FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10841/12
Ahmet ASIR and others
against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2012,
Having regard to the information obtained from the respondent Government and comments by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Ms Y. Renda, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicants are 63 Turkish-Cypriot relatives of 126 people who were killed during the conflict in Cyprus in 1974.
4. The applicants and their relatives were living in three small villages Murataga (Maratha), Sandallar (Sandallaris) and Atlilar (Aloa) on the Famagusta road close to some Greek-Cypriot villages.
5. On 15 July 1974 there was a coup organised against the President of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios. The applicants submitted that the coup, which aimed at union of Cyprus with Greece (enosis) was supported by the Greek Cypriot National Guard Army which had a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots from certain areas. When the coup started, mass murders of Turkish Cypriots began.
6. On 20 July 1974, there were reports of Greek Cypriots arriving in the villages of Murataga and Sandallar, taking the villagers away forcibly.
7. On 15 August 1974 a villager returning to Atlilar found the village deserted. They found traces of a bulldozer and hundreds of bullet cases, as well as pamphlets concerning EOKA-B.[1] On 18 August, soldiers and journalists visited the village to investigate what had happened. On 19 August, in the presence of UN observers, a small pit was uncovered in which 37 villagers’ bodies had been crammed. Their heads had been cut off, the bodies were handcuffed. The bodies had been run over by a bulldozer and had meshed together, rendering exhumation difficult. The bodies were recovered and buried together on 25 December 1974.
8. Investigations then took place as to what had happened in the other two villages.
9. Murataga had a population of 135. At noon on 20 July, armed Greek Cypriots had taken the villagers to Alanci. They had separated the men aged 15-60 from the women and took them to a military camp. The women and children were sent back to the village. Some of the men were released from the military camp in early August.
10. On 14 August, Greek Cypriots came to Murataga, raiding and looting the houses. They brought the villagers from Sandallar to Murataga, killed everyone after torturing them and buried them by running over them with a bulldozer on the rubbish dump. The boys had had their heads cut off. The women and girls had been raped. The bodies were crushed and unrecognizable. The site of the massacre was first uncovered by Safak Nihat whose account was published in a Turkish-Cypriot newspaper. Nihat and his family had escaped the massacre by hiding in barrels and in a hayloft. They emerged to find the village burning and empty of people. On 2 September, Nihat was helping his uncle with a herd of sheep. Nearing the garbage dump, he saw four pyramid-like heaps and became aware of a terrible smell. He saw a child’s arm protruding from a heap and ran to tell his uncle. Soldiers arrived with United Nations personnel. 89 bodies were exhumed. The victims were buried on 4 September.
11. The story of the three villages and the torture and massacre of men, women and children was told in a book published in 2010 – “Step by Step Genocide”, published by the Association of Murataga-Sandallar-Atlilar Martyrs. It was also recounted in the reports of the United Nations Secretary-General dated 27 August and 10 September 1974.
12. No official investigation was launched into the events.
13. In 2009, an old Greek Cypriot who wished to clear his conscience before he died called some of the applicants to the south and gave names of the perpetrators. They promised not to give his name to the police. They were shaken as most of the names were those of people they knew, who had been their neighbours from many years before 1974. The applicants drew up a petition and their lawyer submitted it to the Attorney-General on 9 December 2009. Some of the names of the alleged perpetrators also appeared in the Turkish-Cypriot press on 14 August 2009.
14. On 11 January 2010, the applicants learned from a newspaper that an investigation had been started by the Attorney-General of Cyprus. Their lawyer wrote to the authorities on 4 February 2010 stating that they were willing to give statements.
15. Following this correspondence, some applicants were summoned by Greek Cypriot police to give their complaints between 17 March 2010 and 9 March 2011.
16. On 7 June 2010, the applicants’ lawyer wrote to the Attorney‑General complaining about the lack of information about the investigation and stating his clients’ right to be informed. On receiving no reply within 30 days, the applicants lodged an action in the Cyprus courts.
17. On 21 March 2011, the applicants’ lawyer received an e-mail from a government lawyer that the names of the alleged perpetrators had been sent to the police for their statements to be taken. Statements from four of these suspects were submitted in the course of the court proceedings – the translations into Turkish were very poor. They stated in essence that they had left the area due to the fighting and did not know who had committed the crimes. The applicants submitted that although there were 30 names on their list the authorities had only looked for 15 persons. No further information has been forthcoming about the investigation.
18. The applicants’ court case was still pending. The Attorney-General is claiming in defence that the matter of investigation is an act of State not subject to judicial review, citing that Supreme Court ruling to that effect in Özalp Behiç Saricaoğlu and others v the Republic of Cyprus (nos. 589/06, 590/06, 591/06 and 593/06)
B. Information submitted by the Government
19. The Government provided the following information about the investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives.
20. On 23 September 2009, following publication in August of an article in a Turkish-Cypriot newspaper about the killing of the applicants’ relatives, the Attorney-General instructed the police to carry out an investigation, in particular as regarded the fifteen persons named in the article who had lived in nearby Greek-Cypriot villages.
21. On 9 December 2009, five relatives wrote to the Attorney-General requesting an investigation and naming thirty Greek-Cypriot villagers as perpetrators. Fifteen of these had already been named in the newspaper.
22. The police investigation which had not yet been completed followed up on the names of potential suspects. These villagers had fled from the occupied areas and had to be traced. It transpired that, on verification of electoral rolls, four individuals had been named twice, that the identity of one perpetrator could not be confirmed, that one had moved abroad without discoverable address and that eleven had died.
23. The police obtained statements from all the remaining individuals who had been named. Supplementary statements were taken from some of them. Four persons named as witnesses by members of the families turned out to be relatives, not eye-witnesses. The police were unable to obtain information as to the identity of the Greek Cypriot who had named the alleged perpetrators. The police followed other leads, including contacting official bodies, United Nations sources, seeking inter alia to contact the Swedish monitors who had been at the site of the exhumations, other villagers from the area and any persons named in the statements taken. Some leads were still being followed up.
24. In his letter dated 3 July 2013, the Attorney-General stated that the investigations were still ongoing and further information might still come to light.
COMPLAINTS
25. The applicants complained that there has been no effective official investigation into the killings of their relatives during a planned episode of blatant ethnic cleansing. The authorities had failed to launch an investigation promptly into the events and only reacted when the applicants obtained the names of the perpetrators and sent them to the Attorney‑General. The applicants have not been informed about any steps in the investigation which they consider as ineffective. They submitted that the killings were carried out by EOKA-B members who were supported, provoked and armed by the Greek and Cypriot governments.
26. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that for years they had suffered from learning the way in which their relatives died; the denial of the Government and their silence on this issue has breached this provision.
27. The applicants complained under Article 8 that they had lost their loved ones and their homes. They could not marry again or have children; their lives and mental health have been shattered. Their only comfort would be the punishment of those responsible.
28. The applicants complained under Article 13 that there is no effective remedy as the investigation is inadequate and the courts hold the government immune from legal control; and finally, under Article 14 they claim that the massacre and lack of investigation into it discloses discrimination on ethnic, racial, religious and political grounds.
THE LAW
29. The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention that there had been no effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives. The Court will examine these complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as relevant:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ....”
30. The Court recalls that identical complaints were raised by applicants in the cases of Emin and Others v Cyprus, no. 59623/08 et al, decision of 3 April 2012 and in Günesel and Others v Cyprus and Greece and 8 other applications v Cyprus, no. 30979/10 et al, decision of 2 April 2013). After examining the information and submissions of the parties, it concluded as follows:
“36. ...the Court finds that the investigations have been underway.. with no apparent concrete progress. This does not in itself disclose any lack of good faith or will on the part of the authorities. In the circumstances, it is premature to impugn the response of the authorities as ineffective. The Court would not underestimate the difficulties of finding witnesses who are still alive after this lapse of time and who are able to recall, and willing to give evidence, about past events. However, it would emphasise that the authorities must take reasonable steps to find the available evidence and pursue the practicable leads open to them at this time to uncover the perpetrators of any unlawful violence; that in due course an assessment will have to be made as to whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to justify a prosecution; and that the families should be informed of any key factual conclusions and procedural developments and any reasoned decisions in this regard. But it is too early for the Court as a supervisory international jurisdiction to reach any findings that the authorities’ actions are a mere sham or that there is bad faith, wilful footdragging and prevarication involved. Prolonged inactivity and silence by the authorities over a more significant period of time might eventually render such a conclusion possible but not yet. ...
37. It follows that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.”
31. The Court observes that there are no distinguishing features in the present applications which would lead it to differ from its reasoning above. It appears that an investigation is underway and that considerable steps have been taken towards gathering evidence. It is too early to draw any conclusions as to any alleged lack of efficacy or any other alleged shortcomings.
32. It follows that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosIneta Ziemele
RegistrarPresident
Appendix
Ahmet ASIR Gulten ADAMAN Huseyin AKANSOY Huseyin AKANSOY Rustem AKANSOY Sevil AKINCIOGLU Fatma ALICERKEZ Birgul ALKIN Ahmet ALTEMURArif ALTINBARDAKAfet ARABICIHuseyin ARNAVUTGalibe ASLANTURKHuseyin ASLANTURKEkrem ATLIFatma BAYKALLIMehmet CANMustafa CANHasan CERKEZHasan CETINERSerif EBELERHasan ERGECIsmail ERGECHuseyin GULERMustafa GULERNaciye GULHANGonul HAMITBayram KARABARDAKHasan Huseyin KARABARDAKIbrahim KARABARDAKEmir Huseyin KAYNAKMustafa Savas KUZULIZuhre MENGUAbdullah MUHTAROGLUHasan MUHTAROGLUIlkay MURATAGACemal MURATAGALARMehmet Nazim ORTUNCAyse OZCURUMEZMihir Suleyman OZKOLDASBirsen OZKUYUCUCemal OZKUYUCUGulsen Hasan OZKUYUCUHyseyin OZKUYUCUSadik OZKUYUCUCihan OZTANOGLUAli Osman PIPALIEmine REYHAN CEMALAhmet SADANOGLUEmine SADANOGLUMustafa SADANOGLUSevilay SADANOGLUTamer SADANOGLUCemaliye SERDARHuseyin SERINYUREKKamil G. SIMTASNejla SOYDAGAysel SOYKARANilhan SUBASIAylan Ugur TEMENGulay UNALMahan Sultan UNGORAfet YAGLI
[1] A Greek-Cypriot paramilitary organisation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy