Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading punishment;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life);No violation of Article 13+14 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination;Discrimination);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in the northern GPE , “ GPE ” ( “ TRNC ” ) .

The application concerns the killing of the applicant 's husband , Mr PERSON , by unknown persons . The applicant made serious allegations about the involvement of NORP and/or “ GPE ” agents in the murder . She further complained of the inadequacy of the investigation launched by the “ GPE ” authorities into the death of PERSON . She contended that her husband had received death threats on several occasions because of his articles and political opinions . The applicant further complained that following the death of her husband she had been subjected to continuing practices of harassment , intimidation and discrimination by the “ GPE ” authorities . In this connection , she referred to several incidents .

The Government denied all allegations concerning the murder of PERSON . They maintained that the “ GPE ” authorities had immediately commenced an investigation into his death , and had conducted a thorough investigation . However , the perpetrators of the crime had not yet been identified . The Government also rejected the applicant 's allegations of harassment and submitted that these submissions were of mere speculation .

The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant 's husband and the alleged practices of harassment , intimidation and discrimination by the “ TRNC ” authorities are disputed between the parties .

The facts as submitted by the applicant are set out in LAW below . The facts as submitted by the ORG are contained in LAW .

A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in the LOC . The witness evidence taken by ORG at hearings counducted in GPE and GPE is summarised in Part B.

The applicant 's husband , Mr PERSON , was a NORP writer and journalist who was known for having written and published articles strongly criticising the policies and practices of ORG and the authorities of the “ GPE ” . He had always claimed that GPE should not be divided and that NORP and NORP should live in a united republic based on a pluralist democratic system .

Apart from his writing and journalism , Mr PERSON had also held various civil service posts in the past . DATE he was employed as the private secretary to PERSON , who later became the President of the “ GPE ” . In DATE Mr PERSON 's salary was suspended because he had wished to write an article about policies of Mr PERSON with which he disagreed .

At that time , Mr PERSON wanted the applicant 's husband , PERSON , to work for a radio station called Bayrak ( NORP ) , which was under the control of ORG . Mr PERSON refused to work for this radio station and was imprisoned without any charge or trial for DATE because of his refusal . After his release , he started to work for the Bayrak radio station in order for his salary to be restored .

NORP In DATE Mr Adalı was appointed to the post of Head of ORG . In DATE he was suspended , and was reinstated in DATE , when he was given the post of adviser in ORG of the “ TRNC ” . His career as a civil servant ended in DATE , when he was compelled to take early retirement at DATE .

During his public service and after his retirement Mr PERSON continued his career as a writer and journalist . Initially , he wrote under a pseudonym ( PERSON ) , because it was dangerous for him to express his political views about a unified GPE using his real name . In DATE he started using his real name . For DATE before his death he wrote regularly for PERSON , a left - wing newspaper .

The applicant and her husband received various threats intended to deter him from continuing to express his opinions . DATE and DATE unknown persons subjected the applicant 's husband to various forms of harassment . His house was attacked with machine guns and he received frequent threatening phone calls . Unknown people entered his house looking for copies of his articles , in order to be able to start criminal proceedings against him , as he was writing his articles under a pseudonym .

On DATE the PERSON newspaper printed an article by PERSON about an incident in which thieves had broken into a tomb in the monastery of PERSON and stolen various objects of cultural significance . He had written that the licence plates and the colour of the thieves ' cars had been noted , and the licence plates had been traced as belonging to CARDINAL members of ORG . After the publication of this article , the editor of the newspaper received a threatening phone call from the head of ORG . Mr PERSON also began to receive frequent threatening phone calls .

On DATE the PERSON newspaper published another article by Mr PERSON which strongly criticised the “ Mother Country- Child Country ” policy of ORG of GPE and of the “ TRNC ” .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant 's husband was shot and killed in front of his house in the “ NORP ” by unknown persons . The applicant was in GPE on TIME when he was killed . When she had telephoned her husband at TIME , he had told her that “ they ” had been threatening him . The “ NORP ” authorities refused to show the applicant her husband 's body . She was told by the doctor in charge of the mortuary , PERSON , that no post mortem had been carried out , although the body had been rayed . She has never been allowed to see the rays . The applicant was informed for the first time that a post mortem had been carried out in the Government 's observations of DATE , and a copy of the post - mortem report was provided .

The applicant has attempted to investigate her husband 's death herself . She found out from her neighbours that shortly before her husband 's death , a black car had been parked in the street . This black car was of the same model as the car driven by PERSON , a retired police officer who had become friendly with the family in DATE of the applicant 's husband 's life . This retired police officer PERSON did not appear for DATE following the death of her husband .

The applicant 's neighbours told her that around the time her husband had been shot they had heard him begging his killers for his life . They said that they had heard a man saying that the applicant 's husband deserved to die . The neighbours also informed her that the electric lighting in the street outside the applicant 's home had gone out at TIME , causing the area to be in darkness , and had not been switched on again until shortly after Mr Adalı had been shot . The applicant also learned from her neighbours that within TIME of the shooting CARDINAL military cars had arrived and had sealed off the area , and that the “ special teams ” of police officers had threatened the neighbours with guns to force them to go back inside their houses .

On DATE the pro-“TRNC ” government newspaper ORG reported that it had received a statement from a fascist group calling itself ORG , claiming that it had killed PERSON . According to the applicant , this group is linked to the so - called “ ORG ” , the youth movement of ORG . They have close and long - standing links with members of the NORP armed forces , the NORP police , ORG ( ORG ) , the NORP paramilitary apparatus , NORP ministers and the NORP mafia .

DATE after her husband was killed , the applicant 's family received a telephone call from an anonymous caller , a woman , who gave the names of CARDINAL individuals who she said were responsible for Mr PERSON 's murder , a Mr PERSON and a man whose first name was PERSON . The applicant informed the police about this phone call but the police refused to start an investigation , stating that this woman was known for making false allegations to the police . The applicant discovered that PERSON was a member of the “ ORG ” and of ORG and that the security forces were paying him . PERSON was a colonel in the NORP armed forces on the island .

On DATE the applicant 's children arranged a meeting with the President of the “ NORP ” . They requested him to take steps to ensure that effective action was taken to find their father 's killer , and the President promised to take effective action .

On DATE the applicant requested President PERSON that the status of martyr be awarded to PERSON . On DATE her request was rejected .

There have also been repeated allegations in the press that a man called PERSON , an extreme right - wing activist who was linked with the “ ORG ” and who was allegedly instructed by some NORP officials to kill people suspected of being ORG members , was involved in the death of the applicant 's husband . According to the applicant 's personal information , PERSON had arrived in the “ GPE ” at DATE under a false identity .

She contends that in DATE she received an invitation from southern GPE to receive an award in her husband 's name . However , DATE before the meeting she received a phone call from an official in the “ ORG ” and , being scared by this phone call , she decided not to attend the meeting .

NORP In DATE the applicant went to see the security forces ' commander , Mr PERSON , and complained that the security forces were not investigating her husband 's death properly .

On DATE the ORG newspaper published a letter signed by the head of the “ ORG ” , which contained a threat that left - wing journalists and writers would be killed like the applicant 's husband . The applicant gave copies of this article to the police to investigate , but she did not receive any response .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the security forces ' commander , Mr PERSON , pointing out that DATE had passed since her husband 's assassination and that the perpetrators had not yet been found , but she did not receive any concrete information in reply .

Plain - clothes policemen have constantly been following the applicant and her daughter ; their phones had been tapped and their correspondence monitored . They have received anonymous phone calls and their telephone and fax line has been disconnected from time to time . In this connection , she submits that she received very few letters of condolence following her husband 's death . She maintains that the water supply of her house has been cut on several occasions and she does not believe that this was due to technical faults as it has been alleged by ORG .

The “ TRNC ” regime also refused to register an association , which is called “ ORG ” , whose aims include the furthering of the ideas of PERSON regarding peace , democracy , human rights and freedom .

NORP The applicant also requested permission from the authorities to keep her husband 's press card that entitled her to certain privileges , such as discounts for air fares . However , this request was also rejected .

On DATE the public authorities prevented the applicant and her daughter from attending a meeting organised by a radio station in southern GPE , by not giving them permission to cross over to that side .

On the anniversary of PERSON death the applicant organised a ceremony to commemorate her husband . On DATE of the ceremony , the municipality brought in digging machines to dig up the road just under their street . The applicant also submits that a picture of PERSON , which was displayed in their garden , was stolen .

On DATE she heard CARDINAL gunshots outside her home . Subsequently , before she left for GPE , a real - estate agent came to meet her daughter and told her to sell their house and accept any offer he would make to buy it . The applicant believes that this real - estate agent was sent by the “ NORP ” authorities to persuade her to leave the country .

The applicant further contends that following her application to ORG , her daughter was dismissed from her post in a bank , and that although she was ranked CARDINALth among CARDINAL candidates in the examination to become a civil servant , she was not given a post .

NORP Moreover , the applicant 's representatives informed the Court on DATE that on DATE the applicant had a meeting with Professor PERSON about her application before the Court . Professor PERSON , who is a former agent of ORG in the cases before ORG , allegedly told the applicant that she might be assassinated if she won her case before the ORG and that her daughter 's scholarship would be discontinued . However , the applicant submitted in her oral evidence to ORG that Professor PERSON had asked about the details of the case and that he had told her that he could win the case for her since , according to him , her lawyers were not very good . As she considered that he was connected to the authorities of the “ GPE ” or of GPE , she did not want to hand her case over to him .

The Government submit that at the time when PERSON was employed as the private secretary of President PERSON , he requested the President 's support to evade military service . His request was rejected and Mr Adalı had to do his military service , which consisted of a short period of basic training and a remaining period of office work , which he performed at the Bayrak radio station . When he completed his military service , he was appointed as ORG . In DATE he was removed from his post by an instrument signed by the minister responsible , the Prime Minister and the Head of ORG pursuant to LAW , and was appointed to ORG , Defence and Tourism as an adviser . Mr Adalı initiated proceedings in ORG and requested the annulment of this action . Eventually , the courts accepted Mr PERSON 's arguments and he was reinstated in his post in DATE .

The Government maintain that Mr Adalı pursued his career as a writer and a newspaper journalist while he was in the public service . He used to write under the pseudonym of “ PERSON ” not because it was dangerous for him to express his political views , but because there was a legal provision that civil servants should not be involved in DATE politics and should act impartially . The vast majority of NORP Cypriots did not agree with the views expressed by PERSON .

The Government submit that on DATE at TIME a tip - off was received at the communications section of ORG on telephone no . CARDINAL from an unidentified caller , stating that there had been a murder at the point where FAC crosses FAC .

Following the tip - off CARDINAL ORG belonging to the special unit ( çevik birlik ) of the nearby LOC police station , attached to ORG , came to the scene of incident , within a short time . They were followed by police vehicles bringing ORG personnel from the Yenişehir and ORG . The immediate area of the incident and the surrounding area were cordoned off by the police officers who started to work in order to identify the culprits . The Government underline the fact that all the vehicles used by the police and those by the NORP security forces are of a similar type and colour .

The investigation began immediately after the death of PERSON . TIME of DATE , at TIME , police officers brought a doctor from ORG to the scene of the incident . The doctor examined the body and established that Mr Adalı had died at the scene of the incident as a result of CARDINAL bullet wounds in the areas of his left temple and left shoulder . A photographic fingerprinting officer took photographs of the scene of the incident . A sketch map of the scene of the incident indicated the positions of the empty cartridges . The body was then sent to ORG morgue for the purposes of an autopsy . Mr PERSON 's corpse was shown to his brother - in - law by police officers at the hospital morgue .

On DATE police officers drew up a list of residents , including the applicant 's neighbours , in the PERSON and PERSON streets . On DATE statements were taken from CARDINAL persons as to their knowledge about the incident .

Following the autopsy carried out by PERSON on DATE , the cause of death was identified as dismemberment of the internal organs , internal haemorrhage and supdural bleeding at the head as a result of the wounds sustained by being shot with a firearm . After the autopsy , the blue - coloured shirt , striped T - shirt , pair of slippers and pair of glasses which Mr Adalı was wearing were taken as evidence .

DATE further statements were taken from potential witnesses , including members of the applicant 's family .

The investigation report of CARDINAL DATE indicated persons who were not at home on TIME the impugned incident and their whereabouts at that time .

On DATE the Deputy to the Head of ORG in Lefkoşa sent a bloodied T - shirt and a shirt belonging to Mr Adalı to ORG for an analysis of the blood .

On DATE in an article , which appeared in the newspaper ORG under the headline “ The murderer was someone he knew ” , it was alleged that DATE before the murder , PERSON from ORG had made statements in the FAC newspaper such as “ PERSON must be destroyed like a dog by the council ” .

On DATE , statements were taken by the police officers from PERSON , a columnist who used the pen - name “ PERSON ” . In his statements the latter denied that he had made such allegations and claimed that he had never written for LOC newspaper and that he was not a member of ORG .

The authorities investigated the applicant 's allegations that at the time her husband was killed the street lights at the scene of the incident and in the vicinity were switched off . Subsequent to the enquiries made by Mr PERSON , an equipment engineer at ORG , it was established that the electricity for the street lights at the place of the incident and in the nearby FAC , ORG and Altınova Streets was provided by the “ ORG ” power supply and not from the power supply of ORG as alleged by the applicant . After statements had been taken from the residents in the area , it was established that there had not been a power cut on TIME of Mr PERSON 's murder and that even if , as alleged by the applicant , the power supply in the courtyard of ORG had been interfered with in order to affect the street lamps , it would not have been possible to switch off the street lights at the scene of the incident or in the streets in the vicinity .

A ballistic examination was also carried out on the used cartridges . Following the examination of CARDINAL used cartridges , the ballistics report of DATE stated that they were CARDINAL-mm PERSON - type cartridges that had been fired from CARDINAL single gun at close range . It was further noted in the report that the cartridges and the bullet cores were not linked to any other cartridges or bullet cores that had hitherto been found within the territory of the “ GPE ” or recorded in the files on murders by unknown assailants .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to ORG in GPE , stating that she and her family had been disturbed by calls made from a certain number . At the applicant 's request a tapping device was put on to the applicant 's telephone line ( no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a call was received from the telephone number CARDINAL , and the authorities found out that the number belonged to a certain Mr ORG , whose telephone line was then cut off . Following a request made by a person named GPE , the telephone was reconnected on payment of a certain amount of money . The owner of the telephone line , PERSON ORG , sent a complaint to ORG on DATE stating that he had never dialled the applicant 's number . Mr ORG requested an inquiry to be made into this disturbance . Thus , on DATE , an assistant police inspector took statements from the head of the technical section at ORG to clear this matter up .

On DATE the police assistant inspector in charge of the investigation , PERSON , concluded his report on the investigation . In his concluding remarks , the inspector stated that it had not been possible to identify the murderer(s ) and that he could not therefore reach a positive result for the investigation .

On DATE the case was referred to the Attorney - General of the “ NORP ” .

On DATE the Attorney - General 's office advised that the matter should be referred to a coroner for an inquest .

On DATE the GPE Police Chief informed ORG of the results of the investigation into the killing of PERSON . He transmitted the full investigation file containing the statements of the witnesses and the investigating officer 's report .

The hearing in PERSON before the coroner commenced on DATE and , following statements from witnesses , was concluded on DATE with the delivery of the verdict . The coroner found that PERSON had been shot dead on DATE by unidentified person(s ) , and that his death had been caused by organ dismemberment , internal haemorrhage and subdural haemorrhage in the head . The coroner stated that the murderer(s ) of the deceased could not be identified and declared the case closed .

The Government maintain that the allegation about the involvement of PERSON is no more than speculation . In this connection , they submit the “ GPE ” records according to which PERSON last visit to GPE had been DATE and DATE . The Government emphasise the fact that PERSON was not in the “ GPE ” on DATE , when PERSON was killed .

DATE . The Government explain that public opinion was supportive of the loss of the applicant 's husband . Public statements were made by the President , the Speaker of ORG , the Prime Minister and political party leaders , condemning the killing and calling for the assailants to be found . Moreover , Mr PERSON 's name was assigned to the street where he lived by ORG .

As regards the events that occurred after the death of the applicant 's husband , the Government maintain that most of the applicant 's allegations are highly exaggerated . In this connection , the Government note in the first place that the applicant herself asked for protection from the “ TRNC ” authorities and was told that she was already under the protection of plain - clothes policemen .

The Government further submit that in order to register a foundation in the name of PERSON , an application should be made to the competent court and a court order should be obtained . On DATE ORG ordered the registration of ORG after the applicant and CARDINAL other persons chose to follow the correct procedure .

In respect of the refusal of the applicant 's request to cross to the southern part of GPE , the ORG submit that the crossings of FAC to and from FAC between the “ GPE ” and southern GPE are regulated by the rules and regulations of the “ LOC ” and crossings are subject to restrictions due to security precautions . The “ GPE ” authorities have the right to suspend permission to cross the border .

The Government further submit that the ORG incident which occurred in DATE was a security operation . There was no damage to the icons or to the archaeology museum . Upon receipt of intelligence reports to the effect that illegal arms had been hidden in the tomb , the security forces conducted an operation there . The Government state that ORG was not involved in the incident .

The Government explain that pursuant to Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL providing for aid to families of martyrs and victims of events , a martyr denotes a person who lost his life in the performance of duties assigned to him by lawful orders , in the protection of the rights of the “ TRNC ” in the struggle against illegal acts .

NORP Moreover , the Government contend that the applicant 's daughter was dismissed from her post in the Erbank on account of disorderly conduct on DATE . The application was communicated to the Government on DATE ; therefore , as the dismissal of the applicant 's daughter occurred before the communication of the application , this incident can not be attributed to the authorities . The ORG also state that the applicant 's daughter had ranked DATE ( not CARDINALth as alleged ) amongst CARDINAL candidates in the examination to become a civil servant . The result of this exam was published in ORG dated DATE .

The facts of the case being in dispute between the parties , the ORG conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties . In this connection , CARDINAL delegates of the ORG took oral evidence from the applicant on DATE . CARDINAL further witnesses were heard by the Delegates on CARDINAL and DATE in GPE , GPE . The evidence given by the witnesses may be summarised as follows .

DATE . PERSON was born in DATE . In addition to her earlier submissions she claimed the following .

Prior to the events in question , Mr PERSON writing led to his being prosecuted by the authorities on CARDINAL occasion . On DATE police officers searched their house because her husband had allegedly insulted President PERSON in an article . The search warrant was signed by PERSON , a judge in GPE . The authorities wanted to find out the identity of the author of the article “ ORG ” ( the mad on the minaret ) and whether it was PERSON who was using the name ORG . The prosecution was subsequently discontinued for lack of evidence . None of the books and articles written by the applicant 's husband were ever seized or confiscated .

No further incidents occurred until after her husband 's article on LOC monastery was published in GPE on DATE . On DATE of publication the head of ORG , ORG , telephoned the newspaper and made threats , which were indirectly aimed at her husband because he was the author of the article . Following ORG incident Mr PERSON was removed from his post . He left GPE DATE before the killing of the applicant 's husband and returned DATE . He was currently in charge of the security services .

ORG was an organisation initially established in order to help the people and to assist them in defending themselves in the event of disasters such as a fire or the outbreak of war . People who were no longer eligible on grounds of age belonged to the ORG and were called into service if there was an emergency . A commander belonging to the military stood at the head of the organisation . The applicant did not accept that it was a civil organisation – she was of the opinion that it was a special and secret organisation attached to the Prime Minister .

Whilst in his post as Director General of Population Issues , her husband had been a senior manager within ORG . The applicant only learned about this after her husband 's death , when amongst his papers she found the DATE decision of ORG appointing him .

PERSON , a member of ORG , wrote to PERSON threatening PERSON . PERSON also had an article , entitled “ The Red Disease ” , published in the pro - Government newspaper FAC in which he wrote , using the pseudonym PERSON , that leftist people should be shot like stray dogs by municipal officials . It was true that in her interview with the PERSON newspaper the applicant had said that , in “ The Red Disease ” , PERSON had written that her husband should be put down like a dog . This was in any event how she had interpreted the article .

In DATE , when the applicant was going through her husband 's papers , she discovered a letter , dated DATE , written to her husband by the fascist NORP Thought ORG and signed by Mr Arıklı . She perceived its contents as threatening .

It was not only PERSON which received threats : the applicant 's husband himself also received many anonymous letters , saying that he would be killed in a DATE 's time , and threatening telephone calls . As he was a very proud person , he did not report these threats to the police , although he did mention them in an article of DATE . Neither did he try to have the telephone calls traced .

On DATE , DATE of her husband 's killing , the applicant was in GPE to celebrate their daughter 's birthday . Her husband had not accompanied them for financial reasons . She spoke to him by telephone at TIME , TIME before he was killed . After her husband 's death , she was unable to see his body . Her brother - in - law did see the body .

Being of the firm belief that her husband had been assassinated by Government agents , the applicant herself conducted an investigation . She handed the results of this investigation , in the form of a written statement , to the police chief PERSON . She was not given a copy of it .

As regards her investigation , the applicant said that , as time went by , her neighbours - the persons living around her and across the street from her- started giving her information . For example , PERSON told her that she had seen a black PERSON car driving rapidly to ORG headquarters DATE . PERSON lived on Şehit Ecvet FAC , which ran parallel to the street where the applicant and her husband were living . It was also the street where ORG was based . None of the inhabitants of GPE Ecvet FAC were interviewed by the police . The police said that these people had not been at home when the incident had occurred , but this was not true .

Other neighbours , PERSON and PERSON , mentioned a dark red PERSON and a dark - coloured car respectively .

Based on these statements , the applicant formed the opinion that the car had been a black PERSON , although she acknowledged that it might also have been a PERSON since PERSON and PERSON cars looked the same .

PERSON also told her that the QUANTITY lamp - posts on FAC , around the applicant 's house , had been switched off at TIME PERSON did not see when they had come back on , but she did notice that they were on after the murder . This was something that used to – and continued to - happen quite frequently . Only the lights around the applicant 's house would be off and the applicant and her family would be left in darkness . A sibling of the applicant had explained to her that this was done by removing the fuse from the fuse - box in an individual lamppost .

CARDINAL other neighbours – NORP students , living in the basement of the building next door – refused to speak to the applicant and left GPE DATE after the killing . However , they did gave a statement to the police .

PERSON , a DATE child of a neighbour , was one of the first persons to find the body of the applicant 's husband . He was so afraid that he had still not spoken to the applicant . He had made a statement to the police , but it was not complete : the boy did not tell the police that he had seen a car passing at great speed . The applicant 's daughter found that information from him as she used to take him to school . The applicant was almost certain that the boy must have seen the make of the car given that , together with CARDINAL other boys , he was the first to find the body .

PERSON and her mother lived across from the applicant 's . They were at home on TIME of the murder , saw a black PERSON car without licence plates and heard shots , but the police had never asked them for statements . According to the police , PERSON and her mother had not been at home that night .

Following the murder , the applicant found a packet of dried nuts bought from the shop of PERSON in her house . Mr PERSON told the applicant that her husband had bought the nuts and that he had been killed afterwards . He said that it was because of this that he had been the one who had informed the family of the murder : he had telephoned the father - in - law of the applicant 's sister . In actual fact , Mr PERSON was a plain - clothes policeman and the father - in - law was his superior . After the applicant 's husband had died , Mr PERSON closed up his shop and moved to the village of GPE . The applicant believed that Mr PERSON was involved in the incident because he did not come to speak to her and the police did not take a statement from him . In addition , her husband never used to buy nuts from his shop . The applicant asked the authorities to take a statement from Mr GPE , but to no avail . She first made this request at a secret meeting in DATE with PERSON , commander of the security forces , and PERSON , the chief of police , which took place in the latter 's office . She subsequently , and just as unsuccessfully , put the same request to many other authorities .

PERSON was a friend of the applicant 's husband . They met DATE before PERSON death and would occasionally meet to pursue cultural activities . DATE before the murder , their friendship intensified . Mr PERSON often came to visit the applicant 's husband and brought him classified documents , for example about the police . Her husband used these documents in his articles . As a result , the head of the security forces was removed from his post after those articles were published . DATE before the killing , Mr PERSON came to the applicant 's house in a black PERSON car . He said that it belonged to a friend . Apart from her mother , PERSON and his wife were the only persons who knew that the applicant was going to GPE .

The applicant suspected that Mr PERSON was working for the intelligence services and that he had been using her husband . On TIME when she was questioned , PERSON told her that Mr PERSON was a good person , and insinuated that Mr PERSON had nothing to do with the murder . As the applicant felt Mr PERSON to be prejudiced she did not tell him about Mr PERSON handing documents to her husband , but she did mention it in the article in PERSON .

Mr Sayıl did not come to the applicant 's house for DATE after the murder ; and then he only came because the applicant asked him to . On that occasion he denied having brought a booklet to the applicant 's husband on TIME of the murder . This booklet , which had been left in front of her husband 's office , contained photographs of CARDINAL journalists who had been assassinated in DATE . A photocopied picture of her husband had been superimposed on it . DATE , the applicant found the photograph from which the copy had been made upside down in an album amongst her husband 's books . She also found out that a letter , saying that certain journalists had been killed , had been photocopied at a shop where Mr ORG 's brother was working .

Shortly after the applicant 's husband had been killed , a large number of police officers went into her house , ostensibly to guarantee the security of the house because , according to them , they found the door open and the television switched on . However , they turned everything upside down in the house and it took the applicant and her family DATE to restore order amongst her husband 's books and papers . The police were accompanied by the muhtar , PERSON . The muhtar was never questioned by the police .

Subsequently , both PERSON and CARDINAL PERSON , who was a colonel , brought a court action against the applicant because of an article that had appeared in PERSON . This is how the applicant found out about PERSON 's surname . The police never took a statement from this individual , although PERSON was interviewed by them . A statement was similarly not taken from PERSON who had dinner with PERSON on TIME of the murder , according to the latter 's statement . Mr Asilhan was now an adviser to the commander of the security forces .

The applicant later found out that PERSON had been injured in an incident when his car had been shot at . When he was taken to hospital by local people , PERSON shouted that an attempt had been made to kill him because he had killed PERSON . The local people informed the police , but were told to forget about it . PERSON was subsequently taken to a military hospital in GPE where all his expenses were paid . Upon his return to GPE he became the private secretary of Mr PERSON .

Following the murder , the applicant spoke to Dr PERSON , who told her that no post mortem had been carried out but that her husband 's body had been rayed . She was unable to find out whether this was true until , after she had lodged her application with ORG , she obtained a copy of the post mortem report together with the ORG 's observations . PERSON did not give her the death certificate , in which the cause of death was stated as internal bleeding , until DATE after the incident .

NORP The applicant 's allegation to the effect that PERSON was involved in her husband 's murder was not just based on newspaper reports . In DATE she had a meeting with PERSON , a member of ORG and chairman of ORG committee . In DATE and in DATE the ORG of the “ TRNC ” established its own GPE investigation committee , suspecting that there was a connection between PERSON GPE and the murder of PERSON . The applicant made statements to these committees , but did not have transcripts of her statements . The committees came to the conclusion that Mr PERSON had visited GPE , using false identities , on many occasions and that around the time of her husband 's murder he had been staying at the ORG hotel , with his expenses being paid by the army . When Mr PERSON died in a car accident in DATE , an Uzi was retrieved from the car . It is the applicant 's opinion that this Uzi , which had gone missing from the NORP police , was the weapon with which her husband had been shot .

Although the roads in the vicinity of the applicant 's house were very quickly closed off by the military after the shooting of her husband , the roads in the outlying area , and especially those leading to the airport , were not . A taxi driver told the applicant that he had taken PERSON to the airport directly after the murder had been committed .

The applicant believed that Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , PERSON and Mr Çatli were Government agents , that they had acted collectively and as a team and that they had killed her husband . She did not accept that he might have been killed by a private individual who was angered at her husband 's writings . At the secret meeting with PERSON and PERSON in DATE , she informed them of her suspicions . Mr PERSON said that he had never heard the name of Mr PERSON before but that he would follow it up .

The applicant was of the opinion that the security forces were opposed to an effective investigation being carried out into the killing of her husband . Shortly after the killing , PERSON , who was in charge of the judicial investigation , wanted to meet with her at her sister - in - law 's house . The applicant refused because she was afraid at that time . Later on , Mr Öztümen told the applicant 's sister - in - law that he had been given instructions by the security forces not to conduct the investigation effectively and that she , the applicant , should not follow it up either .

The applicant had been subjected to constant harassment after the death of her husband . She received threatening telephone calls . When she informed the police about this in DATE , they managed to trace a call to CARDINAL ORG who lived CARDINAL streets away . The applicant had never met PERSON ORG , but she knew that he belonged to ORG . Mr PERSON was let off after paying a miserly fine . The telephone calls continued . The applicant bought an indicator to show the number of incoming telephone calls . When she received a telephone call from a man calling himself PERSON who said that he was coming over to determine her fate , she informed the police as the indicator had shown the number that had been used . The police did nothing .

One evening , as the applicant was returning home after a meeting and stopped off at a neighbour 's , she was told that there was somebody walking around in her garden . It turned out to be a neighbour and he was near the water tank . He did not explain what he was doing there . The applicant 's sister - in - law , a chemist , advised her to change the water , which they did . DATE , the applicant found that her dog was dead . Its ribs and CARDINAL of its legs were broken . The veterinary surgeon who conducted the autopsy said that the dog had not been run over by a car , because of a lack of tyre marks on the place where it was found . Her dog had been severely tortured elsewhere and then taken to her garden .

Also , the applicant 's water and electricity were regularly cut off . Mail addressed to her was either not delivered or was opened . Her telephone calls were monitored . The applicant 's complaints to the police , both orally and in writing , about this harassment led to nothing .

The application to establish ORG , which CARDINAL democratic organisations wanted to set up in order to continue PERSON work , was initially refused . The registration fee was increased fivefold and the applicant sold a plot of land to raise the money . Also , the charter of the ORG had to be changed . For example , the phrase “ democratic activities ” was replaced by “ cultural activities ” .

On DATE the applicant met with Professor PERSON Çağlar , after he had asked her to send him the details of the case . However , he became cross when the documents which the applicant showed him did not include the agreements which she had concluded with her lawyers . He told her that her lawyers were not very good and that he could win the case for her . As she considered that he was connected to the authorities of the “ GPE ” or of GPE , she did not want to hand her case over to him .

In DATE , her daughter was told she would get a job in the public sector but this did not materialise . She then found a job in a bank . However , her contract of employment was terminated from DATE to the next , allegedly for disciplinary reasons but in reality it was because of the applicant had lodged an application with the ORG . Also , her daughter was standing as a candidate for a party different from the party for which the owner of the bank was standing as a candidate . Her daughter wrote to , and subsequently met , President PERSON about this matter . The President wrote out a cheque for the equivalent of DATE wages and told her to go home . Recently her daughter 's scholarship had been discontinued .

On DATE the applicant met with President PERSON . At the presidential palace she met a man with the first name ORG , who was the son - in - law of the police commander PERSON . ORG told her that unless she withdrew her application she would be arrested .

The witness was born in DATE . In DATE he was an assistant inspector at the judicial branch of the NORP police headquarters . Mr PERSON , who was his superior , was the head of the judicial branch , attached to the general police headquarters . Mr PERSON was the chief of NORP police station . In an investigation , the local police station would report to the judicial branch and the judicial branch would report to the head of the judicial branch .

The witness was responsible for the investigation into the killing of PERSON . He started his investigation at TIME on DATE . He had known Mr Adalı by name from the articles he wrote for PERSON , but he had never met him . Although it was possible that Mr PERSON had been killed because of his activities as a journalist , this was not the only line of inquiry he pursued : he also looked into Mr Adalı 's personal life and his personality .

Not having been on duty on TIME DATE , The witness did not go to the scene of the crime that night . He was only informed of the murder the following TIME and received a short briefing from Mr Öztümen as to what had been done TIME .

Chief Inspector PERSON and his colleagues from the rapid response unit had been the first police officers to arrive at the scene . Whilst out on patrol duty , they heard shots and went to the location of the incident . PERSON informed the general police headquarters . Upon hearing the shots , local people also alerted the police switchboard . Not long afterwards , PERSON and PERSON , the assistant chief of police PERSON and police sergeant PERSON , as well as officers working at the judicial branch and the LOC police station , arrived at the site . This constituted normal police attendance in a murder case .

NORP The witness did not consider it necessary to take a statement from PERSON because he , PERSON , had been briefed by PERSON , who had arrived at the scene so soon after PERSON that the latter would not have seen anything different from PERSON . If PERSON had seen or heard anything , he would have told PERSON . In DATE , however , Mr PERSON took a statement from PERSON in order to show that , contrary to what the applicant alleged in her application to the ORG , no military vehicles were present at the scene and that the vehicles of the rapid response unit resembled military vehicles .

The witness was further told by PERSON that after the discovery of Mr Adalı 's body , police had entered the applicant 's house , together with the muhtar , in order to check if any of the family members were at home and if they were safe , and also to see if any clues about the murder could be found there . The door of the house was open , the television was switched on and a table and chairs were on the veranda . Nothing untoward was found . No search as such of the house was carried out , merely a visual inspection . It was not considered necessary to take a statement from the muhtar , as no evidence was found in the house and neither did anything untoward happen . No fingerprint examination was carried out at the house , given that the incident had taken place outside the house and the interior of the house was thus not a crime scene . In addition , the applicant herself said that when she had spoken to her husband by telephone at TIME , her husband had told her that he had not received any visitors . CARDINAL or CARDINAL neighbours stated that when they had passed the house TIME , there had been no one in there .

From the statements taken by PERSON and his colleagues directly after the incident , it appeared that a dark - coloured car with many lights at the rear had been seen . Its make or registration was not known , and no one had mentioned to the witness that it had been a PERSON car . A search was carried out that night but the vehicle , which had left the scene at high speed , was not found . The witness spoke to PERSON the day after her initial statement had been taken by CARDINAL of his colleagues . She said that she did not know what make or colour the car was . He did not draw up a written report of this statement , given that it did not contain any positive indications . The witness disputed that at the inquest , PERSON had given evidence to the effect that the car was GPE red and that it might have been a PERSON .

The witness started his investigation on TIME after the incident by taking statements , together with police colleagues , from the people living in the area of the scene of the crime . This work had already commenced TIME , so that in the end statements were taken from all persons who had been at home at the time of the incident , regardless of whether or not they had any information to offer . It was the local police officers , who knew the area and its inhabitants well , who established who had been at home and who had not . Since no statement was taken from PERSON and her mother , they must have been out when the offence had taken place . The witness knew nothing about the applicant asking PERSON , commander of the security forces , to have the NORP interviewed .

The witness took the applicant 's statement on TIME CARDINAL July , after she had returned from GPE . The applicant expressed her opinion that the killing of her husband was connected to the articles he had written about the GPE incident . According to the applicant , the head of ORG , PERSON , had been annoyed by these articles and had telephoned PERSON making threats against her husband . The applicant persistently claimed that the murder had been arranged by the administration of ORG and that she held the head of that organisation responsible . She also aired these suspicions in her interview with PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL in the Appendix ) . Mr PERSON and mr Öztümen were also aware of these allegations . However , not even the smallest piece of evidence could be found to support the allegation . For that reason no statements were taken from the head or other persons belonging to ORG . In any event , a statement could not be taken from Mr PERSON because he had gone abroad . Mr PERSON returned in DATE as the commander of the security forces .

Similarly , the applicant alleged that on TIME of the murder the street lighting in FAC , where she lived , had been switched off at the transformer substation in ORG . This matter was examined and it was established through the taking of statements that the street lights had been on that night . It was further established that power for the lighting in the street was supplied from a different substation .

NORP In her statement to PERSON , the applicant also mentioned PERSON , according to whom Mr PERSON 's killing was a politically motivated murder . PERSON went to see Mr Cavit An , once at his house and once at the clinic where he worked . Mr Cavit An was unable to provide any useful information as to the secret cells allegedly involved in the murder .

The witness had not heard that the applicant had been refused permission to see her husband 's body . He was not given any instructions to the effect that , because the applicant had given critical newspaper interviews , he should not give her a copy of the post mortem and ballistic reports . In any event , in order to obtain a copy of such documents , permission from the Attorney - General 's office was required .

The witness took CARDINAL statements from PERSON . He first interviewed Mr PERSON because he had been informed that Mr PERSON was a close friend of Mr Adalı . However , in the light of articles that subsequently appeared in newspapers he felt the need to take a more in - depth statement from Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON attended the mevlit ( religious ceremony ) held at the applicant 's house DATE after the killing . He did not go to the house subsequently because of the allegations which the applicant had made against him .

The weapon which was used to kill Mr Adalı could not be identified . A number of spent cartridges were found at the site from which it could be established that they had been fired by a CARDINAL PERSON firearm , but the make of the weapon remained unknown . Ballistic tests were carried out both in GPE and in the “ TRNC ” to see if the bullets had been fired by a weapon known to the authorities , but to no avail . These tests included comparisons of sample cartridges held in the archives of the “ TRNC ” of all the weapons registered in the names of persons in the “ TRNC ” , such as the weapon belonging to Mr PERSON .

CARDINAL of the spent cartridges were kept in the archives in GPE . The witness therefore assumed that the NORP authorities had examined whether they had been fired by the QUANTITY found in the car in which PERSON GPE had died in GPE in DATE . He had not been informed of any result . In any event , the investigation showed that Mr PERSON had not been in the “ TRNC ” at the time of the incident as there were no records of him entering the “ TRNC ” at the relevant time under any of the identities which Mr GPE was known to have used . He had visited the island , under the name of PERSON , in DATE and in DATE . It was not possible to enter the “ GPE ” without an entry record being made by the immigration authorities .

The applicant did not inform the witness or any other police officers that she had received an anonymous telephone call from a woman alleging that PERSON and a man with the first name PERSON had been involved in the killing . However , some time after the incident , a woman , who could not be identified , telephoned Mr PERSON , the then head of the judicial branch , and gave him the name of ORG . Mr PERSON passed the name on to Mr PERSON , who proceeded to take Mr GPE 's statement .

On TIME of the incident , PERSON had dinner with PERSON , the then assistant chief of police , in GPE . Although no statement was taken from Mr Asılhan at that time , Mr PERSON did speak to Mr Asılhan about the matter , and Mr PERSON said that Police Officer Muharrem Göç had seen the CARDINAL men having dinner . Mr Göç subsequently confirmed this in a statement to Mr PERSON . In any event , Mr PERSON himself also confirmed that he had had dinner with PERSON NORP on DATE when his statement was taken in DATE .

The witness did not consider it likely that PERSON could have been involved in the killing after he had left the restaurant because such an assassination required preparation . PERSON said that he had gone straight home after dropping off Mr PERSON and as Mr PERSON had not formed the opinion that PERSON was speaking anything other than the truth , this matter was not examined further .

According to the witness , Mr DATE a self - employed ironmonger – had no relations with the police or the security forces . He checked to see whether PERSON had a criminal record as there was an allegation that he had been acquitted on a murder charge , but there was no information that he had ever committed any criminal offence .

The witness further examined whether PERSON had been admitted to hospital with burns , as was alleged by the applicant in her application to the ORG . He established that PERSON had spent DATE in hospital in DATE for broken ribs . PERSON was not asked about this because his stay in hospital did not coincide with the murder of Mr Adalı . In any event , had the incident alleged by the applicant really occurred – namely that PERSON opened fire inside the hospital , saying “ I killed PERSON ” – it would have been reported to the police .

The information reported to the police was only connected to Mr Demirci and did not mention PERSON . However , at some point there was a report in the press to the effect that PERSON had committed the murder along with PERSON . PERSON statement was not taken at that time given that PERSON whereabouts on TIME of the murder had already been established and it was thus known that PERSON had not been in contact with PERSON that night .

The witness nonetheless took a statement from PERSON on DATE , but only because his name had come up in the application to ORG there was not a shred of evidence or any indication that he had been involved in the killing .

NORP The witness took a statement from PERSON on DATE , also because his name was mentioned in the application to the ORG . Prior to that , PERSON was not aware that Mr GPE might possess information relating to the incident : Mr GPE 's shop was in GPE Ecvet FAC , far from the scene of the crime . Mr GPE told him that Mr Adalı had come to his shop at TIME to buy some dried fruit and nuts , as he used to do from time to time . Mr GPE said that he had not telephoned anybody to inform the applicant 's family of the death of Mr Adalı . The witness could not check the veracity of this claim , as he did not have the name of the person whom Mr GPE was alleged to have telephoned . The witness could not remember whether he had been informed that , according to the applicant , Mr GPE had telephoned the father of her sister - in - law . Mr ORG further stated that he had not received any telephone calls from the applicant .

PERSON was requested by the Agent of the respondent Government , Professor PERSON , to carry out an investigation in connection with the allegations made by the applicant to ORG . He received no specific instructions , only a document containing the applicant 's allegations .

Apart from taking statements from a number of persons , Mr ORG also took photographs of a PERSON , a PERSON and a ORG car so that they could be compared . He further investigated the applicant 's claim that PERSON Demirci 's azure blue car had been repainted black . It was established that the car 's colour was its original blue .

The witness was born in DATE . He is currently the chief of police in PERSON . At the time of the impugned incident , he was the head of the judicial branch at ORG in GPE ( GPE ) . He supervised the investigation into the killing of Mr Adalı . He was the supervisor of PERSON and PERSON . He was informed about the incident by the switchboard and arrived at the scene of the incident within TIME . According to the procedure on conducting investigations , the person who arrives at the scene of the incident must not touch anything and must take security precautions until those in charge arrive . There was a corpse and its position had to be established by his supervisees . When he arrived Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were already at the scene of the crime . The officers marked and numbered the empty cartridges and cordoned the area off with a view to preventing unauthorised persons from walking around . A sketch - map of the scene of the incident was drawn up and a team was set up in order to take testimonies from people nearly .

The witness entered Mr Adalı 's house TIME after the incident , along with PERSON , a close relative of the deceased and the local muhtar . The door was open and the TV was on . They looked for a document , an item or anything that could have been the cause of the incident . They did not remove any object . Mr PERSON 's office was in disorder and there were a large number of books which were piled up or arranged in boxes . PERSON told the witness that he had entered the house for a very short time in order to check whether there was anybody in .

The witness did not consider it necessary to look for fingerprints since the incident had happened in the street and not in the house . According to the statements given by the deceased 's next door neighbour , Mr PERSON , the deceased was sitting on the terrace by himself and watching television . On the basis of the latter statement the witness excluded the possibility that Mr Adalı could have been sitting with some other persons on the terrace . The witness identified a glass , a bottle and an ashtray in a photograph shown to him . He emphasised that it was the custom to drop the shells into an ashtray when eating dried nuts , especially pumpkin seeds , and that it was normal for someone to sit on the balcony and drink water during TIME .

The witness knew the deceased by sight and through his articles in an opposition newspaper . When investigating into the murder every aspect of the case was considered , be it a political crime or CARDINAL related to Mr Adalı 's activities as a journalist . However , there was no evidence significant enough to lead to any of these conclusions . He was informed about the applicant 's allegation that the head of ORG had made threats against Mr Adalı personally or against the newspaper because of an article concerning the GPE incident . The prosecuting authorities did not verify this allegation since the applicant could not name anyone and she had constantly made similar inconsistent allegations at the time of the incident and for some time afterwards . They did not consider them to be serious . As an example of her inconsistent allegations , the witness referred to the applicant 's statements in which she had described Mr PERSON as a close friend of her husband who visited their home DATE , and had then complained to the authorities that she suspected of Mr Sayıl of involvement in the murder .

Following the receipt of an anonymous telephone call alleging that a person named PERSON and another person described as Colonel PERSON were involved in the killing , the prosecuting authorities found Mr GPE and took statements from him about the allegations . It was established that PERSON had been outside PERSON on the night of the incident . In particular , he had been at a dinner in the PERSON area in the company of PERSON , who was the first assistant of the Chief of Police , and Mr Muharrem Göç , a police inspector . Mr GPE confirmed to the witness that he had been out for dinner with PERSON . A statement was also taken from from PERSON . The anonymous caller was a lady who could not be identified . The witness denied having told the applicant that the anonymous caller was a crazy woman who had often made such allegations to the police .

The witness knew Mr PERSON from the time they had enrolled to the police academy and had attended the same course . However , he denied having told the applicant that Mr PERSON was a very good person and that he had nothing to do with the killing . He had never spoken to the applicant about Mr PERSON . The witness had never taken a statement from the applicant in relation to PERSON and the applicant had never approached him to be supplied with a copy of such a statement . The witness further stressed that no security commander had been dismissed or forced to relinquish his post for any reason , contrary to the applicant 's allegation that the chief of the security forces had been removed from his post because of the articles written by PERSON on the basis of the documents supplied by Mr PERSON .

Regarding a tip - off to PERSON , who was then the Chief of Police , about PERSON , the witness stated that they had had no chance to investigate the woman caller since she had not given her name and had asked her identity to be kept secret .

On DATE the pro - Government newspaper ORG reported that it had received a statement from a fascist group called ORG claiming responsibility for the murder . No investigation was conducted into this allegation as such an organisation did not exist in the “ LOC ” and the investigating authorities considered that the allegation had been made as a ploy designed to cause confusion .

The applicant had never asked the witness to supply her with a copy of the autopsy report . In any event , documents contained in the investigation file were confidential . Only the investigating officer and his superiors as well as the Attorney - General 's office could have access to them . The witness was not involved in the subsequent investigation that followed from DATE .

The witness was born in DATE . He is currently working at the judicial branch attached to the “ TRNC ” ORG . At the time of the incident , he was the chief of LOC police station , attached to the PERSON police headquarters .

NORP The witness was informed about the impugned incident at CARDINAL p.m. at the station . He sent the sergeant on duty at the station to the scene of the incident together with a team . He further asked for a doctor from the local hospital to be sent to the scene of the incident . Following their departure , he also went to the scene of the crime along with a police officer . He arrived there at TIME PERSON arrived later . He saw the deceased lying on the ground QUANTITY from the door of his house in FAC . He checked the deceased and took his pulse . He then called out “ Anybody in ? ” . The door was open and the television was on . There was nobody in the house . He learned from the neighbour waiting outside that his family was abroad . At around CARDINAL or TIME the witness entered the house along with the muhtar , PERSON , PERSON and the brotherinlaw of the deceased . They looked for a clue that could have shed light on the incident . They visited the study room and other rooms . They did not conduct an in - depth search by , for example , opening the drawers . However , they could not find anything . The television was located at the entrance of the house and it was on . There was one plastic chair and CARDINAL table on the terrace . This gave the impression that Mr Adalı had been sitting on the terrace just before he was killed inn the street . They did not consider taking fingerprints on account of the fact that the incident had taken place outside the house . There was nothing on the terrace ; no glasses and bottles or any trace indicating that cigarettes had been smoked . Had the officers found glasses , they would have been examined for fingerprints .

The officers assigned by the witness visited the families living in the close vicinity and further away from the scene of the incident and noted their names . Those who were at home at the time of incident were interviewed . The officers also went to the home of the PERSON family of NORP origin . They established that the family was not at home . The witness rang the bell of the PERSON family DATE and the following evening but to no avail . The PERSON family 's neighbour , PERSON ( ORG ) , told the witness that they were not in . The police officers guarded the applicant 's house until she arrived from abroad .

Apart from the cartridges found at the scene of the incident , the applicant and the officers in charge conducted a search along the whole street with a view to finding anything that might have been left by the assailants . But , they could not find anything . The cartridges found at the scene of the incident were first examined against the ones in the “ TRNC ” and no matches could be found . Then they were sent to a forensic laboratory in GPE . However , no positive result had been obtained about the weapon which could have discharged them . The weapon found in the possession of PERSON following his death was also put through a forensic test . The result was negative .

The witness denied that he was related to the applicant in response to a claim by the latter . He remarked , however , that his brother 's daughter had married to the applicant 's sister - in - law . The witness had never met or spoken to the applicant prior to the impugned incident . In this connection , he rejected the applicant 's allegation that he had told her sister - in - law that the security forces had given him instructions not to follow the investigation effectively . The witness further stressed that the applicant had never asked him to take statements from Mr PERSON . The witness also denied the applicant 's assertion that he had asked to meet her at her sister - in - law 's house . He maintained that he had met the applicant CARDINAL times at her house following her husband 's death . He had also spoken to the applicant in connection with the damaged tyre incident and also in connection with other problems .

The witness led the investigation carried out in DATE . In DATE Mr PERSON was the commander of the security forces . In DATE of DATE he was replaced by PERSON . No investigation was carried out into the role of ORG since no allegation involving the responsibility of the latter was communicated to the authorities . However , ORG investigated the PERSON incident and concluded that ORG had conducted an exercise .

NORP The applicant had never made an allegation in relation to PERSON in the course of their talks or meetings . The distance between GPE and PERSON was approximately QUANTITY , in other words TIME distance .

NORP The witness was born in DATE . He is currently a retired majorgeneral . In DATE he was the commander of a commando brigade in south - east GPE in GPE . DATE and DATE he served as the commander of the security forces in the “ TRNC ” . Subsequent to his arrival on the island , the witness learned about the killing of Mr Adalı through the articles in the press . In view of the allegations that the NORP armed forces had been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı , he asked ORG to brief him about the impugned event . At DATE or DATE Mr PERSON and his delegation briefed the witness about the killing of Mr Adalı and the current state of the investigation at the office of the Chief of police . The witness remarked that , according to LAW GPE ” , the police were under the authority of the commander of the security forces in the administrative field , and in the judicial field it operated under the supervision of the chief prosecutor 's office . The commander of the security forces was responsible to the Prime Minister .

NORP The applicant wrote a letter to the witness complaining about the conduct of the investigation . He told her through the police liaison officer that he was unable to intervene in a judicial affair but , if she wished , he could meet her . The applicant accepted and a meeting was held on DATE at the office of the chief of police , Mr PERSON . At the meeting were the latter , the applicant , her daughter , the witness and few other police officers who were involved in the investigation . During the meeting the applicant was given all relevant information about the investigation . The witness did not intervene in the discussions but asked the investigators to take all necessary measures to find the perpetrators of the murder so that they could save the honour of the “ GPE ” and that of the security forces whose involvement in the impugned event was in question . The police officers listened to the applicant 's statements and requests . At no stage did she ask for protection . She stated at the meeting that she had been threatened several times and that she had been receiving anonymous calls .

The witness denied having told the applicant that she had already been protected by plain - clothes police officers . At the meeting , the applicant did not make an allegation in relation to ORG . The witness denied that he had pointed at the cars outside through the window of the meeting room and had told the applicant that they were there to protect her , since the room was a small office where you could not look out and see a car outside . This meeting was not a secret one . It was reported in the press .

The witness spoke to the applicant on other occasions and once met her concerning her late husband 's entitlements for the period of his military service . The witness was further informed about developments in the investigation in the course of DATE coordination meetings . He told the police force to examine even the slightest suspicion . He also made it clear to them that if they wanted to investigate anything connected with the armed forces or any members of the armed forces he would not obstruct it in any way even if that person was the highest - ranking officer . There was not however the slightest indication of any member of the security forces being involved in the matter . According to the witness , there was no political motive behind the murder .

The witness had not heard any allegations about Colonel PERSON . In his opinion , the latter could be a retired colonel or lieutenant colonel who was working in an administrative post in security at the time . During his term of office in the “ GPE ” , no one under his command was ever the subject of an investigation . The witness noted that ORG was not a unit under the authority of the security forces but was responsible to the Prime Minister .

The witness , who was born in DATE , is a former police chief who retired on CARDINAL DATE . In DATE he was the Chief of Police in the “ TRNC ” .

He learned about the killing of Mr Adalı whilst he was at an engagement party . He arrived at the scene of the incident TIME after the killing of Mr Adalı . The police had already secured the house and barred the public from entering . The witness stayed at the crime scene for TIME . He entered the PERSON family 's house along with other officers and did not notice anything out of the ordinary . He knew Mr Adalı by name . He had not seen him before . However , he knew that Mr Adalı was a journalist who wrote articles in the PERSON , critical of the Government . He was regularly informed by the officers about developments in the investigation .

On DATE a meeting was held in the witness ' office with the applicant , her daughter , Mr PERSON and Mr Mehmet Özdamar , who was then the chief of the forensic police . The meeting was held at the request of the applicant . The latter gave all relevant information to the participants about the impugned incident and complained that she had been receiving anonymous phone calls during which she had been threatened . She was advised to apply to the telecommunications department to have her line monitored . The applicant raised her suspicion about Mr PERSON and she was told that statements statements from PERSON had been taken by the police

The witness stated that he had known Mr PERSON since DATE . He also knew Mr PERSON as a police officer who was now retired . He did not remember whether Mr PERSON and Mr GPE 's names had been mentioned during the meeting . Nor did he know or remember the applicant 's allegations about Colonel PERSON or ORG . The witness did not remember whether any notes had been taken as regards the applicant 's statements or allegations at the meeting .

The witness did not need to intervene in the investigation in any way since there were no deficiencies . It was being conducted according to its normal course . The applicant had not told the witness about her suspicion concerning the involvement of ORG in the killing of her husband . The witness pointed out that it would have been inappropriate to qualify the killing of Mr Adalı as politically motivated before concluding the investigation . The witness further noted that when the police had completed the investigation , the files had been given to the chief prosecutor who had supervised the investigation . As regards a question pertaining to the handing over of Mr PERSON 's glasses to his widow , the witness remarked that only the materials which were considered to be part of the evidence had been retained . He stated that Mr Adalı 's glasses could have been considered as irrelevant in respect of the investigation . The witness stressed that , during the meeting which took place in his office on DATE , the commander of the security forces had not pointed at cars outside the building telling the applicant that they were protecting her . He noted that the office did not have a window overlooking the car park .

The witness , who was born in DATE , is currently ORG Deputy Chief - of - Staff in the NORP armed forces . He was the head of ORG DATE . He served as the commander of the NORP security forces DATE .

According to the “ GPE ” legislation , the head of ORG can be any person , whether a civilian or a military person , provided that that person is a NORP national . Given the fact that this post requires expertise and that the “ GPE ” is a newly established state , the heads of ORG are appointed from among the members of the NORP armed forces .

ORG is a humanitarian rescue organisation , which protects institutions and organisations as well as the life and property of the civilian population during wartime or in the event of natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes . The organisation does not have any military functions . The officers of the organisation do not wear uniform and do not possess arms . However , in certain rescue operations , in cases of fire or floods , they wear special clothing . There is no organisational link between the armed forces and ORG , the latter being directly under the authority of the Prime Minister 's office . Yet , in certain cases , such as floods , fire or war , ORG cooperates with the military in the performance of its tasks . ORG is not a secret organisation or an intelligence agency as alleged by the applicant .

NORP The witness did not know Mr Adalı personally . He used to read Mr Adalı 's articles published in the PERSON newspaper . He further knew that the applicant had worked in the civil defence people 's army . She held a post in LOC ( Kyrenia ) People 's Army . The civilian population assisted the authorities in cases of calamity . The age limit for this civilian duty was CARDINAL for women and CARDINAL in respect of men . Mr and PERSON were also given certificates for their services at a ceremony organised in Girne . This was the only occasion on which the witness had met them . The witness also remarked that Mr Adalı had represented ORG in ORG DATE .

The witness denied that ORG could have been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı . He further noted that he had not been involved in the investigation into the impugned event and that this was the first time he had been questioned about it . The witness was aware of the allegations that ORG had been involved in the killing of Mr Adalı . However , neither he nor ORG had a problem with Mr Adalı . Nor did he bear any grudge against him since he did not know him . He did not deem it necessary to carry out an investigation within the organisation as he considered that the allegations were totally unfounded .

NORP The witness 's term of office ended DATE after the incident and he left the island in DATE . On his return to GPE , he reported to his superiors that neither he nor any other person in ORG had been involved in the murder .

NORP The witness averred that the GPE incident had in no way been connected with ORG . It was an anti - terrorist operation carried out by the peace forces command at the time . Thus , the allegations that ORG was involved in LOC incident were untrue . The witness pointed out that these allegations stemmed from the fact that his organisation had allocated a civilian car to the peace forces , who wore official uniforms , for an operation conducted against the ORG . Apart from the allocation of a car , ORG had not intervened in any activity connected with the GPE incident .

There were many newspaper articles on the GPE incident and the alleged involvement of ORG . Some of these articles were written by PERSON in GPE . The witness did not call on any newspaper to refute those allegations , but instructed his colleagues in the press department of ORG to telephone the newspaper and tell them that the organisation had not been involved in the GPE incident . CARDINAL of his colleagues conveyed the message to the newspaper , possibly to the editor - in - chief , in appropriate language and reported back to him that it had been well received .

NORP The witness met PERSON in CARDINAL of the training courses on civil defence services , just as he met many other local people . However , he denied the applicant 's allegation that PERSON was his adviser . He further stated that he had known Mr PERSON GPE as a renowned officer who was now retired after a career of heroic service . But he was not acquainted with him .

The witness denied the applicant 's allegation that he had left DATE before the killing of Mr Adalı , namely on DATE . He stressed that he had left the island in DATE of DATE subsequent to the end of his term of office . When asked about the allegations made by PERSON , in his column in DATE edition of GPE , in relation to the GPE incident , the witness contested the allegations and stated that it had been an anti - terrorist operation , for which he had provided a white ORG car .

NORP The witness stated that he had not reacted to a television program on ORG during which allegations had been made by the editor of GPE to the effect that he had made a threatening call to the newspaper . He explained that it was not possible to react to the allegations without obtaining the authorisation of the General Staff of the NORP armed forces .

As regards an article published in the GPE newspaper which referred to PERSON as the witness ' adviser who had allegedly said that it would have been better had they not written about the involvement of ORG , the witness stressed that Mr Asilhan had never been an adviser to him and that the allegations were untrue .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed by ORG ( “ Serco ” ) from DATE to his dismissal on DATE . Serco provided transport to local authorities , including ORG .

The applicant , who is white NORP , was employed formerly as a driver ’s escort and latterly as a driver . As such , he was responsible for transporting children and adults with physical and/or mental disabilities within the GPE area . The majority of his passengers were NORP in origin . There had been no complaints about his work or his conduct at work and his supervisor , who was of NORP origin , had nominated him for the award of “ first - class employee ” .

On DATE a local newspaper article published in GPE and the surrounding areas identified the applicant as a candidate for ORG ( “ the BNP ” ) in the forthcoming local elections . On DATE , the applicant was temporarily assigned to deliver mail to local council offices .

At the relevant time the ORG only extended membership to white nationals . According to its constitution it was :

“ wholly opposed to any form of integration between NORP and non - NORP peoples . It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non - white immigration and to restoring , by legal changes , negotiation and consent , the overwhelmingly white makeup of the NORP population that existed in GPE prior to DATE . ”

On DATE UNISON , the public sector workers’ trade union , sent a letter to PERSON stating that many of its members found the applicant ’s continued employment a “ significant cause for concern , bearing in mind the ORG ’s overt and racist / fascist agenda . ” The letter advised Serco that PERCENT of its customer base and PERCENT of its workforce were of NORP origin . ORG asked that Serco take immediate action to ensure its members were not subjected to racial hatred . Another trade union , ORG , and a number of employees also made representations to ORG about the applicant ’s continued employment .

On DATE the applicant was elected as a local councillor for the ORG . After taking legal advice PERSON summarily dismissed him on DATE . PERSON cited , inter alia , potential health and safety risks as the applicant ’s continued employment would give rise to considerable anxiety among passengers and their carers . It also expressed concern that the applicant ’s continued employment could jeopardise its reputation and possibly lead to the loss of its contract with ORG .

Ordinarily , DATE service is required before an employee can bring an action for unfair dismissal under LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , although this qualifying period does not apply where the dismissal was on grounds of pregnancy , race , sex or religion . The applicant therefore lacked sufficient continuous service to bring an action for unfair dismissal . However , on DATE he lodged a statutory claim of race discrimination in the ORG pursuant to LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) .

The applicant claimed that he had been unlawfully discriminated against as his dismissal constituted less favourable treatment on racial grounds . The racial grounds relied on were those of the passengers and employees of Serco who were of NORP origin . He further argued that since the ORG was a “ whites - only ” party , his dismissal also constituted indirect racial discrimination .

The Employment Tribunal gave judgment on DATE . It noted ORG ’s concerns that the applicant ’s continued employment might lead to difficulties with other employees ; damage its relationship with the unions ; lead to attacks on ORG ’s minibuses which would jeopardise the health and safety of ORG ’s staff , its vulnerable passengers , and the applicant himself ; cause considerable anxiety amongst Serco ’s passengers and those relatives / carers entrusting vulnerable passengers to its care ; and damage its reputation so as potentially to place at risk existing contracts and future bids for work in the public sector and elsewhere .

ORG dismissed the claim of direct discrimination as it was satisfied that if any discrimination existed against the claimant it was not on racial grounds but rather on health and safety grounds . The ORG also dismissed the claim of indirect discrimination on the ground that the applicant ’s dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim , namely the maintenance of health and safety .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE his appeal was upheld on the ground that the ORG had erred in its construction of the phrase “ on racial grounds ” by failing to interpret its meaning broadly and had not indicated how it had come to the conclusion that the applicant ’s dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the aim of ensuring health and safety because , inter alia , there had been no consideration of any alternatives to dismissal .

On DATE PERSON was granted permission to appeal to ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed ORG ’s appeal and restored the order of ORG . ORG found the applicant ’s submission that he had been subjected to direct race discrimination to be wrong in principle and inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation .

In rejecting the claim of direct discrimination , ORG noted that :

“ Mr PERSON was treated less favourably not on the ground that he was white , but on the ground of a particular non - racial characteristic shared by him with a tiny proportion of the white population , that is membership of and standing for election for a political party like the BNP . PERSON was not adopting a policy which discriminated on the basis of a dividing line of colour or race . PERSON would apply the same approach to a member of a similar political party , which confined its membership to black people . The dividing line of colour or race was not made by Serco , but by the ORG which defines its own composition by colour or race . Mr PERSON can not credibly make a claim of direct race discrimination by Serco against him on the ground that he is white by relying on the decision of his own chosen political party to limit its membership to white people . The ORG can not make a non - racial criterion ( party membership ) a racial one by the terms of its constitution limiting membership to white people . Properly analysed Mr PERSON ’s complaint is of discrimination on political grounds , which falls outside the anti - discrimination laws . ”

NORP In rejecting the claim of indirect discrimination , the following was noted :

“ For indirect discrimination ... it is necessary to identify a ‘ provision , criterion or ORG which ORG has applied or would apply equally to persons not of the same race or colour . ... Mr PERSON ... failed to present the tribunal with a case , which satisfied the requisite elements of a claim for indirect race discrimination and upon which the tribunal could properly make a finding of indirect race discrimination ....

The employment tribunal appears to have attempted itself a version of a ‘ provision , criterion or ORG in paragraph CARDINAL of its decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , it is formulated too narrowly ( membership of the BNP ) to be meaningful . A provision of ‘ membership of the BNP’ could not be applied to a person who was not of the same colour as Mr PERSON , because only persons of the same colour as him ( white ) are eligible to be members of the BNP . A more general and meaningful provision along similar lines would be one applying to membership of a political organisation like the BNP , which existed to promote views hostile to members of a different colour than those that belonged to the organisation . If such a provision were applied , however , it would not put persons of the same race as Mr PERSON ‘ at a particular NORP when compared with other persons within section CARDINAL(CARDINALA ) of LAW . All such political activists would be at the same disadvantage , whatever colour they were . ”

Lastly , with regard to the applicant ’s contention that he had been subjected to less favourable treatment arising from membership of a political party contrary to his Convention rights under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and that this should have been taken into account in deciding whether indirect discrimination had been justified , ORG stated that :

“ LAW does not assist PERSON in this case . He is not entitled to make a claim under it as Serco is not a public authority . LAW does not assist , as there is no respect in which the relevant provisions of LAW are incompatible with the Convention rights . As for justification under LAW I have already explained that it does not arise , as no case of indirect discrimination has been made out . ”

The applicant was refused leave to appeal to ORG .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , an employer must show a reason for a dismissal falling within a category set out in section PERSON ) , which includes “ conduct ” or “ some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held ” .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) deals with fairness :

“ Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection ( CARDINAL ) , the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair ( having regard to the reason shown by the employer ) –

( a ) depends on whether in the circumstances ( including the size and administrative resources of the employer ’s undertaking ) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee , and

( b ) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case . ”

NORP However , paragraph CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) LAW does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than DATE ending with the effective date of termination . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides a wide variety of exceptions from the DATE qualifying period , many of which derive from GPE implementation of ORG legislation in the field of employment . These exceptions include situations in which an employee has been dismissed on grounds of pregnancy or taking parental leave , refusing to comply with a requirement imposed in contravention of ORG , or where the employee has made a public interest disclosure against the employer . Moreover , applicants alleging that they were dismissed on account of their race , sex or religion are also exempt from the DATE qualifying period .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE states the following :

“ A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if-

( a ) on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons . ”

Section CARDINAL A of the Race Relations Act DATE states :

“ A person also discriminates against another if , in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in subsection ( ORG ) , he applies to that other provision , criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same race or ethnic or national origins as that other , but

( a ) which puts or would put persons of the same race or ethnic or national origins as that other at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons ;

( b ) which puts that other at that disadvantage , and

( c ) which he can not show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim . ”