CASE OF ANDRONICOU AND CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS

Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 6-1

The facts of the case as established by the ORG in its report of CARDINAL DATE are not disputed . The events giving rise to the application were fully examined at the national level by a commission of inquiry which held hearings over a DATE period during which it took evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and examined CARDINAL exhibits ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Commission was able to examine a full transcript of the proceedings before the commission of inquiry and to study various pieces of evidentiary material submitted to it , including a video recording of the incident .

The conclusions to be drawn from the facts as established by ORG are , on the other hand , disputed by the Government since its conclusions differ from those reached by the domestic commission of inquiry .

The facts set out below are based mainly on those contained in the report of the ORG . The conclusions of the commission of inquiry are set out at paragraphs ORG below .

PERSON and PERSON were at the time of the events DATE respectively . PERSON had CARDINAL children from a previous marriage which was dissolved in DATE .

He first met PERSON in DATE . At the time she was working for a fashion shop . He was employed by a cement company . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON moved into PERSON ground - floor flat in the PERSON district of GPE . It would appear that her parents , the third and fourth applicants , did not approve of the relationship and attempted to persuade her to return home . On CARDINAL occasion her father enlisted the help of the police . PERSON mother did in fact succeed in persuading her to move out of the flat and return home . She subsequently spent DATE in GPE . She returned from GPE on DATE and moved back into PERSON flat .

The couple announced their engagement in the local press on DATE .

On DATE at TIME , CARDINAL of PERSON neighbours , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , heard a woman calling for help from inside PERSON flat . Initially , they decided not to interfere and NORP Papapetru and PERSON left . However , as the woman continued to shout : “ Stop beating me , PERSON , who owned the shop next door , decided to call A. GPE , the owner of the block of flats , and the third applicant , PERSON GPE ’s father . At CARDINAL stage PERSON saw a woman trying to jump from the window and someone pulling her inside . At CARDINAL he called GPE police station and QUANTITY police officers were sent to investigate .

The police officers rang the door bell , but did not get an answer . CARDINAL of the officers , who happened to know PERSON , pleaded with him to open the door . He heard a woman calling from behind the closed door : “ PERSON , leave the gun aside ; what are you going to do ? ”

NORP The officers withdrew and radioed GPE police station . At that stage NORP Papapetru and PERSON returned to the scene and saw a girl getting out of PERSON flat and signalling to them . Then she went back into the flat again . They were not in a position to say whether she returned of her own accord or whether someone pulled her back inside .

At TIME , the deputy head of ORG ( hereinafter “ ORG ” ) arrived on the scene together with other police officers . He knocked on the door and spoke with PERSON , who told him that he had quarrelled with PERSON and that they had hit each other . He then heard PERSON shouting to him that PERSON had beaten her and PERSON asking to be let out . He also heard PERSON asking PERSON why he was loading the gun and pointing it at her . PERSON tried to calm PERSON by telling him that many couples quarrel and then make up without the need for the police to intervene . However , when he approached the window , PERSON threatened to shoot him if he did not move away . I. ORG asked him to let him see PERSON , specifying that , if the latter told him that she had no complaint , he would leave . There was no reply .

D. Papapetru , with the authorisation of PERSON , succeeded in engaging PERSON in a conversation . The latter asked him for cigarettes , telling him that : “ Afterwards he would think what he should do and would open the door . ” PERSON pushed some cigarettes under the door . At CARDINAL stage PERSON cried to PERSON that PERSON was pointing the gun at her and that he was going to shoot her . At CARDINAL point PERSON drew the curtain and PERSON saw him holding a shotgun .

Efforts to persuade PERSON to release PERSON continued but to no avail and at TIME I. ORG decided to notify A. GPE , the deputy director of GPE police , and PERSON GPE , the head of GPE ORG .

The deputy director of GPE police , GPE , arrived on the scene at TIME He talked to PERSON , who asked in an angry manner for the police to withdraw . PERSON promised him help and protection and invited him to state his claims . PERSON repeated that he just wanted the police to go . PERSON started shouting for help , claiming that PERSON had hit her the previous evening and that her eye was now swollen and sore . Sobbing , she stated that she feared he would kill her and claimed that he was pointing his gun at her . PERSON called GPE , the director of GPE police .

In the meantime the third applicant , PERSON father , arrived together with her cousin , PERSON . They found there PERSON , another cousin who had also made an attempt to persuade PERSON to release the young woman . PERSON started gathering information concerning the couple ’s relationship . It was established that they were living together . As it emerged however in the course of the proceedings before the commission of inquiry , the police were not aware during the operation that they had just announced their engagement .

D. GPE , the director of GPE police , arrived on the scene at TIME He told PERSON that he had nothing to fear , as there would be no consequences . PERSON demanded once more the complete withdrawal of the police .

At TIME , the deputy head of GPE ORG , ordered another policeman to obtain an arrest and search warrant on the ground that PERSON was holding PERSON against her will and threatening her with a shotgun . The warrants were issued by a GPE district judge .

D. GPE , the director of GPE police , discussed the situation with PERSON father in PERSON shop , which was now being used as an operations room . As PERSON , the deputy director of GPE police , confirmed before the commission of inquiry , PERSON father suggested that the police should withdraw and leave the family to deal with the problem on their own .

PERSON also asked for the assistance of PERSON , PERSON previous employer , who was present at the scene . PERSON PERSON talked to PERSON and found out that his telephone was not functioning . PERSON , having obtained GPE approval , left outside the window of the flat a telephone which belonged to PERSON . It was later established that the telephone had a loudspeaker facility .

PERSON called the fourth applicant , PERSON mother , and persuaded her to come . He also asked PERSON father to talk to her , but the applicant refused .

At a certain stage , PERSON asked PERSON for cigarettes and food , specifying that PERSON was hungry and must have something to eat . PERSON decided that no food should be given to him . PERSON left some cigarettes outside the window of the flat .

PERSON had several telephone conversations with PERSON promising him help . He also talked to PERSON on the telephone who said that she was being held against her will since CARDINAL p.m. the previous night . PERSON concluded that PERSON did not want to negotiate . At TIME he called A. ORG , the chief of police , and explained the situation . He volunteered to conduct a rescue operation should the need arise . A. ORG , however , decided to dispatch to PERSON the platoon of ORG hereinafter “ MMAD ” ) which , in his opinion , was specially trained for this type of action .

At some stage PERSON mother arrived , but PERSON refused to talk to her on the telephone . The young woman ’s mother suggested that the police should leave and let the family handle the situation .

Shortly before TIME , the head of GPE ORG , arrived . A great number of persons had already gathered at the scene and the area around the flat had been cordoned off . At TIME , the director of GPE police , PERSON , departed leaving his deputy , PERSON , in charge . PERSON testified before the commission of inquiry that it was the first time in his career that he had been involved in such an operation or such negotiations .

At around TIME , the chief of police , ordered PERSON to lead to PERSON the specially trained platoon of MMAD of which he was in charge .

GPE , the deputy director of GPE police , repeatedly tried to communicate with PERSON , but the telephone was engaged . At a certain point the latter ’s sister and niece arrived and talked to him through the door . He told them that he was afraid of the police . PERSON confirmed that this was so . He told his sister to take her children home and when she returned he would open the door .

At TIME PERSON called PERSON , a general practitioner whom he had consulted on occasion during DATE . He told her that he had beaten up PERSON and that the police were outside his flat . He said that he was going to lose PERSON . He asked the doctor to call his sister and tell her that he had left money on the fridge . He indicated that , after he had done what he intended to do , his sister might have health problems and need the money . When PERSON tried to reason with him , he said that he did not want to talk and warned her that he would hang up on her if she tried to call him back . PERSON called PERSON , who had introduced PERSON to her , and asked him to inform the police about her conversation with him .

At TIME , the chief of police , called his deputy , PERSON ORG , and put him in charge of the operation . He also ordered ORG , the deputy director of MMAD , to go to GPE .

At TIME , in the course of his DATE telephone conversation with the Minister of Justice and Public Order , informed the Minister of the incident .

At around TIME PERSON agreed to talk with the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , on the phone . He told PERSON that his relationship with PERSON was over , that he had behaved very badly towards her and had lost her forever . He appeared to be concerned about the damage to her eye and PERSON offered to take her to the doctor . However , he refused , telling PERSON that he should wait until TIME . He specified that , after celebrating DATE with PERSON , GPE could come and get her at TIME . When PERSON asked him whether he meant that he would release PERSON , he did not reply . He claimed that he was tired and hung up .

At TIME PERSON , the head of the MMAD platoon , arrived on the scene together with CARDINAL other officers of the MMAD . He was briefed by PERSON , the deputy director of GPE police , who told him that PERSON was carrying a double - barrelled shotgun . It was later established that the gun could only contain QUANTITY shots at a time . PERSON asked him whether there was any indication that PERSON might be in possession of other weapons and PERSON replied that this possibility could not be excluded . PERSON also talked with PERSON , the deputy director of MMAD , who was already there . PERSON noticed the presence of a great number of bystanders , which he considered “ unacceptable ” . PERSON ordered a number of persons to be moved along .

PERSON asked PERSON , the owner of the block of flats , who had also previously tried to persuade PERSON to release PERSON , to show him the layout of the flats . PERSON visited the flat above PERSON ’s as well as the identical flat next door . A. PERSON made a sketch of the flat for him .

The flat consisted of CARDINAL rooms and a bathroom . The living - room was in the front . It measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had a door and a window . There was a skylight above the door . The bedroom and bathroom were at the back . They had one window each .

At some point after TIME told PERSON , the deputy director of GPE police , that PERSON had told PERSON GPE on the phone that around midnight he would set PERSON free and commit suicide . PERSON conveyed this information to his director , PERSON , and to the deputy chief of police , PERSON . The latter ordered GPE to act as the principal negotiator , since he had gained PERSON confidence . He also told him to engage PERSON in the negotiations , as well as a psychologist or a psychiatrist and other persons who could influence him . Finally , PERSON and PERSON discussed the possibility of administering soporifics to PERSON food .

PERSON called PERSON and told him that PERSON mother and grandmother wished to talk to him , but he refused . He then called the district doctor in order to find out the whereabouts of the psychiatrists of ORG . He was informed that both psychiatrists lived in GPE . PERSON also called the pharmacist of ORG and ordered drugs . P. GPE , the pharmacist , testified that he had provided CARDINAL packet of QUANTITY and CARDINAL packet of CARDINAL mg Lorezabam pills . The hospital did not store QUANTITY pills .

QUANTITY police officers were dispatched to PERSON surgery . Dr A. GPE discussed PERSON telephone call with them . In reply to their questions , she expressed the view that PERSON did not have any psychological problems . She also expressed doubts as to whether she could help since PERSON had already told her not to call him again .

At TIME went to GPE police station where the rest of the MMAD platoon had arrived . According to the testimony of the police witnesses before the commission of inquiry the platoon included QUANTITY officers whom the police witnesses described as “ trained negotiators ” . PERSON explained the plan to the officers of the platoon , the aim of which was to rescue PERSON and capture PERSON . The key elements of the plan were surprise , speed and accurate execution . As soon as the platoon were in position outside the flat , PERSON would inform the commanding officer via a link person . The commanding officer would in turn ask the negotiator to call PERSON . While he was busy talking on the phone , which was in the front room to the left of the door , tear gas would be thrown into the flat through the QUANTITY glass windows by CARDINAL officers . CARDINAL other officers would force the door with a battering ram . CARDINAL men would enter the front room . The first CARDINAL would seize PERSON who would be expected to be QUANTITY away from the door . A third officer would seize the young woman . A fourth officer would enter the flat to provide any form of assistance which might prove necessary . All communications would be made by walkie - talkie on a secure frequency . The members of the platoon would carry their pistols and machine guns . They were informed by their head , PERSON , that PERSON had a double - barrelled shotgun . They were also told that the possibility could not be excluded that he could be in possession of other arms . They were instructed to use proportionate force and fire only if PERSON life or their own lives were in danger . If the room was dark , they were to use the lights fitted to their machine guns .

At TIME the chief of police , PERSON , had a meeting with his deputy , PERSON . It was decided that the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , should continue to conduct the negotiations , that CARDINAL additional negotiators should be sent and that the police , after obtaining ORG appropriate medical advice , should administer soporifics to PERSON food , if he asked for any .

While the meeting between PERSON and PERSON was still in progress and at TIME , the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , talked with PERSON on the phone again . PERSON was very negative because of the media coverage that the incident had received . He did not allow PERSON to talk to PERSON . She shouted that PERSON would kill her . N. GPE , a police officer who knew PERSON , also tried to persuade him to release PERSON .

The meeting between PERSON and PERSON ended at CARDINAL p.m. K. Papakostas ordered CARDINAL additional negotiators from the police force to be dispatched to PERSON . He also called the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , who informed him that he had not been able to contact the psychiatrists of ORG and that PERSON would not talk to PERSON parents . PERSON ordered GPE to look for psychologists in the private sector .

At TIME , the director of GPE police , returned to the scene together with PERSON , the head of the MMAD platoon . He was briefed by the deputy director of GPE police , GPE . He called the deputy chief of police PERSON . He also called PERSON who agreed to go to the scene .

PERSON then saw PERSON , PERSON last employer , talking with PERSON on his mobile phone . H. PERSON had already made various unsuccessful efforts to persuade him to release PERSON . PERSON had threatened that he would shoot PERSON if PERSON tried to enter the flat .

The director of GPE police , PERSON , interrupted the conversation between PERSON and PERSON and instructed PERSON to tell him that they wanted to help him . He specified that he had been authorised by his superiors to promise PERSON that there would be no consequences if he let PERSON go . He could leave by car , together with the young woman if he wished . PERSON conveyed the message to PERSON .

In the course of the second part of his conversation with PERSON , PERSON threatened him with the possibility of being left to starve and being beaten up . This is heard in the video recording . Moreover , PERSON accepted before the commission of inquiry that he heard such a statement being made by PERSON . He also testified that PERSON talked to PERSON on the phone who said that PERSON had been pointing his gun at her .

D. Konstantinidis subsequently called the chief of police , PERSON , and told him about the telephone conversation between PERSON and PERSON . In the meantime , PERSON returned to GPE police station and led the MMAD platoon to a warehouse situated QUANTITY away from the flat where they could not be seen by the bystanders .

PERSON arrived at the scene escorted by PERSON , the head of GPE ORG . She talked with PERSON from the operations room . She offered to help him end the incident without any consequences . He refused to let her enter the flat , saying that he was afraid of the police . Having obtained the authorisation of the director of GPE police , PERSON , PERSON made the following proposal to PERSON . A car would be brought to his door , the police would withdraw , he would leave his gun and get in the car alone or with PERSON . The doctor , or any other person whom he wished to accompany him , could get in the car as well . They could all leave together and go to another location to discuss the matter . PERSON refused . PERSON intervened and asked the doctor whether PERSON had psychological problems . The doctor replied that she was not aware of any such problems . PERSON repeated that he was afraid of the police and of the consequences . He insisted that he would let PERSON out of the flat at TIME or CARDINAL past and then he would commit suicide . In the course of the telephone conversation , the couple quarrelled and PERSON threatened her : “ Sit down and do not move . ” He also told the doctor not to call again because it made PERSON nervous . At CARDINAL stage PERSON passed PERSON to PERSON who promised once again that there would be no consequences .

At TIME , the director of GPE police , called the deputy chief of police , PERSON , and told him that PERSON GPE was of the view that PERSON had decided to kill PERSON and commit suicide . In the first statement she gave to the police , Dr A. GPE confirmed that this was the view which she had formed and conveyed to PERSON . In a letter she addressed to applicants’ counsel on CARDINAL DATE , PERSON claimed that , in the course of her telephone conversation with PERSON she had formed the view that he was intransigent and “ capable of doing harm to himself and PERSON ” . She further specified that this was the personal opinion of somebody who was not a psychiatrist . She also protested that the police had tried to attribute to her more responsibility for the operation than she could have had . In her testimony before the commission of inquiry , when PERSON under examination by counsel for the police , PERSON A. GPE repeated her initial statement , specifying that that was her personal opinion .

PERSON then told PERSON that PERSON had asked on the phone for food . PERSON told his deputy , GPE , to call PERSON . PERSON called him and CARDINAL kebab pies were ordered .

A person whom PERSON could not identify had told PERSON that he had received a telephone call from PERSON asking for a written assurance that he would not go to jail . A. GPE called PERSON again , who told him that he was afraid that he would go to jail . PERSON told him that the situation was not so serious and offered to enter the flat and hand him a written assurance that he would not go to jail . However , PERSON told A. GPE not to be in a hurry ; he could enter the flat at TIME . A. GPE told PERSON that he would break the door down and enter the flat unarmed . PERSON warned him that , if he tried , he would kill PERSON and commit suicide . At a certain point , the latter shouted that PERSON was not serious about letting her go .

PERSON threats , combined with some information that he had wanted in the past to shoot a person who had insulted PERSON with his shotgun , led PERSON to the conclusion that he was planning to kill her and commit suicide at TIME .

At TIME the director of GPE police , PERSON , called the deputy chief of police , PERSON , and requested his authorisation to administer soporifics . PERSON called a doctor at ORG and the chief of police , PERSON , who approved the plan . PERSON was duly informed .

PERSON , a police officer , testified before the commission of inquiry that he had been ordered to bring some food for PERSON at TIME after he had left he was called on the radio and the order was changed . PERSON , another officer , claimed in his original statement to the police that PERSON had been ordered to bring food at TIME and that the order had been changed TIME . Before the commission of inquiry he specified that the times he had given were very approximate since he had not looked at his watch when PERSON Zinonos left . He had merely estimated that this must have been the time . He also specified that it was possible that the order had been changed TIME after PERSON departure . PERSON testified that it took TIME for the kebabs to be prepared .

At TIME the head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON , called the deputy chief of police , PERSON , and explained the rescue plan to him . PERSON ORG asked whether it had been envisaged to use explosives to open the door , and stun grenades . These options were , however , discarded for fear that the couple might be hurt . It was also noted that it normally took TIME for the stun grenades to explode and that that might give PERSON time to react .

At TIME there was another meeting between the chief of police and his deputy in the chief ’s house . The deputy chief , PERSON , told the chief , PERSON , that PERSON was planning to kill the young woman and commit suicide . At TIME called the Minister who was of the view that “ the police should decide whether MMAD should conduct a rescue operation on the basis of their appreciation of the situation at the time after having reviewed all relevant information and eliminated all other possibilities ” . PERSON explained the rescue plan to A. ORG who instructed the former to delay the involvement of the MMAD platoon as much as possible to enable the efforts to persuade PERSON to release PERSON to continue . The meeting ended at TIME

When the food which PERSON had ordered arrived , Dr A. Hatzimitsi put in the pies the PERSON pills that P. GPE , the hospital pharmacist , had provided . Before the commission of inquiry she testified that she had placed MONEY in each pie . She also testified that earlier on it had been suggested that another drug called PERSON could be used but that the police did not have sufficient time to find such pills .

NORP The food was then delivered to PERSON by the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , who left it by the window . All the police officers who testified on this issue agreed that the food had been delivered around TIME PERSON testimony supported their version of events . PERSON , PERSON cousin , testified that the food had arrived at TIME PERSON , an ex - employer and friend of PERSON , claimed in his original statement to the police that the food had arrived at TIME Before the commission of inquiry he testified that the food had arrived TIME GPE , PERSON last employer , testified that the drugs had been put in the food at TIME , immediately before he left the scene .

The head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON , admitted before the commission of inquiry that he had not been aware that soporifics had been administered to the food .

At TIME additional negotiators arrived . PERSON was repeatedly heard screaming that PERSON was going to kill her .

After TIME , the director of GPE police , PERSON , held a meeting with his deputy , GPE , the head of GPE ORG , PERSON PERSON , the deputy director of MMAD , PERSON , and the head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON . They came to the conclusion that PERSON was planning to kill PERSON and commit suicide at TIME past . As a result , there could be no further negotiations and the MMAD platoon should move into action . PERSON affirmed that he was prepared to lead the operation .

PERSON , the director of GPE police , accepted before the commission of inquiry that , although some notes were taken during the incident , he had not been involved in this process . Neither did he consult these notes either before or during the final meeting . PERSON , the deputy director of GPE police , made a similar statement .

NORP Immediately after the meeting , the director of GPE police , NORP GPE , called the deputy chief of police , PERSON , and told him that they were awaiting instructions from the headquarters as to whether they should continue the negotiations or break into the flat . If the instructions were to continue the negotiations and PERSON was nevertheless killed , responsibility would lie with the headquarters . K. ORG testified that he received PERSON telephone call at TIME

PERSON left to inform his platoon about the new development , namely the information that PERSON was planning to kill PERSON . The platoon was then moved closer to the flat , behind the block of flats .

The deputy chief of police , PERSON , met with his chief , A. ORG , in the latter ’s house . A. ORG agreed that the MMAD should be used . PERSON called the director of GPE police , NORP GPE , and informed him that the rescue plan had been approved . PERSON talked to the head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON , who had in the meantime returned and the CARDINAL men agreed that the plan remained unchanged . Then PERSON talked again to NORP GPE who had in the meantime given instructions that an ambulance be dispatched to the scene . PERSON had specified that the lights of the ambulance and its siren should be switched off so as not to alert PERSON . According to the evidence presented to the commission of inquiry , the order for the ambulance reached FAC at TIME

PERSON asked for all bystanders to be pushed back and NORP GPE gave orders to that effect .

After the final meeting of the police officers , PERSON , PERSON cousin , arrived with her husband and her sister . PERSON claimed before the commission of inquiry that she had received CARDINAL telephone calls from PERSON in the course of DATE and that he had told her that he would open his door only if the police left . The police director of GPE , GPE , called PERSON on the phone . PERSON talked to PERSON but declined her offer to meet her . He also questioned her identity and then , according to ORG , PERSON interrupted the conversation .

PERSON further testified that , when she talked to PERSON on PERSON mobile phone TIME , he asked for the withdrawal of the police . PERSON husband testified that he had also talked to him on that occasion .

DATE . According to a detailed telephone bill produced by PERSON before the commission of inquiry , CARDINAL telephone calls were made from his mobile phone to PERSON phone that night , one at TIME , CARDINAL at CARDINAL and CARDINAL at CARDINAL . According to PERSON , when he last talked with PERSON , the latter indicated that he wanted to be left alone to prepare some coffee .

Shortly before midnight the members of the MMAD platoon silently took up their positions around the flat . They were filmed by the journalist who made the video recording .

PERSON testified before the commission of inquiry that he stood QUANTITY away from the flat . CARDINAL officers were placed in front of the flat ( in the proceedings before the commission of inquiry these were referred to as Officers nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) and CARDINAL at the back ( for the purposes of the inquiry , Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL) . Officers nos . CARDINAL and DATE , who would fire tear gas into the living - room , were by the front window . Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were placed on the right of the door and Officers nos . CARDINAL and DATE on the left . The CARDINAL men with the battering ram were placed opposite the door . CARDINAL other MMAD officers took up positions around the flat for security purposes .

The director of GPE police , PERSON , testified that , once the officers had taken up their positions , he called the deputy chief of police , PERSON LOC , on the phone once more at TIME

PERSON testified that he called the link person on his radio . According to PERSON , the link person called the commanding officer , NORP GPE , who ordered the deputy director of GPE police , GPE , to call PERSON . When PERSON was told by the link person that PERSON was talking with PERSON , he gave the signal for the armed intervention .

A. Nikolaidis testified that he called PERSON when he was told to do so by PERSON at TIME . PERSON said : “ Hello . ” Then PERSON tried to say something but he heard shots being fired . He shouted PERSON name CARDINAL times but received no answer .

Officers nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL testified that they heard the telephone ring CARDINAL times . They considered that it was the telephone call intended to distract him . They did not hear him reply . Then they heard the telephone ring again followed by the signal : “ Inside , inside , inside . ” According to Officer no . CARDINAL , there was a TIME interval between the CARDINAL telephone calls .

When the signal was given , Officer no . CARDINAL fired CARDINAL tear gas bullets through the front window and then Officer no . CARDINAL sprayed the living - room with tear gas . Officer no . CARDINAL fired CARDINAL tear gas bullets into the bathroom . Officer no . CARDINAL inadvertently , as he subsequently testified , fired CARDINAL real , instead of tear gas , bullets into the bedroom .

DATE . The door was broken down and Officer no . CARDINAL entered the flat . In his testimony , he claimed that he saw PERSON standing in front of him , CARDINAL metres away , with his gun pointed at him . PERSON was in front of PERSON and both appeared to make a slight movement . PERSON gun was over PERSON . Officer no . CARDINAL moved and PERSON shot him in the right shoulder . He fell back , pushing Officer no . CARDINAL as he went . Officer no . CARDINAL fell down as well .

It was subsequently established that immediately after the first shot PERSON fired a second one which hit PERSON . In their testimony , Officers nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE claimed that they only heard one shot .

Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he saw Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL falling backwards . He also heard Officer no . CARDINAL crying out : “ He shot me . ” He believed that Officer no . CARDINAL had been seriously injured and that Officer no . CARDINAL had been killed . He entered the flat TIME , having decided to use his machine gun and not his pistol because he needed light . He switched on his gun - light and saw PERSON and PERSON in the diagonally opposite corner . PERSON knees were bent as if he were preparing to sit down . PERSON was in front of PERSON , facing him . Officer no . CARDINAL could only see the left side of PERSON body . He did not notice whether PERSON had a gun but believed that he did . He considered that he did not have time to ascertain whether his belief corresponded to reality . He distinguished PERSON and fired CARDINAL times . The couple moved and Officer no . CARDINAL could no longer see PERSON . He moved to the right and could then see PERSON left side . PERSON was sitting on the floor and PERSON was covering the right side of his body . Officer no . CARDINAL fired again at PERSON several times . He stopped shooting when PERSON was lying on the floor . He wanted to make sure that PERSON was no danger to him or to the young woman . PERSON moves appeared to him to be menacing . Officer no . CARDINAL further testified that all his shots were aimed at the left side of PERSON body , because this was the only side he could see . He affirmed that he had been trained to shoot to kill when shot at . He did not exclude that he might have fired CARDINAL or CARDINAL bullets when PERSON was already lying on the floor . It was later ascertained that Officer no . CARDINAL had fired CARDINAL bullets .

Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he entered the flat after Officer no . CARDINAL had fired the first bullets and had moved on . He saw PERSON in the diagonally opposite corner sitting on the floor , his legs stretched out in front of him . PERSON was lying on PERSON right shoulder . He did not notice whether he was holding a gun . When the firing was over , he saw PERSON lying on the floor and PERSON covering his right side . He refused to answer any other questions at the inquiry invoking his right not to incriminate himself . It was later ascertained that he had fired CARDINAL bullets .

In the video recording , once the officers enter the flat , a small number of distinct shots – approximately DATE are heard . A burst of fire follows . It was accepted by all parties that these were all single shots as opposed to automatic fire .

Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he re - entered the flat after Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . He pointed his light at PERSON , who was lit up by the gun - lights of Officers nos . QUANTITY and DATE who were still shooting at him . As Officer no . CARDINAL entered the room , Officer no . CARDINAL was on his right and Officer no . CARDINAL on his left . He saw PERSON sitting on the ground with his back against the wall . PERSON was covering part of PERSON right side , her face down . He did not count how many shots he heard . Neither did he notice where PERSON gun was . He testified that he had been trained to shoot to kill when shot at . He also testified that he would not have stopped firing , even if it had been clear to him that PERSON , when he was sitting with his back against the wall , had no gun . He had been told that it could not be excluded that PERSON might have had another weapon , for example a knife , which he could have used to kill the young woman .

Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he entered the flat after Officer no . CARDINAL , having heard CARDINAL shots when moving towards the door . As he entered he saw the couple in the diagonally opposite corner . PERSON was sitting on the floor , his legs stretched out in front of him . PERSON was covering his right side . He saw Officers nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL shooting . He did not count the shots . He wanted to seize PERSON without getting in the line of fire . He looked at Officer no . DATE and before looking at the bodies again the firing stopped . Then he saw PERSON lying down , his knees bent against the wall , his head on the stereo . PERSON was lying on him , the right part of her body on PERSON right side , covering half his chest . Their bodies were not touching from the waist down . He did not see a gun . He seized PERSON and headed for the door shouting : “ An ambulance , an ambulance . ” At the doorstep , he stumbled and let PERSON sit on the floor . He then gave her to CARDINAL other MMAD officers . He testified that , according to his training , when it was necessary to shoot , the practice was always to shoot to kill .

In the video recording , as PERSON is being taken out of the flat , several persons are heard shouting for an ambulance . According to all the witnesses , however , no ambulance was present and she had to be transported to ORG in a police car . Dr A. GPE escorted her . The ambulance arrived at the scene shortly afterwards .

While PERSON is being taken to the police car CARDINAL more shots are heard in the video recording . Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he and Officer no . CARDINAL realised that the bedroom door of the flat was locked . He called Officer no . CARDINAL on the radio who carried a gun which could be used for breaking doors open . Officer no . CARDINAL testified that he entered the flat when PERSON was being carried out . He shot once , kicked the door and shot again . The door did not open . When they realised that nobody was inside , they left . Officer no . CARDINAL saw the head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON , and told him that PERSON was dead .

PERSON , the head of GPE ORG , testified that he was informed by a person whom he could not identify that PERSON was dead . He went to the door of the flat and shone his torch in . He saw PERSON lying in a pool of blood but did not move in because of the tear gas . He was satisfied that PERSON was dead and informed his superiors . In the course of the proceedings before the commission of inquiry , it emerged that the next person to approach PERSON body was the ORG pathologist , PERSON , who visited the scene at TIME DATE and confirmed his death . Dr M. Matsakis considered that PERSON death had occurred TIME .

When PERSON was admitted to ORG , she was in deep shock . She was operated on for TIME and then taken to the intensive care unit , where she died of her wounds at around CARDINAL on the morning of DATE .

Officer no . CARDINAL was also taken to ORG . First aid was administered to him and X - rays were taken . Although advised to stay in hospital , he left of his own will shortly afterwards .

At TIME DATE , the police started photographing the scene of the incident and a video recording was made . PERSON body was CARDINAL naked . He was only wearing a pair of trousers at the time of his death . A shotgun cartridge was found in CARDINAL of his pockets . The telephone was on a table to the left of the door . The receiver was not off the hook . On the same table there was QUANTITY of coffee , CARDINAL kebab pie which was intact and the remains of a second kebab pie . The bedroom door was still locked , with CARDINAL bullet holes near the lock . PERSON gun was lying across the arms of an armchair near his body . The gun was not breached for reloading and there was no blood on the armchair . None of the police officers involved suggested that the gun had been moved after the incident .

A senior police officer , Mr PERSON , started an inquiry and written statements were taken from a number of witnesses . Later on in the day the police issued a first press release entitled : “ Operation for the rescue of an abducted young woman ” .

At TIME on DATE the Minister of ORG and Public Order participated in a meeting at the police headquarters . After the meeting he told the journalists that PERSON had been abducted .

On DATE the families of PERSON and PERSON requested that a criminal investigation be opened in accordance with LAW . Moreover , an application for an inquest into the couple ’s deaths was filed with the coroner of ORG .

On DATE ORG mandated the President of ORG , PERSON PERSON , judge of ORG , to carry out an inquiry in accordance with ORG . The terms of the mandate were “ to investigate in full the circumstances under which the deaths of PERSON and PERSON occurred in GPE , GPE , on TIME to DATE , to determine who , if any , was responsible and to make any recommendations or observations which ( the President of ORG ) would deem necessary ” .

The Attorney - General ordered Mr PERSON to continue his inquiry , but not to interfere with any of the real evidence , on the ground that the inquiry was not a criminal one within the meaning of LAW but was of an internal , purely administrative , character . Moreover , the coroner decided to refrain from fixing a hearing date .

On DATE ORG decided to grant the applicants ex gratia legal aid for the purposes of the inquiry which would cover their legal representation and enable them to obtain expert evidence .

The hearings before the CARDINAL - member commission of inquiry opened on DATE . The applicants promptly objected to the appointment of the commission of inquiry , considering that the matter should have been dealt with by way of a criminal investigation . The commission considered , however , that it was not competent to examine the legality of the decision of ORG setting it up .

The commission of inquiry held CARDINAL hearings , which were attended by the Attorney - General on behalf of the Republic and counsel on behalf of the families of the deceased , the police and the MMAD . Directions were given concerning the collection and preservation of all real evidence and the carrying out of all appropriate forensic tests . CARDINAL exhibits were examined and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . The witnesses testified under oath and were examined and cross - examined by all interested parties . Although the proceedings were public , the officers of the MMAD who took part in the armed intervention testified in camera . Their identities were disclosed only to the President of ORG who conducted the inquiry . TIME of the inquiry , totalling CARDINAL pages , were made public in their entirety .

The following expert evidence was tendered to the commission of inquiry .

PERSON , an ex - colonel of the NORP army and a professional anti - terrorist and negotiations trainer , criticised the following aspects of the rescue operation . The witness considered that in most cases which did not involve terrorists or hardened criminals , negotiations could secure the release of the persons held and render the use of force unnecessary . In the case under examination , however , some of the main rules concerning negotiations had not been followed . The witness considered that the result of the negotiations could have been much more satisfactory if they had been based on a “ give and take ” approach . In general it was better for the negotiations to be conducted by persons who were not or did not appear to be police officers . The police could have ensured that no unauthorised calls reached PERSON by disconnecting his telephone and providing him with another line . PERSON should not have been able to see the crowd outside .

The MMAD platoon should have used multiple entries for their armed intervention . An observer should have been placed by the skylight who could have informed the police of PERSON movements . Special care should have been taken , however , because the head of the person at the skylight could have been seen by PERSON . The armed intervention should have taken place earlier on and stun grenades should have been used instead of tear gas . A fire engine could have poured water into the flat in order to neutralise PERSON . However , it would have been necessary to ascertain PERSON exact position . The witness did not exclude the possibility that the officers might have mistaken PERSON CARDINAL shots for CARDINAL . In this case , however , they should have lured PERSON into using his second shot . Well - trained officers like those of the MMAD should have realised that PERSON was not holding a gun and , in any event , should have fired the least possible number of bullets . No bullets should have been fired after PERSON had fallen to the ground .

PERSON , an ex - police officer from GPE and a professional crisis management and hostage negotiations trainer who had trained some of the officers of the MMAD , was not critical of the rescue operation . Although persons holding hostages often extended their deadlines , symbolic deadlines were to be taken more seriously . The failure to use the skylight was not “ a big issue ” . It was not a mistake to use tear gas instead of stun grenades . In PERSON view , it could not have been the ORG intention of PERSON to wait for the tear gas to produce its effects since that usually took some time . The tear gas was thrown to divert PERSON attention . In GPE there were CARDINAL schools of thought regarding multiple entry . Although he tended to favour it , others avoided it for fear that the hostage might be caught in the crossfire . In any event , there was nothing to reproach in the plan of the head of the MMAD platoon , PERSON , who had considered and excluded all other possible options .

PERSON also testified that he had trained the MMAD officers to such a level that they had to fire real bullets at balloons attached to his body . He had trained the officers to use lethal force as the last option . When it was necessary , however , they had been trained to shoot at the thorax . They had been trained to shoot until the target ceased to be a threat . In the case under examination , the use of lethal force became justified when PERSON opened fire . The officers should not have been concerned about the number of bullets fired . When cross - examined by applicants’ counsel , the witness accepted that he had taken part in a number of operations involving ordinary civilians who held others under the threat of a gun where a negotiated solution had been found .

PERSON , a ORG chemist who examined the kebab pie which had not been consumed , testified that the quantity of PERSON that she had found in the pie indicated that CARDINAL QUANTITY pills had been used . PERSON had consumed a very large portion of her pie . PERSON was a tranquilliser and anti - anxiety drug which also had soporific effects . It started producing its effects within TIME of absorption . Its maximum effects occurred after TIME .

P. GPE , the pharmacist who provided the soporifics , testified that PERSON started producing its effects within TIME . Its maximum effects occurred TIME after absorption .

ORG . PERSON , the general practitioner who placed the soporifics in the food , testified that , if PERSON and PERSON had eaten the pies , the drug would have produced its effects in TIME and they would have fallen asleep . If PERSON had been administered , they would have fallen asleep in TIME .

PERSON , a forensic expert from GPE , who had prepared a noise time chart on the basis of the video recording , testified that the second shot from PERSON gun was fired TIME after the first . In the witness ’s view , PERSON second shot , like the first , was directed towards the door . The witness had reached this conclusion on the basis of the small number of pellets found in the flat . The noise time chart indicated that a number of distinct shots were fired after the MMAD officers entered the flat in the following sequence : CARDINAL single shot , CARDINAL triple shot and CARDINAL double shot . These shots started TIME and ended TIME after the first tear gas shot . PERSON considered that PERSON must have been wounded at that stage because her screams , which could be heard on the video recording , were significantly reduced after the CARDINAL shots . However , the witness was not sure whether the screaming had stopped entirely . The noise time chart further indicated that a burst of firing followed the single shots . It began TIME and ended TIME after the first tear gas shot .

Dr PERSON , a university Reader in forensic pathology in GPE , an ex - ORG pathologist and an examiner in forensic pathology for ORG of Pathologists , testified that PERSON must have received her wounds at the early stage of the operation because she was not heard shouting after the first shots heard in the video recording . However , he did not exclude that she might have stopped shouting for another reason or that the noise of the shooting might have covered her screams .

Dr M. Matsakis , the ORG pathologist , conducted a post - mortem examination on PERSON body on DATE . He found CARDINAL wounds to PERSON head and neck , CARDINAL wounds to the thorax , abdomen and pelvis , QUANTITY wounds to the right arm , QUANTITY wounds to the left arm and CARDINAL other wounds , all caused by bullets fired by the machine guns of the officers of the MMAD . CARDINAL bullets had hit PERSON . The position of the wounds was such that , in PERSON opinion , for at least part of the firing , the arms of PERSON had been interposed between the guns and his thorax . Before the commission of inquiry PERSON testified that these could have been among the first wounds inflicted .

In his report PERSON also specified that it was possible that the wounds inflicted to the left and right side of PERSON body had been caused by bullets fired from different directions . Many of the bullets had been fired when PERSON was not in an upright position . At least some of the bullets which had entered the right front side of the body ( mainly the abdomen ) and had exited from the right lumbar region , had been fired while PERSON body had been lying on the floor . Before the commission of inquiry , PERSON specified that the last bullets had hit PERSON body while the right side of his back was in contact with the floor .

Dr PERSON testified that , if PERSON had been covering the right side of PERSON during the shooting , as Officer no . CARDINAL had testified , PERSON would not have received the wounds to the right side of his thorax , his right shoulder and his abdomen . He further testified that the position of PERSON wounds was such that PERSON could not have been covering his right side , as Officer no . DATE had testified . Moreover , the position of the wounds inflicted when PERSON was already lying on the floor could not be reconciled with the testimony of the officers of the MMAD that PERSON had been found covering his abdomen .

In the course of the examination of Dr A.C. ORG it was accepted by both sides that PERSON was already dead when the last shots were fired .

Dr M. Matsakis , the ORG pathologist , also performed a post - mortem examination on PERSON body on DATE . CARDINAL bullets fired from the machine guns of the MMAD officers had penetrated her body . The first bullet had entered the left lower postero - lateral region of the thorax and had exited from the right side of the mid - thorax . The second bullet had entered the lower right back and exited from the right side of the abdomen . The distance between PERSON body and the machine guns must have been CARDINAL metre .

Dr M. Matsakis also found CARDINAL areas of wounding caused by the shot fired from PERSON shotgun . A wound to the right hand was caused by contact or near - contact firing . PERSON considered it very likely that it had been caused by the same shot which had injured Officer no . CARDINAL . There was a second wound to the left hand also caused by contact or near - contact firing . A third wound to the upper left thoracic region and the front region of the left upper shoulder had been caused by the LAW same shot which had injured PERSON left hand . The same shot had also caused slight wounding to PERSON left ear .

There were also signs that PERSON had been beaten in the face before her death .

Dr M. Matsakis concluded in his report that PERSON death had been caused by the wound inflicted by the machine - gun bullet which had penetrated her right lung , liver , stomach and spleen .

A second machine - gun wound to the abdominal area and the shotgun wounds to the anterior left upper thorax and hands had contributed to her death .

NORP Before the commission of inquiry , PERSON specified that the first wound was capable of causing PERSON death on its own . The chances that PERSON might have died , if she had only received the wounds to the anterior left upper thorax and hands , were very slim . However , this could not be excluded , in the sense that even the most insignificant wound could cause death if it became seriously infected . The ORG pathologist was invited to explain what he meant when he stated in his report that the wounds in the anterior left upper thorax and hands contributed to PERSON death . He replied that PERSON had died because her brain was not receiving oxygen due to the bleeding . Although the principal wound had caused intense bleeding , the wounds to the left upper thorax and arms had also caused bleeding .

Dr PERSON , the doctor who had operated on PERSON , testified that the presence of an ambulance at the scene would not have prevented PERSON death .

Dr PERSON , a surgeon called on behalf of the families of the deceased who was present during the post - mortem examination , accepted before the commission of inquiry that the wounds inflicted by PERSON gun had contributed to PERSON death . However , he specified that PERSON would have died in any event . In his view , there could be no doubt that PERSON would have survived if she had only received the wounds caused by PERSON gun . He specified that she would have had to spend DATE in hospital .

Dr PERSON testified that the wounds to the anterior left upper thorax and the hands “ should [ not ] have been put as a contributory cause . It is like saying ... that somebody who has had their head cut off , death was influenced by a broken leg . The wounds described in the first paragraph are so catastrophic that there would be no need for any contributory cause . And I have never seen a death from a discharge of a shotgun which has not penetrated a body cavity or the head or neck . Finally , it would be also more a matter for the surgeon who saw the wound in life ” .

Ar . PERSON , the police officer who had collected the fingerprints , testified that he was sure that all the fingerprints on PERSON gun , with the exception of CARDINAL , belonged to PERSON . CARDINAL fingerprint could have belonged to PERSON and one did not . PERSON , a bio - chemist at ORG , was not in a position to testify that PERSON blood was found on his gun .

A. Nikolaidis , a police officer and an expert in ballistics , testified that PERSON gun had not been hit by any bullets and that it could not be excluded that the gun might have fallen accidentally , instead of having been placed , on the armchair . The ORG pathologist , PERSON , expressed the view that PERSON gun could have fallen on the armchair while PERSON was collapsing .

Dr PERSON also testified that , if PERSON had been holding a gun when being shot at , the gun would have fallen on the floor . It could not have fallen on the armchair in the position in which it had been found . It might have fallen on the armchair only if the armchair had been in front of PERSON when he dropped the gun .

PERSON testified that the position in which PERSON gun had been found , its muzzle pointing towards the door , and the absence of blood suggested that it had been placed there by PERSON . He considered that PERSON had sufficient time to place the gun there between the time of firing the shots and the entry of the first MMAD officer .

The investigation was concluded on CARDINAL DATE and the report of the commission of inquiry , totalling CARDINAL pages , was published on DATE . The main findings of the commission of inquiry were the following .

The negotiations between the police and PERSON were conducted in the best possible manner under the circumstances , given in particular the stance he had adopted . He had been granted everything he had requested , namely a telephone , cigarettes and food . Although the food arrived after some delay , this had been done on purpose to exhaust him and make him surrender . He had also been given assurances that no consequences would follow if he agreed to release PERSON . However , he would not accept anything less than the departure of the police . There were no indications that PERSON had any particular enmity vis - à - vis the police . In any event , it would have been extremely improvident for the police to withdraw and leave PERSON in his hands .

NORP The non - involvement of psychologists , who had been sought but not found , did not affect the validity of the commission ’s conclusion concerning the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted . The police used the deputy director of GPE police as principal negotiator , an officer with great experience in dealing with people , who immediately won PERSON confidence and who communicated with him until the end . Trained negotiators , members of the police force , were also present . Their knowledge was used and they could have intervened if mistakes had been made . Moreover , the police used all available persons who could have influenced PERSON in the direction of abandoning his plan .

No attempt to prolong further the negotiations could be made , as there were grounds for believing that PERSON was determined to abide by his deadline . PERSON made repeated and consistent references to something which would happen at TIME on DATE . The symbolic importance of the time chosen could not be easily ignored .

There was nothing reproachable in the GPE police director acting as commanding officer . An attempt was made to disperse the crowd . The suggestion of counsel for the families of the deceased that the police missed several opportunities to neutralise PERSON , when he opened the window to take the telephone , the cigarettes and the food , was entirely unrealistic .

When deciding to dispatch the MMAD the chief of police acted responsibly , correctly and within his competence . All necessary information had been made available to him . There was no indication that the involvement and deployment of the MMAD had been decided and planned in a sloppy manner . The MMAD was a body specially trained to deal with such situations , which could not be handled by ordinary police officers . It was wrong to assume that the MMAD could only be used against terrorists or in wartime operations .

Despite some testimony to the contrary , the commission was satisfied that the food which PERSON had ordered arrived at TIME The pharmacist who provided the drugs and Dr A. GPE agreed that the soporifics which were administered to the food would have started producing their effects within TIME . The other expert , ORG , made a distinction between the time which the particular soporific took to produce its effects , which she put at approximately thirty- TIME and the time the drug took to produce its maximum effects , which she put at TIME . These estimates , however , applied to situations where a normal dose had been administered . In any event , even if the wrong dose or the wrong drug had been administered as suggested by the applicants , PERSON did not eat the food and the operation could not have been planned exclusively around that factor .

The police formed the view that PERSON was planning to kill PERSON and commit suicide at TIME on the basis of all necessary and available information . This was the opinion of PERSON doctor , who had had extensive discussions with him . PERSON had told the director of GPE police verbatim : “ There is no Christmas for us , I will celebrate DATE with PERSON and at TIME you will come inside and take her . ” PERSON herself claimed that PERSON intended to kill her . PERSON had not accepted any of the assurances offered to him and had threatened to shoot whenever it had been suggested to him that somebody might try to enter the flat .

There was no indication that the police were in a hurry to close the matter before TIME because it was DATE , as suggested by the applicants . The fact that the police had not been fully informed about the particulars of PERSON relationship with PERSON could not have affected the validity of their assessment of the situation . Although reference had been made to PERSON having been abducted , the police knew that PERSON had not initially been taken to PERSON flat against her will .

The head of the MMAD platoon carefully inspected the scene , gathered information about the layout of PERSON flat and was fully briefed about the events preceding his arrival . He was also in possession of all the information which had been made available to him subsequently or which he had himself acquired . That the sole aim of the operation was to save PERSON life was proved by the fact that no explosives were used to break down the door and no stun grenades were thrown . The use of a water hose , multiple entries or an observer by the skylight would not have been advisable in the circumstances .

The armed intervention was planned for TIME in the hope that PERSON could be persuaded to release PERSON . The head of the MMAD platoon had relied on surprise , quickness and accuracy to ensure the success of the armed intervention . No disproportionate importance should be attached to the fact that some of the expert witnesses would have planned the armed intervention in another manner . The test to be applied was whether the head of the MMAD platoon had planned the armed intervention in a “ reasonable ” manner , which he had done .

PERSON was not taken by surprise because of an unauthorised telephone call which he received just before the armed intervention . PERSON could have answered the phone without lifting the receiver by activating the loudspeaker facility . When the first officer of the MMAD entered the flat he found PERSON hiding behind PERSON and pointing a gun at him . PERSON fired QUANTITY shots , one at the MMAD officer and CARDINAL at PERSON . The commission of inquiry did not accept expert testimony to the effect that the second shot was not aimed at PERSON .

The commission of inquiry rejected the suggestion that the officers entered the flat with the intention of killing PERSON out of vengeance . It also considered that the officers of the MMAD could not exclude the possibility that the second cartridge in PERSON gun had not been used because the QUANTITY shots had been fired immediately one after the other . When the officers entered the flat , they did not see whether PERSON was still holding his gun . Moreover , the possibility could not be excluded that PERSON could be in possession of other weapons . As a result , the commission of inquiry did not consider it necessary to determine whether PERSON gun could have accidentally fallen on the armchair where it was eventually found . The officers saw PERSON in front of PERSON , her back to the door . She moved together with PERSON and , as a result , they considered that he was using her as a shield .

NORP The officers were justified in their decision to start shooting as soon as they entered the flat because they were under the impression that their lives and that of PERSON were in danger . As long as PERSON moved , they considered that the threat persisted . They shot repeatedly at PERSON torso and head , as they had been trained to do , in order to neutralise him as quickly as possible . CARDINAL bullets were used . When PERSON fell on PERSON right shoulder , her body left part of his torso and his pelvis uncovered . All the shots were fired in a very short period of time and that explained why the last CARDINAL bullets penetrated PERSON body when his back or part of it was very close to or already touching the ground . The situation was comparable with that in the PERSON , PERSON and PERSON case in which ORG considered that firing CARDINAL shots at a person lying on the ground engaged no responsibility when the aim of the person firing was to neutralise a perceived risk . No inferences could be drawn from the exercise by CARDINAL MMAD officer of his right not to incriminate himself .

NORP The commission of inquiry considered that , taking into consideration the explanations provided by the ORG pathologist , the latter was right in considering that the wounds inflicted on PERSON by shot fired from PERSON gun contributed to her death . Although PERSON had a different view , he specified that “ it would be also a matter for the surgeon who saw the wound in life ” . PERSON also accepted that the wounds inflicted by PERSON contributed to PERSON death . However , he specified that PERSON would have died even if these wounds had not been inflicted .

The commission considered that PERSON was injured by the officers of the MMAD because “ she had moved when they were shooting to save her ” . In accordance with expert testimony , the presence of an ambulance at the scene would not have made any difference to PERSON fate .

In the light of all the above and relying , among other things , on the findings of ORG on the merits of application no . CARDINAL ( ORG , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ) , the commission of inquiry concluded that the use of force by the officers of the MMAD , as a result of which PERSON and PERSON died , was no more than absolutely necessary for the rescue of PERSON and the self - defence of those who carried out the rescue operation and fell within the exceptions in LAW ( a ) of LAW and LAW ( a ) of the LAW . Neither was there any lack of due care in the planning of the operation . Although no criminal acts had been committed and the police could not be criticised in any way for their handling of the case , the commission of inquiry recommended that the Government should examine the possibility of making an ex gratia payment to the families of the deceased on the basis of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( Series A no . CARDINAL-B ) .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Attorney - General informed the ORG lawyer that , in the light of the findings of the commission of inquiry , no criminal proceedings would be instituted in connection with the deaths of PERSON and PERSON . He indicated , however , that he would propose to the Government that they make an ex gratia payment of “ full and substantial compensation ” to the heirs of the CARDINAL deceased .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON former wife asked ORG to appoint her , jointly with her lawyer , administrator of PERSON estate in her capacity as representative of the CARDINAL under - age children PERSON had from his marriage with her . On DATE the first and second applicants entered a caveat arguing that the children ’s mother could not be appointed administrator and asking the court not to take any steps without notifying them .

On DATE the first and second applicants instituted proceedings before ORG against PERSON former wife and her lawyer . They asked to be appointed administrators of PERSON estate .

On CARDINAL DATE the Attorney - General offered the applicants legal aid for the proceedings before the coroner in GPE . A hearing had been planned for CARDINAL DATE , which was , however , adjourned at the request of the ORG lawyer .

On DATE the Attorney - General informed the ORG lawyer that “ the ORG [ would ] cover any advocates’ costs that the dependants of the deceased may sustain if and when they decide to bring a civil action for damages against anyone on the basis of the facts which led to the tragic deaths of PERSON and PERSON ” .

On DATE the Attorney - General withdrew both offers of legal aid . No agreement on the payment of ex gratia compensation was reached between the applicants and the Government .

The right to life is guaranteed under LAW . LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Every person has the right to life and corporal integrity .

No person shall be deprived of his life except in the execution of a sentence of a competent court following his conviction of an offence for which this penalty is provided by law . A law may provide for such penalty only in cases of premeditated murder , high treason , piracy jure gentium and capital offences under military law .

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary DATE

( a ) in defence of person or property against the infliction of a proportionate and otherwise unavoidable and irreparable evil ;

( b ) in order to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained ;

( c ) in action taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection , when and as provided by law . ”

LAW has been incorporated into the domestic law of GPE and , under LAW , takes precedence over domestic law .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ Except for murder and offences against the ORG punishable with death , no act is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which at the time of doing it reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence ; provided that the person doing the act did not , of his own accord or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death , place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides for a defence of necessity . Article CARDINAL reads :

“ An act or omission which would otherwise be an offence may be excused if the person accused can show that it was done or omitted to be done only in order to avoid consequences which could not otherwise be avoided , and which if they had followed , would have inflicted upon him or upon others whom he was bound to protect inevitable and irreparable evil , that no more was done than was reasonably necessary for that purpose , and that the evil inflicted by it was not disproportionate to the evil avoided . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Law provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In making an arrest , the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested , unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action .

( CARDINAL ) If the person to be arrested forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest , the police officer or other person making the arrest may use all means necessary to effect the arrest :

Provided that nothing in this subsection contained shall be deemed to justify the use of greater force than was reasonable in the circumstances in which it was employed or was necessary for the arrest of the offender .

( CARDINAL ) Except when the person arrested is in the actual course of the commission of an offence or is pursued immediately after the commission of an offence or escapes from lawful custody , the police officer or other person making the arrest shall inform the person arrested of the cause of the arrest . ”

Under section CARDINAL of the Commissions of Inquiry Act DATE , which remained in force after the independence of GPE , the Governor has power to appoint a commission of inquiry and to invest it with the powers set out in section CARDINAL . Section CARDINAL provides :

“ A ORG appointed under the provisions of this PERSON shall have such of the following powers as are conferred upon it by the LAW of appointment required by section CARDINAL of this Law –

( a ) to procure all such evidence , written or oral , and to examine all such persons as witnesses as the ORG may think it necessary or desirable to procure or examine ;

( b ) to require the evidence , whether written or oral , of any witness to be made on oath or declaration , such oath or declaration to be that which could be required of the witness if he were giving evidence in a court of law ;

( c ) to summon any person residing in the Colony to attend any meeting of the ORG to give evidence or produce any document in his possession and to examine him as a witness or require him to produce any document in his possession , subject to all just exceptions ;

( d ) to issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who , after having been summoned to attend , fails to do so , and does not excuse such failure to the satisfaction of the ORG , and to order him to pay all costs which may have been occasioned in compelling his attendance or by reason of his refusal to obey the summons , and also to fine such person a sum not exceeding QUANTITY ;

( e ) to fine in a sum not exceeding QUANTITY any person who , being required by the Commission to give evidence on oath or declaration or to produce a document , refuses to do so and does not excuse such refusal to the satisfaction of the Commission :

Provided that , if the witness objects to answer any question on the ground that it will tend to incriminate him , he shall not be required to answer the question nor be liable to any penalties for refusing so to answer ;

( f ) to admit any evidence , whether written or oral , which might be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings ;

( g ) to admit or exclude the public from any meeting of the Commission ;

( h ) to admit or exclude the press from any meeting of the Commission ;

( i ) to award any person who has attended any meeting of the Commission such sum or sums as in the opinion of the ORG may have been reasonably incurred by such person by reason of such attendance . ”


Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant is an active officer of the NORP navy , third rank captain . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicant was involved in a dispute with his employer , ORG of GPE , concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses . On DATE the ORG awarded him arrears in the amount of MONEY ( RUR ) and RUR CARDINAL in compensation of legal expenses . This decision was not appealed against and on DATE became final .

On DATE the court issued a writ of execution . The applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the ORG treasury office . On DATE the writ was returned to the applicant unexecuted . The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying the judgment debt . The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of ORG , which the applicant did on DATE . However , the judgment remained unexecuted .

On DATE the applicant wrote a new letter to ORG , requesting an explanation as to why the judgment remained unexecuted to that date . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been transmitted to ORG with a view to prepare a budget call for the respective amount . They also informed the applicant that ORG had no power to enforce the judgment and write off the money from the accounts of ORG without their acceptance .

On DATE ORG transferred to the applicant RUR CARDINAL with reference to the arrears due pursuant to the judgment of DATE . On DATE the applicant received the rest of the amount awarded by the court ( RUR CARDINAL ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and presently detained in a prison in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

The applicant is a former member of ORG ( ORG ) , a left - wing extremist terrorist movement that was responsible for numerous attacks on high rank personalities in GPE since DATE . In DATE the ORG announced in a written declaration that they would suspend the attacks on representatives of the ORG and the economy . In a further declaration of DATE , the ORG made several critical statements on its strategy in the past .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken in detention on remand . On CARDINAL DATE a warrant of arrest ( PERSON ) was issued against her . The warrant of arrest was based , among other grounds , on the fear that the applicant might continue terrorist activities .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the request of a radio journalist to allow an interview with the applicant because such an interview would conflict with the purpose of the detention on remand as provided for in LAW of LAW ( Strafprozeordnung – see relevant domestic law below ) . The ORG considered that in respect of a declaration made by the applicant during the trial , it had to be expected that the applicant would explain and advocate ideological positions of the ORG , which would amount to a new act of participation in a terrorist organisation pursuant to ORG ( Strafgesetzbuch - see relevant domestic law below ) . According to the warrant of arrest , the purpose of the detention on remand was inter alia to prevent the applicant from committing further terrorist acts as defined in LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request of a filmmaker to permit the filming of a visit of the applicant 's mother to her daughter in prison . ORG , relying again on LAW of LAW , considered that the film could enable the applicant to influence supporters of the ORG in order to strengthen their support for the latter . This would be the case if the applicant commented on the conditions of detention of terrorists . Such behaviour would constitute a renewed act of participation in a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section CARDINALa of LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request of the applicant and a journalist to permit an interview with the applicant . It did , however , grant the journalist a permit for a single visit to the applicant on the condition that there would be no talk about the ORG and the trial . The decision was based on the same grounds as that of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed yet another request of a journalist for a radio interview with the applicant . On DATE it dismissed the applicant 's objections ( Gegenvorstellungen ) against that decision .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) refused to entertain the applicant 's constitutional complaint . ORG held that neither the freedom of expression under LAW ) nor any other of the applicant 's fundamental rights had been violated . It found that the assessment of the facts by ORG as well as its findings in law did not disclose any violation of the LAW .

During the trial against the applicant at ORG from DATE until DATE the applicant made several declarations in which she commented on the history of the ORG , her role in the organisation and the crimes she was accused of .

With her first declaration of CARDINAL DATE the applicant commented on the events in connection with her arrest during which her companion , ORG member PERSON , had been shot dead . She then explained the developments within the ORG which had lead to its declaration of DATE in which the group abandoned its strategy of attacks against representatives of the ORG and the economy . She explained this break with the former strategy of the ORG with the “ experiences and the realisation that we [ the ORG ] ourselves do not have answers to many questions and that we , alone , can not and do not want to answer them , as the draft of a global political vision can not be the matter of CARDINAL group [ ... ] like the ORG ” .

She concluded the declaration with the following statement :

“ The fight for a humane future , for a world without government , in which people can live in liberty and self - determination , is still on the agenda . The reversal of the social developments is still a matter for which one must fight . Those who think that they have driven us into a dead - end street , should not rejoice too soon . They should know that we will fight for ourselves . There will be no return to the old strategy as a political concept , but we have our right to self - defence . I do not think that we will watch our destruction without resistance and I wish that everyone would think about our future . ”

In a further declaration of CARDINAL DATE she commented on the murder of the GPE soldier GPE by the ORG :

“ The shooting of the GI Edward Pimental was CARDINAL of the worst mistakes of the ORG . ”

On DATE the applicant read out a statement on the history of the ORG in which she critically commented on the strategy of violent attacks which the ORG had followed in the past . In this context she clearly admitted her commitment to the ORG and to its original aims as she stated :

“ Although I believe DATE that we made many mistakes – our beginnings and our fight for a different world were at any time well - founded and justified , and that fight has to be conducted as a confrontation . Now the time has come for drawing conclusions from these experiences , because they are important for the determination of future fights and because others should not repeat our mistakes simply because we do not talk about them .

Where the ORG is concerned , I have written my whole text in the first person of the plural – my personal history has been closely linked to this group for DATE now and thus I believe that I carry the responsibility for its whole history . ”

She subsequently condemned again the shooting of the GPE soldier and asked the question of “ how people who had stood up to fight for a more just and more humane world , could have moved away so far from their original ideals ... ” .

In this connection she tried to explain the reasons which had finally driven her to join the ORG . At the end of her statement , she had this to say about the development of the ORG :

“ Our limitation of vision and our dogmatism continuously prevented critical questions and a self - critical reflection . As far as we were concerned , it lasted through DATE until we finally broke with it . ”

She concluded her declaration with the following words :

“ There will be no relevant anti - power here , as long as we DATE and I do not refer to the ORG DATE continue to refuse to understand our own history . To determine future fights , we need an accurate analysis of the current situation and development . We also need the experiences and realisations of DATE . ”

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life - time imprisonment for murder in several cases , robbery , causing an explosion and illegal possession of firearms . It found that the applicant had joined the underground operating group of the ORG in DATE and had participated in several attacks by the ORG , namely ( CARDINAL ) the deadly shooting of the GPE .- soldier PERSON on DATE , ( CARDINAL ) the bomb outrage on FAC in GPE on DATE , ( CARDINAL ) the attack on former Under - Secretary of ORG Dr. PERSON on DATE and ( CARDINAL ) the bombing at PERSON prison on DATE .

On the applicant 's appeal , ORG ( ORG ) by decision of CARDINAL DATE quashed the applicant 's conviction for the bombing of the PERSON prison but confirmed ORG judgment with respect to the other crimes .

B. Relevant domestic law

The admissibility of any contacts of the detainee on remand is regulated by Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung ) , which reads as follows :

“ The person arrested may only be subjected to those limitations which are required by the purpose of the detention on remand or by the maintenance of order in the prison . ”

The applicant was , among other crimes , accused of membership in a terrorist organisation pursuant to Section CARDINALa of LAW . The relevant paragraphs of Section CARDINALa read as follows :

“ ORG of terrorist associations

( CARDINAL ) Everyone who founds an association , the purpose or activities of which are directed to commit

murder , homicide or genocide ( Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON ) , CARDINAL . crimes against the freedom of the person in the cases of Sections CARDINALa or CARDINALb or CARDINAL . crimes pursuant to ORG CARDINALa [ destruction of important working materials ] or crimes against public safety according to Sections CARDINAL to CARDINALc [ arson ] or LAW CARDINAL [ causing explosions through nuclear energy ] , Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL to CARDINAL [ causing an explosion ] , LAW to CARDINAL [ abuse of ionising radiation ] , Sections CARDINAL [ causing floodings ] , CARDINAL [ poisoning dangerous to public safety ] or CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL [ dangerous disturbances of rail , sea or air traffic ] , LAW CARDINAL [ disturbance of public service plants ] or Sections CARDINALc § § CARDINAL to CARDINAL [ attacks on air and sea traffic ]

or who participates as a member in such an organisation , is liable to imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the perpetrator is CARDINAL of the ringleaders or instigators , imprisonment may not be below DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Whoever supports or promotes an organisation as described in DATE is liable to imprisonment of DATE . ”