December 2000 the second applicant petitioned the General Prosecutor's Office for a complaint in the interest of the law to be filed on his behalf. He challenged the above procedural fine. The fact that the same investigator had accused him of an offence on 1 August 2000 proved that the fine had been imposed with a view to coercing the second applicant to make a statement on the relevant facts.
34. In a letter of 19 February 2001 a public prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office refused to file an extra-ordinary complaint on the second applicant's behalf for reasons similar to those set out above in respect of the petition filed by the first applicant.
35. On 25 July 2001 a different public prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office confirmed that conclusion. The letter stated, in particular, that the interview in question had concerned offences imputed to other persons and that the second applicant, therefore, had had no valid reason for refusing to answer the questions. The offence of which the second applicant had been accused subsequently concerned facts different from those on which he had been asked to make a witness statement.
36. Article 47 § 1 reads as follows:
“Everyone is entitled to refuse to make a statement where it would be susceptible of resulting in his or her prosecution for a criminal offence or in prosecution of a different person close to him or her.”
37. Under Article 66 § 1, a person who, despite previous warnings, disturbs proceedings or behaves in an offensive manner in relation to a court, a public prosecutor, an investigator or a police authority or, without sufficient excuse, does not obey an order or does not comply with an instruction addressed to him or her under the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be punished with a procedural fine of up to SKK 50,000.
38. Pursuant to Article 97, everybody is obliged to appear before a prosecuting authority upon summons and to make a statement as a witness about facts which he or she knows about an offence, its perpetrator or issues which are considered important for the purpose of criminal proceedings.
39. Article 100 § 2 reads as follows:
“A witness is entitled to refuse to make a statement where such a statement would entail the risk that criminal proceedings would be brought against him, against his relative in direct line, his sibling, a person whom the witness adopted or by whom he was adopted, against the spouse or partner of such a witness or against any other person with whom the witness has family-like relations and whose harm the witness would justifiably perceive as being his own harm.”
40. The domestic authorities have held that a person who wishes to remain silent pursuant to Article 100 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must state the reason for his or her refusal to make a statement. The decision whether or not such a person's recourse to Article 100 § 2 is justified lies with the authority by whom the witness is to be heard. Where the authority concerned does not accept the reasons invoked, the witness is obliged to make a statement.
41. Where the refusal of a witness to make a statement is justified, an investigator cannot circumvent the witness's right to remain silent by inquiring into the reasons for such a refusal and facts related to the subject-matter of the envisaged interrogation, and by mentioning those facts subsequently in the minutes of the interrogation. The information contained in such an unlawfully obtained statement cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-87146
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: CASE OF ISAAK v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä
TEXT: 7. The applicants were born in 1977, 1944, 1951, 1974 and 1979 respectively. The first applicant lives in Ayia Napa and the remaining applicants live in Paralimni. The first applicant is the widow, the second and third applicants are the parents and the fourth and fifth applicants are the sisters of Mr Anastasios (Tassos) Isaak, a Greek Cypriot, who died on 11 August 1996.
8. The deceased, Anastasios Isaak, participated in a demonstration organised by the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation (CMF) that took place on 11 August 1996 at several points of the United Nations (UN) buffer zone east of Nicosia, including the area of Dherynia. The demonstration, details of which are in dispute between the parties, was the subject of a report by the UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) (report of 15 August 1996) and by the UN Secretary General (report S/1196/1016 of 10 December 1996).
9. The demonstration was organised by the CMF and was aimed at protesting against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. On 2 August 1996 a group of over one hundred Cypriot and other European motorcyclists set off from Berlin and made their way through Europe to Cyprus. Tensions arose when the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) announced that in the event the demonstration took place, they would be organising “counter-rallies” with the participation of the Turkish extremist “Grey Wolves” group and that they would fire at Greek-Cypriot demonstrators. Throughout the relevant period the Government of Cyprus and the competent authorities monitored developments and were in constant consultation with the UN. On 11 August 1996, in the morning, following an urgent appeal by the UN Secretary General, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the President of the Republic and it was decided to cancel the final part of the rally. Consequently, the President of the Republic made a special plea to the motorcyclists to disperse peacefully.
10. Notwithstanding that plea, on 11 August 1996, a group of motorcyclists and other civilians acting spontaneously proceeded to various points along the UN buffer zone. In the meantime, the Cypriot police had taken tight security measures in order to prevent the motorcyclists from entering the buffer zone.
11. Anastasios Isaak was part of the above-mentioned group. He had joined the rally with a friend on his motorbike.
12. At about 2.30 p.m. the motorcyclists, including Anastasios Isaak, arrived at the Dherynia roadblock, where they left their motorcycles and proceeded to cross the National Guard ceasefire line on foot, after breaking through the police and UN cordon. The demonstrators, who were unarmed, entered the buffer zone.
13. Behind the ceasefire line of the Turkish forces, a mob gathered, comprised of Turkish-Cypriot and Turkish civilians, many of them carrying hunting rifles and air guns, iron bars, wooden sticks, batons, stones and catapults. There were also many Turkish soldiers and “TRNC” policemen armed with automatic and other military weapons. According to the report by UNFICYP, the Turkish forces allowed about 1,000 persons in buses to pass through their 3 km military zone and assemble there. Some of them belonged to the “Grey Wolves” organisation.
14. Between approximately 3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. many stones were thrown on both sides. Shots were fired against the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators, some of whom suffered injuries as a result.
15. Between 3.30 and 4 p.m. the mob in the occupied area entered the buffer zone. They were armed with long sticks, batons and iron bars. At approximately 4.30 p.m. a group of the Turkish mob, together with uniformed policemen, managed to isolate several Greek-Cypriot demonstrators whom they started beating. A group of about 15-20 persons, including five uniformed policemen, surrounded Anastasios Isaak, who had been isolated in the buffer zone and was unarmed. Anastasios Isaak was thrown to the ground after having being chased. During a period of approximately five minutes he was kicked and beaten continuously on every part of his body and his head with metal and wooden batons. There were in total eight “TRNC” police officers in the vicinity.
16. When the UNFICYP police officer Frank Flood tried to intervene and started pushing some of the attackers away, Anastasios Isaak was already unconscious with blood coming out of his mouth and nose. Officer Flood was also attacked from behind. According to Officer Flood’s statement (see paragraph 29 below), there had been approximately twelve people surrounding Anastasios Isaak at that moment, including a number of uniformed policemen. When the attackers eventually moved away, Officer Flood tried to trace signs of life. As the officer stood up, one of the attackers threw a large stone at Anastasios Isaak’s head. This struck Anastasios Isaak on the right hand side of his head, causing him to jerk. The attacker then ran away.
17. UNFICYP officer Sergeant Lorraine Stack, who had been helping out another Greek-Cypriot demonstrator a few metres away, went to Officer Flood’s assistance. The two UNFICYP officers then dragged Anastasios Isaak’s body to the area controlled by the Cypriot Government. Greek-Cypriot demonstrators then took the body and put it in a car. The car was driven towards the guard room of the National Guard and Anastasios Isaak was transferred to Paralimni Hospital. On the way to hospital Anastasios Isaak had no pulse and was not breathing, despite the efforts of the medical staff in the ambulance. At the hospital the doctors’ efforts to revive him continued but to no avail. Anastasios Isaak was pronounced dead at the hospital. His body was then transferred on the same day to Larnaca General Hospital.
18. On 12 August 1996, members of the police, escorted by members of UNFICYP and State pathologists Mr P. Stavrianos and Mr S. Sophocleous, visited the scene of the incident and carried out an examination. During this examination several exhibits were photographed and recorded on video by the police. UNFICYP Sergeant Dale Roberts examined the scene of the incident and detected drops of blood stains on the ground and on a stone. Various objects were found such as glass marbles, metal bars, shotgun cartridges, wooden sticks, blood stains on a rusty metal can and plate fragments, which were all taken as exhibits. Soil stained with blood was also recovered for further examination.
19. On 13 August 1996 Professor Peter Vanezis, from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science of Glasgow University, arrived in Cyprus to perform the post-mortem examination. On the same day and before the post mortem, Professor Vanezis visited the scene accompanied by State pathologists Mr P. Stavrianos and Mr S. Sophocleous and members of the police. The team was escorted by members of UNFICYP. During the examination further exhibits were found, such as blood stains, a bloodstained piece of wood and a piece of piping. All the exhibits were photographed and recorded on video by the Cyprus police.
20. On the same date a post-mortem examination was performed by Professor Vanezis, assisted by two State pathologists. Members of the police and UNFICYP were also present. The entire process of the examination was photographed and recorded on video. During the examination various exhibits were taken by Professor Vanezis, which were later delivered by the police to him in Glasgow for further laboratory analysis.
21. According to the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was multiple blunt trauma to the head. The same conclusion appeared in the preliminary post-mortem report issued by Dr M. Enk of UNIFCYP and also in Professor Vanezis’s final report issued on 17 September 1996. Furthermore, according to the report issued on 9 September 1996 by Dr John S. Oliver, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Medicine (Toxicology) in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science of the University of Glasgow, the results of the analysis of the blood and urine samples of Anastasios Isaak for alcohol and drugs were negative.
22. The forensic examination carried out by UNFICYP found that the blood on the rusty can, on the stone, in the soil and on the shirt worn by Officer Frank Flood during the incidents belonged to the same blood group as that of Anastasios Isaak.
23. The demonstration was organised by Greek Cypriots as an alleged motorcycle rally and began on 1 August 1996 in Berlin. This rally was actively supported by the Greek-Cypriot authorities and had extensive media coverage. The aim of the rally was to forcibly enter the buffer zone, cross the ceasefire line and enter “TRNC” territory illegally in order to meet at the most northerly town of Kyrenia at all costs. As a result of the aggressive conduct of the organisers, tensions arose on both sides of the border. The Greek-Cypriot administration did nothing to prevent the rally in spite of appeals by the Turkish-Cypriot side and the UN Secretary-General. In view of this, the Turkish-Cypriot side announced that it would stop such provocative, hostile and aggressive action at its borders in order to prevent danger to the lives and properties of its citizens.
24. Upon representations from UNFICYP as to the possibility of such demonstrations having serious consequences, the President of the Republic of Cyprus issued a statement on 11 August 2006 declaring that the demonstrations had been prohibited and appealed to the demonstrators to disperse. Acting upon this, the Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators started to disperse peacefully.
25. Nonetheless, on 11 August 1996, Greek-Cypriot demonstrators were involved in violent incidents at various places along the ceasefire lines within the UN buffer zone. Over a thousand Greek-Cypriot motorcyclists and demonstrators arrived at Dherynia escorted by the Greek-Cypriot police. The latter allowed the demonstrators to advance and to enter the UN buffer zone up to the border with the “TRNC”. The UN personnel were unable to prevent the demonstrators’ unauthorised entry into the buffer zone and to keep them under control. The situation then got out of control as Greek-Cypriot demonstrators threw stones and missiles and fired towards the counter-demonstrators. Skirmishes took place between the Greek-Cypriot mob and a group of Turkish-Cypriot counter-demonstrators, when the former crossed into the buffer zone and consequently into the Turkish-Cypriot-controlled area.
26. As a result of the clashes both Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot demonstrators were injured. Anastasios Isaak was the leader of the group of Greek Cypriots who had entered the UN buffer zone and approached the barbed-wire fence at the Turkish Cypriot ceasefire line at Dherynia shouting abuse and throwing stones from close range at a line of Turkish-Cypriot policemen on the other side of the fence. One of the stones hit a policeman who was wounded on the temple and fell to the ground, bleeding profusely. It had not been possible for the Turkish-Cypriot police to prevent Turkish-Cypriot groups of civilians from entering the buffer zone to pursue the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish-Cypriot policemen also entered the buffer zone to bring back the Turkish Cypriots who had already gone into that area. However, Anastasios Isaak, who was a strong and well-built man, continued his aggressive attitude against the Turkish-Cypriot group, including the police, throwing stones and hitting them with a stick. Skirmishes continued between the Greek-Cypriot and the Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators, resulting in the unfortunate death of Anastasios Isaak, who had become entangled and trapped in spiral barbed-wire barriers that had been put up temporarily by the UN force and had prevented his escape from that area.
27. In its report of 15 August 1996 UNFICYP set out the facts concerning the demonstrations held on 11 August 1996. The relevant extracts read as follows:
“8. The most serious incident took place in Dherynia. On Sunday morning, a peaceful demonstration by some 250 Greek Cypriots took place. They entered the United Nations buffer zone and requested to deliver a petition to the Turkish-Cypriot checkpoint. When the latter refused to receive the petition, the demonstrators left the United Nations buffer zone, but remained in the area. At 14.30 hours, some 300 motorcyclists together with some 700 persons in vehicles escorted by Cypol [Cyprus police] arrived at the NG [National Guard] ceasefire line checkpoint in Dherynia. Cypol deployed along the NG ceasefire line but left the checkpoint unattended, thus enabling the demonstrators to enter the United Nations buffer zone unimpeded.
9. In the meantime, the Turkish forces had allowed some 1,000 persons in buses to pass through their 3 km deep military zone and to assemble along the TF [Turkish Forces] ceasefire line, including persons carrying the flag of the Grey Wolves who had come from Turkey.
10. The situation soon became violent, after Greek-Cypriot demonstrators entered the buffer zone and approached the TF ceasefire line to provoke the TF, the TCPE [Turkish-Cypriot Police Element] and demonstrators assembled there with verbal abuse and throwing stones. Cypol was not effective in controlling the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators.
11. At about 16.00 hours, the Turkish Forces allowed the Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators to enter the United Nations buffer zone armed with bats and iron bars. The Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators, joined by the Turkish-Cypriot Police, proceeded to pursue the Greek Cypriots and mercilessly beat all those who they were able to catch. At the same time, there was shooting, including by Turkish-Cypriot police, from behind the Turkish Forces ceasefire line towards the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators.
12. During this period, a Greek-Cypriot demonstrator, Anastasios Isaak, was beaten to death by a number of Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators, including three Turkish-Cypriot policemen. By 18.00 hours the situation began to calm down. In addition to the one dead, it was reported that some 54 Greek Cypriots and 17 Turkish Cypriots were injured. 12 UNFICYP personnel suffered injuries.
13. The UNFICYP investigation revealed conclusively that the killing of Anastasios Isaak had occurred some 50 metres from the scene shown on television in which three Greek Cypriots were being severely beaten by Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators while helplessly entangled in barbed wire. Two UNFICYP Irish Civilian Police had done their best in trying to rescue Anastasios Isaak at considerable personal risk.
14. The two United Nations Civilian Police had observed two Greek-Cypriot demonstrators being set upon by two groups of Turkish-Cypriot demonstrators who proceeded to beat them with brutal force. The two United Nations Police went to the assistance of one of the Greek Cypriots and managed to facilitate his escape. When they turned to the second Greek Cypriot (Isaak), and were finally able to push aside the Turkish Cypriots, including three Turkish-Cypriot policemen, who were still beating him, it was too late. The location of the killing inside the buffer zone was about 95 metres from the National Guard ceasefire line and about 32 metres from the Turkish Forces ceasefire line.
15. A video broadcast on ‘Euronews’ inter alia clearly shows the killing of Anastasios Isaak and the intervention of the two United Nations police. The autopsy, attended by UNFICYP, which was performed later in the afternoon of 13 August, revealed that Anastasios Isaak died of ‘multiple blunt trauma to the head’. UNFICYP has completed the collection of the evidence at the scene of the crime and is in the process of completing its investigation in cooperation with Cypol...”
28. Following the events, UNFICYP took statements from its officers who were on duty at the Dherynia checkpoint.
29. The witness was on duty at Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August 1996 between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. In his statement of 13 August 1996 he reported, inter alia, the following:
“... At approximately 4.30 p.m. I observed approximately 100 Turkish-Cypriot protesters enter the buffer zone. They ran towards the Greek-Cypriot side of the buffer zone. They were accompanied by a number of TCPE policemen and Turkish Military personnel in camouflage uniform. I observed a number of Greek-Cypriot men running from the Turkish-Cypriot crowd in the direction of UN OP143. The Turkish Cypriots were armed with sticks and large batons. I observed one man being caught and beaten to the ground by the Turkish-Cypriot crowd. This man was immediately surrounded and attacked while he was on the ground. I would describe this man as having long black hair tied into a pony tail. He was wearing a black sleeveless jacket and dark trousers. I rushed forward to attempt to assist him. As I went forward I was accompanied by Sergeant Carney and Sergeant Stack. I heard Sergeant Carney shout at a TCPE policeman to leave the buffer zone. This policeman was armed with a metre-long baton and a riot shield. He appeared to hesitate for a moment but then he moved towards the group of people who were attacking the man on the ground. I moved into this group, Sergeant Stack was beside me. We pushed a number of people away from the man on the ground. I was struck by the baton of a TCPE policeman on my right shoulder. I am unable to describe this policeman except that he was wearing uniform. Eventually we managed to clear a small space around the man on the ground and Sergeant Stack managed to get this man on his feet while I pushed the crowd back. I then observed another man being knocked to the ground approximately 10 metres away. I observed that he was being kicked, punched and struck by a number of people including TCPE policemen. Sergeant Stack was pushing the first man towards the Greek-Cypriot side of the buffer zone. I ran over to assist the second man. I would describe this man as wearing a white T-shirt and faded blue jeans. As I approached this man I observed that he appeared to be unconscious and there was blood coming from his nose and mouth. I pushed one man away from the man on the ground and shouted at the crowd ‘Stop. You’ll kill him.’ I was attacked from behind. There were approximately 10 or 12 people around the man on the ground at this stage including a number of TCPE policemen. I pushed some of these people away and eventually the attackers moved away. I briefly checked the man on the ground for signs of life. I observed no sign of life. I stood up and as I did so I observed a man who was wearing a grey sleeveless T-shirt, he had black hair and was approximately 5’5” in height, I would not be able to identify this man if I saw him again. This man had a large stone, held in both his hands, raised above his head. This man threw the stone at the man on the ground. The stone stuck the man on the ground on the right hand side of his head causing him to jerk. The man who threw the stone immediately turned and ran away. I observed that the crowd of attackers appeared to be returning. I lifted the man on the ground into a sitting position and dragged him a short distance. Sergeant Stack came to my assistance and assisted me in dragging the man towards the Greek side of the buffer zone. We had covered a distance of about 30 metres when I was attacked by a group of 5 or 6 Greek Cypriots. I was knocked to the ground and the man we were dragging was taken away from us. I moved back a short distance and I observed the injured man [being] taken towards the Greek-Cypriot side of the buffer zone...”
30. The witness was on duty at Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August 1996 from 8 a.m. In her statement of 13 August 1996 she reported, inter alia, the following:
“...At approx. 03.30 hrs the people on the Turkish side of the CFL [Ceasefire Line] began to enter the BZ [Buffer Zone] in groups of 50 approx. I saw them charge at civilians who, after running towards the Turkish CFL, were running towards the NGCFL [National Guard ceasefire line] heaving stones and missiles. The people from the Turkish side had long sticks and batons and began savagely beating any civilian they could catch. I saw TCPE members enter the BZ with uniform and beat the civilians already in the BZ who were from the NG side. There was no difference between the behaviour of the Turkish civilians in the BZ and the TCPE there in uniform. They acted like a mob beating severely any person they could catch from the other side who was in the BZ. Again I ran to numerous incidents, however, these were spread over a large area of ground in the buffer zone. It was approx. 60 metres in depth and 200 metres in length. The attacks were sporadic again, the groups from the Turkish side would return to their CFL and regroup. These attacks were very violent. I was standing approx. 40 metres from the Turkish ceasefire line during these times changing position as the missiles were being aimed at the civilians close to me. Throughout these incidents I could hear shots being fired from the Turkish CFL, again not continuous but sporadic. This scene continued until approx. 17.00 hrs. At approx. 16.30 hrs I was standing approx. 40 metres from the Turkish ceasefire line in the Buffer Zone and approx. 40 metres from the road that links the Turkish Forces checkpoint with the National Guard check point at Dherynia. In front of me I saw a group of about 15 people chase a person (civilian) and begin to beat him with sticks and batons. I ran to his assistance. The group of approx. 15 were dressed in TCPE uniform and civilians from the Turkish side. The man beaten was from the NG side and he was attempting to get away. I saw him being beaten to the ground, he was kicked continuously and beaten savagely on the head and body. I got to him and saw Police Officer Flood to my left. I went over to him and pushed the attackers back. I was also assaulted by the attackers during this, however, the blows from the sticks that hit me on my arms and back, were not intended for UN personnel. I saw at least two TCPE in uniform there and when they desisted on seeing us the rest of the group began to move back. ... I pushed him towards the NGCFL and he then began running, ... As I turned to stop any more attackers I saw Police Officer Flood attempting to lift a person off the ground. It was a short distance forward towards the TCFL [Turkish-Cypriot Ceasefire Line] I went to his assistance. I looked at the man’s face and it was my opinion at the time that he was dead. I shouted (noise level) at PO Flood: ‘Give me half of him, we’ll drag him.’ At this time there were some people with batons in front of us. We dragged him back approx. 30 metres towards the NGCFL ensuring he was not beaten again. Approx. 30 metres back we were met by some civilians from the NG side. They verbally abused us and pushed us taking the body from us. Going to NGCFL we moved away slowly from them after letting go of the body. I would describe this man as follows: - 25 yrs of age approx., heavy built approx. five foot 10 inches. He had a stubbly face, he had long black hair and he was wearing jeans and a white t-shirt. He was very pale at the time and there was blood coming from his head, nose and mouth. There were no life signs during this removal. I went back to the scene of more incidents. ...
The times I have written into this statement are approximations. At 7.10. pm I went to Paralimni Hospital and viewed a body there. I can identify this body as being the second man whose assistance I went to and carried back 30 metres in the direction of the NGCFL. I spoke with Supt. Anastassiou of CYPOL who gave me the deceased name as being Tassos Isaak from Costa Palma, Paralimni. I also identified this body to my Deputy Commander Superintendent Cosgrave as being the man I dragged out of the Buffer Zone, who was in my opinion dead. ...”
31. The witness was on duty at Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August 1996 from 8 a.m. In his statement he reported, inter alia, the following:
“...At approximately 4.25 p.m. I observed a TCPE member who was armed with a baton assault a man who was dressed in blue jeans and a white t-shirt. I now know this man to be Anastasios Isaak. PO Frank Flood was near me at this moment. I ran towards the TCPE member and called out to him ‘You are a policeman, stop’. I shouted this at him several times. He then stopped. I was approx. 10 metres from this policeman, Anastasios Isaak ran to my right towards the road between OP 143 at the TKCYP [Turkish-Cypriot] checkpoint. He was being pursued by a number of TKCYP civilians armed with long sticks and other weapons including metal poles. I ran towards where Anastasios Isaak was when a person whom I presume was a TKCYP attempted to assault me with a metal pole. I swerved to avoid him. He ran off. I then observed the same TCPE member run towards where Anastasios Isaak was being pursued by other TKCYP civilians. He was being continually hit from behind on the head and on the back by these people with wooden and metal poles. I observed the TCPE member also strike Anastasios Isaak with his baton. I was running towards this mob when I was struck by several missiles on my left hand side. I was then hit from behind with a plastic bottle of water. Two GKCYP youths then came from my side and knocked me to the ground. They kicked me several times while I was on the ground. I managed to get to my feet. These youths were shouting at me ‘Why don’t you save this man, you mother-fucking UN bastard?’ They repeatedly kicked me and shouted abuse. Then a youth on a four wheel yellow motorcycle drove straight at me and struck me on my left-hand side. I was knocked to the ground. He turned his motorcycle and drove at me again. I got to my feet and he drove past me and went towards the GKCYP CFL. I looked towards where Anastasios Isaak was, he was surrounded by TKCYP civilians and the TCPE member who I had confronted a short while previously. There were other TCPE members and TF in military uniform. Anastasios Isaak was being repeatedly hit with batons and sticks by civilians and TCPE and TF. They also kicked him savagely on the ground. I saw PO Frank Flood go towards this mob. They began to disperse. I then was again confronted with several GKCYP youths who kicked and pushed me. They screamed abuse at me shouting ‘why do the UN not help the GKCyps?’. I then observed Sgt Stack and PO Flood drag Anastasios Isaak to safety. A mob then took him from Sgt Stack and PO Flood. All this time the noise level was intense, missiles were being continually thrown from both sides...”
32. The witness, the deputy commander of the Irish Civilian Police (IRCIVPOL), was on duty at Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August 1996 from 8 a.m. In his statement he reported, inter alia, the following:
“...At about 4.20 p.m. I saw a man running along horizontally with the patrol track leading from UM OP 142. As he ran he was hit several times on the head by a group of four to five people who were running after him. He eventually fell to the ground and was kicked and beaten to the ground by the group who included at least one uniformed Turkish policeman. I was about 20 metres from this incident as it enfolded. There was continuous shouting and severe noise as both groups chased each other in the BZ. I moved towards the man on the ground in an effort to save his life. I also saw that Sgt Lorraine Stack was with this group and moved towards the injured man. As this stage Sgt Lorraine Stack and Garda Flood removed the injured man and he was taken away by his friends. I now know this man to be Anastasios Isaak, DOB [date of birth] 10/2/71 of Costa Palama 13, Paralimni. The Turkish police moved into the buffer zone and with the assistance of UN personnel the Turkish demonstrators were pushed out of the BZ and on to behind the CFL. At that stage the Greek demonstrators were moving back towards the Greek CFL with the assistance of UN personnel.
...
I then identified the area where the injured person was attacked and sometime later I was informed that he had died. At 7.10 p.m. accompanied by Sgt Lorraine Stack and Sgt George Kulmer AUSCON [Austrian Contingent], photographer, I went to Paralimni Hospital where the body of Anastasios Isaak was lying. I met the State Pathologist, Dr Panicos Stavrianos and D/Supt. Th. Anastasiou CID Police Headquarters Nicosia. I directed the photographer George Kulmer to take photographs of the body, which he did. ...”
33. Furthermore, in his statement, Superintendent M. Cosgrave noted that the following day he had visited the scene of the incident at Dherynia checkpoint with State pathologists Dr Panicos Stavrianos and Dr Sophoclis Sophocleous and members of the Cyprus police squad. He pointed out that at that stage the scene had been preserved and had not been examined or interfered with. He also noted that he had measured the area where the body had been lying – it had been 32 metres from the Turkish ceasefire line, 41 metres from the track in front of UN OP 143 and 95 metres from the wire on the Greek ceasefire line. He stated that on 12 August 1996 Dale Roberts, a UN photographer, had examined the scene and had taken samples from the area and that on 13 August 1996 he had accompanied Dr P. Vanezis, the State pathologist and members of the police squad to the scene of the incident. He had then attended the post-mortem examination.
34. Between 11 and 29 August 1996 statements were taken by the Cyprus police at the Dherynia police station from ten persons who had been present at the Dherynia checkpoint during the incidents of 11 August 1996. These witnesses were Stelios Archimandritis, Antigonos Kaoulla, Panicos Christodoulou Tylliros, Georghios Aresti, Zenon Tavrou, Michalis Andrea Neocleous, Stephanos Stephanou, Floros Adamou Constanti, Zacharias Georghiou Sachariou, and Constantinos Kyriakides.
35. Furthermore, statements were taken from two Greek-Cypriot police officers concerning the investigation into the killing of Anastasios Isaak.
36. The witness is a photographer who was present at the Dherynia checkpoint on 11 August and had taken photographs of the incident. In his statement of 29 August 1996 he claimed, inter alia, the following:
“...I then withdrew heading southwards towards our side and then saw the Turks from a distance of 40 metres chasing a Greek Cypriot wearing jean trousers and a white sweater. I approached within 20 metres and started to take photos of the incident. I approached within a distance of 20 metres because the lens I had on my camera at the moment could not take photographs from a long distance. I started taking photographs from the moment they chased him until the moment they stopped beating him and UN men took him away.
I took 16 photographs and another 4 while he was being taken by the UN man to the place the Greek Cypriots were.
From what I noticed, and this is shown also in the photographs I took, about 15 persons, most of whom wore civilian clothes and many wore the uniform of the pseudo-State, took part in the beating up and murder of the youth, who as I told you in my previous statement, was Tassos Isaak. They were armed with clubs, iron bars and water pipes and stones.
At first they chased him and while they were chasing him in a big stride he lost his balance and fell down. In his effort to defend himself he caught a Turk by the leg. The Turk sat on the ground and seized Tassos by the hair, while they were on the ground several hit him with offensive objects they held. Among them there were some ‘policemen’ with their batons.
At some moment I noticed that one of the Turks in civilian clothes held a stone in his right hand the size of an orange and was on the point of throwing it on the head of Tassos. I did not notice whether the Turk completed his effort. I was not able to photograph that scene. When Tassos was finally moved by the UN men and handed to the Greek Cypriots to be transported to the hospital, I left. ...”
37. The witness is a police inspector serving in the Central Information Service as second in command of Division A. On 9 December 1996 he gave a statement concerning the investigation into the killing of Anastasios Isaak as follows:
“As part of my duties I received information from reliable sources according to which the following Turkish settlers and Turkish Cypriots are among the perpetrators of the murder of Tassos Isaak which was committed on 11.8.1996, at Dherynia:
1. Fikret Veli Koreli, Turkish Cypriot, Identity Card No. 421344
2. Hasim Yilmaz, Turkish settler
3. Neyfel Mustafa Ergun, Turkish settler
4. Polan Fikret Koreli, Turkish Cypriot
5. Mehmet Mustafa Arslan, Turkish settler
6. Erhan Arikli, Turkish settler.
The above persons have been identified also from a comparison with photographs, an album of which I handed on 20.11.1996, together with a relevant explanatory memorandum, to the Police Division C Commander.”
38. An explanatory memorandum was attached to the statement containing additional information and documents about the persons identified.
39. The witness is a police superintendent and commander of Police Division C at the Police Headquarters. On 11 August 1996 at about 6.45 p.m. he visited the scene of the killing of Anastasios Isaak with a team of men from CID Headquarters and the Forensic Service. In his statement he noted that he had given instructions on the spot to the Acting Superintendent in charge of CID (E) Headquarters concerning the investigation of the killing, asking that the scene be photographed and video-recorded. He had also attended the post-mortem examination of the corpse of Anastasios Isaak at Larnaca Hospital.
40. In his statement the witness further noted, inter alia, that he had received copies of two VHS videotapes; one on 3 September 1996 from Worldwide Television News (WTN) of London and one on 25 November 1996 from Reuters of London. These contained scenes from the demonstration and the killing of Anastasios Isaak.
41. Professor Peter Vanezis, from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Science at Glasgow University, carried out a post-mortem examination at Larnaca General Hospital on 13 August 1996 on the body of Anastasios Isaak. In his report dated 17 September 1996, in which he summarised his findings, Dr Vanezis concluded the following:
“1. The body was that of a well-nourished man with no natural disease that could have contributed to or caused death at the time.
2. He had suffered multiple blunt impacts to the body, predominantly the head and the trunk.
3. From the characteristic nature of the injuries, the instruments causing them were most likely cylindrical shaped sticks and/or metal piping.
4. There were also injuries which had characteristics indicative of them being caused by square metal objects as found at the scene.
5. The marks on the arms indicated that he had tried to defend himself.
6. The severity and multiplicity of the injuries to the head indicate that he would have lost consciousness at or within a very short time of the infliction and died soon afterwards.
7. The injury to the genital area is consistent with a kick or a blow from an object as described above, to that region.
Cause of death
1a: Multiple Blunt Head Trauma.”
42. The applicants provided the Court with a sketch plan of the scene of the killing of Anastasios Isaak drawn up by the UN and a print of an aerial view of the location of the killing.
43. They also submitted a total of 37 photographs that had been taken by Mr Constantinos Kyriakides, a photographer, on 11 August 1996 during the events in Dherynia (see paragraph 36 above). Photographs numbered 18 to 37 depict the incident concerning Anastasios Isaak in chronological order.
44. In photograph 19 Anastasios Isaak is seen falling to the ground while civilian demonstrators are approaching him with batons and/or sticks.
45. Photographs 20 to 33 show Anastasios Isaak on the ground being beaten with batons, kicked on the head and other parts of his body, his hair being pulled and his head being banged on the ground. The photographs show “TRNC” policemen and members of the Turkish and/or TurkishCypriot police/military in camouflage uniform standing behind the Turkish ceasefire line.
46. In photograph 20 two UN officers can be seen helping a demonstrator lying on the ground, just a few metres from where Anastasios Isaak is being beaten. The photograph shows that four uniformed “TRNC” policemen and a Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot police/military officer in camouflage uniform were present in the vicinity.
47. In photograph 23 the above-mentioned police/military officer in camouflage uniform can be seen joining the civilian demonstrators that are beating Anastasios Isaak and appears to be passing his metal baton over to one of them.
48. In photograph 24 this civilian is holding the baton high up over Anastasios Isaak while the officer in camouflage uniform is standing next to him. The photograph shows five uniformed police officers in the vicinity, one of whom, with a baton, is making his way through the civilians surrounding Anastasios Isaak.
49. In photograph 25 the officer in camouflage uniform appears to have taken his baton back, whereas the police officer is beating Anastasios Isaak with his baton.
50. Photograph 26 shows the above-mentioned police officer beating Anastasios Isaak with his baton and the officer in camouflage uniform holding his baton over Anastasios Isaak. In photograph 27 the officer in camouflage uniform, the above-mentioned police-officer and a second police officer are beating Anastasios Isaak with their batons. In photograph 28 they are joined by a third police officer. In both photographs 27 and 28 these four officers are seen beating Anastasios Isaak with their batons together with the civilian demonstrators. Another four officers can be seen in the vicinity.
51. In photograph 29 the officer in camouflage uniform can be seen leaning over Anastasios Isaak with his baton.
52. In photographs 30 to 32 a civilian demonstrator in front of the officers is seen kicking Anastasios Isaak on the head.
53. In photographs 32 and 33 a UN officer can be seen intervening. This officer can also be seen in photographs 26 to 31 in which he is trying to make his way to Anastasios Isaak. Photograph 33 shows the UN officer taking hold of the arm of the officer in camouflage uniform holding the baton.
54. Photographs 34 and 35 show two UN officers dragging the body of Anastasios Isaak.
55. Photographs 36 and 37 show Greek-Cypriot demonstrators taking the body away.
56. The applicants submitted a videotape received from Reuters covering the incident. This video recording contains, inter alia, scenes from the incidents at Dherynia and part of the beating of Anastasios Isaak by civilian demonstrators, the “TRNC” police and the Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot police/military officer in camouflage uniform. Furthermore, the recording shows a UN officer intervening with the aid of two policemen, one of whom is holding a riot shield, pushing back the crowd around Anastasios Isaak. The crowd then disperses. While the UN officer is standing over Anastasios Isaak, two civilians approach. One is seen throwing a stone towards Anastasios Isaak’s head and one of them a stone/rock at his mid to lower body.
57. The Government provided a copy of the above report pertaining to the UN Operation in Cyprus. This included a map showing the deployment of UNFICYP in December 1975 and the Forward Defence lines of the Turkish Forces and the Cypriot National Guard.
58. In his report on the UN Operations in Cyprus for the period from 11 June to 10 December 1996, the UN Secretary-General stated, inter alia, the following:
“1. ... Tension arose in early August 1996 in anticipation of a demonstration organised by the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation. First announced in January 1996, it was to take the form of a symbolic motorcycle ride, undertaken by Greek Cypriots and persons from other countries, originating in Berlin and ending in Kyrenia on 11 August. This meant that the demonstrators intended to cross the United Nations buffer zone as well as the Turkish forces ceasefire line, a course of action which was bound to cause the utmost provocation. During the period leading up to the demonstration, the media on both sides publicised a large number of increasingly acerbic statements by the demonstration’s organisers and by Greek-Cypriot political leaders, as well as counter statements by the Turkish-Cypriot side.
2. During this period, the United Nations was in frequent contact with the government authorities, including the Cyprus Police, urging them to prevent any violation of the ceasefire lines or of the United Nations buffer zone. On the eve of the demonstration, I appealed publicly to the Government of Cyprus to take effective measures in exercise of its responsibilities to prevent any unauthorised entry into the United Nations buffer zone.
3. On the morning of 11 August, however, the demonstrators proceeded from the stadium in Nicosia, where they had assembled, to points east of Nicosia. Cyprus police were on hand, but remained largely passive. In the meantime, a major counterdemonstration had begun in north Nicosia, including a significant number of members of the ‘Grey Wolves’, an ultranationalist Turkish organisation, who had arrived from Turkey.
4. The Greek-Cypriot demonstrators entered into the United Nations buffer zone at several points, approached the ceasefire line of the Turkish forces, and clashed with Turkish troops and Turkish-Cypriot police as well as with Turkish-Cypriot counterdemonstrators. The most serious clash occurred near Dherynia, where a large group of Greek Cypriots were allowed to cross the National Guard ceasefire line. In the meantime, the Turkish forces allowed counter-demonstrators and Turkish-Cypriot police to cross a restricted military area and to enter the United Nations buffer zone. They proceeded to beat the Greek Cypriots with batons and iron bars, killing one civilian. ...”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 2