CASE OF GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (Cyprus);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (Turkey);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The application concerns the murder on DATE of Elmas , PERSON and PERSON , all NORP nationals of NORP origin .

The applicants are the family of the deceased . The first , second and third applicants are the children of ORG and PERSON and the brother and sisters , respectively , of GPE . The fourth and fifth applicants are PERSON sisters , and the sixth and seventh applicants are her parents .

The first CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The sixth and seventh applicants were both born in DATE . The first , fifth , sixth and seventh applicants live in the “ GPE ” . The second , third and fourth applicants live in GPE .

Elmas GPE was a businessman and used to live with his wife PERSON and daughter PERSON in the “ GPE ” . In DATE , following the collapse of the bank that Elmas GPE owned , Elmas LOC fled to and settled in GPE , in ORG - controlled areas . His wife and daughter joined him in DATE . In DATE they moved to the ORG district of GPE .

On DATE at TIME on the GPE - FAC , near FAC , a police officer spotted a black ORG car parked on the hard shoulder . The engine was running , the left turn indicator light was flashing and the door of the front passenger seat was open .

Zerrin and PERSON were found dead on the back seat of the car . Elmas GPE was lying dead at a distance of QUANTITY from the car in a nearby ditch . All CARDINAL were in pyjamas and slippers . PERSON had adhesive tape on her neck and CARDINAL rolls of adhesive tape in her hands . Both PERSON and her daughter PERSON had redness ( ερυθρότητα ) on the edges of their hands , which indicated that they had been tied with adhesive tape . They also had bruises on their shins which had been sustained in a struggle .

The particulars of the investigation and the measures taken , as submitted by ORG and as can be seen from the documents contained in the case file , may be summarised as follows .

The police officer who discovered the bodies informed GPE police headquarters . A number of police officers ( some of them high - ranking ) , arrived at QUANTITY at the crime scene , which had already been secured and sealed off .

A detailed on - the - spot investigation was immediately conducted by the police and a forensic pathologist . Photographs were taken and a video recording was made . CARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL cartridge cases and a kitchen knife were found inside the car . A third cartridge case was found outside the car .

An investigation team consisting of CARDINAL officers was set up .

The car was taken away for further inspection .

At CARDINAL a.m. officers went to the GPE house in PERSON . The house was secured and sealed off . An investigation was carried out by the investigation team and a forensic pathologist . Photographs and fingerprints were taken and a video recording made at the scene . The investigation determined that the perpetrators of the murders had broken into the house through a window . A suction cup ( βεντούζα ) and pieces of adhesive tape were found outside the window . Adhesive tape was found in the GPE bedrooms , the living room and the car park . The security system had been switched off at TIME on DATE and CARDINAL of the cameras appeared to have been turned upwards at TIME

Numerous exhibits were collected from the scene of the crime and the GPE home . These were sent for forensic examination .

On DATE the GPE bodies were taken to the mortuary at FAC for a post - mortem examination . Death certificates were issued .

On DATE post - mortem examinations were carried out by a forensic pathologist . It was determined that each of the CARDINAL victims had died of severe craniocerebral injury caused by a shot from a firearm at close range and that their deaths had been the result of a criminal act . Photographs were taken and a video recording made of the post - mortem examinations . A diary of action ( ημερολόγιο ενέργειας ) was kept by CARDINAL of the police officers present during the post - mortem examinations , which recorded , inter alia , the actions and findings of the forensic pathologist .

The investigation included the tracing and questioning of numerous witnesses , searching the records of vehicles that had gone through the crossing points between north and south , and examining the security system of the GPE house and computer hard discs for relevant material concerning the movements of persons and vehicles near the house at the material time . The source of the suction cup and the adhesive tape was determined to be a shop in GPE ( in northern GPE ) .

From the evidence collected it appeared that on DATE , TIME and TIME , QUANTITY shots had been heard from the area in which the car and the victims were found .

According to the witness statements taken by the police , at the time the murders were committed a ORG car without number plates was seen parked behind the GPE car . QUANTITY persons were seen standing around the cars and CARDINAL person was seen in the passenger ’s seat of the ORG car . It was further ascertained that on DATE , at TIME , a red ORG car with “ TRNC ” number plates had passed through the LOC crossing point located in LOC but without passing through LOC checkpoint . At TIME DATE the same car had returned to the “ TRNC ” through the same crossing point – again without being checked . The driver of the car , who resided in the “ TRNC ” , had been accompanied by another person .

From the evidence gathered , it was determined that the victims had been kidnapped at TIME on DATE and had been murdered between CARDINAL and TIME

According to the relevant police reports , CARDINAL vehicles and CARDINAL people were involved in the murder ; a fact which pointed to a well - planned and premeditated crime .

A ballistics examination established that the bullets had been fired from the same handgun ; CARDINAL of the cartridge cases had been of NORP manufacture and CARDINAL of NORP manufacture .

The initial investigation resulted in the identification of CARDINAL suspects : PERSON ( “ the first suspect ” ) , ORG ( “ the second suspect ” ) , PERSON ( “ the third suspect ” ) , PERSON ( “ the fourth suspect ” ) and ORG ( “ the fifth suspect ” ) . It appears from the documents submitted to the ORG that the first , second , third and fourth suspects were NORP nationals and “ GPE ” citizens and that the fifth suspect was a NORP national .

DNA belonging to the first , second and fourth suspects was found on exhibits taken from the crime scene and the GPE house . DNA belonging to the first suspect was found on the steering wheel of Elmas Güzelyurtlu ’s car . The police authorities already had DNA from these CARDINAL suspects as they had taken genetic material from all of them in the past in connection with other offences ( unlawful possession of a firearm and burglary ) . Moreover , the ORG car was found to be registered in the name of the fourth suspect and to have been driven by the first suspect .

Arrest warrants had already been issued in respect of these CARDINAL suspects with regard to other offences ; the first suspect was wanted in relation to a drugs case and for obtaining a passport and identity card issued by GPE under false pretences ; the second suspect was wanted for the unlawful possession and transfer of a firearm , and the fourth suspect was wanted for the unlawful possession of a firearm .

The other CARDINAL suspects were linked to the murder through other evidence . DNA belonging to CARDINAL unidentified persons was also found .

On DATE ORG issued arrest warrants in respect of all CARDINAL suspects on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences of premeditated murder , conspiracy to murder , abducting ( απαγωγή ) a person in order to commit murder ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL ) , and the illegal transfer of a category B firearm ( sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL of the Firearms and Other LAW ( Law DATE , as amended ) .

On DATE the police authorities sent “ stop list ” messages to the immigration authorities ( that is to say messages asking them to add the suspects to their “ stop list ” – a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) and to notify the police should they attempt to leave the Republic .

On DATE the police submitted “ Red Notice ” requests to ORG to search for and arrest the suspects with a view to their extradition .

On DATE an official request was made by the Director of ORG of the President of the Republic to the Special Representative and Chief of Mission ( “ the LAW ” ) of ORG in GPE ( “ UNFICYP ” ) to facilitate the handing over to the appropriate authorities of GPE of all the suspects and all evidential material relating to the crime and/or suspects in northern GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE Red Notices were published by ORG in respect of the first CARDINAL suspects and on DATE in respect of the fifth suspect . These sought the provisional arrest of the suspects and stated that extradition would be requested from any country with which GPE was linked by a bilateral extradition treaty , an extradition convention or any another convention or treaty containing provisions on extradition .

As the police authorities were not able to trace the suspects in the areas controlled by the Republic , on DATE they applied for the issuance of NORP arrest warrants . On DATE ORG issued NORP arrest warrants in respect of all CARDINAL suspects .

As the investigation continued , another CARDINAL suspects were identified : PERSON ( “ the sixth suspect ” ) , PERSON ( “ the seventh suspect ” ) and GPE ( “ the eighth suspect ” ) . It appears from the documents submitted to ORG that the sixth and eighth suspects were NORP nationals and “ GPE ” citizens and that the seventh suspect was a NORP national . The sixth suspect had been wanted by the authorities since DATE in respect of a case involving an assault causing serious bodily harm . The relevant case file had been classified as “ otherwise disposed of ” ( PERSON ) in DATE .

On DATE ORG issued arrest warrants against all CARDINAL suspects on the same grounds as those issued in respect of the other suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the same court issued NORP arrest warrants against them .

On DATE , at the request of the NORP authorities , ORG were published in respect of the latter CARDINAL suspects .

On DATE a message was sent by ORG to ORG in response to LAW in respect of the fifth suspect . This message stated that the fifth suspect was in police custody and that ORG had been informed of the crime that he had allegedly committed . They also noted that under LAW , a NORP national who had committed a crime in a foreign country which was punishable with DATE imprisonment under NORP law could be punished under NORP law . Furthermore , pursuant to domestic law , it was not possible to extradite a NORP citizen from GPE . Consequently , ORG wanted to know if it was possible for the investigation documents to be sent to them via ORG channels .

On DATE the police authorities transmitted “ stop list ” messages to the immigration authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As can be seen from an email dated DATE from the Director of ORG of the President of the Republic to the Chief European Union negotiator for GPE , the NORP authorities around this time forwarded to ORG an interim report by ORG in order to facilitate its mediation of the handing over of the suspects in the instant case . ORG was asked for any assistance that it might be in a position to provide in bringing the perpetrators of the murders to justice . According to an internal note of a telephone conversation ORG was subsequently informed by ORG that the above - mentioned report had been passed on to the “ NORP ” authorities , who had found the evidence that it contained to be insufficient . The “ GPE ” authorities requested video tapes but did not clarify whether the suspects would be handed over if such tapes were given to them .

The Government submitted that as the investigation had progressed more evidence had been collected implicating the suspects . CARDINAL statements had been taken from various persons , including the relatives of the victims , persons who knew or had connections with the victims , and persons involved in the investigation . The authorities had also carried out DNA tests on a number of other possible suspects but no link to the crime had been found . The ORG representatives had also met and had been in telephone contact with the Attorney - General .

On DATE the eighth suspect was arrested by NORP police in GPE ( in the Government - controlled area ) . DATE he was remanded in custody for DATE by order of ORG on the ground that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed offences under sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) and sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL of the Firearms and LAW ( Law CARDINAL/(I)/CARDINAL , as amended ) . He was released , however , upon the expiry of the remand period as the authorities , after questioning him , did not have enough evidence to link him to the offences . According to the relevant police report , some of the allegations he had made could not be looked into as the NORP police could not conduct investigations in the “ NORP ” . Furthermore , DNA tests did not link him to the crime .

In a letter dated DATE the Attorney - General assured the ORG representatives that the Republic was “ doing everything within its power – bearing in mind that it [ did ] not have effective control over the areas of the Republic occupied by GPE ( in which persons that might be involved [ were at that time ] and taking into account the relevant Convention case - law – to investigate the ... murder and bring the persons responsible to trial before ORG . He also informed them that he would keep them informed of the progress of the investigation and reply to the queries that they had submitted on behalf of the GPE family and that this could be achieved through meetings at his office between him , the ORG representatives and the police .

A report by the GPE police investigation department dated DATE stated that the investigation had been extended to the NORP bases and the occupied areas of GPE and PERSON . It also stated that the investigation was still ongoing as the authorities were waiting for replies from ORG . The report also proposed that the officers in the investigation team be commended for their outstanding work on the case .

As the authorities were not able to execute the arrest warrants in the “ TRNC ” or undertake other steps through ORG , and given that the issuance of international arrest warrants had not resulted in the PERSON surrender by GPE , the police officer in charge of the investigation suggested in a report dated DATE that the case be “ otherwise disposed of ” ( PERSON ) pending future developments .

DATE . On DATE the case file was sent , along with the above - mentioned proposal by the GPE police investigation department , to the Attorney - General . The latter agreed with the GPE police investigation department ’s proposal and on DATE instructed the police to re - submit ( εναποβληθεί ) the investigation file if and when the arrest of all or any of the suspects was effected .

On DATE the case file were transferred to the coroner for the inquest proceedings ( inquest nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) before ORG . The proceedings were scheduled by the court for DATE . According to ORG , on that date the proceedings were adjourned until DATE due to the non - attendance of the first applicant . The first applicant was notified by the officer in charge of the investigation of the inquest proceedings and was requested to attend , as the testimony of a relative of the victims was necessary . No further information has been provided about these proceedings by ORG .

In a letter dated DATE to the Chief of Police , the Attorney - General noted that , despite all efforts on the part of the authorities , the suspects had not been handed over to the Republic , that he had spoken to the President of the Republic and that he had had repeated meetings and telephone conversations with the applicants’ counsel . The Attorney - General noted that the latter had informed him of the applicants’ intention to lodge an application with the ORG . The Attorney - General therefore considered that it was necessary DATE and counsel agreed DATE that international arrest warrants be issued in respect of the suspects and that GPE – who had , pursuant to the ORG ’s judgments , responsibility for whatever occurred in the occupied areas – be requested to enforce them . He requested that , if this had not been done already , international arrest warrants be issued as quickly as possible for the surrender of the suspects to GPE .

On DATE the fourth suspect was murdered in the “ GPE ” . Following confirmation of his death by ORG and pursuant to instructions by the Attorney - General , the arrest warrant in respect of him was cancelled by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Attorney - General gave instructions for the preparation of extradition requests to GPE under LAW of DATE , to which both GPE were parties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , extradition requests in respect of the CARDINAL remaining suspects ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , together with certified translations of all documents into NORP , were transmitted by ORG to ORG for communication through diplomatic channels to GPE ’s ORG . The requests were then sent to the GPE ’s embassy in GPE for communication to GPE .

By a letter dated DATE the embassy of GPE in GPE informed the Director General of ORG that on that date the extradition requests and a note verbale from ORG and Public Order and had been delivered to the NORP embassy in GPE in a sealed envelope . The usher of the embassy had given the envelope to the embassy security guard . No receipt of delivery had been given .

By a letter dated DATE the embassy of GPE in GPE informed the Director General of ORG that on that date an employee of the NORP embassy had left an envelope with the NORP embassy ’s security guard on which only the address of the NORP embassy had been written and which had contained the extradition requests and the note verbale from ORG and Public Order , which had been given to the NORP embassy on DATE . The person had not stated his identity , but had simply had left ( παράτησε ) the envelope and departed in haste .

By a letter dated DATE the Director General of ORG informed the Attorney - General of the return of all the above - mentioned documents and stated that it was clear that GPE was refusing to receive requests for the extradition of fugitives made by GPE under LAW , due to GPE ’s refusal to recognise GPE as a ORG .

In his reply dated DATE the Attorney - General stated that the conduct of GPE towards GPE was not that expected of a ORG which had countersigned ORG . It was not , however , for ORG to decide on the measures to be taken but it was an issue to be taken up on a political level , by ORG in particular .

ORG submitted that the domestic arrest warrants were still in force and would remain in force until executed pursuant to section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The particulars of the investigation and measures , according to the submission of ORG and as can be seen from the documents they provided , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the GPE bodies were taken to the Dr. ORG in GPE ( “ Lefkoşa ” ) for post - mortem examinations . The “ TRNC ” police were provided with the death certificates , which had been issued by GPE .

Given that the cause of death required that a coroner ’s inquest be held , the “ GPE ” police sought a court order for post - mortem examinations .

Following a hearing before the “ GPE ” ORG , the “ GPE ” Attorney - General ’s office requested the court to waive the requirement for post - mortem examinations , as post - mortem examinations had already been carried out in GPE . Having heard evidence from CARDINAL police officers and the hospital ’s forensic pathologist the court decided that post - mortem examinations were not required .

On DATE the first applicant gave a statement to the “ TRNC ” police . His views were requested concerning potential suspects . In his statement he alleged that there were CARDINAL likely suspects : ORG , GPE , GPE , FAC and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The “ TRNC ” authorities checked the entry and exit records of the suspects and established that the first suspect had crossed to GPE side on TIME of the murders and had returned to the “ NORP ” side in TIME . There was no record of the entry and exit of the other suspects on DATE .

On DATE the first suspect was taken to GPE ( “ Girne ” ) police headquarters ( ORG ) for questioning by the “ GPE ” police . The ORG car he had used to cross the border was seized as evidence . ORG issued a summons on DATE in respect of both the first and second suspects for the purpose of bringing them before the court on suspicion of theft , vehicle importation and forgery of documents ( ORG ve Evrak Sahteleme ) . The first suspect was kept in detention .

The first suspect ’s ORG car was inspected , but no evidence was found .

On DATE ( that is to say DATE ) the third and fourth suspects were also taken for questioning by police . An arrest warrant was issued in respect of the third and fourth suspects by the PERSON ( “ PERSON ” ) ORG on DATE on suspicion of forgery of documents – specifically , providing fake registered vehicle with falsified documents and statements ( ORG ve PERSON ) .

DATE . On DATE an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the first and second suspects by ORG for DATE ( ORG : PERSON tutuklu kalmasina emir venir ) on suspicion of theft , forgery of documents and “ providing fake registry records , etc . ” ( ORG , ORG , PERSON . ) .

The second suspect was arrested DATE and was detained at ORG ( “ LOC ” ) police headquarters .

The fifth suspect had already left for GPE ( on DATE ) when LAW was published by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the “ NORP ” ORG also remanded the third and fourth suspects in custody for DATE on suspicion of theft and forgery of documents .

The “ TRNC ” police searched the houses of the first CARDINAL suspects , as well as that of another person , on the basis of search warrants issued by ORG on DATE ( in respect of the third and fourth suspects ) and by ORG on DATE ( in respect of the first and second suspects ) . No evidence was found .

Statements were taken from the CARDINAL suspects while they were in detention . They all denied involvement in the murders . The “ GPE ” police also took statements from a number of other persons , including public servants , mainly in relation to the ORG car that the first applicant had alleged had been used by the murderers . According to the evidence collected , the ORG car had been transferred to the first suspect on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , following an application by the “ TRNC ” police , the “ NORP ” ORG remanded the first CARDINAL suspects in custody for DATE on suspicion of premeditated murder .

On DATE the “ NORP ” ORG issued a summons in respect of the fifth suspect for the purpose of bringing him before the court on suspicion of premeditated murder . “ GPE ” GPE police headquarters informed all other district police offices that they were searching for this suspect and that a warrant had been issued .

DATE . On different dates statements were taken from a number of persons , including the first applicant , with a view to obtaining information concerning the fifth suspect .

On DATE the fifth suspect was arrested as , in the meantime , he had returned to the “ TRNC ” ( see paragraph DATE above ) .

On DATE the first CARDINAL suspects were remanded in custody for DATE by the “ TRNC ” ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder , murder , and possession of an illegal firearm and explosives ( Taamüden PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ve PERSON ) . An arrest warrant was also issued by that court in respect of the fifth suspect in order that he might be remanded in custody for DATE .

On DATE “ TNRC ” GPE police headquarters were informed by ORG that a Red Notice had been published by ORG in relation to the first CARDINAL suspects . The above - mentioned ORG requested confirmation of Elmas Güzelyurtlu ’s death as the NORP authorities had been looking for him in order to extradite him to the “ GPE ” . They also enquired about the nationality status of the first CARDINAL suspects , in particular , whether or not they had NORP nationality .

ORG submitted that on DATE ORG received emails from NORP Cypriot ORG stating that they were searching for the first , second , third and fifth suspects with a view to their arrest and that they should be arrested if they entered into GPE .

On DATE the first , second , third , fourth and fifth suspects were remanded in custody for DATE by the “ TRNC ” ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder .

On DATE the “ GPE ” ORG issued a warrant in respect of the sixth and seventh suspects ( see paragraph DATE above ) for the purpose of bringing them before the court on suspicion of premeditated murder . Search warrants were also issued by ORG in respect of the house of the fifth suspect and by ORG in respect of the houses of the sixth and seventh suspects .

By a letter dated DATE “ NORP ” GPE police headquarters provided ORG with information about the ORG identities .

On DATE the “ NORP ” ORG remanded the sixth , seventh and eighth suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in custody for DATE on suspicion of premeditated murder . It also issued a search warrant for the house of the eighth suspect .

On DATE the “ TRNC ” police also took a statement from the fifth suspect .

On DATE the sixth , seventh and eighth ORG detention was extended by a further DATE by the “ GPE ” ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder .

On DATE “ GPE ” GPE police headquarters requested further information from ORG about the criminal record of the fifth suspect . They were provided with his criminal record , photograph and fingerprints on DATE .

On DATE the “ NORP ” ORG extended the first CARDINAL ORG detention for CARDINAL further days on suspicion of premeditated murder .

On DATE “ NORP ” GPE police headquarters published a notice to all branches of police informing them that they were also looking for another person , GPE , who they also considered to be a suspect in the case . It transpired that this suspect had left for GPE on DATE .

On DATE “ NORP ” GPE police headquarters requested ORG police headquarters to carry out a criminal record check on GPE and to inform them whether he was in GPE or not .

On DATE the “ NORP ” police took statements from the first , second , third , fifth , sixth and eighth suspects . An additional statement was taken on DATE from the fifth suspect . They all denied involvement in the murders .

NORP On or around CARDINAL DATE all the suspects were released due to a lack of evidence connecting them to the crime .

ORG submitted that on DATE another email was sent to ORG by NORP Cypriot ORG informing them that they had information that the fifth suspect was going to travel to GPE in GPE DATE and requesting the NORP authorities to take the necessary measures .

The fifth suspect was arrested on the above date as he was entering GPE . On DATE he was taken to the office of the GPE public prosecutor , where a preliminary file was opened in respect of the murders and he was questioned by the public prosecutor . ORG submitted that he was released in the absence of any evidence connecting him to the crime in question and in the absence of an extradition request .

M.K. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was also traced and on DATE he was questioned by police at GPE police headquarters . He denied any involvement in the murders .

On DATE the authorities investigated a well in the village of GPE ( “ GPE ) in the GPE district for evidence . Nothing , however , was found .

NORP Throughout the investigation the “ GPE ” police questioned and took statements from numerous persons who knew or were somehow connected or related to the suspects . As can be seen from a document in the internal police files entitled “ Time / Work Sheet ” ( İş Cetveli ) and the copies of the statements provided , statements were taken from various witnesses , including the suspects . They also searched for evidence and took fingerprints .

According to a note / direction in the “ Time / Work Sheet ” , on DATE the “ GPE ” Police Chief Inspector ( ORG ) wrote to the “ GPE ” GPE Judicial Police Director – Assistant Police Director ( “ PERSON – PERSON ) that upon the oral instructions of the “ GPE ” Attorney - General ( PERSON ) a copy of the file in respect of the murder of Elmas , ORG had been prepared and would be submitted for the opinion of the “ GPE ” Attorney - General . A note bearing the same date from the “ GPE ” GPE Judicial Police Director informed the “ GPE ” Attorney - ORG that the file regarding the case was ready and had been submitted to the “ GPE ” Attorney - General .

ORG submitted that , following a report by the “ GPE ” Police Chief Inspector , the case had been classified as “ non - resolved ” . They provided a copy of this report , which was not dated . According to this report , the last action undertaken as part of the investigation appears to have occurred on DATE , when the fifth suspect ’s car , which had been inspected by the “ GPE ” police , had been handed over to the “ GPE ” ORG ( Lefkoşa GPE ve PERSON ) . The inspection had not resulted in the collection of any evidence concerning the crime . In his report the “ NORP ” Police Chief Inspector concluded that on the basis of the investigation that the police had conducted from the date of the murders until the time of his writing the report the police had not been able to resolve the case . He therefore suggested that the case be logged as “ non - resolved for the time being ” .

On DATE the “ NORP ” Attorney - General ’s office sent a copy of the case file to the “ ORG . They informed the latter that the case had been classified as “ non - resolved for the time being ” on the instructions of the previous “ GPE ” Attorney - General .

ORG submitted that the case file was with the “ GPE ” Attorney - General and remained open pending the submission of evidence by GPE authorities .

ORG submitted that after they received the investigation file from ORG through the ORG following communication of the case , the “ GPE ” police questioned again the first and second suspects on DATE . The suspects denied their involvement in the killings .

Subsequently , in other proceedings , on DATE ORG found the first and second suspects guilty of , inter alia , the murder of the first applicant ’s bodyguard and passed sentences amounting to DATE imprisonment each . An appeal by the first and second suspects was dismissed by the “ ORG on DATE . They are both currently serving their sentences .

ORG submitted that in the context of those proceedings , the first suspect had written on a piece of paper that the second suspect had killed CARDINAL people . In addition , after being cautioned by ORG that if he made a self - incriminating statement under oath it could be used against him , the second suspect stated : “ I saw this GPE incident personally myself . This is what I want to say . There is also CARDINAL thing , that is what he told me , ... I did not see it , it is what he explained to me . At this stage , I do not want to talk about the GPE murder , your honour ” . In its judgment ORG noted that it had to examine the voluntary statements made before it more carefully in the light of the fact that the first suspect had retracted the statements and submitted different statements . The first suspect refused to give any statement to the police .

Following the above - mentioned development , the “ TRNC ” Attorney - General reviewed the investigation file . Taking into account the rules of evidence , he concluded that even if the first suspect had not retracted his statement , in the absence of other evidence , this statement would not have been sufficient for any charges against the suspects to be brought .

In a summary of the first applicant ’s statements to his lawyers DATE , the first applicant stated , inter alia , the following :

On TIME the NORP police informed the first applicant of the death of his parents and sister . He went to GPE morgue to identify the victims . He signed a form authorising police officers to enter the family home in ORG and conduct an investigation . The first applicant was present for part of the investigation and then went with the police to his father ’s office in GPE , where the police took documents as part of the investigation .

DATE the first applicant went to GPE morgue and then GPE police station , where he spent TIME giving a statement . In his statement he informed the police of the identities of the persons he suspected of committing the murders and the grounds for his suspicions .

On DATE the first applicant took the GPE bodies back to the “ LOC ” , where a funeral was held .

On DATE the first applicant had meetings with the “ TRNC ” police .

On DATE the first , second and fourth applicants went to GPE police headquarters , where they were shown pictures and sketches of a number of people and asked whether they recognised them . Some of the photos had been taken at the funeral . The first applicant identified CARDINAL of the suspects . DATE they returned to GPE police headquarters and were informed that the NORP police had DNA matches for CARDINAL of the suspects and had found other DNA which they could not , however , match to any person in their records . The first applicant also gave them information concerning the investigation by the “ NORP ” police .

During DATE following the killings the first applicant met often with the NORP and the “ GPE ” police and was informed by both sides of their respective investigations . He also updated each side on the other side ’s progress in an effort to prevent the PERSON release for lack of evidence and to convince the “ GPE ” police to surrender them to ORG for trial .

The first applicant had meetings with a number of “ GPE ” high - ranking officials .

In DATE the NORP police informed the first applicant that the car and the material removed from the FAC home and office could be returned . They also informed the first applicant of the circumstances of the killings , that the investigation remained open and that the evidence had been shown to ORG but that the “ NORP ” authorities refused to cooperate . Although the NORP police showed the first applicant copies of ORG and witness statements , they refused to give him copies . They also informed him that only a court could take possession of the case file ( at the appropriate time ) .

NORP The NORP representatives had meetings about the case with the Attorney - General of GPE in DATE and DATE .

Furthermore , on DATE , at a meeting at ORG , the applicants’ lawyers were informed that one of the suspects had been briefly detained in GPE . The NORP police had received this information from the office of ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicants , upon their request , were given a progress report by the NORP police on the case . The applicants submitted that they had requested all the evidentiary material but this was not provided with the report .

On DATE there was an attempt to kill the first applicant at his home in the “ TRNC ” . During DATE the applicants were also informed by the NORP police that the arrest warrant in respect of one of the suspects had been cancelled .

In DATE the first applicant ’s bodyguard was murdered .

With regard to the inquest , the applicants submitted that ORG had adjourned the inquest on DATE for administrative reasons and not because of the first applicant ’s absence . The court had resumed the inquest proceedings on CARDINAL and again on DATE . CARDINAL of the applicants had attended with their counsel and a local lawyer . The inquest had confined itself to investigating whether the deaths had been the result of an unlawful killing . The judge had referred the matter to the Attorney - General as she was functus officio in so far as the criminal proceedings were concerned .

The applicants , through their representatives , sent a number of letters to various NORP , NORP and “ GPE ” high - ranking officials about the case , including the President of GPE , the Prime Minister of GPE and the President of the “ GPE ” .

NORP In a letter dated DATE the applicants’ counsel informed the Prime Minister of GPE about the case and all the steps that had been taken until that date . They informed him , inter alia , that ORG had stated that they were prepared to hand over the relevant evidence to ORG in order for the latter to decide whether there was a prima facie case against the suspects with the proviso that if ORG concluded that there was indeed such a case , the “ NORP ” would undertake to surrender the suspects . As ORG was not prepared to take on this task ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the “ GPE ” insisted on making a decision only after receiving the evidence , the ORG counsel stated that “ I believe that I have now exhausted the possibilities for reaching the desired compromise through negotiation and mediation ” .

Following the murders ORG , the “ NORP ” authorities and the applicants were in contact with ORG officials concerning the case . A number of meetings were held . There was also an exchange of telephone calls and correspondence . The relevant information provided by the parties is set out below .

According to this note , the NORP authorities made contact with ORG ’s Special Representative to see whether ORG could assist . They informed ORG that they intended to carry out a complete investigation into the crime and that the police were working intensively to gather information and evidence . Some of this , however , would have to be collected from the occupied areas . ORG ’s ORG said that ORG was ready to provide help but suggested , acknowledging the difficulties , that it might be better for the QUANTITY sides to be in direct contact with each other and to exchange information . The NORP authorities had informed him that this was not possible as the NORP police could not have direct contact with the “ NORP ” police and that it was for this reason they had sought ORG ’s intervention .

According to this note , a meeting was held on DATE at ORG headquarters in GPE on the initiative of ORG ’s Senior Police Adviser and Commander ( “ the SPA ” ) between the ORG and the assistant of the NORP Chief of Police . The ORG ’s liaison officer was also present . The ORG stated that she had had , on DATE , a long meeting concerning the murders with the “ NORP ” Chief of Police in the presence of other officers and the “ GPE ” Attorney - General . She had informed the “ GPE ” Chief of Police that the NORP police had in their possession genetic material linking QUANTITY of the suspects with the crime ( although she was not in a position at that time to tell them who these suspects were ) , as well as other evidence linking another QUANTITY persons to the crime , and that CARDINAL of the cartridges found at the scene had been made in GPE . She had also informed him that CARDINAL arrest warrants had been issued by a NORP court against the suspects , CARDINAL of whom were detained in “ GPE ” prisons . She had expressed her concerns that if the suspects were released they might leave the “ GPE ” and their future arrest would not be possible . The “ GPE ” Chief of Police had informed her that these suspects had been detained for minor offences ( car theft ) and that it was possible that their detention would not be extended by the judge . Although the “ GPE ” authorities would try to get their detention extended , they had no evidence to charge them with murder . Although the suspects had already been questioned about the murders and had given some information , this was not enough . No voluntary statements had been made . The “ GPE ” Chief of Police had also told her that he was aware that the NORP police did not have enough evidence and that only if the QUANTITY police forces cooperated could more evidence be collected . He had also asked her if , and how , ORG could help ; she had informed him that ORG could only intervene if one of the CARDINAL sides made an official request for help .

The “ NORP ” Chief of Police had expressed his concerns in respect of the problems that had arisen and might also arise in the future and considered it advisable that the CARDINAL police forces come to an agreement to enable cooperation in such cases . The “ GPE ” Minister of ORG was ready to discuss matters of policing and public safety with the Minister of ORG of GPE and other members of the NORP police in order to facilitate cooperation without any political ramifications ( προεκτάσεις ) .

UNFICYP ’s liaison officer had asked if there was a possibility that GPE could be involved , so that the suspects could be extradited to GPE and from there to GPE . The “ GPE ” Chief of Police had answered in the negative ; it appeared that the “ GPE ” authorities had already examined the matter but could not take such action as it was not provided for by their legislation . The “ GPE ” Chief of Police had suggested that the NORP police hand over the evidence to the “ NORP ” police so that the latter could arrest and try the suspects . If the NORP police informed their authorities officially about the evidence and exhibits in respect of the case and officially requested the extradition of the suspects , the “ NORP ” authorities could cooperate and possibly extradite them . CARDINAL of the suspects was in GPE but appeared not to be connected to the murders . The “ TRNC ” authorities also had information in their possession linking other persons to the murders .

According to the SPA the “ TRNC ” authorities were sincere and wished to cooperate . They had mentioned , inter alia , their concerns that there could be more crimes of this nature – that is to say criminals going through crossing points , committing crimes and then returning to the other side in order to avoid arrest and punishment . ORG was ready to provide advice as to how ORG should act and to sit in any negotiations in order to see how ORG could intervene so as to help investigate ( εξιχνιαστει ) the murders . The ORG had asked the NORP authorities whether ORG could intervene as she considered it unfair that , although the perpetrators of an atrocious crime had been identified , they remained free because of a political problem . The “ TRNC ” police had requested to be kept informed by ORG ( ORG ) of developments in the case and she had promised that they would be .

NORP This letter reaffirmed ORG determination to bring the suspects to justice . The NORP authorities had collected sufficient evidence , issued arrest warrants for CARDINAL suspects and requested ORG to facilitate the handing over of the suspects and evidential material to the relevant authorities of GPE . It stated that the NORP police had issued international arrest warrants in respect of CARDINAL of the suspects , which had been forwarded to ORG ’s ORG and to all of ORG ’s member GPE . The NORP police were in the process of issuing an international arrest warrant in respect of the fifth suspect .

This note stated that the “ GPE ” Attorney - General did not intend to hand over to the police of GPE the CARDINAL suspects that were detained in the “ GPE ” for the murders , relying on LAW . The “ GPE ” Attorney - General had notified ORG of this . An attached memo by ORG stated as follows :

“ I have seen the [ Attorney - General ] . Mr GPE with regard to the inquiries [ made in respect of ] and the prosecution of the culprits in respect of the LOC murder . He says that there is no legal and/or constitutional basis for handing over the accused to ORG , for the following reasons :

The LAW of Cyprus

Articles : CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL )

Admin . of Justice Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL

Section CARDINAL

Section CARDINAL

Section CARDINAL

Section CARDINAL

He made representation to ORG for the NORP suspect kept by ORG to be handed over to NORP for prosecution , together with others ” .

This note stated that the ORG had met with the police at GPE police headquarters after she had met DATE with the “ NORP ” Chief of Police . The latter had suggested that a meeting be organised with the NORP police , in secret , in neutral territory chosen by ORG , so that the issue would not become the object of political manipulation . The “ GPE ” Attorney - General had consented to such a meeting . According to the “ GPE ” Chief of Police , there were possibly more suspects and the first applicant had given inaccurate information to the NORP police , including the wrong photo of the alleged fifth suspect . As a first step , the “ GPE ” Chief of Police had suggested the participation in the investigation of an equal number of officers of the same grade from both sides and the presentation of all exhibits collected which could help solve the crime , such as photographs and fingerprints of the suspects and samples of genetic material . He had also mentioned that in order to ensure the continued detention of the suspects , the “ GPE ” authorities would like to have the results of the DNA tests linking the suspects to the case . As a second step , the “ GPE ” Chief of Police had suggested that the “ GPE ” police be given information concerning the ballistic evidence in order to enable the “ GPE ” authorities to compare that evidence with information in their database . The ORG had noted that there would be no discussion in any meeting held as to which side would bring the suspects to justice , as the matter at this stage would be limited to the investigation of the case , without giving rise to any political implications . This matter could be discussed later on a political level . The NORP police had expressed their hesitations as to the usefulness and repercussions of such a meeting . They would inform her of the Chief of Police ’s decision on the matter .

NORP This letter stated that at meetings held with ORG and the Deputy Senior Police Advisor ( “ the LOC ” ) , the ORG had suggested that meetings between the NORP police , the police of FAC and the “ GPE ” police be held at a technical services level ( τεχνικό υπηρεσιακό επίπεδο ) in the mixed village of LOC , which is located in the ORG buffer zone between the NORP police , the police of FAC and the “ GPE ” police . The NORP Chief of Police had rejected this as constituting a move towards recognising a “ pseudo - state ” which provided refuge to fugitives . It was true that ORG ’s arguments for the meetings of the technical committees was valid in that there was a risk that the village of GPE would become a safe haven for criminals . This could be dealt with , however , through more efficient cooperation between ORG and the NORP authorities . The NORP Chief of Police sought to obtain ORG political position regarding this suggestion .

This note stated that as concerned a meeting held on CARDINAL DATE between the ORG , the GPE , and members of the NORP police and investigation team , the GPE had raised his concerns as to an increased level of collaboration between NORP and NORP criminals and their movements across the island . The GPE had been informed generally about evidence that had been collected . He had also enquired whether :

- the NORP police intended to give the evidence to UNFICYP for forwarding to the “ NORP ” authorities to enable the PERSON prosecution ;

- the NORP police could make the necessary arrangements for the suspects to be taken to a ORG building at FAC in the buffer zone and be questioned through “ the video recording interview method ” , and – if this was possible – whether such evidence would be admissible before a NORP court ;

- if one of the suspects were to come over to make a statement against the other suspects , the NORP authorities would arrest him and bring criminal proceedings against him .

The NORP police had informed him that prosecution decisions were made by the Attorney - General . They had also informed him that they would cooperate with ORG but not with the “ NORP ” authorities or police . They had highlighted the fact that , despite ORG , GPE had refused to cooperate and had not surrendered the fifth suspect , who had gone to GPE . They had arrested him but subsequently released him .

The DSPA had stated that the “ GPE DATE pursuant to its own laws –could not surrender NORP . It had been stressed by LAW that the “ GPE ” was not a state .

The GPE had also put forward the suggestion that the suspects could be surrendered to a third country such as GPE , and that steps to bring them to justice could be taken from there . LAW had informed him that this was not an option and that GPE had an obligation to comply with international law .

Finally , the ORG had suggested that the matter could be discussed by the relevant technical committee ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) in order to avoid the issue taking on a political dimension , to find solutions for cooperation and to bring the perpetrators to justice . He had been informed that this was a sensitive matter and that the political aspects could not be ignored ; if the “ pseudo - state ” authorities were interested in completing the investigation and bringing the perpetrators to justice , they should stop providing refuge to criminals .

The note stated that at this meeting , the LOC had noted that he was trying to convince the “ GPE ” authorities to surrender the suspects . The NORP police had informed him that they would not be providing any evidence to , or cooperating with , the authorities of the “ pseudo - state ” but that they were willing to cooperate with UNFICYP without this implying any recognition of any illegal entity .

On DATE a meeting was held between the private secretary of the “ NORP ” Prime Minister , the ORG , the head of ORG ’s civil affairs unit , and the envoy of the President of GPE concerning the suspects held in detention . According to TIME of the meeting , the “ NORP ” authorities needed the results of the DNA tests that had been carried out by the NORP Cypriot authorities , which were reluctant to transmit them on the pretext that this would constitute the [ de facto ] recognition of the “ GPE ” . The “ GPE ” authorities suggested these could be transmitted through ORG . A “ non - paper ” dated DATE was given to the envoy . This stated as follows :

“ According to LAW ( article CARDINAL ) , any case confined among NORP Cypriots should be taken by the NORP courts .

In the case of murder of Elmas Güzelyurtlu and his family , all the suspects are NORP Cypriots hence the case should be heard by NORP courts by NORP judges .

Since the act took place in NORP side and all of the evidences collected successfully by the NORP police , cooperation is needed for the justice to be done .

This is an urgent situation therefore we need to act together immediately . As a first step the report concerning the DNA analysis is needed to get the court order to have the suspects in custody during the lawsuit .

This is a humanitarian issue and totally out of political concerns . The political concerns should not be in the way to prevent the justice to take place . ”

On DATE the “ NORP ” Chief of Police held a meeting with the ORG , who gave details about the circumstances of the murders . According to the minutes , Elmas Güzelyurtlu had been known throughout GPE and had been suspected of many crimes ; some had involved the suspects . The information in the hands of the NORP police was sufficient for the purpose of issuing arrest warrants in respect of the suspects . Although the “ NORP ” police had already issued such warrants , they did not have evidence to bring proceedings against the suspects ; more information was necessary . The ORG had asked for suggestions .

On DATE a meeting was held between ORG officials and “ NORP ” functionaries , including the “ GPE ” Deputy Prime Minister . According to the TIME , the question had been raised as to whether the NORP Cypriot authorities were willing to transmit the evidence . The “ GPE ” Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned that if this was done the PERSON detention would be extended ; then , if the “ GPE ” courts considered the evidence to be credible , the suspects would be handed over to [ GPE ] via ORG .

On DATE another meeting was held between ORG and “ NORP ” officials . According to the TIME , the ORG officials had submitted ORG ’s Red Notices in respect of CARDINAL of the suspects detained in the “ GPE ” . They had mentioned that the NORP Cypriot authorities were reluctant to share the ORG DNA test results and did not want to collaborate with the “ NORP ” .

At a meeting held on DATE ORG officials and the Prime Minister of the “ NORP ” discussed the reluctance of the NORP Cypriot authorities to cooperate .

On DATE a meeting was held between the head of ORG ’s civil affairs unit and ORG the “ ORG . The former stated that the NORP Cypriot authorities’ attitude concerning their cooperation with the “ LOC ” was changing and that they were planning to send the evidence through ORG . He also asked the Undersecretary whether the suspects could be re - arrested and given to the NORP Cypriot authorities through ORG . The ORG replied that under the DATE agreements if the suspects were NORP , then they should be tried in a NORP court .

On DATE the head of ORG ’s civil affairs unit had a telephone conversation with the “ NORP ” Head of Consular Affairs . The former informed the latter that the courts of the NORP Sovereign Base areas did not have jurisdiction to try the suspects ; however , the courts of GPE could sit at the bases and the hearing could take place there . PERSON stated that the “ TRNC ” authorities were not planning to take any steps until the evidence and records were given over to them because it was unacceptable to the “ TRNC ” authorities for the NORP Cypriot authorities to work alone on this matter .

On DATE ORG officials had a general meeting with the “ NORP ” Head of Consular affairs who mentioned that the DNA results given to them were not sufficient in order to proceed further with the case file . The “ TRNC ” authorities needed more concrete evidence such as police investigation records and security camera records . The head of ORG ’s civil affairs unit promised to discuss this with the NORP side .

DATE , an exchange of correspondence concerning the investigation of the murders took place between the ORG representatives and ORG officials . The text of the most relevant communications between ORG and the ORG representatives is set out below :

In a communication to ORG dated DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer , requested , inter alia , the disclosure of any possible information relating to the ORG ’s efforts in the case , in particular , concerning the mistrust and lack of cooperation between the CARDINAL sides . He wanted to ensure that all local remedies were properly exhausted and ORG to help him to form a view in general terms about the attitude of both sides . If all legal means to bring about the prosecution of suspects of this heinous crime failed , he had instructions to bring an application before the ORG against GPE and GPE .

NORP In a letter to the ORG representatives dated DATE the ORG , stated , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . ORG ( SPA ) of the ORG police in GPE first became involved in the case on DATE at the request of the Assistant Chief of Police of GPE , ... who at that time briefed the Senior Police Adviser on the case . A request was made to the ORG to facilitate the exchange of information between the sides .

At no time was the ORG asked to operationally assist in the investigation of the murder or apprehend the suspects . If [ she had been ] asked this would not have been agreed to as this is not within ORG ’s mandate .

... ( Illegible )

A copy of the preliminary investigation report prepared by the authorities in the south was provided to the NORP authorities , with the LOC ’s facilitation . ORG limited itself to a mediation role and therefore neither verified the contents nor kept a copy of the report .

At what point the trial venue became an issue can not be ascertained as this was not within the control or knowledge of the LOC .

ORG attempts to facilitate the exchange of information on criminal enquiries when asked to do so by one side or the other . ...

( Illegible )

As you may be aware , ORG is not part of the internal justice system of GPE and does not have executive power . ORG is not in any sense an element of the “ domestic remedies ” available to victims of a crime in the [ Republic of Cyprus ] ” .

In an e - mail sent by the LOC to the ORG representative , PERSON on DATE , the following , inter alia , was stated :

“ I note your request and assure you of the ORG ’s utmost cooperation in dealing with any matter of a criminal nature , particularly ... in this most serious case . While ORG has been exhausting its efforts to reach some conclusion to this case , it is unfortunate that there is a stalemate at this present time due to the CARDINAL sides not agreeing on a way forward . I note your comments that :

The [ Republic of Cyprus ] will hand over to the ORG in GPE all the evidence on the suspects so that the ORG legal team can evaluate the evidence and see whether or not there is a prima facie case against them . The [ ORG ] will only do so if the “ GPE ” authorities give an undertaking that they will hand the suspects over to GPE ] to be tried if the ORG is satisfied ( possibly after discussion with the “ TRNC ” – the italicised parenthesis is not strictly speaking part of the proposal at this stage but might be what we will have to argue in order to facilitate matters ) that there is such a prima facie case against the suspects :

GPE ] will not hand over any evidence for the purposes of conducting a trial in the north . This is despite the fact that [ an]other jurisdiction GPE ) has in the past successfully caused a trial to be conducted in the north [ in respect of ] a serious crime committed in the GPE .

The legal processes conducted in the north do not allow for the handing over of any [ NORP ] suspects to any authorities in the south or any other country in any other circumstances .

Therefore ORG stands ready to facilitate [ in any way ] it can in this case , I can see no resolution being [ arrived at ] until such time as one side or the other cedes their current position . Either the [ Republic of Cyprus ] is willing to hand over all the evidence to the north and offer full police and evidentiary cooperation so that a trial can be conducted in that “ jurisdiction ” , or the north is willing to hand over suspects [ on the basis of ] sufficient evidence to cause the [ issuance ] of an arrest warrant in the north , with a view to handling the suspects to ORG for passing on the [ ORG ] .

As always ORG stands ready to cooperate in whatever manner it can . ”

In an e - mail sent by ORG to the ORG representative PERSON on DATE the following was stated :

“ As stated in my previous email to you ORG stands ready to facilitate negotiations between the CARDINAL sides in respect of this matter and indeed continues in its efforts to find a solution . However , ORG is not in a position to formally engage a suitably qualified expert to officially adjudicate on the evidence held by GPE . It has already been stated that while the ORG believes that there is enough evidence on face value for the CARDINAL sides to reach a suitable position , it welcomes the delivery of any further or all evidence , copies or otherwise , from GPE that can be used to further meaningful dialogue between the CARDINAL sides . I again reiterate the following options that may in my view facilitate further useful negotiations :

The [ Republic of GPE ] , without prejudice , [ should ] deliver to the ORG all necessary evidence , allowing this to be used as ORG sees fit , with a view to negotiating the alleged ORG arrest and handover to ORG for delivery to the authorities in the south for the purposes of a trial . However , without a clear guarantee that the north will arrest and hand over the alleged offenders there is little chance of this being successful .

The only other solution is for the [ Republic of Cyprus ] to hand over all the evidence to ORG for delivery to the relevant persons in the north with a view to having a trial conducted in the north . This option has already been rejected by the [ ORG ] . ”

NORP The relevant parts of the ORG Secretary - General ’s reports on the ORG operation in GPE are set out below :

Report of CARDINAL DATE :

“ CARDINAL . Official contact between the sides is hampered by a high degree of mistrust . On DATE , CARDINAL members of a NORP family living in the south were killed ... . CARDINAL suspects were arrested in the north while all the evidence remained in the south . ORG ’s efforts to assist the sides to bring the suspects to justice proved unsuccessful , and all suspects were released in the north . This case is an illustration of the growing number of crimes across the cease - fire line , such as smuggling , drug trafficking , illegal immigration and human trafficking . These problems are implicit in the expanding inter - communal contacts , which though positive , have also the potential for adverse consequences if the present lack of cooperation between the sides persists .

The continuing absence of official contacts between the sides has accentuated ORG ’s role in promoting bicommunal contacts . Although people from either side can meet freely since the opening of the crossings in DATE , the impartiality of FAC venue and the ORG umbrella are considered indispensable for sensitive humanitarian and other meetings , including those of political parties from the north and the south . It is hoped that under the auspices of ORG , contacts may be established between the sides , without prejudice to their political positions , on humanitarian and related issues generating a climate of trust and easing tensions . During the reporting period , ORG provided facilities for CARDINAL bicommunal events , including those implemented by ORG ( UNDP)/United ORG ( ORG ) ... ” .

Report of DATE :

“ CARDINAL . On DATE [ CARDINAL ] , ... the CARDINAL leaders met in the presence of my then ORG and agreed on a path towards a comprehensive settlement ( see annex II ) . The agreement entailed the establishment of a number of working groups , to consider the core issues pertaining to an eventual settlement plan , and of technical committees , to seek immediate solutions to everyday problems arising from the division of the island . They also agreed to meet again in DATE to review the work of the working groups and the technical committees and , using their results , to start full - fledged negotiations under ORG auspices . In addition , the leaders agreed to meet as and when needed prior to the commencement of full - fledged negotiations . ...

On DATE [ DATE ] , representatives of the leaders agreed to establish CARDINAL working groups on governance and power - sharing , ORG matters , security and guarantees , territory , property and economic matters , as well as CARDINAL technical committees on crime and criminal matters , economic and commercial matters , cultural heritage , crisis management , humanitarian matters , health and the environment . ... On DATE ] , the groups and committees began to meet . They have been coming together on a regular basis since then , as foreseen by the leaders , and facilitated by ORG . ”

Report of CARDINAL DATE :

“ CARDINAL . On DATE ] , the leaders agreed to the implementation of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL confidence - building measures identified by the technical committees , which were aimed at improving the DATE life of NORP across the entire island . They concern the passage of ambulances through crossing points in cases of emergency , the establishment of a communications and liaison facility ( operating round the clock ) to share information on crime and criminal matters , an initiative funded by ORG ( ORG ) on awareness - raising measures for saving water and the establishment of an advisory board on shared cultural heritage . ... ”

Report of DATE :

“ CARDINAL . ( ... ) UNFICYP police facilitated meetings of ORG , and ORG continued to work actively , providing the police services of both sides with a forum for enhanced cooperation . The appointment for the first time of serving police officers as NORP representatives to ORG signaled a significant step forward in cooperation . Over and above the exchange of information on criminal matters that have intercommunal elements , ORG focused on the investigation of crimes that took place within and across the buffer zone , the handover of persons of interest through the ORG police and humanitarian cases . ”


CASE OF MAKRADULI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events he was vice - president of the SDSM opposition party and a member of parliament . The present applications concern criminal libel proceedings brought against the applicant by Mr PERSON , who at the time was a senior member of the then ruling political party and at the same time head of ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) . According to LAW ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) , the head of the ORG is appointed by the ORG and is accountable to it and the competent Minister . The impugned proceedings concerned statements made by the applicant at press conferences held at his political party ’s headquarters .

On DATE the applicant held a press conference that was broadcast by the main news programme of the ACARDINAL television channel , which had national coverage and was the most popular channel at the time . The relevant part of the applicant ’s statement at the press conference reads as follows :

“ In DATE he has formally been head of ORG and practically the head of the police , has PERSON ( the plaintiff ’s surname ) , abused his powers in order to influence ORG and have timely information to enable him to obtain a profit ? Is there any truth in the rumours ( гласини ) , which have become stronger , that police wiretapping equipment is being misused for trading on ORG ? ... ”

The applicant submitted a transcript of the broadcast , which was also viewed at the trial ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Besides the information described above , the transcript included a journalist suggesting that the applicant ’s political party had asked the head of ORG whether PERSON had paid taxes on his property , which had been assessed as being worth MONEY ( ORG ) . The same programme also gave PERSON PERSON ’s reply , denying the allegations and stating that the money in question had been transferred to the respondent ORG from a foreign bank account . The transcript of the broadcast was published on the channel ’s website on DATE under the headline : “ SDSM : PERSON has wrongfully used wiretapping equipment ” .

The applicant submitted articles published over DATE on the channel ’s website , which described the subsequent exchange of comments and replies between the applicant and his political party , on the one hand , and various ORG institutions on the other . The articles stated that the applicant ’s political party had asked the relevant institutions to investigate the origin of PERSON assets and that ORG had requested that it submit any evidence in support of its allegations .

On DATE Mr PERSON brought private criminal proceedings accusing the applicant for libel , which was punishable at the time under LAW . He claimed that the applicant ’s statement at the press conference ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had contained defamatory allegations about him . The applicant did not submit any comments in reply .

ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The applicant , who was legally represented , did not personally attend any of the scheduled hearings . Several hearings were adjourned owing to the applicant ’s work in ORG . At the trial , the court heard Mr PERSON and was provided with audio - and video - recordings of the programme on ACARDINAL . The relevant part of the transcript of the hearing of DATE , when the court examined that material , reads as follows :

“ ... The court views ... the video and audio - recording of the news programme broadcast on ACARDINAL television on DATE on which ... there is a photo of the plaintiff PERSON and the voice of a journalist who states the following :

‘ The ( SDSM ) ask(s ) whether the head of ORG ) , PERSON , earned MONEY by misusing police wiretapping equipment for trading on ORG . Their suspicions are based on a declaration of assets ( анкетен лист ) , which PERSON submitted DATE , in which he specified that he possessed shares valued at EUR CARDINAL . ORG ) whether PERSON obtained any of that property during DATE he has been in office , without submitting a declaration , and whether that was the reason for his failing to submit the declaration within DATE of his mandate’

The recording continues with a photograph of [ the applicant ] at a stand in front of the ORG logo and states that [ statement described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] ...

The video material continues with a commentary by the journalist stating that :

‘ PERSON replied to the allegations by ORG by saying that the money in question was linked to a lawful business which he had abroad’ and the tape continues with the plaintiff ’s statement ... ”

The defence did not submit any evidence ( including the evidence described in DATE above ) . In the concluding remarks , the applicant ’s lawyer stated that the applicant had made the impugned statement in an interrogatory form and as the vice - president of an opposition political party , which had the role of expressing concerns about and assessing the work of ORG officials .

On DATE the trial court , sitting as a single - judge ( Judge PERSON ) , found the applicant guilty of defamation and fined him ORG CARDINAL with CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default . It also ordered him to pay court fees of LAW and a further EUR CARDINAL to cover Mr PERSON ’s costs . The court further ruled that the operative part of the judgment should be published at the applicant ’s expense via ACARDINAL television ’s news programme . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :

“ ... The accused is the vice - president of SDSM ...

... [ the applicant ] said [ the words described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] from a podium which had the ORG logo behind it ...

... a statement ... must contain certain facts and ... be false ... The fact of that which ... is expressed or disseminated being false constitutes the core of the criminal offence of libel . Consequently , a victim is not required to prove that a defamatory statement is false , rather the accused is obliged to prove ( the veracity of ) what was said ...

... based on the audio and video material to hand the court finds that [ the applicant ] made statements about [ Mr PERSON ] in a form capable of persuading an ordinary viewer ... that they are truthful ...

... the court does not deny that questions can be put to and answers sought from ORG officials ... It is true that every person , including a member of a political party , as is [ the applicant ] , has the right to put questions of public interest , to criticise the work of the ORG and to express concerns about someone who holds the highest office in the executive . This makes the victim a ‘ legitimate ORG of constructive criticism and public debate , but not of statements and assertions that had no factual basis , as in the present case .

... the court can not accept , as contrary to the evidence , [ the applicant ’s ] defence that the allegations were made in an interrogatory form ( in an attempt ) to obtain an answer from the victim as a ORG official . ( Given ) the manner in which the applicant expressed his allegations and other circumstances , the court has found that the [ applicant ’s ] allegations are false and ( represent ) an assertion made in an interrogatory form , which have had a considerable effect on the claimant ’s reputation and dignity . The defence can not rely on LAW and ( claim ) that the ( impugned ) expression should have been examined in the context of the position he held , namely vice - president of an opposition political party . Such a status does not entitle him to express or disseminate untruthful allegations which are detrimental to the reputation and dignity of a third party .

... the court considers that the fact that [ the applicant ] has already been convicted by a final judgment of the same offence is an aggravating factor ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge panel composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON , upheld the trial court ’s judgment , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning .

Based on legislative amendments of DATE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the trial court stayed the execution ( се запира постапката за извршување на санкција ) of the sanction ( a fine ) imposed on the applicant .

The applicant paid Mr PERSON ’s costs for the criminal proceedings . He did not pay the court fees and did not publish the trial court ’s judgment via ORG , which ceased to exist in DATE .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG in which he complained that his conviction had violated his right to freedom of expression . He reiterated his arguments that he had been punished for a question that he had raised at a press conference that had been held on behalf of his political party . The question had been addressed to the public and had been based on information submitted to his political party about suspected irregularities in the work of a ORG official . The aim had been to stimulate public debate on whether the official had been diligent in performing his official duty .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) , ORG by a majority dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that he had not attended any of the scheduled hearings and held that freedom of expression was not absolute and could be restricted in accordance with the law . In that connection , it referred to Article CARDINAL of LAW , which punished the dissemination of untrue information that could affect the reputation and dignity of a third party . The court further held that :

“ The way in which [ the applicant ] expressed his opinion ( мислење ) in public concerning the performance of public duties by a public official ( in an interrogatory form , as a member of an opposition political party , from a political party ’s podium ( говорница ) , the consequences of his public action ... ) , without trying to prove the veracity of his question or statement , taken as a whole , represents an action which only appears to fall within the ambit of the freedom of conviction , conscience , thought and public expression of thought , but in substance it affects the reputation and dignity of the citizen who holds that public office at the time and violates those values . Accordingly , the statement lost the attributes of the freedom ( of thought and public expression of thought ) and ( represents ) an abuse of ( that freedom ) . ”

In comments submitted in reply to the Government ’s observations ( DATE ) , the applicant informed the ORG that Mr PERSON had brought civil proceedings against him after his conviction , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The claim was examined at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . By a final judgment of DATE the applicant was ordered to pay MONEY ( ORG ) plus interest in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the trial costs incurred by PERSON PERSON in the compensation proceedings .

On DATE the applicant held a press conference at ORG offices regarding the public sale of ORG - owned building land in the central area of GPE , where the construction of a hotel was planned . It was broadcast on local television news . According to a transcript of the entire press conference ( evidence not submitted to the criminal courts ) , the applicant presented the events involved and information obtained from the ORG authorities regarding the sale in question . He further detailed the conclusions of research done by his political party , showing that the company that had been selected was incorporated in the respondent ORG at the same address as O. Holding ( a local company ) and was partly owned by a company which had business ties with ORG . In that connection , he alleged that a deal had been done so that “ the land would be given to people who had close family or party ties ” with the Prime Minister . As described in the trial court ’s judgment ( see below ) , the applicant stated that :

“ The attractive location behind the ‘ PERSON shopping mall planned for the construction of a hotel was granted to a company supported ( зад која стои ) by ORG ... After the revelation of this megascandal , the biggest dilemma is whether ORG for the most corrupt politician should be given to the Prime Minister or his cousins ? To those who created or to those who carried out the deal ? ”

By a press release of the same date ( DATE ) sent “ in relation to the press conference held by the political party ORG and with a view to provide the public with objective and correct information ” ORG informed the media about the procedure and the selected company .

In reply to a request for information , ORG notified the public prosecutor on DATE about the company that had been selected ( it was registered at the same address as ORG and its manager was a former ORG employee ) , alleging that it had not met the requirements of the sale . It further requested that the public prosecutor investigate whether the transaction had been in conformity with LAW .

On DATE Mr PERSON brought private criminal charges , accusing the applicant of making ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) defamatory allegations about him . He denied ever having had any connection , private or professional , with the public sale of the land . He had also not signed the sale contract with the company that had been chosen . The applicant did not submit any comments in reply .

NORP The trial court scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The applicant was represented by a lawyer , but did not attend any of the scheduled hearings in person . Some of the scheduled hearings were adjourned because the court bailiff was unable to serve summonses on the applicant . At the trial , the court heard Mr PERSON and viewed audio and video material of television coverage of the applicant ’s statement . The defence did not submit any evidence , not even the information submitted to the public prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , after CARDINAL remittal , the trial court , sitting as a single - judge ( Judge PERSON ) , convicted the applicant of defamation . It fined him ORG CARDINAL with CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default , ordered him to pay a court fee of ORG CARDINAL and a further LAW to cover Mr PERSON ’s trial costs . Relying on the latter ’s testimony , the court held that the applicant ’s allegations had concerned Mr PERSON , regardless of the fact that he had not been identified by name . That was because the applicant had previously given false statements about Mr PERSON and had often referred to him as “ the Prime Minister ’s cousin ” . Mr PERSON admitted that he had had contact with the managers of ORG , although that had been as friends . He had had no cooperation with them in business terms or been involved in any way in the construction of the hotel .

The relevant parts of the trial court ’s judgment read as follows :

“ ... the court considers ... that [ the applicant ’s ] [ statement described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] could have a considerable effect on the complainant ’s reputation and dignity ... since he is the holder of a public office and ( such ) statements are disseminated quickly and aggressively in public .

That the complainant was not identified by his full name by the [ applicant ] is irrelevant since the relevant circumstances clearly and unequivocally suggest that the matter concerned [ Mr PERSON ] . Furthermore , the news presenter identified the complainant by his surname .

... The [ applicant ’s ] assertion , ( which he made ) as vice - president of a political party , contained untrue allegations about the complainant susceptible of violating his honour and reputation ... [ The statement in question ] was not substantiated with any evidence because the private complainant , as head of the ORG , does not have the competence to participate in the public sale of ORG - owned land and the accused did not present any evidence that [ Mr PERSON ] was privately involved in the sale transaction in question ... ”

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel ( Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON ) of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant in which he had complained , inter alia , that the complainant had not been identified in his statement , which had been made in an interrogatory form and in a political context and , accordingly , not punishable , as specified in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court upheld the trial court ’s judgment , finding that the applicant had made a false assertion ( тврдење со невистина содржина ) about the complainant . It continued :

“ It is a statutory presumption that a statement of fact harmful to the honour and reputation of a third party is untrue . The burden of proof therefore rests with the accused to prove that the assertion is true . Accordingly , [ the applicant ] was required to prove that his statement was true , which is not the case ... The contents of the statement , the time , place and way in which it was given imply that it was serious and that it could objectively create a perception in the minds of third parties about certain facts . This court finds [ the statement ] defamatory since the factual assertion contained therein was able objectively to affect the reputation and dignity of the private complainant . ”

On DATE the trial court stayed the execution of the fine it had imposed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant paid the court fees and the trial costs incurred by PERSON , who did not claim compensation for damage in respect of this criminal conviction for defamation .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG in which he claimed that as a representative of a political party he had been required to bring to light information that had been brought to his attention . He had not made a factual statement but had raised a question regarding allegations of corruption .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) the ORG unanimously dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal for protection of the right to freedom of expression . The court held that :

“ In the concrete case , the court ... punished [ the applicant ] ... as a necessary measure for the protection of the reputation , dignity and authority of another person . That was because [ the applicant ] , by relying on freedom of public expression , interfered with the protected right of another person , namely Mr S.M ...

[ The applicant ] is a member of parliament and vice - President of the ORG and he made the statement in ORG headquarters ( if the statement had been given in ORG , he would have enjoyed immunity and private charges would not have been possible ) . Although freedom of expression is important for all , it is particularly important for representatives of the people ... Therefore , interference with a Member of ORG ’s freedom of expression calls for the closest scrutiny by the court .

Analysis must be made ... of whether ( the applicant ’s ) conviction and sanction represent a justified restriction of his rights and freedoms ... namely whether the courts struck a fair balance between the need to protect the reputation and dignity of the victim and [ the applicant ’s ] freedom of public expression . The freedom of political debate is not of an absolute nature ... the court notes that the impugned statement concerns the public sale of ORG - owned building land ... and should be considered in the context of a debate concerning an issue of public interest , which in particular was of prime political interest ...

The court considers that the veracity of the statement ... was of primary importance for the courts . Those courts ... established that [ the applicant ’s ] statement was not true or that there was no evidence to prove the contrary .

... the court has the right and duty to assess whether the courts enabled [ the applicant ] to prove the veracity of ( his ) statement . In this connection the court finds that [ the applicant ] was able , during the entire proceedings , to present evidence as to the veracity of his statement . In the absence of proof to confirm the veracity ( of the statement ) or the existence of a strong basis for it to be regarded as truthful , the court must accept the ORG findings that the statement was false .

Despite the fact that the statement is part of a public debate , the question is whether ( it ) ... had any impact or was relevant for the public as a contribution to a better understanding of the issue subject to public debate ...

The way in which the ( applicant ) expressed his opinion ( мислење ) in public concerning the performance of a public office by a public official ( in an interrogatory form , as a member of an opposition party , from the podium ( говорница ) of the political party , the consequences of his public action ... ) without trying to prove the veracity of his question or statement , taken as a whole , represents an action which only appears to fall within the ambit of the freedom of conviction , conscience , thought and public expression of thought , but in substance it affects the reputation and dignity of the citizen who holds the public office at the time and violates those values . Accordingly , the statement lost the attributes of the freedom ( of thought and public expression of thought ) and ( represents ) an abuse of ( that freedom ) . ”

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the trial court , sitting as a singlejudge ( Judge ORG ) , had found the applicant guilty of making defamatory allegations about the then Minister for Transportation and Communications regarding the public sale of the same ORG - owned land subject to application no . CARDINAL above . The applicant was convicted and fined ORG CARDINAL for the following statement , which was made at a press conference on DATE at the offices of his political party :

“ ... by selling land to a company that does not fulfil the ( statutory ) conditions , Minister PERSON obviously committed a criminal offence - abuse of office . We therefore expect that the public prosecutor will immediately lodge an indictment ” .

As explained in the judgment , the court established that when the applicant had made the statement , the procedure for the public sale of the land was still ongoing , namely the relevant standing committee within ORG had not yet submitted its proposal to the Minister about the best bidder . The Minister had then granted the land to the best bidder in DATE . Furthermore , several institutions , which had reviewed the work of the committee , had not found any irregularities . The court did not accept the applicant ’s defence ( he did not attend any of the scheduled hearings ) that his statement had been an expression of a reasonable suspicion about the public sale of the land . The court refused the following defence applications : to examine a member of the standing committee ; to admit committee TIME in evidence regarding the public sale ; and to hear information from the public prosecutor about the committee ’s work . It held that the proposed evidence concerned the committee ’s work which was not the subject of the proceedings . A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG ( Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . ) upheld the lower court ’s judgment . Both courts considered that the applicant had made the statement in his own name and not on behalf of his political party .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE with a visa granted by the NORP consulate in GPE .

On DATE the applicant married an NORP man in GPE and she was granted a residence permit on the basis of family ties until DATE . She divorced on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sought asylum as well as the extension of her residence permit . She stated that her adoptive mother lived in GPE and that they were very close .

On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) rejected her asylum application and decided to order her removal to GPE . In its reasons the ORG stated that the applicant ’s story contained conflicting information concerning , inter alia , with whom she had lived in GPE . Her story was thus not fully credible . The threats imposed by private parties were not as such sufficient grounds to grant asylum . Since DATE NORP women no longer needed permission from their father to marry and divorces had become more common in GPE . The police had a special unit for investigating domestic violence and a shelter system was in place for women . It was nowadays possible for a woman to live alone in GPE . The applicant had not shown any reason why she could not obtain protection from the NORP authorities if needed . Even though the applicant had taken part in student protests , she had not been arrested and her name was not known to the NORP authorities . It was not credible that she would be persecuted in GPE for political reasons . Nor was it credible that she would be persecuted due to the fact that she was married to an NORP man . As to the residence permit , the ORG noted that the applicant ’s adoption had not been registered in GPE . In any event , the applicant was an adult and could not be considered a family member of her adoptive mother .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that ORG decision be quashed .

On DATE a ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) confirmed the applicant ’s adoption in GPE . It found that the applicant ’s aunt had taken care of her since she was DATE . Even when the aunt moved to GPE in DATE , she had been in close contact with the applicant . In DATE the adoption had been registered in GPE . The applicant ’s adoption could be confirmed in GPE only when she had become an adult .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on the same grounds as ORG . This decision was served to the applicant on DATE .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed further to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) requesting a stay on expulsion , which was not granted .

NORP On DATE the applicant was detained with a view to preparing her removal .

On DATE a ORG found , when deciding on the applicant ’s detention , that the applicant ’s state of health prevented her removal at that time but that the removal could be enforced when her condition allowed it . She was released from detention on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of a psychiatric hospital due to psychotic depression . She was admitted at least until DATE .

On DATE the police decided to detain the applicant again . However , this was not possible as the applicant was apparently still hospitalised .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in GPE . She was diagnosed as severely depressed , psychotic and suicidal . She was apparently hospitalised until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , requesting that the removal to GPE be stayed . On DATE the ORG indicated an interim measure under LAW and held that the applicant should not be removed to GPE in the light of her physical and mental condition . The Government was requested to submit to the ORG independent medical evidence of the applicant ’s fitness to travel prior to the implementation of any possible future attempt to remove her .

In DATE the Government informed the ORG about the applicant ’s situation . The applicant ’s health had improved during the autumn and DATE but had deteriorated again in DATE when the police had asked for a new psychiatric evaluation . Since then the applicant had not been able to eat and had been suffering from severe sleeping problems . Her eating problems and suicidal tendencies were likely to lead again to hospitalisation .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .

Section CARDINAL b of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utlänningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more Member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex of the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air , including , inter alia , an obligation for the Member States to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .