Turkey convicted in missing Greek Cypriots case

Under Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which covers just satisfaction, the court awarded the applicants 12,000 euros per application in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 8,000 euros for costs and expenses.

The applications were introduced before the court in the name and on behalf of 18 Greek Cypriot nationals, nine of whom had disappeared during military operations carried out by the Turkish army in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The nine other applicants are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.

In January 2008 the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 2 of the ECHR, which covers the right to life, Article 3 which covers the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and Article 5 which covers the right to liberty and security.

Upon an official appeal by the Turkish government, a six-judge chamber had decided that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber, whose judgments are final. During a hearing at the Grand Chamber held in November 2008, Turkey's lawyer had argued that it was not possible to blame the Turkish authorities for failing to conduct a “retrospective” investigation.

Yet, the Grand Chamber ruled Friday that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 on account of Turkey's failure to effectively investigate the fate of the nine men who disappeared in 1974, while noting that the Turkish government had not put forward any concrete information to show that any of the missing men had been found dead or had been killed in the conflict zone under their control.

“Nor had there been any other convincing explanation as to what might have happened to them that could counter the applicants' claims that the men had disappeared in areas under the Turkish government's exclusive control. In light of the findings in the fourth inter-State case, which had not been refuted, these disappearances had occurred in life-threatening circumstances where the conduct of military operations had been accompanied by widespread arrests and killings,” it said.

Due to the continuing division of Cyprus, the relatives had been faced with serious obstacles in their search for information, and the Turkish authorities' silence in the face of those real concerns could only be categorized as inhuman treatment, the Grand Chamber said. It then ruled that the length of time over which the ordeal of the relatives had been dragged out and the attitude of official indifference in the face of their acute anxiety to know the fate of their close family members had resulted in a breach of Article 3 in respect of the applicants.

The Grand Chamber, meanwhile, found that there was an arguable case that two of the missing men, Eleftherios Thoma and Savvas Hadjipanteli, both of whom had been included on International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) lists as detainees, had been last seen in circumstances falling within the control of the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot forces. The Turkish government had also failed to conduct the necessary investigation into the arguable claim that the two missing men had been taken into custody and not seen subsequently, it said, adding that there had therefore been a continuing violation of Article 5 in respect of Thoma and Hadjipanteli.

Given that there had been no sufficient evidence showing that the other seven men had last been seen under Turkish control, there had been no violation of Article 5 in respect of them, the Grand Chamber said.

According to the United Nations, 1,468 Greek Cypriots and 502 Turkish Cypriots are still listed as missing from inter-communal violence in 1963-64 and from the 1974 Turkish intervention. Unlike the Turkish Cypriot north, the Greek Cypriot south refuses to declare its missing as dead -- a point the north calls “purely political,” but which Greek Cypriots insist is for humanitarian reasons.