AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 23282/94

                      by Demosthenis DEMOSTHENOUS

                      against Cyprus

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 January 1995, the following members being present:

           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, 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 application introduced on 19 January 1994

by Demosthenis DEMOSTHENOUS against Cyprus and registered on

20 January 1994 under file No. 23282/94;

      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

      21 July 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicant on 2 November 1994;

-     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 16 January 1994;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Cypriot citizen, born in 1961, and resident

in Limassol. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Ach.

Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.

      The facts of the present case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      On 28 July 1992 a bank robbery was committed in Limassol. The

applicant was arrested, together with other suspects, on the basis of

a court warrant one hour after midnight on 29 July 1992. He was kept

in the police headquarters of Limassol until midday, when he was taken

to the District Court (Eparhiako Dikastirio) of Limassol which remanded

him in custody.

      The applicant was re-conducted to the Limassol police

headquarters and was then transported to the police station of Agios

Ioannis. After one and a half to two hours, he was taken back to the

Limassol headquarters, where he was interrogated by the Chief of the

Limassol Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) and his deputy. In

accordance with the applicant, a first vague threat was expressed in

the course of that interrogation. At a certain point the interrogation

was interrupted and the applicant was transported to his house which

was searched. The applicant claims that, upon his return to the

headquarters, the two police officers mentioned above threatened him

expressly with ill-treatment in order to force him to co-operate and

give them the information they desired, such as the way in which the

robbery was committed, the origin of the weapons used and his

accomplices. The applicant insisted that he was innocent and that he

knew nothing about the robbery in question.

      After his interrogation the applicant was returned to the Agios

Ioannis police station to be taken back to the Limassol police

headquarters in the evening of 29 July 1992. There he was interrogated

again by the Chief of the Limassol C.I.D. and his deputy.

      At some stage in the interrogation, the applicant claims that he

was taken to another room in the C.I.D. section of the headquarters,

where the pressure and the threats by the two officers in question

continued. He insisted that he was innocent. Then two hooded persons

entered the office. One of them grabbed the applicant's shoulders and

hit his chest with his knee in the presence of the two above-mentioned

police officers. The applicant's glasses were taken off and his head

was covered with a hood. A metal container was placed on his head. The

container was then hit repeatedly and the applicant felt an acute pain

in his ears, as a result of the noise produced.

      From the different voices he heard, the applicant assumed that

there must have been about five to six persons participating in this

torture.

      Thereafter, he claims that both of his legs were tied with rope,

one on top of the other, and that his body was hoisted up a short way

with a pulley and tackle. Then the applicant was pushed down from the

chair on which he was sitting. As a result, he fell down forcibly and

hit his left shoulder. He was then pulled higher with his legs upwards.

His head was not touching the floor. He was hung upside down from a

hook fixed to the ceiling of the room. Someone pulled the applicant's

head slightly upwards and placed it in the metal container, while the

others continued hitting him in the stomach and all over his body. The

metal container was also hit repeatedly.

      The applicant then heard his torturers warning him that they were

going to use electricity. After a few seconds the applicant felt as if

certain parts of his body, including his genital organs, were burning.

He complained that he could not breathe. In response, those present

tightened the hood around his neck so that his breathing was

effectively impaired. The applicant's body was then lowered down and

he was placed on the floor. He was sweating profusely. A fan was placed

facing the applicant's back, which made him shiver.

      While the applicant was seated on the floor, someone stepped on

his handcuffs and pressed them. The applicant screamed in pain, as he

had been recently operated in the hands. He was continuously beaten,

kicked and punched. The applicant's body was again hoisted up and he

was hung upside down in the air. The hitting was repeated, together

with threats and insults. He volunteered to sign any confession. He was

again lowered down and placed on the floor. When he felt exhausted,

more electric current was administered to confirm that he was still

alive. The applicant's genital organs were again subjected to

electroshocks. The electroshocks were repeated several times all over

his entire body. On one occasion he was placed face down on the ground,

while an effort was made to force a baton in his anus. On another

occasion he was beaten on the soles of his feet (falanga method).

      After the electroshocks, the applicant was ordered to get up. He

made an effort to do so, but felt he could not. Then someone pulled the

applicant up very hard by the handcuffs. This caused severe pain to the

applicant's hands.

      The applicant claims that this treatment lasted for about two

hours. During all this time he was hand-cuffed. Finally, when the hood

was taken off his head, the applicant noticed two police officers in

civilian clothes. Thereafter, he was transferred to a cell in the Agios

Ioannis police station. He claims that he could not lie down or sleep

because he was in great pain.

      In the morning of 30 July 1992 the applicant complained of

difficulty in breathing and of great pain in his chest. He requested

to be examined by a doctor. At midday he was taken once more to the

Limassol police headquarters, then back to Agios Ioannis and then to

the emergency ward of the Limassol hospital where he was examined by

Dr. Mou. A cardiogram was carried out on the applicant by Mr. T, a

nurse. Afterwards the applicant was returned to Agios Ioannis and then

to the Limassol station where he was interrogated again by the Chief

of the Limassol C.I.D. and his deputy.

      He spent the night in Agios Ioannis and in the morning of

31 July 1992 he was transported for the last time to the Limassol

station where he was informed that he would be released, because the

police had apprehended some other suspects; these persons were

eventually convicted of the bank robbery of 28 July 1992.

      It was at the Limassol station in the office of the Deputy Police

Director, after he had been officially released, that the applicant

complained for the first time about torture in the presence of police

officers, his lawyer, a relative of his -Mr. SK- and the other persons

who had been arrested with him. The applicant showed to his lawyer and

two of the latter a hook in the ceiling of an adjacent room, where he

had left his personal belongings. He claimed that the police had hung

him from the hook to torture him.

      The applicant was then taken by his relatives to the emergency

ward of the Limassol hospital where he was examined by Dr. K. He was

prescribed some medicine and had an X-ray taken. Then the applicant

went to the district court before which the new suspects were expected

to appear. He re-iterated his allegations to a number of journalists

present and showed them marks of injuries on his body. The applicant's

conversation with the journalists was video-recorded and photographs

were taken. In the afternoon of the same day the applicant visited Dr.

Mar, an orthopaedic surgeon in private practice, to complain about

pains in the chest.

      Later on the applicant complained to various doctors of pains,

particularly in his chest and left ear, headaches and dizziness. He

claims that his vision had become blurred and his eyes shed tears. For

a long time he could not walk well. He was psychologically affected,

suffering lapses of memory, and his sexual abilities were seriously

reduced. The applicant was examined by Dr. Z in the emergency ward of

the Limassol hospital in the afternoon of 2 August 1992, by Dr. Mar on

3 August 1992, by Dr. Mic, a specialist surgeon at the Limassol

hospital, on 6 and 11 August 1992, as well as by Dr. I, an ear

specialist in the Limassol hospital, on 6 and 11 August 1992.

      On a date which is not specified, the Government appointed a

complaints committee (Symvoulio Paraponon), in accordance with the

Police Regulations, to examine the applicant's allegations. On

12 August 1992, however, the Council of Ministers revoked the

committee's mandate and ordered instead a criminal investigation under

Article 4 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.

      On 10 October 1992 the applicant instituted before the District

Court of Limassol civil proceedings for damages (case No. 6177/92)

against the respondent Government. On 16 October 1992 the Chief of the

Limassol C.I.D. started before the District Court of Nicosia a private

criminal prosecution against the applicant for perjury, in that the

latter had made statements before the complaints committee and in the

course of the above-mentioned criminal investigation to the effect that

the former had tortured and ill-treated him (case No. 24500/92).

      On 23 November 1992 the Chief of the Limassol C.I.D. and his

deputy were committed for trial before the Limassol Court of Assizes

(kakourgodikeio) for having tortured the applicant.

      The hearing of the case began on 18 January 1993. The prosecution

did not rely on the testimony of Drs. Mou, Mic, I, K and Z, considering

that "it could be inadequate and/or incompatible with what the

prosecution considers to be accurate and credible on the basis of the

testimony and other evidence available to it". It relied on the

testimony of Dr. Mar who had examined the applicant in the afternoon

of 31 July and on 3 August 1992, that of Dr. Van, an anatomist from the

United Kingdom, who examined the applicant four and a half months after

his detention and that of a psychiatrist Dr. Ves. The court held 90

hearings and examined 25 prosecution witnesses.

      The court delivered its judgment on 23 July 1993 (No. 19707/92),

finding that there was no case for the defence to answer. The court

considered that the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses -

the applicant and one of his relatives who had been arrested with him-

"was so obviously unreliable that no reasonable court could rely on it

and convict the accused". It also considered that the applicant's

lawyer and the prosecution had committed a series of improprieties

which had tainted the evidence to such an extent that the case against

the accused should be discontinued in the interests of the proper

administration of justice. The two police officers were, as a result,

acquitted.

      In the final passage, however, of its decision the court accepted

the following:

      "It does not escape us that the medical and other evidence

      laid before us justify the prima facie conclusion that the

      complainant bore at the time of his release from police

      custody signs of injuries which had been caused during the

      period of his detention. It is not, however, our task to

      investigate and ascertain the identity of all those who

      were perhaps responsible for these injuries. Our task is to

      decide on the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In

      particular our task is to decide, at this stage, whether it

      is justified on the basis of all the evidence laid before

      us to require the accused to make a defence. On this issue,

      however, we have already decided".

      On the very day when the judgment was pronounced and in the light

of the above-mentioned passage the Minister of Justice and Public Order

asked the Chief of Police to inquire into the applicant's allegations.

The Attorney-General of Cyprus lodged an application for certiorari

against the judgment.

      On 3 September 1993 the Council of Ministers set up a Commission

of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of an ex-judge of the Supreme Court,

with the mandate to investigate immediately and fully the methods used

by the police during the arrest, detention and interrogation of

suspects, paying special attention to complaints of torture or ill-

treatment. The Commission of Inquiry would have the powers mentioned

in section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Law and was ordered to

submit a report to the Council of Ministers upon completion of its

investigation. On 7 October 1993 the applicant lodged a complaint with

the Commission of Inquiry concerning his case.

      On 15 October 1993 the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney-

General's application for certiorari on the ground that it was

precluded from examining such petitions after an acquittal by the Court

of Assizes. On 21 December 1993 a senior police officer submitted a

report on the applicant's case, as requested by the Minister of

Justice, in which he concluded that the applicant's complaint was

unfounded. The report relied, inter alia, on the reports of the doctors

whom the prosecution had not considered as credible witnesses in the

criminal case against the police officers.

      On 22 December 1993 the lawyers of the applicant inquired with

the Attorney General's Office whether the respondent Government

accepted responsibility for his ill-treatment and, if so, what was the

sum of money they were prepared to offer by way of friendly settlement

of the civil action brought by the applicant on 10 November 1992. The

Attorney-General's Office replied on 29 December 1993 that the

Government did not accept that the applicant had been tortured by the

police and that, as a result, it was not prepared to offer him any

compensation.

      On 21 February 1994 the District Court of Limassol dismissed the

civil action brought by the applicant against the Government on

10 November 1992 for want of prosecution, as the applicant failed to

file a statement of claim.

      On 2 March 1994 the private prosecution brought against the

applicant on 16 October 1992 for perjury was withdrawn, after the

applicant's lawyer admitted that the applicant had never said in a

statement that he had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment by the

Chief of the Limassol C.I.D..

      On 21 April 1994 the Commission of Inquiry set up on

3 September 1993 started examining in public the applicant's complaint.

The Commission heard as witnesses the applicant, the other main

prosecution witness in the criminal case against the police officers,

three other private individuals who had appeared as prosecution

witnesses in the same trial, but none of whom was a doctor, a priest

and the registrar of the court of Limassol. The Commission of Inquiry

concluded its work in December 1994. However, it has not yet submitted

its conclusions to the Council of Ministers.

B.    Relevant domestic law

      Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Law reads as follows:

      "A Commission appointed under the provisions of this Law

      shall have such of the following powers as are conferred

      upon it by the Order of appointment required by section 2

      of this Law

        a) to procure all such evidence, written or oral, and to

      examine all such persons as witnesses as the Commission 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 country to attend

      any meeting of the Commission 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 Commission, 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 fifty pounds;

        e) to fine in a sum not exceeding fifty pounds 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 call experts who will sit with the Commission

      during the hearing in order to advise the Commission on any

      matter coming within their area of expertise;

        i) to admit or exclude the press from any meeting of the

      Commission;

        j) to award any person who has attended any meeting of

      the Commission such sum or sums as in the opinion of the

      Commission may have been reasonably incurred by such person

      by reason of such attendance."

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains that during his detention on remand

police officers subjected him to torture and severe ill-treatment,

which seriously impaired his physical integrity. He invokes in this

connection Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

      The applicant further submits that he does not have any

effective remedies under domestic law for the above-mentioned

violations other than the criminal proceedings which were exhausted,

as there does not exist a legal aid system in Cyprus which would have

enabled him to pursue his civil action against the responsible police

officers.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 19 January 1994 and registered

on 20 January 1994.

      On 16 May 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and to request them to submit

written observations on admissibility and merits.

      On 2 June 1994 the applicant applied for legal aid. The

Government submitted their observations on 21 July 1994.

      On 9 September the Commission decided to grant the applicant

legal aid.

      On 2 November 1994 the applicant submitted his observations in

reply.

      On 7 December 1994 the Commission decided to invite the parties

to submit oral observations on the admissibility and the merits of the

application at a hearing.

      The hearing took place on 16 January 1995. In the course of the

hearing the respondent Government requested the Commission to adjourn

the examination of the case pending the outcome of the proceedings

before the Commission of Inquiry. The applicant opposed the request for

an adjournent. The Commission rejected the request.

      At the hearing the parties were represented as follows:

For the Government:

Mr. Michael A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES         Attorney-General of the

                                       Republic, Agent

Ms. Yiota Kyriakidou-Zisimou           Counsel of the Republic,

                                       Law Office of the Republic

Ms Ekaterini Andreou                   Legal Officer of the Ministry

                                       of Justice and Public Order

For the applicant:

Mr. Achilleas Demetriades              Barrister at Law

Miss Vicky Loizides                    Barrister at Law

      The applicant was also present at the hearing.

THE LAW

      The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the

Convention  that he was subjected to torture and severe ill-treatment

by police officers while in police custody.

      Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides that no one shall

be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment. Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention guarantees the right

to respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence.

1.    As a preliminary point the Government contend that the applicant

has not exhausted domestic remedies under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention. The civil action against the Government, which constitutes

an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case and which the

applicant has abandoned, can be re-introduced at any time, as it is not

subject to prescription. The Government do not accept that the

applicant lacks the necessary means to do so. Although domestic law

does not give plaintiffs in civil cases the possibility of applying for

legal aid, such a possibility is open for defendants in criminal

actions. The applicant, however, never applied for legal aid in

connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him and

chose instead to be represented by counsel of his own choice.

      The Government further submit that the Commission of Inquiry

constitutes another remedy which the applicant is required, under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and the relevant case-law, to

exhaust since he decided to seize it with his complaints. In this

connection the Government make a solemn pledge that they will abide by

the findings in the report of the Commission of Inquiry regarding all

complaints made to it, including the complaint of the applicant. [If

it is found that the applicant's complaint is well-founded, the

Government undertake that all necessary steps will be taken in order

to make full redress to the applicant including the payment of

substantial compensation and the prosecution of those responsible, if

they are other than those already acquitted.]

      The applicant argues that the only effective remedy in the

circumstances of his case was the criminal prosecution of the police

officers. In accordance with the case-law of the Commission, once an

effective remedy has been exhausted, the applicant is not required to

pursue other remedies which do not offer a better chance of success or

are probably ineffective. In any event, the applicant was not in a

position to continue his civil action against the Government. If one

were to judge from the costs incurred in the criminal case against the

police officers, pursuing the civil action would have been particularly

expensive for the applicant and no legal aid is available in Cyprus for

plaintiffs in civil cases.

      In connection with the Commission of Inquiry the applicant

submits that its role is advisory and its real task is to make

recommendations for possible reforms of the existing system and not to

attribute fault or responsibility to anyone in connection with the

applicant's complaints. The applicant, moreover, considers that the

Commission of Inquiry was not in a position to examine in full his

case, as it did not hear any medical evidence nor did it obtain

evidence from the police officers involved.

      The Commission recalls that the applicant failed to get redress

at the domestic level on three occasions, i.e. when the criminal

proceedings against the police officers accused of ill-treating the

applicant ended in their acquittal, when the Supreme Court rejected the

Attorney-General's application for certiorari against the decision of

the criminal court which acquitted the police officers, and when the

police investigation ordered by the Minister of Justice concluded that

the applicant's complaints were unfounded.

      The applicant nevertheless instituted civil proceedings against

the Government, which he subsequently abandonded for financial reasons.

The Commission recalls in this connection its case-law to the effect

that the possibility of obtaining compensation may, in normal

circumstances, constitute an adequate and effective remedy in relation

to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

(Nos. 5577-5583/72, Dec. 15.12.75, D.R. 4 p. 4). It notes, however,

that, in accordance with the submissions of the parties, a plaintiff

in a civil case cannot obtain any legal aid in Cyprus. Given the

applicant's financial situation and the anticipated cost of the civil

proceedings, the Commission considers that the applicant can be excused

from pursuing the remedy in question.

      The Commission finally notes that the applicant took the

initiative of submitting his complaints to the Commission of Inquiry

and recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, domestic remedies

have not been exhausted where a remedy, which cannot on the face of it

be regarded as ineffective, is still pending. The Commission takes

note, however, of the general terms of the mandate of the Commission

of Inquiry and the limited nature of the evidence which the Commission

of Inquiry heard in connection with the applicant's complaint and

concludes that this does not constitute in the circumstances of the

case an effective remedy which the applicant is required to exhaust.

      As a result, the Commission finds that the application cannot be

rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) for non-exhaustion of

domestic remedies pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

2.    As regards the substance of the applicant's complaints under

Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention the respondent

Government submit that the applicant's credibility was put in question

on three different occasions, when the Court of Assizes in the criminal

case against the police officers considered that his testimony could

not be relied on, when the police investigation concluded on the basis

of all the medical reports that his complaints were unfounded and when

the applicant's lawyer admitted, in the course of the criminal

proceedings against the applicant, that the latter had never testified

that he had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment by the police-

officer who had instituted the proceedings. In the light of all the

above the Government cannot presently admit that the applicant had been

ill-treated by police officers while in police custody.

      The applicant submits that his allegations are supported by the

judgment of the Court of Assizes in the criminal case against the

police officers, medical testimony, photographs taken and video

recordings made immediately after his release from custody as well as

by the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

and Inhuman or Degarding Treatment or Punishment during an eight day

visit to Cyprus in November 1992 as they have been reported in the

press in August and September 1993.

      In the light of the parties' observations, the Commission

considers that the application raises serious questions of fact and law

which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on

an examination of the merits. The application cannot, therefore, be

regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article

27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for

declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,

      without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission

     (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)