AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

     Applications Nos.   25316/94  I. Denizci

                         25317/94  A. Merthoca

                         25318/94  H. Mavideniz, Y. Mavideniz

                                   and D. Davulcular

                         25319/94  H.M. Merthoca

                         25320/94  E. Kaptanoglu

                         25321/94  T.A. Kismir

                         27207/95  I. Tufansoy

                         against Cyprus

     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

20 January 1998, the following members being present:

          MM   S. TRECHSEL, President

               G. JÖRUNDSSON

               H. DANELIUS

          Mrs  G.H. THUNE

          M    C.L. ROZAKIS

          Mrs  J. LIDDY

          MM   B. MARXER

               M.A. NOWICKI

               N. BRATZA

               I. BÉKÉS

               G. RESS

               A. PERENIC

               P. LORENZEN

               K. HERNDL

               E. BIELIUNAS

               E.A. ALKEMA

               M. VILA AMIGÓ

               R. NICOLINI

               A. ARABADJIEV

          Mr   M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission;

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the applications introduced on 12 September 1994

by Ilker Denizci, Aziz Merthoca, Hüseyin Mavideniz, Yilmaz Mavideniz,

Dogan Davulcular, Hasan M. Merthoca, Erbay Kaptanoglu and Taser Ali

Kismir against Cyprus, and registered on 27 September 1994 under files

Nos. 25316-25321/94, and the application introduced on

12 September 1994 by Ibrahim Tufansoy against Cyprus and registered on

2 May 1995 under file No. 27207/95;Having regard to :

-    the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

     the Commission;

-    the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

     16 November 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the

     applicants on 5 February 1996;

-    the Commission's decision of 31 October 1997 to join the

     applications;

-    the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent

     Government on 5 January 1998;

-    the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 20 January 1998;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicants are all Cypriot citizens of Turkish origin.

     The first applicant, Ilker Denizci, born in 1960, is a

construction worker. He is presently residing in Akcay-Guzelyurt

(Morphou) in the northern part of Cyprus.

     The second applicant, Aziz M. Merthoca, born in 1968, is a

construction worker. He is presently serving a sentence of nine months'

imprisonment in the northern part of Cyprus.

     The third applicant, Hüseyin Mavideniz, the fourth applicant,

Yilmaz Mavideniz, and the fifth applicant, Dogan Davulcular, are

presently residing in Famagusta, in the northern part of Cyprus. The

third and the fourth applicants are brothers. The third and the fifth

applicants are brothers-in-law.

     The sixth applicant, Hasan Mehmet Merthoca, born in 1955, is a

construction worker. He is presently residing in Girne (Kyrenia) in the

northern part of Cyprus.

     The seventh applicant, Erbay Kaptanoglu, born in 1950, is a

builder. He is presently residing in Gecitkale (Lefkoniko), Famagusta,

in the northern part of Cyprus.

     The eighth applicant, Taser Ali Kismir, born in 1957, is a

construction worker. He is presently residing in Paphos (Republic of

Cyprus).

     The ninth applicant, Ibrahim Tufansoy, born in 1926 in Limassol,

is a retired municipality worker.  He lives in Morphou, in the northern

part of Cyprus.  He is the father and next of kin of deceased Ilker

Tufansoy who was killed in the village of Stavrokonno (Aydogan) in

Paphos, Republic of Cyprus, on 2 June 1994.  He is bringing the

application as the father and/or next of kin of the deceased, and/or

administrator of the estate of the deceased, for and/or on behalf of

the family and/or the estate of the deceased.

     Before the Commission the applicants are represented by

Zaim M. Necatigil, a lawyer practising in Nicosia (in the northern

part).

     The facts of the case, which are in dispute between the parties,

may be summarised as follows.

A.   Submissions of the applicants

     The case of Ilker Denizci

     In February 1991 the applicant, who had previously been living

in the northern part of Cyprus, moved to the territories under the

control of the Republic of Cyprus, where he worked as a builder until

June 1992.  There, he was under strict surveillance by the Cypriot

police.  His movements were monitored and at certain times, he was

taken to the police headquarters where he was severely beaten and

intimidated.  When it was found that he was working at Ayia Napa the

police ordered him to leave his work, beat him and threatened to kill

him if he did not leave the territories under the control of the

Republic of Cyprus.  On 12 June 1992 the applicant returned to northern

Cyprus and on 4 March 1994 he crossed over again to the territories

under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.  He first went to Larnaca

and a few days later to Limassol.  He started to work as a builder at

Aghrodimou village within the British military base of Akrotiri.

     On 4 April 1994 at about 7.30 a.m., two Cypriot policemen,

believed to be attached to the Secret Intelligence Police, came to the

applicant's place of work and ordered him to come with them.  The

applicant was forced into a car and taken to Limassol police

headquarters, believed to be that of the Central Intelligence Service.

     There, he was interrogated about the murder in Nicosia of

Theophilos Georghiades, the desk officer responsible for Turkish

affairs at the Cypriot Public Information Office who had been killed

on 20 March 1994 by unknown persons.

     The applicant was then taken to Nicosia police station in the

vicinity of Paphos gate, a two-storey building believed to be the

central headquarters  of the Cypriot Intelligence Service.  There he

was insulted and beaten by 8-9 policemen for about 20 minutes.  He was

then blindfolded and taken to the police headquarters in the

Troodos/Kambos area.  At these headquarters two uniformed policemen

seated the applicant on a chair, the wrong way round, and handcuffed

him.  He was interrogated for about one hour about the killing of Mr.

Georghiades.  During the interrogation, he was severely and continually

beaten by hand and fist, received blows from an electrical baton and

was hit several times with an olive stick and a pistol butt.  The two

policemen left the applicant in a helpless state for about half an

hour.  Then they came back and forced him to sign and affix his

fingerprint on a statement to the effect that he had no complaint about

the Cypriot police and wanted to go to the northern part of Cyprus

freely of his own will.  When he refused, a club was pushed into his

mouth pulling out one of his teeth.  He then signed the statement.  His

identity card certifying that he was a citizen of Turkish origin of the

Republic of Cyprus was seized by the policemen.  Then he was put in a

cell.

     On the same evening, at about 8.00 p.m., four armed policemen

blindfolded the applicant and put him in a car.  After 15-20 minutes'

journey, the car was stopped and the applicant came out of the car.

When the blindfold was removed the applicant realised that he was in

the middle of fortifications under the control of the Republic of

Cyprus near the United Nations buffer-zone.  The policemen made the

applicant take off his shoes, started stamping on his toes, crushing

and bleeding them, and then extinguished their burning cigarettes on

them.  They took away the sum of 380 Cyprus Pounds which the applicant

had in his pocket.  The policemen then pulled the applicant by the

handcuffs, released them and pushed him into a dry river bed and set

their guns.  They told the applicant to follow the river to the north

and said if he returned they would shoot him.

     As the applicant had received blows on every part of his body,

he could not walk.  He crawled along the river bed and reached the

northern part of Cyprus at Taspinar (Angolem) village. In the

northern part of Cyprus the applicant was examined and treated at

Cengiz Topel (Pendayia) Hospital, and later at the "Turkish Cypriot

State Hospital" in Nicosia.

     In a report dated 8 April 1994, a medical doctor of the Cengiz

Topel Hospital stated that there was evidence of abrasions on both

sides of the applicant's zygomatic zones and also on the right

mandibular zone.  According to the Report, there were several wounds

in different sizes on both hands and both tibia areas.  There was also

evidence of abrasion and bruises of different sizes and width on the

upper back and right shoulder.  The applicant was also found to be a

diabetic.

     The toe which the policemen had stamped upon and crushed was

later affected with gangrene and had to be amputated.

     The applicant was also examined by a United Nations medical

officer at the United Nations Ledra Palace headquarters.

     The case of Aziz M. Merthoca

     The applicant used to live in the northern part of Cyprus until

1985.  In 1985, with another Cypriot citizen of Turkish origin, he

crossed over to the territories under the control of the Republic of

Cyprus in order to find work there and earn a living.  They reported

to a police station in Xylotymbou where they were questioned about the

military situation in the northern part of Cyprus.  They were later

taken to the Cypriot Central Intelligence Police Headquarters in

Nicosia.  They were detained for 18 days during which they were

interrogated and beaten by the police.

     The applicant and his friend were later allocated a house by the

police at the Turkish quarter of Limassol.  The applicant started to

work as a construction labourer in Limassol.  Within a few months the

applicant met P.Y., a Cypriot citizen of Greek origin with whom he

rented a house and started living together.  In 1987 the applicant and

P.Y. had a daughter and in 1991 the couple had a son.

     After the killing of Theophilos Georghiades the applicant was

taken to the Limassol police station where he was interrogated by

Cypriot policemen attached to the Central Intelligence Service.  A

statement was taken from him.

     On 17 April 1994, the applicant, together with another Turkish

Cypriot, Yilmaz Mavideniz (cf. Application No. 25318/94), helped some

other Cypriot citizens of Turkish origin to cross from the northern

part of Cyprus to the territories under the control of the Republic of

Cyprus, and tried to find accommodation for them in Limassol.  Among

the persons whom they helped to cross to the south, were Hüseyin

Mavideniz, Nermin Mavideniz, Dogan Davulcular, Hüseyin Davulcular,

Selma Davulcular and their four children.

     On 18 April 1994, when the applicant was getting prepared to go

to work, three Cypriot policemen from the Central Intelligence Service

by the names of Theodoro, Rodi and Kosti came to his apartment and told

him that they would take him to the police headquarters.  The applicant

was taken to the Limassol police headquarters.  Yilmaz Mavideniz and

the Turkish Cypriots whom they had helped to cross to the south were

already there.  The applicant and Yilmaz Mavideniz were taken into

another room and beaten by hand and fist for helping the other Turkish

Cypriots to come to the territories under the control of the Republic

of Cyprus.

     On the same day, towards mid-day, they were all put in a mini-bus

and driven to Nicosia Central Intelligence Service Headquarters.

There, the applicant and other men were beaten by 6-7 policemen,

amongst whom the applicant recognised Chrystaki and Beniko.  Then they

were all driven to a police station in a mountain village called

Kambou.  There the applicant and the other men were again beaten by the

Cypriot Intelligence Police with clubs and sand bags.  They were forced

to sign statements to the effect that they had no complaint against the

Cypriot police and wanted to go to the northern part of Cyprus of their

own will.  They were then put in a cell.

     In the evening of the same day the applicant and the other

Turkish Cypriots were taken from the cell.  The applicant was

handcuffed and slapped before he was put in a police jeep.  They were

put in two jeeps and driven to a dry riverbed near the buffer-zone

south of the Guzelyurt (Morphou) area.  The handcuffs were removed and

they were ordered to walk along the riverbed to the northern part of

Cyprus. A policeman by the name of Chrystaki Savva warned them not to

come back, otherwise they would be shot.  The applicant and the other

persons followed a different route to the north in case the route

suggested by the police might have been mined.  They safely reached the

village of Taspinar in the northern part of Cyprus.

     On 21 April 1994, the applicant was examined at the "Turkish

Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia.  On the same day a medical report

was drawn up which stated that there was swelling and ecchymosis on

both scapular regions.  The applicant was later examined by a United

Nations medical officer.

     On 27 August 1995, the applicant returned to the South to join

P.Y. and their children.

     On 28 August 1995, under threat and blackmail from the Greek

Cypriot police, the applicant gave a statement declaring that he had

been ill-treated by the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot police.

     The case of Hüseyin and Yilmaz Mavideniz and Dogan Davulcular

     In 1986 Yilmaz Mavideniz crossed over from the northern part of

Cyprus to the territories under the control of the Republic of Cyprus

in order to find work there and earn a living.  He worked there until

1991 when he returned to the northern part of Cyprus.  In 1992 he again

crossed to the Republic of Cyprus.  Upon arrival at Limassol, he went

to the Limassol police station and reported his arrival.  He resided

in Limassol where he worked as a construction worker and later at a

petrol station.  During this period he met T., a Cypriot woman of Greek

origin, and they lived together in the Turkish quarter of Limassol.

     Yilmaz Mavideniz was continually under the surveillance and

control of the Cypriot police and his movements were monitored.On

17 April 1994, he helped some other Turkish Cypriots to cross from the

northern part of Cyprus to the territories under the control of the

Republic of Cyprus and tried to find accommodation for them in

Limassol.  The persons whom they helped to cross to the south were

Hüseyin Davulcular, Dogan Davulcular (his cousins), Hüseyin Mavideniz

and their wives and children.

     On 18 April 1994, three Cypriot policemen from the Central

Intelligence Service, amongst whom were Rodi and Asimeno, visited the

house of Yilmaz Mavideniz.  The other Turkish Cypriots who had come to

the south the day before and were staying in the house of Yilmaz

Mavideniz (Dogan and Hüseyin Davulcular and their wives and children)

were taken from the house and driven to Limassol police station.  A

police officer named Asimeno ordered Yilmaz Mavideniz to drive him to

the house where Hüseyin Mavideniz was staying.  Hüseyin Mavideniz was

then brought to the Limassol police station together with his wife and

their two children.

     At the Limassol police station Yilmaz Mavideniz and Aziz M.

Merthoca were taken into another room, interrogated and beaten by hand

and fist for helping the others to come to the territories under the

control of the Republic of Cyprus.  Hüseyin Mavideniz and Dogan

Davulcular were also interrogated, sworn at and beaten by the police.

Hüseyin Mavideniz said that he was a poor person, he intended to work,

but would not stay permanently in the south.  He asked why he was

beaten.  The police swore at him and told him that he was beaten for

being a Turkish Cypriot.  The police officer said that they did not

want to see any Turks in the south.

     On the same day, at about mid-day, the applicants, their families

and the other detainees were put in two jeeps (Pajeros) and driven to

Nicosia Central Intelligence Service Headquarters.  There, the

applicants were beaten by 6-7 policemen.  Then they were all taken to

a police station in a mountainous area, believed to be the Greek

Cypriot Central Intelligence Service in Troodos/Kambos area.  There,

the applicants were taken in a room in turn and beaten by the Cypriot

Intelligence Police with clubs and sand bags.  Four of the policemen

wore civilian clothes and one was in police/military uniform.  The

policemen were repeatedly saying that they did not want Turks in the

south and that they would punish them.

     Due to severe beating at the area of his kidneys, Hüseyin

Mavideniz could not urinate for two days.  He had bruises on the body

and a swollen face.

     The applicants and the other detainees were forced to sign

statements to the effect that they had no complaint against the Cypriot

police and wanted to go to the northern part of Cyprus of their own

will.

     In the evening of the same day, at about 8.00 p.m., the

applicants and the other detainees were handcuffed, put in two Land

Rovers and driven to a dry riverbed near the buffer-zone in the south

of the Guzelyurt (Morphou) area.  The handcuffs were removed and they

were ordered to walk along the riverbed to the northern part of

Cyprus.One of the policemen warned them not to come back, otherwise

they would be shot.  The applicants and others followed a different

route to the north in case the route suggested by the police might have

been mined.  They reached safely the village of Taspinar in the

northern part of Cyprus.

     On 21 April 1994, the applicants were examined at the "Turkish

Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia.  According to the medical reports,

Hüseyin Mavideniz had an epigastric hernia and sensitivity in the

lateral thoracic region. Yilmaz Mavideniz had pain on his chin and neck

and sensitivity on his back.  Dogan Davulcular had tenderness on the

epigastric region.

     At the material time, T., the concubine of Yilmaz Mavideniz, was

pregnant and expecting to give birth to their child.

     The case of Hasan Mehmet Merthoca

     The applicant used to live in the northern part of Cyprus until

1981.  In 1981 he moved to the territories under the control of the

Republic of Cyprus in order to stay with his mother, who, at the

material time, was residing in Limassol.  He also intended to work and

earn a living there.  He worked in Limassol as a construction worker

for three years and then returned to the northern part of Cyprus.  In

1986 the applicant again went to the territories under the control of

the Republic of Cyprus through the British bases.  He was apprehended

by the Cypriot police and was kept in custody for some time.  After his

release he went to Limassol to stay with his mother.  In Limassol he

met M.Y., a Cypriot woman of Greek origin and they started living

together.  In 1990 the couple had a daughter.

     The applicant was continually under the surveillance and control

of the Cypriot police.  He was at times interrogated and his movements

were monitored.

     After the killing of Theophilos Georghiades, two Cypriot

policemen attached to the Central Intelligence Service, whom the

applicant believes are named Rodi and Kosti, visited his house in

Limassol and questioned him on his whereabouts on the day Mr.

Georghiades was killed.  The policemen took a statement from the

applicant.  Since then, the applicant was forbidden to go outside

Limassol without police permission and his movements were closely

watched.  The police visited his house every now and then to ask

questions.

     On 19 April 1994, between 7.00-8.00 a.m. two Cypriot policemen

visited the applicant's house and ordered him to come with them.  The

applicant was taken to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence

Service in Limassol, on the third floor.  Sergeant Rodi told him that

he would be taken to Nicosia to be interrogated in relation to an

incident of theft.  The applicant was then handcuffed to Süleyman

Seyer, another Cypriot citizen of Turkish origin, and they were driven

in a white car to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Service

in Nicosia.  At these headquarters there were 5 or 6 policemen who

insulted and beat Hasan Merthoca and other Turkish Cypriots with clubs

and a truncheon.    On the same day at about noon, the applicant and

Süleyman Seyer were handcuffed and blindfolded and driven to a police

station believed to be the headquarters of the Cypriot Central

Intelligence Service in the Troodos/Kombos area.  At these headquarters

the applicant was beaten again with clubs by three policemen whom he

had seen earlier at the Nicosia police headquarters.  He was then

forced to sign and affix his fingerprint on a piece of paper.  The

applicant was then taken back to his cell.  Then Süleyman Seyer was

taken from the cell and brought back after some time.  The two men were

kept in the cell till evening.

     On the same evening at about 9.00 p.m., the applicant and

Süleyman Seyer were again blindfolded, handcuffed and driven to a dry

riverbed where the blindfolds were removed and the handcuffs were

released.  One of the policemen, whom the applicant believes was

Chrystaki, ordered the applicant to proceed across the United Nations

buffer-zone to the northern part of Cyprus. Süleyman Seyer followed the

applicant.  They were warned not to come back; if they did they would

be shot.  They proceeded to the north and reached the village of

Taspinar (Angolem) in the northern part of Cyprus.

     On 21 April 1994, the applicant was examined at the "Turkish

Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia.  On the same day a medical report

was drawn up which mentioned the presence of six ecchymotic lesions on

the dorsal region of the body, diameters of which varied from 3 to 7

centimetres.  The applicant was examined by a United Nations medical

officer on 27 April 1994.

     Due to his forced displacement to the northern part of Cyprus,

the applicant left behind various household goods and clothes at his

house at Ankara Street No. 17 in Limassol, which include a stove, a

colour TV, a video, a radio cassette player, a doublebed, gold

jewellery and a Datsun car.  He also left behind 1500 Cyprus Pounds at

the house of his mother Nazli, who resides at Kemal Selim Street No.

5, in Limassol.

     The case of Erbay Kaptanoglu

     The applicant, who had been previously living in the northern

part of Cyprus, moved in August 1985 to the territories under the

control of the Republic of Cyprus in order to find work and earn a

living.  He reported to a Cypriot police station outside Nicosia. From

there the applicant was brought to the Nicosia police headquarters and

interrogated about the military situation in the northern part of

Cyprus.  Then he was brought to the Larnaca Road police station where

he was detained in a cell for 29 days.  During his detention and later

the applicant was continually interrogated by the Cypriot Intelligence

Service about the military situation in the northern part of Cyprus.

After his release the applicant was sent to Limassol.  The Limassol

police found accommodation for the applicant at a deserted house in

Limassol and the applicant started to work as a construction worker.

     In 1987 the applicant migrated to Norway and stayed there for

five years.  In 1992 he returned to Limassol and started to work in a

factory.  During his stay in Limassol he was under strict surveillance

by the Cypriot police, his activities and movements were all the time

monitored by the police. After the killing of Theophilos

Georghiades, the applicant was questioned by the Cypriot police on his

whereabouts on the relevant day.

     On 20 April 1994 at 9.30 a.m., two policemen, believed to be from

the Central Intelligence Service, came to the applicant's place of work

and ordered him to come to the Limassol police station with them.  When

he was brought to the police station, the applicant saw another Turkish

Cypriot, Murat Doksandokuz, who was being kept there.  The applicant

and Murat Doksandokuz were then taken to a police station in Nicosia,

believed to be the central headquarters of the Cypriot Central

Intelligence Service.  The Limassol police who handed over the

applicant to Nicosia police took from the applicant the keys to his

apartment, car and motorcycle.  At the Nicosia police headquarters the

applicant was insulted by words such as "filthy Turks" and he was

beaten and slapped.  The applicant was then blindfolded, handcuffed to

Murat Doksandokuz and taken to another police station, believed to be

that of the Central Intelligence Service in the  Troodos/Kambos area.

There, the applicant was beaten by the Cypriot police with a truncheon

and a club.  He was then forced to sign a statement to the effect that

he had no complaint about the Cypriot police and he wanted to return

to the northern part of Cyprus of his own free will.  When he refused

to sign he was severely beaten.  In the end he signed the statement.

Then he was put in a cell with Murat Doksandokuz.

     On the same day at about 8.00 p.m., the applicant and Murat

Doksandokuz were taken from the cell by five policemen, they were

handcuffed and blindfolded  and driven to a dry riverbed.  They were

ordered to follow the riverbed across the United Nations buffer-zone

to the northern part of Cyprus. They were warned not to come back;

otherwise they would be shot.  They reached the village of Taspinar

(Angolem) in the northern part of Cyprus.

     On 21 April 1994, the applicant was examined at the "Turkish

Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia and a medical report was drawn up

which mentioned the presence of ecchymosis on his right scapular area

with a diameter of 10 centimetres.  The applicant was examined by a

United Nations medical officer on 29 April 1994.

     The case of Taser Ali Kismir

     Until April 1991 the applicant had been living in the northern

part of Cyprus.  In April 1991 he crossed to the territories under the

control of the Republic of Cyprus.  Upon his arrival in Limassol, he

went to the police station and made the relevant records.  For some

months he worked in Limassol as a construction worker.  He then moved

to Paphos and at all material times he was working there as a

construction worker.

     The applicant was under strict police surveillance during his

stay in the territories under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.

     On 22 April 1994 at about 8.30 a.m., three members of the Cypriot

police, believed to be attached to the Central Intelligence Service,

came to the applicant's place of work in the village of Florakas and

ordered him to come with them.  The applicant asked to see his lawyer,

but was told that there was no need for a lawyer.  He was forced into

a car and driven to Nicosia, to a certain police station which the

applicant believes was that of the Central Intelligence Service.  In

this police station the applicant was taken to a room where Ilker

Tufansoy, another Cypriot citizen of Turkish origin, was being kept

(Ilker Tufansoy was later killed by unknown persons. His father has

brought application No. 27207/95.).  The applicant was handcuffed to

Ilker Tufansoy, blindfolded, slapped and hit on the face and on the

back of his head several times.

     The applicant and Ilker Tufansoy, their eyes still blindfolded,

were driven to another police station, probably in the vicinity of the

Troodos area.  The journey took about 30-45 minutes.  There, the

handcuffs were released and the applicant was separated from Ilker

Tufansoy.  The applicant was taken to another room and interrogated by

the police, one of whom he recognised later as being a certain

Chrystaki.  He was asked where he was in 1974 during the Turkish

intervention.  During the interrogation the applicant was insulted and

beaten by clubs, one of which broke into pieces due to the severity of

the blows.  Then the applicant was forced to sign a statement to the

effect that he wanted to go to the northern part of Cyprus freely and

of his own will.  He was then taken back to a cell. Ilker Tufansoy was

already there.

     On the same day, at about 8.00 - 8.30 p.m., the applicant and

Ilker Tufansoy were taken from the cell and were driven, blindfolded,

to a dry riverbed near the buffer-zone controlled by the United

Nations.  The police removed their blindfolds and told them to go to

the northern part of Cyprus through a path following the riverbed.  The

police warned them not to come back; if they did they would be shot.

The applicant and Ilker Tufansoy walked to the north, but when the

police were out of sight, they followed a different path for fear that

the path which they were shown might have been mined.  They reached a

village in the northern part of Cyprus (Gayretköy) on the same evening.

     On 23 April 1994, the applicant was examined at the "Turkish

Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia.  On the same day a medical report

was drawn up which stated that there was pain and evidence of extensive

abrasion and bruises on his upper back and shoulders.  His left wrist

was swollen and in pain.  The applicant was also examined by a United

Nations civilian police officer and a medical officer at Ledra Palace

and his photographs were taken.

     On 23 January 1996, the applicant returned to the South.

     On 26 January 1996, under threat and blackmail from the Greek

Cypriot police, the applicant gave a statement at the Paphos Police

station declaring that he had been ill-treated by the Turkish or the

Turkish Cypriot police.

     The case of Ilker Tufansoy

     The applicant's son, Ilker Tufansoy, was born in 1971 in

Limassol.  In May 1991 Ilker Tufansoy crossed over, with two of his

friends, from the northern part of Cyprus to the territories under the

control of the Republic of Cyprus.  Upon their arrival, they reported

to the police at Limassol.  Ilker Tufansoy stayed at Stavrokonno

village for about one and a half months and worked in a construction.

Then he went to live in Paphos, still continuing to work at the same

construction. In July 1991 he returned to the northern part of Cyprus.

In the summer of 1992 he crossed over again to the territories under

the control of the Republic of Cyprus with two of his friends.  They

were apprehended by the police and taken to the Nicosia police

headquarters where they were interrogated about their military service

in the northern part of Cyprus and about the military situation in

northern Cyprus. They were then released and asked to report to the

police station in Paphos. Ilker Tufansoy then found a job and started

to work as a construction worker. Towards the end of 1993 he went to

London where he applied for asylum. Three months later he withdrew his

application and returned to the Republic of Cyprus. He started to work

with his former employer.

     Ilker Tufansoy was constantly under strict police surveillance

during his stay in the territories under the control of the Republic

of Cyprus.

     On 22 April 1994 at about 7.30 a.m., three policemen came to

Ilker Tufansoy's place of work and ordered him to come to the Paphos

police station with them.  Two of the policemen were GIP (dealing

specifically with Turks) and one was from the Cypriot Central

Intelligence Service.  Ilker Tufansoy wanted to get in touch with his

lawyer but he was not allowed to do so.  He was driven to the Nicosia

police headquarters instead of the headquarters at Paphos.  He was

handed over to the Cypriot Central Intelligence Service Police at the

Nicosia headquarters.  Later another Turkish Cypriot, Taser Kismir, was

brought in (cf. application No. 25321/94).  The two were handcuffed to

each other and taken into a room.  There were five policemen in the

room.  Ilker Tufansoy was slapped and beaten by the policemen.  Later,

he was blindfolded and beaten again.

     Ilker Tufansoy and Taser Kismir, their eyes still blindfolded,

were later driven to another police station, probably in the vicinity

of the Troodos/Kambos area.  There the handcuffs were released and

Ilker Tufansoy was separated from Taser Kismir. Then his blindfold was

removed and he saw the same five policemen.  One of the policemen asked

whether he liked Greek Cypriots or not.  He said he liked them.  At

that time one of the policemen kicked him on the face.  Later he was

beaten with a rubber baton.  He was then forced to sign a statement to

the effect that he would be going to the northern part of Cyprus of his

own free will.  The policemen continued to beat him even after he had

signed the statement.  He was then taken to a room where Taser Kismir

was kept.

     On the same day, at about 8.00 p.m., the policemen came back to

the room.  The policemen continued to beat the applicant and Taser

Kismir until they were put in a car, their eyes blindfolded.  They were

driven to a dry riverbed near the buffer-zone controlled by the United

Nations, on the south of the Morphou (Guzelyurt) area.  The police told

them to go to the northern part of Cyprus through a path following the

riverbed.  The police warned them not to come back; if they did they

would be shot.  Ilker Tufansoy and Taser Kismir walked to the north,

but when the police were out of sight, they followed a different path

for fear that the path which they were shown might have been mined.

They reached a village in the northern part of Cyprus on the same

evening.       On 23 April 1994, Ilker Tufansoy was examined at the

"Turkish Cypriot State Hospital" in Nicosia.  A medical report was

drawn up according to which there was pain and evidence of extensive

abrasion and bruises on his upper back and shoulders.  There was also

swelling and pain on his left zygomatic area.  The same day he was also

examined by a medical officer at the United Nations Headquarters in

Ledra Palace.  Photographs of injuries of his back were taken.

     On 5 May 1994, Ilker Tufansoy again returned to the territories

under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.  In order to be allowed

to stay and work in South Cyprus, on 14 May 1994 Ilker Tufansoy had to

sign a statement denying that he had been ill-treated and expelled by

the Greek Cypriot police, but stating instead that he had been ill-

treated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities.

     He then stayed at a house in the town of Paphos shown by the

Cypriot police.

     On 2 June 1994, at about 6.00 p.m., Ilker Tufansoy telephoned to

his father and told him that he was going to Stavrokonno (Aydogan)

village that evening with Ertugrul Akburc, one of his Turkish Cypriot

friends, to another house where he could stay because the house the

police had shown him in the town was a private property.

     On the same day, at about 9.00 p.m., Ilker Tufansoy and Ertugrul

Akburc were shot and killed with automatic rifles and shotguns in front

of their house in the village.  On 4 June 1994, an autopsy was

performed in the northern part of Cyprus in the presence of an observer

from the United Nations.  The autopsy report stated that there were

findings of a first autopsy which had probably been performed in the

Republic of Cyprus. It concluded that the body had been hit by five

bullets two of which had remained inside and had probably been removed

during the first autopsy.

     All the incidents concerning the applicants were reported by the

Turkish Cypriot press.

B.   Submissions of the respondent Government

     Following a sabotage on two Turkish Mosques in Nicosia and the

murder of Theophilos Georghiades, President of the Committee for

Solidarity to Kurdistan, feelings of anger arose among the Greek

Cypriots.  Consequently, the Cypriot police advised persons who had

escaped from the occupied area to avoid any action which would be

likely to cause reaction among the Greek Cypriots.

     However, as a result of insecurity that such persons felt,

between 7 and 22 April 1994, 22 of the said Turkish Cypriots, on their

own initiative, secretly crossed over to the Turkish occupied area.

From the above 22 Turkish Cypriots, five managed to escape again to the

Government controlled area.  They were : Ilker Tufansoy, Aziz Merthoca,

Süleyman Seyer, Taser Ali Kismir and Murat Doksandokuz. Upon their

return, they voluntarily gave written statements to the Police of the

Republic.  The statements given by those applicants who returned to the

South are as follows : Ilker Tufansoy (the ninth applicant's son) gave

a signed statement on 14 May 1994; Aziz M. Merthoca gave a signed

statement on 28 August 1995; Taser Ali Kismir gave two signed

statements, on 26 January 1996 and on 13 January 1998.

     The Government submit these statements, according to which the

aforesaid 22 Turkish Cypriots, upon their entry in the Turkish occupied

area, were apprehended by the occupation forces and taken to a police

station, where they were badly beaten, ill-treated and injured.  Under

threat and force by the Turkish Cypriot "police", they made false

statements to the press as well as to the United Nations Force in

Cyprus (UNFICYP) to the effect that they allegedly had been arrested

and ill-treated by the Cyprus police and then led to the occupied area

against their will.  They were further forced, under threat, to sign

statements to that effect.  A number of them, acting under threat,

black-mailing and promises signed in blank application forms to the

European Commission of Human Rights.

     The Government further submit that at the request of the

"authorities of the pseudostate" UNFICYP investigated complaints about

allegations of assault and forcible return of Turkish Cypriots from the

Government controlled area to the occupied area.  All Turkish Cypriots

who, according to their allegations, had been ill-treated by the Greek

Cypriot police were examined by two medical doctors of UNFICYP, whose

medical reports formed part of a report of the investigation by UNFICYP

of these allegations.  In their reports the doctors pointed out that,

although some of the complainants had some signs of possible injuries,

these were not consistent with the time at which, and the degree to

which, the persons examined alleged that they had been ill-treated.

     The above-mentioned United Nations report was delivered to the

Minister of Foreign Affairs, who forwarded it to the Minister of

Justice and Public Order.  The latter ordered an investigation and

appointed for that purpose a pathologist, Dr. M.M., who proposed to

examine each complaint in the presence of the complainant and of a

medical doctor of his choice.   However, the complainants never came

forward to be examined.  On the other hand, the authorities of the

"pseudostate" refused to cooperate with him and did not allow him

access to the occupied area in order to perform his duties as a

forensic specialist.

     Dr. M.M. nevertheless prepared a report on 30 July 1994 together

with a police officer, H.A.  This report was based on the video-

cassette provided by CIVPOL (UNFICYP's Civilian Police) and the

photographs in conjunction with medical findings of the UNFICYP

doctors.

     The Government have submitted this report, which rebuts the

applicants' allegations.

     As to Ilker Denizci's allegations, Dr. M.M. found that the

applicant had been diagnosed in 1974, and not in 1994 as stated before

the United Nations authorities, as having diabetes, which could have

had as effect an infection and a surgical removal of his toe.  Dr. M.M.

also expressed the opinion that the applicant had omitted on purpose

to mention his long date diabetes, in order to delude the United

Nations.

     Insofar as Hüseyin Mavideniz is concerned, after examination of

the photographs that accompanied the United Nations report, Dr. M.M.

reached the same conclusion as the United Nations report, that is, that

there was no evidence of beating or torturing.As far as Yilmaz

Mavideniz was concerned, Dr. M.M. wrote the following in the English

version of his report dated November 1995 : "[...] It is impossible to

base any comments/conclusions on this video because I have no proof as

to where, how and when it was made, and no clear evidence whatsoever

of any beating/torturing appears in the video.  I note that the general

appearance of Mr. Mavideniz eg. presence of multiple tatoos and

generally ill kept, seems to indicate a person of low intelligence and

low social status i.e. a person who could easily have sustained

injuries after involving himself in quarrels and fights and a person

who could have lied on his allegations either voluntarily or after

pressure from the Turkish Cypriot pseudostate authorities [...]"

     Concerning Dogan Davulcular, Hasan Mehmet Merthoca and Erbay

Kaptanoglu, Dr. M.M. concluded that there was no evidence of beating

or torturing, and referred to the United Nations report stating that

their injuries were not of a serious nature and that their stories were

not consistent with their alleged injuries.  Finally, Dr. M.M.'s report

stated that although the United Nations doctor who had examined Taser

Ali Kismir reported recent bruises, it was impossible to ascertain when

these bruises had been made.

     As to Ilker Tufansoy's injuries, Dr. M.M. stated that they appear

to have been caused "a few hours prior to examination/photographing by

the United Nations Medical Officer and not on or before 19 April 1994,

which is the date Mr. Ilker Tufansou fled into the occupied part of

Cyprus."

     Concerning the death of Ilker Tufansoy, the Government point out

that the corpse was examined by a forensic pathologist, Dr. M.M., who

arrived at the scene of death on 3 June 1994 at 00.25 a.m.  An autopsy

was performed at the Paphos General Hospital later the same day.

Dr. M.M. prepared a forensic report, according to which the death had

been provoked by multiple wounds caused by shooting with small and

large diameter shotgun pellets.  The forensic report was submitted to

the Cyprus police.

     An investigation was opened (files Paphos ME 185/94 and Kouklie

ME 17/94) in order to determine the circumstances of the murder.  More

than 70 persons were exhaustively interrogated by the police and made

written statements, and a number of items (the clothes of the victims

and shotguns from various villages) were taken in for scientific

investigation.  Nevertheless, no incriminating evidence was found

against any person.  On 11 July 1995, the police suggested to the

Attorney General that a Coroner's inquest be carried out.

     A Coroner's inquest was fixed pursuant to Cap. 153 of the

Coroner's Law.  On 9 August 1996, the Coroner gave his verdict that

"the death is attributable to premeditated criminal act committed by

unknown persons".C. Findings of the UNFICYP's civilian police and

                    the Secretary-General of the United Nations

                    Reports

     In a report dated 7 June 1994 the Secretary General of the United

Nations stated that UNFICYP received from the members of the Turkish

Cypriot community allegations that in five incidents in April 1994, 22

Cypriot citizens of Turkish origin in the southern part of the island

had been taken into police custody, beaten and forcibly sent to

northern Cyprus.  In the period between mid-April and 10 May 1994,

CIVPOL conducted an investigation concerning these allegations.

Fourteen persons were interviewed.  The remaining eight could not be

interviewed due either to their tender age, or for reasons of mental

incapacity or detention in prison.  The interviews were recorded on

cassette tape.  Photographs were taken of all the men interviewed

showing the areas where they were allegedly beaten.  The majority of

males were medically examined.

     On 26 April 1994, Ilker Denizci was examined by a United Nation

doctor, who noted in her report that the applicant had approximately

fourteen scars of varying ages and shapes and that it would be

difficult to say with certainty what the aetiology of these scars was.

It was noted in the report that, on examination the applicant appeared

to be frail, with obvious nicotine stains on his right hand and that

he was missing the incisor from the right side of his mouth.  The area

of the missing incisor showed no sign of any bruising or bleeding.  The

doctor added in her report that the applicant's diabetes had been

diagnosed since the alleged assault, and pointed out that the applicant

probably had mild diabetes before, that had developed since he was

examined after the assault.  A test of the applicant's urine showed a

large amount of blood which could be, in the doctor's view, consistent

with recent trauma.  As to the amputation of the fourth toe of the left

foot, the doctor noted in her report that, had the foot been stamped

on, "it would be more likely that the first or fifth toe would be

injured and not the fourth".  She also added that, due to the foot's

poor circulation, associated with diabetes, it would be possible that

the toe "may have been amputated for medical injuries anyway".

     Members of AUSTCIVPOL (Australian Civil Police Contingent Cyprus)

interviewed Ilker Denizci the same day between 2.37 and 4.35 p.m.

     Aziz Merthoca was examined by a United Nations medical officer

on an unspecified date.  No documents concerning the results of this

examination have been submitted to the Commission.

     On 30 April 1994, Yilmaz Mavideniz was examined by a United

Nations doctor, who stated in his report that the applicant had

superficial scars and scratches on his left forearm, which had the

appearance of being between two or three weeks old.  The report

concluded that, had the applicant sustained beatings on 18 April 1994,

his injuries at that time were not severe.  The applicant's statements

were taken by AUSTCIVPOL the same day between 4.27 and 5.37 p.m.

     Dogan Davulcular was examined by a United Nations doctor on

3 May 1994.  According to the examination  report, had the applicant

been beaten on 18 April 1994, his injuries were not severe and the

history of vomiting blood was not consistent with the trauma described.

     Hasan Mehmet Merthoca was interviewed by AUSTCIVPOL on

27 April between 12.21 and 3.02 p.m.  He was examined by a United

Nations doctor the same day.  The medical report stated that the

applicant's bruise of 3x2 cm over his collarbone would be consistent

with an assault from 19 April 1994 and that there was no other sign of

bruising.  According to the United Nations doctor, after a severe

beating as described by the applicant, the absence of any other such

sign would be unusual.

     Erbay Kaptanoglu was examined by a United Nations doctor on

29 April 1994.  According to the doctor's report, there was an

inconsistency between the degree of physical injuries described and the

"lack of any sign of recent significant physical injury."  Furthermore,

the psychological problems of which the applicant complained were

"consistent with Post Traumatic Stress, but this could only be

ascertained after a review by a specialist in this field."  The

Commission has not been informed of any examination of the applicant

by a psychologist.

     Taser Ali Kismir was medically examined on 23 April 1994.

According to the medical report, evidence was found to support his

allegations.  In particular, numerous bruisings of approximately two

days old were found along back of scapulae.  He was interviewed the

same day from 3.41 p.m. until 6.15 p.m.

     Ilker Tufansoy was examined by a United Nations doctor on

23 April 1994, who found superficial contusions over the left upper

back and deltoid region and some mild swelling over the left cheek and

around the left eye.  The doctor concluded that evidence was found to

support the original complaint.  The applicant was interviewed by

members of AUSTCIVPOL on 26 April 1994 between 11.45 a.m. and 1.44 p.m.

During the interview, the applicant gave precise details about the

policemen who participated in his expulsion and his ill-treatment and

about the way these events occurred.

     The CIVPOL final investigation report of 9 May 1994 concluded

that prima facie there was adequate material to support the

plausibility of the allegations. The view of the medical examiners was

that some of the injuries were consistent with recent assault while

others were not.  As to the allegations that the applicants were

forcibly removed from the southern part of the island and directed to

the northern part, the UNFICYP investigators concluded that there was

prima facie plausibility to all of them.

     According to the investigation report, the details contained

within the investigation file were sufficient to launch a criminal

investigation if deemed appropriate.  It was also pointed out that the

method alleged to have been used by the Cypriot police officers was

such that in all likelihood further evidence, such as photographs,

documents, fingerprint records, statements, radio logs, diary entries,

would exist.  The investigation report concluded furthermore that the

information contained in the interviews was probably sufficient to

enable some of the officers concerned to be identified, along with the

locations of the events outlined.

     It was stated that full reports had been passed by UNFICYP to the

Government of Cyprus.    In a report of 12 December 1994, the

Secretary-General of the United Nations mentioned that, as a result of

the transmission of the CIVPOL report, the Government of Cyprus had

informed UNFICYP that the allegations could not be conclusively

substantiated.

D.   Relevant domestic law

     Article 113 para. 2 of the Constitution of Cyprus :

     "The Attorney-General of the Republic shall have power,

     exercisable at his discretion in the public interest, to

     institute, conduct, take over and continue or discontinue any

     proceedings for an offence against any person in the Republic.

     Such power may be exercised by him in person or by officers

     subordinate to him acting under and in accordance with his

     instructions."

COMPLAINTS

     All applicants allege violations of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14 in

conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, and Articles 2 and

3 of Protocol No. 4.

     The applicants Ilker Denizci and Hasan Mehmet Merthoca also

complain of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  The applicant

Ibrahim Tufansoy also alleges a violation of Article 2 of the

Convention.

     As regards Article 2 of the Convention, Ibrahim Tufansoy alleges

that the respondent Government are responsible for the killing of his

son.  He asserts in this regard that the deprivation of the life of his

son was the consequence of a series of acts imputable to the

authorities or agents of the respondent Government.  He maintains that

the respondent Government failed to provide security of life for his

son in the territories under their control and to punish or take legal

measures against any person or any member of the police for acts of

harassment, ill-treatment and banishment of the Cypriots of Turkish

origin living and working in their territories, including his son.  He

alleges that this implies that the respondent Government approve,

support or condone such acts.

     As to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the

manner in which they (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, his son)

were treated by the Greek Cypriot police, and the way in which they

were forcefully "expelled" to the northern part of Cyprus constituted

deliberate and severe physical and mental suffering which amounted to

torture and/or to inhuman and/or degrading treatment and punishment.

     As to Article 5 of the Convention, they complain that they (or,

in the case of the ninth applicant, his son) have been victims of

unlawful and arbitrary arrest and detention.  They assert that the

arrest and detention deprived them of their right to liberty and

security of person without justification under Cyprus law and the

Convention.  They maintain that no reason for their arrest and

detention was given, no court order or judgment was served on them and

there was no judicial warrant authorising their arrest.

     As to Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the

aim of the treatment to which they (or, in the case of the ninth

applicant, his son) were subjected was to exercise coercion through

force and fear and this constituted unjustified interference with their

moral integrity as well as their physical integrity, and thus their

private life.

     As regards Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complain

that they (or, in the case of the ninth applicant, his son) were

subjected to discrimination on grounds of race and/or national or

social origin in the enjoyment of their rights guaranteed under

Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

     As to Article 1 of Protocol N° 1 to the Convention, the applicant

Ilker Denizci complains that the seizure of 380 Cyprus Pounds which he

had in his pocket amounted to unjustified deprivation of his

possessions.  The applicant Hasan Mehmet Merthoca complains that due

to his forceful "expulsion" from the Republic of Cyprus, he has been

deprived of the use and enjoyment of his household goods and money.

     As to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the

applicants complain that their forceful "expulsion" (or, in the case

of the ninth applicant, his son's "expulsion") from the territories

under the control of the Republic of Cyprus to the northern part of

Cyprus constituted an unjustified violation of their liberty of free

movement within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and their

freedom to choose their residence.  They also assert in this respect

that during their stay in the territories of the Republic of Cyprus,

they were under strict police surveillance, their movements were

monitored and they had to get a permission to leave the town in which

they were residing.

     As to Article 3 of Protocol No. 4, they complain that they (or,

in the case of the ninth applicant, his son) were expelled from the

territory of the Republic of Cyprus of which they are nationals.  They

maintain in this regard that the Republic of Cyprus can exercise

authority and control only in the southern part of Cyprus.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The applications were introduced on 12 September 1994. The

applications Nos. 25316-25321/94 were registered on 27 September 1994

and the application No. 27207/95 was registered on 2 May 1995.

     On 26 June 1995, the Commission decided to communicate the

applications to the respondent Government.

     The Government's written observations were submitted on

16 November 1995.  The applicants replied on 5 February 1996.

     On 27 October 1995, the Commission granted the applicants legal

aid.

     The applications have been joined on 31 October 1997.Also on 31

October 1997, the Commission decided to invite the parties to make oral

submissions on the admissibility of the applications at a hearing.

     The Government submitted supplementary observations on

5 January 1998.

     At the hearing on 20 January 1998, the Government were

represented by Mr. A. Markides, Agent of the Government,

Ms. L. Koursoumba and Ms. M. A. Markou, counsel.  The applicants were

represented by Mr. Z. Necatigil, counsel.

THE LAW

     The applicants complain about their detention, ill-treatment and

expulsion to northern Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot police.  The

applicant Ibrahim Tufansoy complains also about the killing of his son

upon return to the Republic of Cyprus.  The applicants Ilker Denizci

and Hasan Mehmet Merthoca complain that they were deprived of their

possessions.  The applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 14 in

conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4

(Art. 2+3+5+P1+1+P4-2+P4-3, 3+3+5+P1+1+P4-2+P4-3, 5+3+5+P1+1+P4-2+P4-3,

8+3+5+P1+1+P4-2+P4-3, 14+3+5+P1+1+P4-2+P4-3).

     Exhaustion of domestic remedies

     a)   The Government

     The Government submit that the applicants have failed to comply

with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention to

exhaust domestic remedies before lodging an application with the

Commission.

     They contend that the applicants had effective, sufficient and

practicable remedies that were easily accessible to them, but which

they did not try :

     i.   by way of criminal proceedings

     The applicants could have had the benefit of either a public

prosecution by the Attorney-General or of a private prosecution.

     The applicants could have complained of the alleged criminal acts

to the Attorney-General of the Republic, who is, according to Articles

112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic, an independent officer

of the State.  He is appointed by the President of the Republic, cannot

be removed, except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a

judge of the Supreme Court, he is the legal adviser of the Republic and

has power exercisable at his discretion in the public interest to

institute, conduct, take over and continue or discontinue any

proceedings for an offence against any person in the Republic.

     The Government point out that according to section 4 of the

Criminal Procedure Law, the investigation into the commission of an

offence may be carried out either by a police officer or by any person

who is authorised in that respect by the Council of Ministers.  Had

theAttorney-General had before him any complaint relating to the

alleged commission of an offence, he could, if he thought fit, initiate

action for an independent investigation of the complaint, irrespective

of the views of the police.

     The United Nations report was never addressed to the Attorney-

General and the Attorney-General could not take any action in the

absence of any relevant statement or complaint addressed to him by the

alleged victims.

     The Government further point out that a complaint to the

Attorney-General about the commission of any offence could be made by

a simple letter and the physical presence of the complainant in the

Republic is not required.  The Government submit domestic case-law

where proceedings were taken against policemen.  In the case of the

Republic v. Stylianou and Taliadoros, criminal case 19707/92 of

23.7.93, the Attorney-General instituted criminal proceedings against

members of the Police Force for alleged ill-treatment of an individual.

The accused were acquitted on the facts by the Limassol Assize Court,

and the case was then taken to the European Commission of Human Rights.

     The Government invoke the case Koç v. Turkey (No. 24257/94, Dec.

2.3.95) and conclude that by not complaining to the Attorney-General,

the applicants failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to

them.

     Alternatively, the applicants could have themselves instituted

a private prosecution, either personally or through a lawyer.

     ii.  by way of civil proceedings

     The Government point out that the applicants could have,

themselves or through a lawyer, instituted civil proceedings in the

district court claiming damages for any wrongful act.  The Government

have referred to a judgment in which the District Court of Limassol

awarded compensation  to two Turkish Cypriots living in England who had

brought an action through a lawyer in Cyprus against the Republic for

taking possession of their immovable property.

     b)   The applicants

     The applicants state that it would be degrading and unrealistic

to ask them, after their forceful deportation from the jurisdiction of

the Greek Cypriot authority, to apply to the courts of that authority.

They further state that there is no security of life and physical

integrity for them in the southern part of Cyprus and refer in this

respect to the killing of Ilker Tufansoy upon his return to the

Republic of Cyprus.

     The applicants further state that in practice no remedy at all

would be available to them.  They contend that the courts in southern

Cyprus are not only inaccessible to them, but the attitude of the

respondent authorities, including the practice of taking "statements"

to frustrate any possible claims, would close the door entirely to any

remedy in the Republic of Cyprus.  In view of the above, the

applicants argue, there are no effective or practicable remedies that

the applicants can seek either by going to the Republic of Cyprus or

otherwise, or through recourse to administrative or judicial organs

there.

     c)   The Commission

     The Commission recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic

remedies referred to in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention obliges

those seeking to bring their case against the State before an

international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies

provided by the national legal system.  Consequently, States are

dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts

before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their

own legal systems (see Eur. Court HR, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey

judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions -

1996-IV, No. 15, p. 1210, para. 65).

     Under Article 26 (Art. 26), normal recourse should be had by an

applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford

redress in respect of the breaches alleged.  The existence of the

remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory,

but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite

accessibility and effectiveness.

     However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies

which are inadequate or ineffective.  In addition, according to the

"generally recognised rules of international law" to which Article 26

(Art. 26) makes reference, there may be special circumstances which

absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic

remedies at his disposal (see the above-mentioned Akdivar and Others

judgment, p. 1210, paras. 66 and 67; Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey

judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions -

1996-VI, No. 26, p. 2276, para. 52).

     The Commission also recalls that Article 26 (Art. 26) must be

applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive

formalism.  The rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of

being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed

it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each

individual case.  This means amongst other things that the Convention

organs must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal

remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but

also of the general legal and political context in which they operate,

as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant (see the above-

mentioned Akdivar and Others judgment, loc. cit. p. 1211, para. 69;

Aksoy judgment, loc. cit. p. 2276, para. 53).

     Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present

case, the Commission does not consider it necessary to answer the

allegations of the applicants that the courts in the Republic of Cyprus

are not accessible to them.

     The Commission notes that the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force

in Cyprus, following allegations received in April 1994 from members

of the Turkish Cypriot community, carried out an investigation

concerning the complaints that 22 Cypriot citizens of Turkish origin

in the southern part of the island, including the applicants (or, in

the case of the ninth applicant, his son), had been taken into police

custody, beaten and forcibly sent to northern Cyprus.

     The Commission further notes that the applicants (or, in the case

of the ninth applicant, his son) were thoroughly interviewed and

medically examined by CIVPOL.

     The Commission also notes that the United Nations final

investigation report of 9 May 1994 concluding that prima facie there

was adequate material to support the plausibility of the allegations,

was transmitted on behalf of the applicants to the Government of

Cyprus.  However, the Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus at no

time enquired into any of these allegations, despite the power he has

to conduct such enquiry (see Relevant domestic law above).  The

Commission cannot in this respect consider it important that the

applicants did not formally address a complaint to the Attorney-

General.

     Furthermore, the Commission notes that an investigation was

nevertheless ordered by the Minister of Justice and Public Order of the

Republic of Cyprus, that the investigation report of 30 July 1994

rebutted the applicants' allegations, and that no further investigation

on the matter was deemed necessary by the respondent Government.

     In light of the above special circumstances, the Commission

considers that the applicants had reason to believe that no other legal

remedy through national channels would be effective in respect of their

complaints.

     The Commission therefore finds that the applicants were not

required under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention to pursue any

other legal remedy.

     Concerning the complaint related to the killing of the ninth

applicant's son, Ilker Tufansoy, the Commission notes that an

investigation was opened ex officio.  However, no incriminating

evidence was found against any person.

     The Commission finds therefore that the ninth applicant is not

required under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention to pursue any

other legal remedy in this regard.

     The substance of the complaints

     The Government claim that the applications are an abuse of the

right of petition.  They deny that the applicants were detained and

then expelled to northern Cyprus.  They submit that the applicants, on

their own initiative, secretly crossed over to the Turkish occupied

area.  Upon their entry in the Turkish occupied area, they were

apprehended by the occupation forces and forced to make false

statements to the press as well as to UNFICYP to the effect that they

allegedly had been arrested and ill-treated by the Cyprus police and

then led to the occupied area against their will.  They were further

forced, under threat, to sign statements to that effect and blank

application forms to the European Commission of Human Rights.In

any event, the Government claim, the applications are manifestly ill-

founded.

     The applicants maintain their own account of events, which they

state is supported by detailed statements of events before the United

Nations officers and by the findings of the United Nations

investigation.

     The Commission considers, in the light of the parties'

submissions, that the case, the complaints of which are closely

interrelated, raises complex issues of law and of fact under the

Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination

of the merits of the applications as a whole.  The Commission

concludes, therefore, that the applications are not manifestly ill-

founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.  No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been

established.

     For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

     merits of the case.

        M. de SALVIA                         S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                            President

     to the Commission                    of the Commission