Remainder inadmissible;No violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 14+P1-1;No violation of Art. 9

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Under the NORP Federal Hunting Law ( Bundesjagdgesetz ) , owners of hunting grounds with a surface of CARDINAL hectares are de jure members of a hunting association ( ORG ) , while owners of bigger plots of land manage their own hunting district . The applicant owns CARDINAL landholdings in GPE - Palatinate which are smaller than QUANTITY in a single block . He is thus an automatic member of a hunting association , in the instant case of the municipality of GPE .

On DATE the applicant , who is opposed to hunting on ethical grounds , filed a request with the hunting authority to terminate his adherence to the hunting association . The authority rejected his request on the grounds that his adherence was prescribed by law and that there was no provision on the termination of adherence .

The applicant brought proceedings before ORG . Relying in particular on the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( [ ORG ] nos . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) , he requested the court to establish that he was not a member of the hunting association of the municipality of Langsur .

On DATE the administrative court rejected the applicant 's request . It considered that ORG law did not violate the applicant 's rights . With regard to the PERSON - judgment the administrative court considered that the situation in GPE differed from the one in GPE . It observed , in particular , that the NORP owners of hunting grounds , by way of their adherence to the hunting association , were in a position to influence the decision - making process on how the hunting rights should be exercised . Furthermore , they had a right to receive a share of the profits derived from the exploitation of the hunting rights . All owners of plots which were too small to allow a proper management of hunting rights adhered to a hunting association . The court also considered that the hunting associations did not only serve the leisure interests of those who exercised the hunting rights , but imposed certain specific obligations on them , which served the general interest , in particular the duty to manage the game stock with the aim of maintaining varied and healthy game populations and to avoid damages caused by wild game . They were furthermore obliged to comply with specific quotas set by the administration for the hunting of game . These duties applied in the same way to the owners of hunting grounds more the CARDINAL hectares of area , notwithstanding the fact that these bigger plots were not regrouped in hunting associations .

On DATE and DATE the Rhineland - Palatinate Administrative Court of Appeal and ORG rejected the applicant 's appeals on the same grounds as the administrative court .

On DATE ORG ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint for adjudication . It noted , at the outset , that the provisions of LAW did not violate the applicant 's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property , but defined and limited the exercise of this right in a proportionate way . The relevant provisions pursued legitimate aims , were necessary and did not impose an excessive burden on the landowners .

When defining the content and the limits of property rights , the legislator had to weigh the proprietors ' legitimate interests against the general interest . He had , in particular , to respect the principles of proportionality and of equal treatment . The limitations imposed on the exercise of property rights must not infringe the core area of the protected right . The margin of appreciation allocated to the legislator depended on the specific context ; the stronger the social context , the wider the margin of appreciation .

Applying these principles to the instant case , ORG considered that the applicant 's obligatory adherence to a hunting association did not violate his property rights . The core - area of that right was not infringed . LAW pursued legitimate aims and limited the property rights in a proportionate way . Encompassed in the notion of “ management and protection of the game stock ( PERSON ) ” , it had the aim to preserve the game in a way that was adapted to the rural and cultural conditions , and to ensure a healthy and varied wildlife . Under LAW , game keeping was not only an instrument to prevent damages caused by wild - life , but also to avoid any impediment to the agricultural , forestry and fishery exploitation of the land . These aims served the general interest .

The obligatory adherence to a hunting association was an appropriate and necessary means to achieve these aims . Referring to paragraph CARDINAL of the above - cited PERSON judgment , ORG considered that the ORG had acknowledged that it was undoubtedly in the general interest to avoid unregulated hunting and encourage the rational management of game stocks . The obligatory adherence to a hunting association was also a proportionate means . The impact on the property rights was not particularly serious and did not outweigh the general interest in a rational management of game stocks . Furthermore , LAW endowed every member with the right to participate in the decisionmaking process and to receive a share of the profits derived from the lease of the hunting rights .

The Constitutional Court further considered that there was no violation of the applicant 's freedom of conscience . Referring to paragraph CARDINAL of the PERSON judgment , it accepted that the applicant 's convictions attained a certain level of cogency , cohesion and importance and where therefore worthy of respect in a NORP society . Accordingly , ORG considered that the applicant 's complaint might fall within the scope of freedom of conscience , but that there was , in any event , no violation of that right . The applicant was neither enjoined to exercise the hunt himself , nor to participate in it or to support it . The fact that he had to tolerate the exercise of the hunt on his premises did not result from his own decision , but was the result of the legislator 's legitimate decision . The right to freedom of conscience did not encompass the right that the whole legal order was submitted to one 's own ethical standards . If the legal order distributed the right to exploit a certain property to several claimholders , the owner 's conscience did not necessarily outweigh the other claimholders ' constitutional rights . If the applicant 's landholding – and that of other owners who were opposed to hunting DATE were removed from the hunting association because of their convictions , the whole system of property ownership and of the management of the game stock would be jeopardised . The right to freedom of conscience did not outweigh the general interest in the instant case .

The Federal Constitutional Court further considered that the applicant 's complaint did not come within the scope of the right to freedom of association , because the NORP hunting associations were of a public nature . Vested with administrative , rule - making and disciplinary prerogatives , they remained integrated into ORG structures . There was thus no doubt that the association was not simply qualified as “ public ” in order to remove it from the scope of LAW .

The Federal Constitutional Court further considered that the applicant 's right to equal treatment had not been violated . There was an objective reason which justified drawing a distinction between the owners of landholdings QUANTITY in area and those CARDINAL hectares in area . Contrary to the situation in GPE , which had been examined by ORG in the PERSON judgment , ORG applied to the whole surface of GPE and was binding on all landowners . The owners of land QUANTITY in area had the same duties in game keeping as those adhering to hunting associations .

Finally , ORG observed that the administrative courts had considered the PERSON judgment and had accentuated the differences between the NORP law and LAW as applicable at the relevant time .

Article QUANTITY of LAW provides :

“ Mindful also of its responsibility toward future generations , the ORG shall protect the natural bases of life by legislation and , in accordance with law and justice , by executive and judicial action , all within the framework of the constitutional order . ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Bundesjagdgesetz ) provides that the hunting right encompasses the right to manage and protect the game stock on a particular area of land , to exercise the hunt and to take possession of the game . The hunting right is linked to the duty to manage and protect the game stock ( PERSON ) .

Under LAW of that section , the management of the game stock is aimed at maintaining varied and healthy game populations at level compatible with land care and cultural conditions and at avoiding game damage .

§ CARDINAL distinguishes between the hunting right ( PERSON ) and the right to exercise the hunt ( ORG des Jagdrechts ) . The landowner has the hunting right on his LOC . The right to exercise the hunt is regulated by the following provisions :

Section CARDINAL of the Hunting PERSON provides :

“ The hunt may be exercised either on private hunting districts ( section CARDINAL ) or common hunting districts ( section CARDINAL) . ”

Section CARDINAL ( enclosed LOC , stay of the hunt ) reads as follows :

“ The hunt is stayed on surfaces , which do not belong to a hunting district , and on enclosed surfaces ( befriedete ORG ) . A limited exercise of the hunt may be permitted . This law does not apply to zoological gardens . ”

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that plots of QUANTITY of surface which can be exploited on an agricultural , forestry or fishery level and which belong to CARDINAL single owner constitute a private hunting district .

Section CARDINAL provides that all surfaces which do not belong to a private hunting district constitute a common hunting district if they have an overall surface of QUANTITY .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ The owners of surfaces belonging to a common hunting district form a hunting association . Owners of surfaces on which the hunt must not be exercised do not belong to the hunting association . ”

Section CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The hunting association generally exploits the hunt by lease - hold . The lease can be limited to the members of the association ( ... )

( CARDINAL ) The hunting association is allowed to practice the hunt on its own account by chartered hunters . With the agreement of the competent authority , it can decide to stay the hunt ( Ruhen der Jagd ) .

( CARDINAL ) The association decides about the use of the net profit of the hunt . If the association decides not to distribute it to the owners of hunting grounds according to the surface they own , each owner who had contested this decision is allowed to claim his share . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Hunting is prohibited in areas where the practice of the hunt would , under the specific circumstances of the case , disturb public peace , order or security or would endanger human life .

( CARDINAL ) The practice of the hunt in nature and wildlife protection areas and in national and wildlife parks is regulated by the Länder . ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The shooting of the game is to be regulated in a way which fully safeguards the legitimate interests of agriculture , fishery and forestry to be protected from damages caused by wild game and which takes into account the necessities of nature protection and landscape conservation . Within these limits , the regulation of the shooting of the game shall contribute to maintain a healthy population of all domestic game in adequate numbers and , in particular , ensure the protection of endangered species . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Hunting Law of the Land of Rhineland - Palatinate provides , inter alia , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG is a public law corporation . It is subject to ORG supervision . The supervision is exercised by the lower hunting authority ... The hunting association has to issue its own internal statute ( ORG ) . The internal statute has to be approved by the supervising authority unless it is in accordance with a model statute issued by the highest hunting authority ; in this case notice of the statute has to be given to the lower hunting authority . If the hunting association fails to issue a statute within DATE after the issue of the model statute , the supervising authority issues an internal statute and publishes it ... at the expense of the association .

( CARDINAL ) Cost orders ( ORG ) are to be executed under the provisions of the law on the execution of administrative acts . The execution rights are exercised by the exchequer who executes the claims of the community in which the association is situated .... ”


Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mrs PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the executive director of ORG ( “ LAW ” ) , an organisation of CARDINAL members which is opposed to abortion and human embryo experimentation and seeks changes to the present GPE law which permits abortion up to DATE and embryo experimentation up to DATE .

NORP The major political parties have no policies with regard to abortion and embryo experimentation : these are regarded as moral issues and members of ORG are allowed to vote on proposed legislation according to their consciences . PERSON and FAC therefore took the view that , if electors were to be in a position to bring about changes to the law through their choice of representative , it was important for them to be informed of the opinions of candidates standing for election with regard to abortion and related issues .

In the period immediately before the parliamentary elections in DATE , PERSON therefore arranged to have CARDINAL leaflets distributed in constituencies throughout GPE , including , in the constituency of GPE , CARDINAL copies of a leaflet which read as follows :

“ We are not telling you how to vote , but it is essential for you to check on Candidates’ voting intentions on abortion and on the use of the human embryo as a guinea - pig .

PERSON , Conservative . Mr PERSON has publicly declared his firm commitment to defending the unborn child . If elected , he would vote to tighten the grounds for abortion to stop abortion on demand . He would vote to stop abortion after DATE , as the law currently allows abortion up to birth for handicapped babies and on other grounds . Would vote to stop the creation and use of human embryos as guinea - pigs for drug testing .

PERSON , Labour . Mrs PERSON is a leading pro - abortionist . As an MP she voted to allow abortion up to birth for handicapped babies . She voted for the compulsory enrolment on a published register of doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion despite warnings that it could be used as a blacklist . She also voted to allow human embryos to be used as guinea - pigs in programmes including the testing of drugs and other experiments .

PERSON , GPE NORP . ORG If elected , PERSON ORG would vote for the tightening of the grounds for abortion to stop abortion on demand . He would vote to reduce the time - limit to DATE or less , where the law currently allows abortion up to birth for handicapped babies and on other grounds . He would vote to protect human embryos from being used as guineapigs in research programmes .

ORG ”

On the reverse side of the leaflet , together with a picture marked “ an unborn baby DATE after conception ” , was printed :

“ DATE : Conception – sperm and ovum meet in fertilisation . Genetic make - up complete . Colour of eyes , hair , sex and even build determined . A unique individual is present in the womb ’s fallopian tube . DATE : Has travelled to the womb and implanted there . DATE : Development of own blood cells . DATE : Heart starts to beat . This is at least as dramatic as birth , but far less dramatic than fertilisation . DATE : Foundation of central nervous system established . DATE : Regular blood flow within closed vascular system . Ears and nose start to develop . Day CARDINAL : Skeleton and reflexes present . Liver , kidneys and lungs formed . Responds to touch around the mouth . DATE : Electrical brainwave patterns can be recorded . Day CARDINAL : All organs functioning except the lungs ; the baby only has to grow and mature now , just as a child grows into an adult . DATE : The baby can make a fist and will grasp an object stroking his palm ; leaps up and down in the womb with movements co - ordinated . DATE : Entire surface of the body sensitive to touch . DATE : Baby is CARDINAL birth length ; the heart pumps QUANTITY of blood DATE . DATE : Eyes open . Baby can hear mother ’s digestive processes , heartbeat and her voice , as well as sounds outside her body . DATE : Birth – just another stage in an already well - advanced process . From the above it is clear that the baby can feel pain at a very early stage . We are , therefore , destroying babies painfully up to DATE after conception , and in some cases , such as handicap , up to birth . ”

Mrs ORG was charged with an offence under subsections GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Representation of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which prohibits expenditure of MONEY ( “ GBP ” ) by an unauthorised person during the period before an election on conveying information to electors with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL below ) .

At PERSON Bowman ’s trial at ORG on DATE , the judge directed her acquittal , because the summons charging her with the offence had not been issued within DATE of the alleged prohibited expenditure , in accordance with the time - limit stipulated in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . The proceedings were , nonetheless , reported in the press .

In DATE , PERSON had been convicted of an offence under similar legislation in respect of a leaflet distributed prior to LOC by - election and in DATE she had also been convicted in respect of a leaflet distributed during the elections for ORG . On both occasions she was ordered to pay a fine and the prosecution costs .

The date of a general election is chosen by the incumbent Prime Minister and is normally announced DATE before polling day .

For electoral purposes GPE is divided into constituencies . Each constituency is represented by a single member of ORG , the person who received the greatest number of votes in his or her constituency . Most candidates are selected by the main , national political parties , although some stand as independent . A candidate ’s nomination for election must be signed by CARDINAL people registered to vote in the constituency . Each candidate must deposit GBP CARDINAL with the constituency returning officer . If he or she does not receive PERCENT of the votes validly cast , this deposit will be forfeited .

Parliamentary candidates in GPE receive no ORG funding for their campaigns . To safeguard the position of candidates without access to substantial resources , the amount of expenses which may be incurred by a candidate before , during or after an electoral campaign is controlled by statute ( DATE Act , section DATE ) . The amount varies slightly depending on the size of the constituency , but the average is currently GBP CARDINAL . To ensure that this limit is not circumvented , all election expenditure by a candidate must go through an election agent , who is required to submit an account after the election ( CARDINAL Act , sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .

Under section GPE ) of the CARDINAL Act , any expenditure incurred to promote the election of a candidate by any person other than the candidate or his or her agent is prohibited :

“ No expenses shall , with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election , be incurred by any person other than the candidate , his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent on account – ( a ) of holding public meetings or organising any public display ; or ORG ( b ) of issuing advertisements , circulars or publications ; or ORG ( c ) of otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or the extent or nature of his backing or disparaging another candidate , but paragraph ( c ) of this subsection shall not – ( i ) restrict the publication of any matter relating to the election in a newspaper or other periodical or in a broadcast made by ORG ... [ or ORG ] ; ( ii ) apply to any expenses not exceeding in aggregate the sum of GBP CARDINAL . ”

The words “ with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate ” in this subsection have been interpreted by ORG to include the intention to prevent the election of a particular candidate or candidates ( Director of Public Prosecutions v. PERSON [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ) .

Mrs ORG was charged with an offence under section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , which provides :

“ If a person – ( a ) incurs , or aids , abets , counsels or procures any other person to incur , any expenses in contravention of [ section CARDINAL ] ... he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice ... ”

NORP The maximum penalty for offences tried on indictment under subsections GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) is DATE imprisonment and/or a fine up to GBP CARDINAL . In addition , a person convicted may be disqualified for DATE from voting in elections , being elected to or sitting in ORG or holding any judicial or public office ( DATE Act , sections CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) .

Section DATE is concerned only with expenditure incurred in relation to the election of a particular candidate in a particular constituency . There is nothing to prohibit a political party or wealthy individual or organisation from spending money on publicity in support or opposition to a political party or tendency generally , at national or regional level , provided that there is no intention to promote or prejudice the electoral chances of any particular candidate in any particular constituency ( see NORP v. Tronoh Mines [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG MONEY ) . Nor are there any restrictions on private donations to political parties or on the powers of the press to support or oppose the election of any particular candidate ( see CARDINAL Act , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c)(i ) – paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violations of Art. 2;No separate issue under Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+2 or 14+8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first , third and fourth applicants live in PERSON and the second applicant lives in GPE . The first applicant is the widow and the other applicants are the children of ORG , a NORP who died on DATE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE ORG and his daughter ’s fiancé , ORG , drove to an area called ORG , situated near the PERSON roundabout in GPE ( ORG ) of Dhekelia , to collect snails . After a time , they separated and agreed to meet up at TIME to return to their village .

A villager from PERSON , PERSON , who was also collecting snails on the north side of the main road , saw the victim standing in a field QUANTITY away from him . He also saw a NORP soldier QUANTITY from Mr PERSON pointing his rifle at him and a second NORP soldier approaching him . PERSON heard Mr ORG ask the first soldier , in NORP , whether he spoke NORP , to which there was no response . At that moment , the CARDINAL soldiers caught sight of PERSON and CARDINAL of them pointed a weapon at him . PERSON then backed away .

At this moment PERSON saw an LAW police patrol vehicle on the road and told the driver , Constable GPE , what he had seen . Constable GPE immediately reported the incident to Sergeant Serghiou of the LAW police at FAC .

Shortly after PERSON had seen Mr PERSON surrounded by NORP soldiers , PERSON , who was searching for Mr ORG , saw him at a distance of QUANTITY inside the territory of northern GPE . PERSON then heard the soldiers issue a command in NORP to stop . Upon hearing these words , PERSON ORG remained still and raised his hands above his head . Panikos PERSON saw CARDINAL NORP soldiers in combat uniform drop to battle positions on the ground QUANTITY from the victim and aim their rifles at him . Immediately afterwards , ORG heard a shot and saw Mr PERSON fall down . Mr PERSON heard a second shot immediately after the first .

TIME , while Mr Kakoulli was still lying on the ground , Mr PERSON saw CARDINAL of the NORP soldiers move and fire a third shot at him from a distance of QUANTITY from where he was lying .

Following orders from Sergeant Serghiou of the ORG police , Constable PERSON ( a NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG police ) and Constable PERSON ( a NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG police ) arrived at the PERSON roundabout , where they met Panikos PERSON , who explained what had just happened .

Constable PERSON spoke to a NORP lieutenant who told him that a NORP Cypriot had entered the territory of northern GPE and had been shot by NORP soldiers . The officer said that the NORP was dead .

The officer allowed ORG to see the body of the deceased though not to touch or examine it . Constable ORG reported that Mr PERSON appeared to be dead .

Sergeant Engin Mustafa of the ORG police ( a NORP ) , together with CARDINAL NORP soldiers , also visited the scene of the killing and saw the body . The NORP soldiers told PERSON that Mr Kakoulli had been shot because he had entered “ their area ” and had refused to obey warnings to stop .

Divisional Commander PERSON DATE of the LAW police , together with PERSON , entered northern GPE and spoke with a NORP officer who told him that NORP soldiers had shot and killed PERSON because he had entered the territory of northern GPE and had refused to stop .

DATE , Superintendent PERSON and Inspector PERSON of ORG ( ORG ) , part of ORG in GPE ( ORG ) , visited the scene , accompanied by PERSON . They found an investigating team from the NORP forces already present .

PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG police visited the area , although not the exact spot where the killing had occurred .

PERSON and PERSON and ORG police visited the area and prepared a draft location plan .

PERSON was escorted back to the scene of the incident , where he pointed out the various locations , which were then photographed by Constable PERSON .

A NORP pathologist , PERSON , carried out an autopsy on the body of the deceased , PERSON , at ORG . According to the NORP pathologist , the deceased had a wound QUANTITY in diameter in his chest , QUANTITY below his left nipple and QUANTITY from the collar bone , CARDINAL wounds in his back and a wound on his side in line with his right elbow .

PERSON concluded that the death had occurred as a result of internal bleeding caused by a shot to the heart .

According to the report by PERSON , during the removal of Mr ORG ’s clothes , an object fell from his left boot which was described as a type of garrotte , consisting of CARDINAL black metal handles attached to a length of wire . In addition , an object described as a bayonet in a scabbard was removed from the body ’s right boot . Following the autopsy , the body of Mr PERSON was taken to ORG under ORG escort .

According to the first applicant ’s statement to GPE police , her husband had only a red plastic bucket with him and had no object such as a bayonet or a garrotte , or any other kind of weapon .

On DATE autopsy was conducted in FAC by Dr PERSON . In his preliminary report PERSON stated that there were CARDINAL sets of gunshot wounds to the body . The report stated the following :

“ An entry wound on the right side of the neck , just below the right ear , with an exit wound at the back of the neck . This bullet had left the body without causing any damage to vital organs . A second entry wound on the right side of the trunk and an exit wound on the right side halfway down the back . This bullet appeared to have caused soft tissue damage with minor injury to the lungs but was not fatal . A third entry wound on the left side of the trunk towards the back with a steep upward direction into the body . This bullet had exited from the left side of the front of the chest , causing a large exit wound . This wound was fatal , as it had caused severe damage to the left lung and the heart , resulting in severe internal haemorrhage . ”

Until the second autopsy was concluded in FAC , ORG had sole responsibility for the body . Before that , the body was in the sole custody of the NORP forces .

On DATE Dr Vanezis prepared a final report in GPE . He concluded that the second set of wounds had been inflicted by a shot fired while Mr PERSON had his hand raised and that the third set of wounds were consistent with a shot fired into the body while Mr PERSON was lying on the ground or crouching down .

The Government maintained that ORG had violated the ceasefire line and had entered the territory of the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) . He was warned verbally and by hand gestures . However , he did not stop and continued to run towards the boundary . CARDINAL of the soldiers approached him and fired warning shots in the air . ORG took no notice of this shot and consequently a second shot was fired at the ground in order to stop him . As he continued to run away , a third round was fired at him below his waist , which apparently caused the fatal wound . The Government referred to the ORG Secretary - General ’s report , which stated : “ in a serious incident that occurred on DATE , a NORP was shot CARDINAL times and killed by a NORP - Cypriot soldier after crossing the NORP force ’s ceasefire line ” .

Neither the ORG nor the NORP Sovereign Base authorities carried out an investigation of their own as the scene of the incident was within the territory of the “ GPE ” .

The Government further referred to various violent incidents which had taken place in the border area and between the ceasefire lines of the CARDINAL sides DATE . ORG SecretaryGeneral ’s report , submitted to ORG on DATE , stated that the period under review had seen an increase in the level of violence and tension along the ceasefire lines . The tension rose in DATE owing to the NORP - Cypriot demonstrations at the border area and the ceasefire lines . Violent disturbances and riots took place on CARDINAL and DATE in the LOC area and in the vicinity of PERSON ( ORG ) , alongside the NORP SBA . During these events , CARDINAL NORP Cypriots were killed . On DATE CARDINAL NORP soldiers on sentry duty were shot with automatic weapons fired from the LAW into the territory of the “ TRNC ” . CARDINAL of the soldiers died as a result and the other was seriously wounded .

The Government emphasised the fact that ORG had crossed the NORP - Cypriot ceasefire line into the territory of the “ GPE ” , in the same area where the CARDINAL NORP soldiers had been shot . There were strong reasons to believe that Mr Kakoulli , who was a retired fireman , would not have crossed into the “ GPE ” territory by mistake , particularly at a location where there were signs in NORP and NORP indicating the border . Mr PERSON had been in possession of a garrotte and a bayonet at the material time , which constituted a strong presumption that he had a sinister motive . His act of carrying a bucket apparently to collect snails was a cover for his real motive .

NORP The death of Mr Kakoulli had not been a deliberate act , the Government asserted , but an attempt to maintain security in a highly tense environment . The incident had occurred during a period when tension at the border between the north and south of GPE was extremely high . Given the circumstances of the dangerous situation created by the NORP - Cypriot authorities , the NORP soldiers had been fully justified in taking all necessary precautions and using the necessary force in order to remove the danger and threats of the ceasefire being broken and to protect the lives of others .

The parties submitted various documents concerning the investigation into the killing of PERSON . These documents , in so far as they are relevant , are summarised below .

Mr Panikos Hadjiathanasiou is the fiancé of Mr ORG daughter . He accompanied Mr Kakoulli to collect snails on DATE of the impugned incident . In his statements he claimed , inter alia , the following :

“ ... After the rainfall at my village , I agreed with my father - in - law to go together TIME ( DATE ) to collect snails . So , DATE in the morning I set off with my father - in - law in my car , which I was driving . We took a bucket each in which to put snails ... At TIME we went to a point on the main ORG - Dhekelia road near a bridge . I stopped my car under some eucalyptus trees , on the left side of the main ORG - Dhekelia road , by the former PERSON police station . We alighted from the vehicle , we each took our buckets and we proceeded south , towards the PERSON side to collect snails . Because there were no snails to find , my father - in - law said that we should separate . He proceeded towards the lower side of the hill from the right , while I proceeded towards the left , intending to cover the whole lower side of the hill , and then to meet at the opposite side . The area in question is situated south of the main PERSON road . We started walking and I saw my father - in - law following a route in parallel to the main road and passing the bridge that is at the bottom of the hill by the PERSON roundabout . As soon he had proceeded CARDINAL after the bridge , I lost sight of him as I had proceeded further and the hill was in between us ... Before separating , my father - in - law told me that he was intending to go by the ORG observation post , which is opposite the former PERSON police station . The main PERSON - Dhekelia road is controlled by ORG . CARDINAL and TIME , as we had agreed to return to the village , I started calling him , “ Father ! Father ! ” , but did not receive any reply . Whilst doing so I was walking towards the hill so I could have a better view and be able to see him . Whilst walking , I heard shouting in the NORP language coming from the direction of the former PERSON police station , which is in the NORP - occupied area . On hearing the shouting , I ran towards the hill , I climbed it and I could see the surrounding area and the former PERSON police station . I saw my father - in - law standing by an acacia tree at the rear of the PERSON police station , facing towards the NORP - occupied area ... The distance between myself and my father - in - law was QUANTITY ... He was holding his bucket with his left hand , but nothing in his right ... I heard someone shouting at him something like a military command , which consisted of CARDINAL words that were short and sharp in tone , and I understood the first word to be ‘ DUR’ . The other CARDINAL words which I heard had a short interval between them but I did not understand them . On hearing those words , my father - in - law remained still ; he left the bucket on the ground , and raised his hands up to the level of his head . Simultaneously , I saw in front of my father - in - law , at a distance of QUANTITY , CARDINAL men dressed in camouflage combat uniform . They were wearing helmets and were carrying ‘ GCARDINAL’-type rifles . They fell to the ground in front of him and , taking up battle position , aimed their rifles towards his chest and abdominal area . As soon as they fell to the ground , I heard a shot and saw my father - in - law kneeling on the ground and then falling down ... Once he fell to the ground , I lost sight of him because of the presence of the acacia tree . Immediately afterwards I heard a second shot . TIME , while my father - in - law was still on the ground , I saw CARDINAL of the CARDINAL NORP soldiers standing up and , pointing his rifle forwards , proceeding towards the point where my father - in - law was , with his back arched . He approached within a distance of QUANTITY of him , straightened up , aimed his rifle towards the point where my father - in - law was and fired another shot ... At the time of the shootings , I saw that on the road between myself and the place where my father - in - law was shot , there were CARDINAL NORP Cypriots . CARDINAL of them was Georghios Mishis from GPE ... The NORP soldier , having fired the third shot , retreated to the point where the other soldier was lying on the ground and afterwards , both of them started walking backwards aiming their rifles towards the main road , and disappeared behind the slope at the rear of the PERSON police station ... I am sure that my father - in - law was shot and murdered at TIME , because I saw my watch ... ”

The witness is a fellow villager of ORG . He stated , inter alia :

“ ... DATE at CARDINAL in the morning , and because of the rain during TIME , I woke up to go and collect snails ... I was alone and drove to the LOC territory situated near the PERSON roundabout on the main ORG - Dhekelia road ... About six o’clock when there was daylight I was walking on the right side of the main road in the direction of the former PERSON police station and started collecting snails ... Whilst collecting snails I heard a noise to my rear . I turned back and saw my co - villager PERSON the fireman , who is the brother in - law of ORG . He was collecting snails as well , holding a bucket ... I continued walking up and down up to the fence of the police station and PERSON must have been collecting snails in the same area . After DATE of an hour from the time we met with PERSON , I walked back down the hill for QUANTITY from the fence of the police station . To my left in the NORP - occupied area I then saw PERSON and , further back down , QUANTITY away from where PERSON was , a NORP soldier with his weapon aimed at him . PERSON was at that time QUANTITY from where I was standing . At the same time another soldier approached from the direction of the NORP observation post and PERSON asked him if he could speak NORP . I heard PERSON clearly asking the latter soldier : ‘ Do you know Greek?’ . The soldier did not say ‘ yes’ or ‘ no’ to him . I then went on to the main road and stopped a car which was approaching from the direction of ORG and requested the driver to call the police ... I told him to call the police because the NORP had captured one of us further down , and pointed out to him the direction where I had seen PERSON and the NORP soldiers ... After that I started walking to the right down the road where the eucalyptus trees are , towards PERSON ... After CARDINAL of an hour from the time I last saw PERSON with the NORP I heard two shots and soon , after TIME , maybe TIME , a third shot . On hearing the QUANTITY shots I saw in front of me the son - in - law of PERSON , namely ORG , approaching from the direction where the water engine is or just beyond the eucalyptus trees . He said to me that the NORP had shot his father - in - law . The time I heard the third shot , I was together with ORG and we were just getting ready , before hearing the third shot , to stand up and see if we could see PERSON , but because of the third shot we sat down . The first CARDINAL shots I heard were one after the other whilst the third shot was heard TIME ... ”

The witness , who lives on the ORG refugee housing estate , was collecting snails in the same area where ORG met his death . He stated , inter alia :

“ ... At TIME I heard a shot and within a short period of time another one , coming from the east of the police station in the occupied area . Because at that time I was in a dried - out river , I could not identify what was happening at the police station ... When I returned to my car I saw CARDINAL young person who looked panic - stricken and told me that the NORP troops had shot his father - in - law on the eastern side of the police station ... I forgot to tell you that as I was heading towards my car I heard a third shot coming from the same direction . While I was with this person he told me he was called ORG and that he lived in PERSON , also that his father - in - law who was shot by the NORP was called PERSON . While talking with ORG I noticed that at the point where he showed me the NORP had shot his father - in - law there were CARDINAL NORP soldiers with camouflage clothing armed with rifles ... ”

NORP The witness is a police sergeant at the SBA . On DATE of the impugned incident he was on duty at the base . He stated :

“ ... On DATE TIME I was on mobile patrol , dressed in uniform , in a marked police vehicle , in FAC when I received a message to the effect that there was a border incident around the village of PERSON , where a NORP Cypriot had been shot by the NORP army . I proceeded to the scene , along the LOC main road by the PERSON roundabout . My arrival time was TIME ... I proceeded QUANTITY north - west , escorted by CARDINAL NORP soldiers , where I saw the body of QUANTITY male person lying face down on the ground , who seemed to be showing no signs of life . He looked to be in DATE . He was wearing a grey shirt , jeans and wellington boots . There was a red plastic bucket with some snails inside it on the ground to the left of the lifeless person . I now know the name of the deceased to be PERSON . I was informed by the NORP army officer at the scene that the NORP soldiers had shot the man in question at TIME DATE because he had entered their area and failed to obey when challenged ... ”

The witness is the Commander of ORG of the SBA Police . He stated , in so far as relevant :

“ ... At CARDINAL [ on DATE ] , I went to the area of the alleged shooting and met with PERSON of the SBA Police . PERSON reported to me that a man , identified as one ORG , had been shot dead by NORP soldiers inside the ORG QUANTITY north of FAC ... Together with ORG I entered the ORG and walked to a point QUANTITY to the north of FAC and QUANTITY to the east of it where I saw the body of a male person laying face down on the ground with his head turned to the right . From the appearance of the body I believed him to be dead , although I was not permitted to touch the body to ascertain if there was any possibility of life . I noted that the body was of a middle - aged male , wearing a white - coloured DATE shirt with light - coloured markings around the upper back area , blue denim jeans with a black leather belt and black wellington boots . Lying near the left shoulder of the body was a red - coloured plastic QUANTITY bucket that contained some snails . I could see blood stains on the edges of the shirt emerging from the front of the body as it lay on the ground . There was no sign of blood or wounds on the back of the body . I asked the NORP ORG if he could tell me what had happened . He told me that at TIME one of the sentries had seen the deceased moving on foot within the NORP - controlled area . The sentry challenged the man but he did not stop . The sentry challenged the man a second time but he still did not stop so the sentry shot him twice . The man still managed to move a further QUANTITY to the south and the sentry shot him a third time ... ”

The witness is the wife of the deceased , Mr PERSON . She claimed that her husband had left the family house with a bucket to collect snails . She disputed the allegation that her late husband was in possession of a knife and a wire rope and stated that such an allegation must have been advanced to cover up his murder .

The witness , a police constable stationed at the SBA Police Station in GPE , saw a middle - aged person holding a basket , collecting snails on the main road in the direction of GPE . This person told the witness that somebody had been arrested by the NORP forces and asked him to take action . The witness called Sergeant Serghiou at ORG and requested him to dispatch a patrol and also to inform the relevant agencies .

The witness is a police sergeant stationed at the ORG Police in PERSON . He was on duty at the time of the killing of PERSON . After having been informed , by Police Constable PERSON , about the arrest of a male NORP by the NORP soldiers , the witness instructed Police PERSON and PERSON to proceed to the scene and to carry out inquiries and to report back . At TIME informed the witness that the person in question was PERSON of PERSON and that he had been shot dead by NORP soldiers near GPE within the NORP - controlled area .

The witness is a police constable stationed at the ORG Police in PERSON . He was on duty at the time of the killing of PERSON . On the instructions of Police Sergeant Serghiou the witness went to the PERSON roundabout , along with Police Constable GPE , to inquire into the arrest of PERSON . He stated , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ ... When I walked close to [ GPE ] CARDINAL some [ NORP ] soldiers shouted at me to stay away . I replied to them that I was a NORP LAW police officer . Still they shouted at me to stay away and I then walked back to the edge of the main road and shouted at them again to ask whether the commander was present . They replied that he was not there . They promised to call me back when he arrived at the scene . At CARDINAL a.m. they called me and signalled to me to cross the boundary . I walked into the NORP - controlled area and met with the NORP lieutenant , who refused to give me his name . I then asked him if he had seen any NORP collecting snails in the area . He said that a NORP Cypriot had crossed the boundary into the NORP - controlled area and had been shot dead by his soldiers . I then asked him again whether he was dead or wounded , to which he replied that he was definitely dead . Then at QUANTITY a.m. the army officer showed me the deceased , who was QUANTITY within the NORP - controlled area . I saw the body from a distance of QUANTITY metres lying on the ground in a prostrate position with the head facing west . I saw blood on the left - hand side of the body ; it was pale and looked dead ... ”

The witness is a police constable stationed at the ORG Police in PERSON . He was on duty at the time of the killing of PERSON . On the instructions of Police Sergeant Serghiou the witness went to the PERSON roundabout , along with Police Constable PERSON , to inquire into the arrest of ORG . On the way to the PERSON roundabout the witness met PERSON , who told him that his father - in - law had been shot dead by NORP soldiers . He informed his colleagues at ORG and GPE about the impugned incident .

The witness is a police superintendent in GPE . He was the head of the police squad which visited the scene of the killing of PERSON . Following his visit the witness concluded that Mr PERSON had been kidnapped by armed NORP soldiers , transferred into the NORP - occupied areas and shot dead . He was involved in the preparation of topographical sketches and plans of the scene of the killing and attended the post - mortem examination of the deceased .

The witness was involved in the investigation into the killing of PERSON . He stated that Mr PERSON had been shot dead by NORP soldiers while collecting snails QUANTITY inside the NORP - occupied areas . He attended the post - mortem examination of the corpse of Mr Kakoulli at FAC .

The witness is a police inspector in ORG in the village of NORP . He was appointed as the investigator in the case of the killing of PERSON . He visited the scene of the killing and supervised the taking of statements in connection with the incident . With reference to the statements of ORG and PERSON , the witness found that ORG had been shot dead by NORP soldiers while collecting snails in the NORP - occupied area . He noted that on DATE , TIME after the killing , an autopsy had been carried out on the body of the victim in the presence of NORP and ORG officials and that a garrotte , consisting of CARDINAL metal handles attached to a string of wire , and a CARDINAL-centimetre bayonet had fallen down when the boots of the deceased had been removed .

The witnesses are specialist photographers attached to ORG at ORG . They took various photographs of the scene of the impugned incident on DATE .

The ORG issued CARDINAL press releases on CARDINAL and DATE concerning , respectively , the killing of ORG and the deaths occurring in FAC .

In the press release of DATE it expressed concern that an innocent life , namely that of ORG , had been lost as a result of deplorable and unnecessary force . The ORG qualified the incident as a disproportionate response and stressed that lethal force should not be used by either side against persons who crossed the respective ceasefire lines or entered FAC . It was further noted that the commander of the ORG had requested the commander of the NORP forces in GPE to instruct soldiers under his command not to shoot unless their own lives were threatened .

In the press release dated DATE the ORG noted that CARDINAL deaths in DATE in FAC or adjacent to the ceasefire lines underscored the urgent need for arrangements to avoid the recurrence of similar tragic incidents . It further pointed out that these incidents had highlighted the need to ensure that the rules of engagement applied along the ceasefire lines prevented the use of lethal force except in clear situations of self - defence .

Dr PERSON , from ORG at ORG , carried out a post - mortem examination at ORG on DATE on the body of ORG . In his report dated DATE , in which he summarised his findings , PERSON stated :

“ The deceased suffered CARDINAL gunshot wounds to the body as follows :

CARDINAL to the right side of the neck , which entered at a position just below the ear , exited at the back of the neck and did not cause any damage to any vital organs .

The second entered through the right side of the trunk and exited at the back at approximately the same level and appeared to have caused soft tissue damage with some minor associated internal injury to the lung , but was not in my view fatal .

The third wound was on the left side of the trunk towards the back . It entered the body and its trajectory was steeply upwards into the body at an angle of QUANTITY . It then exited from the left side of the front of the chest , causing a large exit wound . This wound was the fatal wound , causing severe damage to the left lung and the heart with consequent extensive internal bleeding .

The first CARDINAL wounds mentioned were from approximately the same direction and both had approximately horizontal trajectories on entering the body .

The third wound was on the other side of the body and had a steep upward trajectory . The position of this wound indicates that the deceased , at the time of receiving this wound , was in a horizontal position either on the ground or crouching .

The first CARDINAL wounds appeared to have been fired at approximately the same time , bearing in mind that their direction and their position on the body are from the same side ... ”

The applicants provided the ORG with sketch maps and photographs of the scene of the killing of PERSON and with the photographs taken during the post - mortem examination carried out by PERSON PERSON .

It is to be noted that PERSON observations concerning the deceased ’s body correspond to the photos taken during the post - mortem examination .

DATE the daily newspapers PERSON , GPE , ORG , ORG reported the killing of ORG . The aforementioned newspapers extensively covered the impugned incident and reported the details of the killing of ORG and the investigation conducted into the impugned incident .

The following documents furnished by the Government pertain to the investigation carried out by the “ TRNC ” authorities into the killing of ORG .

This document sets out , in chronological order , the course of action taken by the investigating authorities in relation to the killing of ORG . It includes statements by various witnesses , reports , and decisions by the authorities . It appears that the investigation into the death of ORG was mainly carried out by Inspector PERSON , who at the relevant time worked at ORG Gazi ORG .

Inspector PERSON commenced his investigation immediately after he had learned about the death of PERSON , namely at TIME He visited the scene of the incident along with CARDINAL other police constables at TIME on DATE . He observed that the incident had taken place on a slope QUANTITY to the south of the guard post code - named FAC , which was under the responsibility of ORG of ORG . The area was a first - degree military prohibited area where there were warning signs . At the site on the slope a dead person was lying face down . There was a large pool of blood .

Having completed his preliminary investigation , Inspector ORG established that at TIME on DATE Privates PERSON and PERSON of the ORG had begun their guard duties . TIME , they had seen a person QUANTITY from the guard post inside the military prohibited area . Private Avşar was in possession of a weapon . He had approached the person in question and concluded that he was a NORP because he spoke NORP . He had signalled to the person to stop . But the person had attempted to run away towards the border fence . Private ORG had first fired one shot in the air , CARDINAL shot at the ground and QUANTITY shot at his legs . Having seen that the person in question had failed to stop , Private Avşar had aimed at him and fired and killed him .

According to the work schedule , Police Constable PERSON took the necessary photographs of the scene of the incident . Police PERSON drew a plan of the location . Inspector PERSON collected CARDINAL cartridges and took samples from the pool of blood . ORG police officers PERSON and PERSON and inspectors and soldiers from ORG visited the location but left without doing anything , given that the incident had taken place within the boundaries of the “ TRNC ” . At the scene of the incident , the military doctor PERSON examined the body and found CARDINAL entry holes and CARDINAL exit holes caused by bullets . The body was then transferred to ORG for an autopsy . Following the preliminary examination carried out by PERSON of ORG , the body was put in the morgue and placed under police surveillance .

On DATE the Gazi ORG issued an interim order allowing the investigating authorities to carry out a postmortem on the body of ORG . DATE at TIME a team comprising Inspector PERSON , Assistant Director PERSON , Police Sergeants H. Özdoğdu and PERSON , Police Constable O. Pekun and ORG officials Major PERSON , PERSON , Inspector PERSON and Inspector PERSON , as well as Dr PERSON amd PERSON , arrived at the morgue of ORG . The same day at TIME the body was taken out of the refrigerator by the morgue official PERSON and was placed on the post - mortem table in the presence of the aforementioned persons . As the morgue official was removing the boot from the left foot of the body , a garrotte wire ( both ends of the laundry wire , which was QUANTITY long , were attached to a QUANTITY long iron handle ) fell to the ground . ORG officials examined the said object on the spot . Then ORG photographer and Police Constable O. Pekun photographed the object . When the boot was removed from the right foot a bayonet with a brown handle in a scabbard was seen to have been inserted between the right side of the leg and the interior of the boot . In this instance too ORG officials and Police Constable O. Pekun photographed the object . Then the boot was removed and the bayonet and its scabbard measured . The bayonet , together with its scabbard , was QUANTITY long . The objects were taken as exhibits .

TIME on the same day Dr PERSON and Dr PERSON carried out the post - mortem examination on the body in the presence of the above - mentioned persons . CARDINAL X - rays of the body were taken . Doctors took CARDINAL cc blood samples from the chest cavity of the body and placed them in CARDINAL separate CARDINAL cc containers for examination . They observed a total of CARDINAL gunshot wounds ; CARDINAL entry wounds and CARDINAL exit wounds . Police Constable PERSON took fingerprints and palm prints of the deceased for examination . The autopsy examination established that the cause of death was internal bleeding as a result of shots fired by a firearm . The shots had shattered the left ventricle of the heart and the left lower lobe of the lung . Following the autopsy , the body , the photos , X - rays and the belongings of the deceased were handed over to ORG officials .

Between DATE and DATE statements were taken from ORG officials , Police PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Furthermore , witness testimonies were obtained from ORG Private PERSON , the non - commissioned officer PERSON , Infantry Lieutenant PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Dr PERSON , Dr PERSON , the chemist PERSON , Chief Inspector PERSON , Inspector PERSON and ORG .

In a letter of DATE PERSON , who was at the relevant time the Deputy Director and Acting Director of ORG at the Gazi ORG , submitted a detailed report about the killing of ORG . Mr PERSON stated , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ [ ORG ] , despite the presence of warning signs , secretly crossed into the GPE territory near border stone no . CARDINAL and advanced QUANTITY inside ...

Infantry Private PERSON first verbally warned PERSON and asked him to stop . But the said person attempted to escape by walking away speedily . Following that , Infantry Private PERSON got QUANTITY closer to the victim and first fired a single warning shot into the air . When [ PERSON ] continued to run away , PERSON fired another warning shot to the ground . But when he again tried to escape , PERSON fired a single shot in the direction of his legs and then CARDINAL shots below the waist . PERSON was stopped after being shot ...

During the removal of ORG boots , a garrotte wire hidden in the left boot and a QUANTITY bayonet hidden inside the right boot were discovered . Both have been seized as exhibits ...

The ballistic examination revealed that CARDINAL empty cartridges had been fired by a GCARDINAL infantry rifle with the serial number DATE .

The comparison of the fingerprints of the victim with the fingerprints found on the bayonet which was found in his right boot showed that the fingerprints on the bayonet belonged to the victim ...

A charge of manslaughter can be brought against someone in the event of a criminal offence or negligence . However , as the testimonies show , Infantry Private PERSON made all the necessary moves to apprehend the person but as a last resort , after giving warnings , opened fire on PERSON and shot him .

In my opinion , in the light of the existing testimonies , the incident qualifies , under LAW ) ( b ) and LAW , as an act of causing death which does not constitute a criminal offence ... ”

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE PERSON , who was a Deputy Assistant Attorney - General , instructed the Director General of Police to take no further action on the case and to close it .

DATE . In DATE the police authorities decided to classify the case concerning the killing of PERSON as “ no case ” and to discontinue the investigation .

Having completed the judicial inquest , the LOC judge concluded that ORG had died of injuries caused by shots fired by ORG after illegally entering the “ NORP ” and failing to obey warnings to stop .

In his statements concerning the conclusions he had reached at the end of the investigation into the killing of ORG , Inspector PERSON expressed the view that ORG had acted in accordance with the instructions given to him . Private Avşar had given the necessary warnings and had shot and killed PERSON because of the latter ’s failure to stop . Inspector PERSON thus concluded that this was a justified killing since PERSON had done what his duty dictated . Inspector PERSON recommended that the case should be classified as “ no case ” .

NORP This report describes the sequence of events concerning the involvement of FAC in the investigation into the killing of PERSON . It appears that immediately after the killing of Mr Kakoulli , at TIME , ORG members including PERSON and Inspector PERSON visited the scene of the incident . The ORG members did not investigate the incident but merely observed the conduct of the investigation by the “ TRNC ” authorities from DATE to DATE .

In his statements to the investigating authorities , Infantry Private PERSON claimed the following , in so far as relevant , in relation to his killing of PERSON :

“ ... DATE , on GPE , PERSON and I were on guard duty at FAC CARDINAL ... After TIME from the time we started our shift , we – I and PERSON ORG saw , CARDINAL metres from our guard post , a person walking inside our territory . This person was walking in a south - north direction , in other words in the direction of a trail we describe as the patrolling trail . We did not know who this person was . As soon as I saw this person I informed Duty Officer PERSON via the wireless ( radio ) . He told us over the wireless to continue to keep the person under observation . Then I told my companion , Infantry Private PERSON : ‘ You stay here ; I will go and look at this person.’ And , holding my rifle with a loaded magazine attached to it , I came down from FAC guard post and joined the trail , advancing towards the border fence ... After approaching to QUANTITY from the person , I shouted and asked him what he was doing there . Without saying anything the person continued walking on the slope in the direction of the patrolling trail . Until that moment I could not firmly determine whether this person was a NORP or a NORP . So I moved closer to him . The distance between us was QUANTITY . This person was high on the slope . At that moment , I sensed that the person could well be a NORP . The look of the person was one of bad intent and unease . After that , through hand signals I asked him where he was coming from . Initially the person gave no verbal reply , but he signalled with his right hand and indicated the NORP side and said something in NORP . But I did not understand what he said . When I was sure that the person was a NORP , I removed the safety catch of my weapon and aimed at him . At that moment , the person , while speaking in NORP and making hand signals , started coming towards me . Faced with this situation I shouted in NORP , telling him to stop , and with my left arm I signalled to him to stop . The person did not stop and continued walking towards me . I , for my part , stepped back QUANTITY and shouted at my colleague PERSON and told him to inform the exchange about the situation ...

The guard PERSON heard me . Then I again turned my head towards the person . I shouted and warned the person to stop . After that he stopped walking towards me and started walking towards the border fence . I again shouted and warned him to stop . But this person continued walking away in the direction of the fence while moving his arms and hands saying something in NORP . The distance between this person and the border fence was QUANTITY . Following that , I went up to the slope to have a better view of him . The person was still walking towards the border fence . I shouted again and asked him to stop . But he went on walking , waving his hands at the same time . After that the distance between the person and me was QUANTITY . At that point I fired a shot into the air . After hearing the firing of the gun the person quickened his steps . After that I turned my weapon in his direction and fired another shot towards the ground . He again failed to stop and further increased his speed . The distance between us at that moment was QUANTITY . When I realised that the person would not heed my warnings and would cross over to the NORP - Cypriot side , that is I would not be able to catch him , I decided to stop the person by shooting and wounding him . Therefore , while he was walking I aimed my gun roughly at his legs and fired . After that the person stopped momentarily . Until that moment I was not sure if my shot had found its target . Following that , and while he was in a walking position , I fired CARDINAL rounds , aiming at the person . And the person was shot and fell to the ground . Naturally , the person fell on his right side . I realised that the person was shot . But I did not go near him . I thought there could be others hiding in the area . Therefore , I went up to the hilltop and , hiding behind the rock , began observing and monitoring the area . After that I did not hear any sound coming from the said person .

The shooting incident took place at TIME After TIME Company Duty Officer PERSON arrived at the scene of the incident along with a team of soldiers . I told him what had happened . The soldiers took security measures in the area . As I said , I fired CARDINAL rounds in this incident ... ”

At the time of the impugned incident ORG Private PERSON was on guard duty along with ORG at FAC guard post . In his statements to the authorities he mentioned , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ ... DATE , on ORG at TIME , the duty officer of the company , Noncommissioned Officer PERSON , drove PERSON and me to the guard post and we began our guard duties there . TIME after the start of our guard duties , we saw a person in civilian dress between our guard post and the border fence and QUANTITY away from the post . Immediately after seeing this person my colleague PERSON notified the situation to the exchange via the wireless . However , I am not sure who he talked to . Over the wireless he was told ‘ OK , keep an eye on it’ . Following that , we continued to keep the person in question under surveillance ... This person was QUANTITY from the border fence inside our territory . After that my colleague told me : ‘ I will go and find out who that person is . You stay here and watch ... ’ The person we saw was to the south of the patrolling trail inside the ‘ GPE territory , which was a military prohibited zone . No one is allowed to enter the area where we saw the person without permission ... When we first arrived at our post no information was given to us about the presence of a person there . Therefore , we realised that that person could not be someone with permission . As a result , [ PERSON ] left the post to find out who that person was . PERSON left the post holding the G-CARDINAL infantry rifle , registered in his name , with CARDINAL magazine attached to it and another one inside his belt , and directly joined the patrolling trail from the top and crossed the trail in a southerly direction and started walking in the field as if he wanted to get away from the person , but he was going to approach the person from behind . The way he was moving he would prevent the person from escaping or getting closer to the border fence . What I saw from the guard post was this : PERSON got closer to the person and the distance between them was QUANTITY . First I saw that person on the slope and PERSON was in the field . Then I saw PERSON climbing up the slope . I do not know if there was any conversation between the person and PERSON ; I could not hear them from my post . At that moment , as I was watching them PERSON got nearer to the person , QUANTITY away . Then I saw PERSON turn towards the guard post and signal by hand and shout , telling me to inform the exchange . Right at that moment I understood that PERSON had found out that the person was a NORP . At that moment – the time was about CARDINAL.CARDINAL a.m. – I lifted the telephone receiver in the guard post , while watching them . I saw that the person that PERSON was trying to get closer to was starting to walk speedily away and trying to escape . Naturally , that person was walking in the direction of the border fence . Then I saw PERSON raise his gun into the air and fire a single shot . But that man was still walking away . This time PERSON lowered his gun and aimed at the man , and in a very short period he fired CARDINAL single shots , and as the man was walking he fell down . Naturally , it was not possible for me to discern how many shots PERSON fired at the man and how many shots at the ground . But when the man fell down I realised that he had been shot ... PERSON shot that person inside the military prohibited zone ... ”

Guards on duty at FAC guard post are required to follow the instructions mentioned below , among others . Paragraph CARDINAL of the General Instructions reads :

“ In the event of any danger the guard shall fully load his weapon , shall open the safety catch and if need be shall use the weapon without hesitation but in accordance with the rules of engagement . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Special Instructions reads :

“ Guards shall always stop any person approaching them at TIME . They shall ask for a password and a signal . Unless they are sure , they shall not allow anyone to approach them . ”

DATE . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Special Instructions provides :

“ When armed or unarmed military persons enter the buffer zone or cross the confrontation line , the guard on duty shall immediately inform the company ’s telephone exchange and take up position . If enemy personnel are inside the buffer zone and continue to approach after a warning is given for them to stop , they shall be aimed at and fired at . If the enemy personnel intend , after entering the buffer zone , to cross the confrontation line , the guard on duty shall not allow the removal of wounded or dead personnel from the buffer zone or inside the confrontation line . The guard shall not allow the destruction of evidence . If need be he shall take aim and open fire . No personnel , in such a situation , shall enter the buffer zone . ”

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials ( “ ORG Firearms Principles ” ) were adopted on DATE at ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles provides :

“ Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in selfdefence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury , to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life , to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority , or to prevent his or her escape , and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives . In any event , intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles provides , inter alia , that law enforcement officials must “ exercise restraint in [ the ] use [ of force and firearms ] and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved ” . Paragraph CARDINAL provides : “ Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law ” . LAW ( b ) states that national rules and regulations on the use of firearms should “ ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm ” .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles reads as follows :

“ ... law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms , with sufficient time for the warnings to be observed , unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons , or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of proceedings);Violation of Art. 3;Just satisfaction not applied

Mr. PERSON , a citizen of the GPE born on DATE , is resident in GPE , Isle of Man . On DATE , being then aged CARDINAL and of previous good character , he pleaded guilty before the local juvenile court to unlawful assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a senior pupil at his school . The assault , committed by the applicant in company with CARDINAL other boys , was apparently motivated by the fact that the victim had reported the boys for taking beer into the school , as a result of which they had been caned . The applicant was sentenced on DATE to CARDINAL strokes of the birch in accordance with the relevant legislation ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

He appealed against sentence to ORG of ORG of GPE . The appeal was heard and dismissed on TIME DATE ; the court considered that an unprovoked assault occasioning actual bodily harm was always very serious and that there were no reasons for interfering with the sentence . The court had ordered the applicant to be medically examined in TIME of the same day and had before it a doctor ’s report that the applicant was fit to receive the punishment .

After waiting in a police station for a considerable time for a doctor to arrive , Mr. PERSON was birched TIME of DATE . His father and a doctor were present . The applicant was made to take down his trousers and underpants and bend over a table ; he was held by CARDINAL policemen whilst a third administered the punishment , pieces of the birch breaking at the first stroke . The applicant ’s father lost his self - control and after the third stroke " went for " CARDINAL of the policemen and had to be restrained .

The birching raised , but did not cut , the applicant ’s skin and he was sore for DATE .

The applicant was sentenced pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG as amended by section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) whereby :

" Any person who shall -

( a ) unlawfully assault or beat any other person ;

( b ) make use of provoking language or behaviour tending to a breach of the peace , shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding QUANTITY or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months and , in addition to , or instead of , either such punishment , if the offender is a male child or male young person , to be whipped . "

The expressions " child " and " young person " mean , respectively , an individual of or over DATE and under CARDINAL and an individual of or over the age of DATE and under CARDINAL .

Execution of the sentence was governed by the following provisions :

" ( a ) the instrument used shall , in the case of a child , be a cane , and in any other case shall be a birch rod ;

( b ) the court in its sentence shall specify the number of strokes to be inflicted , being in the case of a child not CARDINAL strokes , and in the case of any other person not CARDINAL strokes ;

( c ) the whipping shall be inflicted privately as soon as practicable after sentence and in any event shall not take place after the expiration of DATE from the passing of the sentence ;

( d ) the whipping shall be inflicted by a constable in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable , and , in the case of a child or young person , also in the presence if he desires to be present , of the parent or guardian of the child or young person . "

" l. The instruments to be used shall be : -

( i ) in the case of a male child who is under DATE , a light cane not exceeding QUANTITY in length and not QUANTITY in diameter ,

and

( ii ) in the case of a male person who is of DATE but is under DATE a birch rod of the following dimensions :

Weight not exceeding QUANTITY

Length from end of handle to tip of spray QUANTITY

Length of handle QUANTITY

Circumference of spray at centre QUANTITY

Circumference of handle at top of binding QUANTITY

Circumference of handle QUANTITY from end QUANTITY

In all cases where a ORG is empowered to impose a sentence of whipping a medical report as to whether the offender is fit to receive the punishment will be made available to the LAW before they consider sentence . Arrangements for this report will be made by ORG .

The whipping shall be inflicted on the posterior over the child ’s ordinary cloth trousers .

A medical practitioner shall be present during a birching and may at his discretion order the stopping of the punishment at any time . Where a birching has been stopped on medical grounds a report of the facts shall be forwarded immediately to His Excellency . "

With reference to paragraph CARDINAL of the Directive , the ORG was advised at the hearing on DATE that , in the light of the ORG ’s report , an amendment had recently been made by ORG whereby the punishment is to be administered over ordinary cloth trousers in all cases irrespective of the offender ’s age .

GPE is not a part of GPE but a dependency of the ORG with its own government , legislature and courts and its own administrative , fiscal and legal systems . The ORG is ultimately responsible for the good government of the LOC and acts in this respect through ORG on the recommendation of Ministers of ORG in their capacity as ORG . In that capacity , the Home Secretary is charged with prime responsibility for Isle of Man affairs .

Prior to DATE , ORG regarded international treaties applicable to GPE as extending , in the absence of contrary provision , to GPE . Thereafter , they no longer so regarded such treaties unless there were an express inclusion and they treated the Island as a territory for whose international relations they were responsible . In fact , by letter dated DATE addressed to the Secretary - General of ORG , the Government of GPE declared , in accordance with LAW ) of the LAW , that the LAW should extend to a number of such territories , including LOC .

The LOC ’s parliament , ORG , is CARDINAL of the oldest in LOC . It consists of a Lieutenant - Governor appointed by and representing the ORG , an ORG ( ORG ) and a ORG ( the ORG of Keys ) . ORG legislates in domestic matters , the laws it adopts requiring ratification by ORG ; the Home Secretary is responsible for advising ORG whether or not to recommend that the Royal Assent be given .

In strict law , ORG has full power to pass laws applicable to GPE but , by constitutional convention , does not in the ordinary course legislate on the LOC ’s domestic affairs , such as penal policy , without its consent . This convention would be followed unless it were overridden by some other consideration , an example of which would be an international treaty obligation .

Judicial corporal punishment of adults and juveniles was abolished in GPE , GPE and GPE in DATE and in GPE in DATE . That abolition followed upon the recommendations of ORG ( known as ORG ) which issued its report in DATE . ORG on the Treatment of Offenders , in its report of DATE ( known as the PERSON report ) , endorsed the findings of ORG and concluded that corporal punishment should not be reintroduced as a judicial penalty in respect of any categories of offencers or of offenders .

The punishment remained in existence in LOC . When PERSON examined the question in DATE and DATE , it decided to retain judicial corporal punishment , which was considered a deterrent to hooligans visiting the Island as tourists and , more generally , a means of preserving law and order .

In DATE , by CARDINAL votes for and CARDINAL against , ORG passed a resolution , inter alia ,

" that the retention of the use of judicial corporal punishment for crimes of violence to the person is a desirable safeguard in the control of law and order in LOC and GPE hereby re - affirms its policy to retain the use of judicial corporal punishment for violent crimes to the person committed by males under DATE " .

At the hearing on DATE , the Attorney - General for GPE informed the ORG that recently a privately organised petition in favour of the retention of judicial corporal punishment had obtained CARDINAL signatures from amongst the approximate total of CARDINAL persons entitled to vote on the LOC .

While under various provisions judicial corporal punishment could be imposed on males for a number of offences , since DATE its application has apparently been restricted in practice to offences of violence .

During his address to the ORG , the Attorney - General for GPE indicated that the NORP legislature would shortly be considering LAW DATE which contained a proposal to limit the use of judicial corporal punishment to young males for certain specified offences only , on the whole the more serious offences of violence . The offence with which the applicant was charged had been omitted from the specified list of offences .

The name and address of a juvenile sentenced in LOC , whether to corporal punishment or otherwise , are not published .

According to figures cited before the ORG by the Attorney- General for GPE , judicial corporal punishment was inflicted in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL case in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL cases in DATE , in CARDINAL case in DATE , in CARDINAL case in DATE and in CARDINAL cases in DATE . The average number of crimes of violence to the person per annum was : DATE ; DATE ; DATE ; and DATE . In DATE there were CARDINAL crimes of violence to the person , in DATE and in DATE .

In DATE , CARDINAL young male was convicted of a crime of violence .

At the DATE census , the LOC ’s population stood at CARDINAL .