CAKICISOY AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
Doc ref: 6523/12 • ECHR ID: 001-147481
Document date: September 23, 2014
- Inbound citations: 4
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 2
- •
- Outbound citations: 18
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 6523/12 Davut CAKICISOY and others against Cyprus
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 23 September 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele , President, Päivi Hirvelä , George Nicolaou , Nona Tsotsoria , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 November 2011 ,
Having regard to the information su bmitted by the respondent Government and the information in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by th e parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
4. The applicants are 247 Turkish Cypriots relatives of 84 men who were killed during the conflict in Cyprus in 1974.
1. Concerning events in 1974
5. The applicants and their relatives were living in or about the area of Tochni ( Ta ÅŸ kent ) village. On 14 August 1974 armed Greek Cypriots who were mostly from the locality arrived at the village and collected the male Turkish-Cypriot population of the village and marched them to a Greek elementary school in the Greek Cypriot sector. Among the abductors were named villagers under the command of a named Greek Cypriot man, A.D., from the village, along with two Greek soldiers in uniform with a mainland Greek accent.
6. Some fifty Turkish-Cypriot men, including children as young as 12 years, were kept overnight at the school. Fifteen Turkish-Cypriot men from two other villages were also brought to the school. Two Greek officers from the mainland told them they were prisoners of war and led them to believe that they would be taken to a prison camp at Limassol. Next morning, the Turkish-Cypriot men and boys were loaded on two buses under armed guard. They were taken away to an unknown destination.
7. A statement by Suat Huseyin, reported in newspapers shortly afterwards and later included in a book on the conflict, gave the following account of the fate of the men. Suat Huseyin, his father and brother were amongst the men loaded on the buses. Their bus drove past Limassol and stopped at a junction. The armed men ordered the prisoners to march into the countryside. They were ordered to stop at a hollow and allowed to smoke. Almost immediately, shooting began. Suat Huseyin was hit in the stomach and legs and fell down pretending to be dead. He heard the four armed guards speaking in a mainland Greek accent, saying “That is the end of them, let ’ s go now and bring a bulldozer and bury them.” Suat Huseyin ’ s cousin was also still alive but badly wounded but Suat was unable to help him due to his own injuries. He fled the scene, hiding out in the hills for six days. He was eventually picked up by a UN ambulance and taken to a British base. He later went to the north in a helicopter.
8. In June 1989, the stories of various villagers, naming Greek Cypriots involved in the incident, were published in a booklet “The Tragedy of Turkish Cypriot missing persons in Cyprus – Third decade”
9. The applicants provided information that on 21 November 2004, the alleged perpetrator, A.D., made a statement to the newspaper “ Alithia ”, stating inter alia that he and others had acted together with the government forces and had done what the government forces ordered them to do. He confirmed the gathering of the Turkish Cypriot men and that they had been loaded onto buses by soldiers from Hirokitia .
10. No information about the applicants ’ missing relatives was given nor any investigative measure taken until, on 14 June 2003, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement in newspapers published in northern Cyprus inviting the families of missing persons to give blood samples to the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics to aid in the identification of remains. The applicants came south and gave blood samples between 16 and 23 July 2003.
11. No news was forthcoming for some time so in 2005 the applicants contacted both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney- General of Cyprus asking for information. On receiving no reply within thirty days, some of the applicants filed five cases in the Supreme Court on 25 and 26 March 2006 against the Attorney General, Council of Ministers, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs claiming that the authorities had failed to initiate all relevant procedures to ascertain the fate of the disappeared men during the three elapsed years and that the authorities should be ordered to conduct an effective investigation to locate and identify the remains and to identify and prosecute the perpetrators.
12. The United Nations Committee on Missing Persons (“the UNCMP”) had meanwhile commenced exhumations. On 29 May 2007, excavation began in a mountain region in Yerasa village and soon after remains of 43 missing men from the three villages were found. The remains of 3 of the remaining 18 missing men were later found at another location. A newspaper account dated 22 July 2011 explained that the remains of this group of victims had been transferred by Greek Cypriots from one burial spot to another unknown location due to a minefield – the remains of three-four men had been left behind. The DNA analysis of the remains has not yet been issued by the CMP.
13. On 29 May 2008, the Supreme Court rejected the claims finding that the subject-matter constituted an “act of State”, with which the courts could not interfere. The plaintiffs appealed. The decision was upheld on 18 May 2011 (see Relevant domestic law and practice below).
14. According to information submitted by the Government, the Attorney General ordered an investigation into the death of 84 missing persons from Tochni on 27 October 2005. Steps taken included as follows.
15. The police took statements from four out of the five relatives of missing persons who had written to the Attorney General naming seven persons as implicated in the events leading to their relatives ’ deaths and requesting an investigation. These four witnesses named six persons, including three brothers, as arresting the missing men and confining them at the elementary school. The men had been boarded on a bus next day. One witness stated that it was four Greek Cypriots in uniform whom he did not know who put the men on the bus. The witness who had survived the incident stated that it was the Greek Cypriots who put the men on the bus who later killed them but he did not know their identities.
16. Of the six persons named as arresting the missing men (including the individuals referred to in paragraph 9 above), the police found that two had died. Statements were taken from the remaining four. Three denied any involvement; the fourth admitted taking Turkish Cypriots to be confined at the school. He had left at that stage but named three men who remained to guard the prisoners. On investigation the police found these three men had since died. A statement was also taken from a former policeman who had visited the elementary school at the time; while he named a man guarding the prisoners, it transpired that this man had died. The police officer also confirmed that orders had been given to confine the Turkish Cypriots but did not remember the source of the orders – with some doubt, he thought they might have come from the national guard general staff. A former Mari army officer named by a witness as passing on orders to confine Turkish Cypriots was located; he claimed not to remember whether the orders came from or whether it was his own initiative; he only recalled confining Turkish Cypriot males from Mari in the village coffee shop.
17. Police made efforts to track the source of the orders. A search of the national guard records yielded no results.
18. On 13 January 2011, the Attorney-General gave instructions to the police for further investigative steps. Following the Court ’ s decision in the case of Emin and Others v Cyprus , he took further steps to ensure the transmission of information about the finding of bodies of missing persons. On 30 May 2012, he was then informed by the CMP of the discovery of the remains of 47 unidentified remains from Tochni village. He in turn informed the chief of police, noting that an investigation was already pending.
19. On 11 April 2013, the Attorney General was informed of the identification of the bodies of three of the missing men from Tochni . On 22 April 2013 he ordered a specific investigation into their deaths.
20. In March 2013, the police submitted the Tochni investigation file to the Attorney General. He gave instructions on 5 June 2013 for further investigation, inter alia to investigate the historical background of the 1974 events, to explore the possibility that some of those known to be implicated in the 1963-1964 events might have been involved in Tochni killings, to broaden the temporal scope of the investigation so as not to be restricted to orders given on the day of the second invasion (14 August 1974) and to investigate further the allegation of the witness survivor that the bus had been stopped at a police checkpoint on the route to Limassol. He ordered that the investigation should not be closed without the discovery and identification of all the missing men and joined all relevant investigations.
2. Concerning the taking of DNA samples
21. According to the Government, which found difficulty in reconciling names of applicants with those included in official records, DNA samples were taken from 91 villagers in order to assist in the identification of remains. 38 of these were applicants in this case. These samples were taken in 2003 from the villagers who gave them voluntarily after signing a consent form in the Turkish language. The consent form stated that the DNA would be isolated from the sample and stored and registered at CING (the DNA Identification Laboratory) and that the DNA would be used in tests and identification studies for the identification of the remains of their missing relatives. The results would be communicated to any Cypriot person or institution as authorised by the President of the Republic and to the donor after approval by the Government.
22. CING processed the samples, isolating the DNA which was stored. In 2005-7, during negotiations with the UNCMP, it was clear that the Turkish Cypriot member wanted fresh samples to be taken. This was reflected in the UN agreement with CING for provision of funds. Fresh samples of blood were accordingly obtained from Turkish-Cypriot relatives under the auspices of the Turkish-Cypriot member who verified that all had signed, and understood, a fresh consent form indicating that the DNA isolated from the sample would be transmitted by the Turkish-Cypriot member of the UNCMP to CING to be genotyped and only to be used in the framework of the UNCMP programme of identifying remains. The form stated that previous consent forms were revoked. It was stated that at the end of the UNCMP project copies of all available data would be transferred to the Turkish-Cypriot member of the UNCMP.
23. It appears that CING holds DNA samples from 108 applicants , transferred to them in 2007 by the Turkish-Cypriot member of the UNCMP. At this stage, the previous samples from 2003 were destroyed for 57 out of the 91 villagers. This was in accordance with the revocation of the former forms of consent and new arrangements. Copies of official records of destruction of the material have been provided.
24. The DNA samples of those individuals who only donated blood in 2003 are still stored and no analysis has yet been made. No Turkish Cypriot who gave a sample in 2003 has approached CING requesting any information about the fate of their sample.
25. On 12 June 2012, the Turkish-Cypriot member of the CMP requested a digital copy of all the data related to the Turkish-Cypriot relatives of missing persons. CING transmitted the data on 25 June 2012.
26. According to the Government, the destruction of samples given by any of the 34 remaining villagers or applicants who only gave samples in 2003 is subject to the procedure set out in Standard Operating Procedures of the CING laboratory – a form existed whereby requests for destruction could be lodged.
27. According to the applicants, CING was no longer involved in identification of remains. Their role has been superceded by an agreement in 2012 between the UNCMP and the International Committee on Missing Persons in Sarajevo to which organisation all blood samples are now sent for testing. The applicants pointed out that they were not sent copies of the destruction records and had not been informed that their samples had been destroyed at the time. For those who had given samples not yet destroyed, they had not been given any information about their use or fate.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Öealp Behiç , Ece Behiç and Suzan Behiç and others v. Republic of Cyprus Attorney-General, Council of Ministers, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior (case s nos. 589/06 , 590/06 , 591/06 , 592/06 , 593/06 )
28. In these cases lodged in 2006, the relatives of five Turkish-Cypriot men who went missing on 14 August 1974 after they had been taken from their homes by armed Greek Cypriots, lodged applications under Article 146 of the Constitution, claiming that the Republic of Cyprus had known of the deaths of the missing persons but had not searched for the corpses or brought the guilty persons to justice and that the Republic had not taken the necessary actions to pursue an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts and fate of the missing persons. In their response, the Republic of Cyprus stated that they had not been passive but had been unable to pursue their intentions to exhume and identify corpses due to the agreement between the United Nations, the Turkish-Cypriot side and themselves that exhumations would be conducted by a common programme of the Committee of Missing Persons. They also pointed out that exhumations had begun in 2004 and the programme indicated the likelihood of the exhumation of the graves in the relevant area would commence in August 2008. They disputed that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the courts but fell rather under the supervision of the United Nations and the authority and initiative of the President of the Republic.
29. In its decision dated 29 May 2008, the Supreme Court in its appellate capacity held that the fate of missing persons fell under the authority of the President of the Republic as it had an international aspect; the cases therefore concerned an act of government which did not fall within the jurisdiction to annul of the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
30. The applicants complained of substantive and procedural breaches of Article 2. They stated that their relatives were killed by Greek Cypriots. They claimed that the authorities have failed to conduct any effective, prompt and impartial investigation into this massacre or any serious attempt to locate or bring to account those responsible. Insofar as the Attorney-General had claimed before the Supreme Court that an investigation had been launched, the applicants doubted the effectiveness of this investigation which was confidential and about which no information had been forthcoming.
31. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention as they have been frustrated by the authorities ’ attitude in evading any investigative efforts. They have lived in anguish for years and their feelings of helplessness are exacerbated by the ambiguity in the investigation and the lack of information about, inter alia , the use of their DNA samples.
32. The applicants complained under Article 6 about the proceedings before the Supreme Court and its decision which stated that the matters relating to missing persons related to the sphere of “act of government” and could not be challenged before the courts. This deprived them of a determination of their rights under the law. They also complained under Article 6 that the proceedings took some five years, of which three elapsed on appeal and under Article 6 § 3 (e) complaining that they were given only restricted interpretation and translation facilities during the proceedings. This impacted in particular their ability to answer the arguments of the Attorney-General before the court.
33. The applicants complained under Article 8 that the authorities took their blood samples and have not told them since for what purposes they have been used and why they are still retained. The storage of these samples for unknown purposes was unjustifiable and insufficiently governed by domestic legislation.
34. Finally, they invoked Article 13 complaining that they had been deprived of an effective remedy as regarded the death of their relatives and Article 14 claiming that the massacre and lack of investigation into it disclosed discrimination on ethnic, racial, religious and political groun d.
THE LAW
A. Concerning the deaths of the applicant ’ s relatives
35. The applicants complained that their relatives had been killed in 1974 by Greek Cypriots, that there had not been any effective investigation into the matter and that they had suffered anguish for years as a result, invoking Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention. They also raised complaints under Article 6 concerning the Supreme Court decision of 29 May 2008 (see paragraphs 28-29 above). Insofar as the applicants ’ complaints essentially refer to the deaths of their relatives and the alleged lack of investigation into the deaths, the Court will examine the matter under Article 2 of the Convention.
1. Article 2 of the Convention
36. Article 2 provides as relevant:
“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
37. Insofar as the applicants complained of a substantive violation of Article 2, namely alleging that the respondent Government were responsible for the killing of their relatives in 1974, the Court would note that the events took place before the Republic of Cyprus ratified the right of individual petition on 1 January 1989 . It follows that these complaints fall outside the Court ’ s temporal jurisdiction ( see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 70, ECHR 2006 ‑ III; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90 , § 134, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... ). This part of the application must therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione temporis pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
38. Insofar as the applicants complained about an alleged lack of effective investigation into the killings, the Court ’ s case-law establishes that t he obligation to protect the right to life under this provision, read in conjunction with the State ’ s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by, inter alios , agents of the State (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, § 161 , Series A no. 324 ). The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98 , § 110, ECHR 2005-VII).
39. The obligation comes into play, primarily, in the aftermath of a violent or suspicious death and in the normal course of events, a criminal trial, with an adversarial procedure before an independent and impartial judge, must be regarded as furnishing the strongest safeguards of an effective procedure for the finding of facts and the attribution of criminal responsibility. There is no right however to obtain a prosecution or conviction ( e.g. Szula v. the United Kingdom , ( dec. ) no. 18727/06, 4 January 2007 ) and the fact that an investigation ends without concrete, or with only limited, results is not indicative of any failings as such. The obligation is of means only , not result ( AvÅŸar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, § 394, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)) .
40 . Even where events took place far in the past, it is possible that new developments occur such that a fresh obligation to investigate arises, for example, newly-discovered evidence comes to light ( Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no. 32457/04, §§ 73 ‑ 75, 27 November 2007; Hackett v United Kingdom (no. 4698/04, ( dec. ) May 10, 2005; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey (no. 27872/03 , 13 October 2009) . The scope of the fresh obligation to investigate will vary according to the nature of the purported new evidence or information. It may be restricted to verifying the reliability of the new evidence. The authorities can legitimately take into account the prospects of launching a new prosecution at such a late stage. Due to the lapse of time, the level of urgency may have diminished; the immediacy of required investigative steps in the aftermath of an incident is likely to be absent (e.g. Brecknell , cited above, paras. 79-81. The standard of expedition in such historical cases is much different from the standard applicable in recent incidents where time is often of the essence in preserving vital evidence at a scene and questioning witnesses when their memories are fresh and detailed (see Emin and Others v Cyprus , no. 59623/08 et al, ( dec. ) 3 April 2012; see also Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 4704/04 , § 70, 15 February 2011 concerning complex post-conflict situations ; Mujkanović v Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 47063/08, ( dec. ) 3 June 2014, § 41 ).
41 . The extent to which the other requirements of an adequate investigation -effectiveness, independence, accessibility to the family and sufficient public scrutiny- apply will again depend on the particular circumstances of the case (for a general statement of principle on the requirements of Article 2 under its procedural head, see, for example, Al ‑ Skeini v. the United Kingdom , [GC] no. 55721/07 § 166-167 ECHR 2011). While what reasonably can be expected by way of investigative measures may well be influenced by the passage of time as stated above, the criterion of independence will, generally, remain unchanged (see, for the importance of this criterion from the very earliest stage of the procedure, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§. 325, 333-341, ECHR 2007-...). Finally, it must be noted in general that with a considerable lapse of time since an incident, memories of witnesses fade, witnesses may die or become untraceable, evidence deteriorates or ceases to exist, and the prospects of any effective investigation leading to the prosecution of suspects will increasingly diminish (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 161, 192, ECHR 2009; Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , cited above, no. 4704/04 , § 49, 15 February 2011 ; Fazli ć v Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 66758/09, ( dec. ) 3 June 2014, § 39 ).
42. Turning to the present application, it is apparent that there is strong evidence, based on eyewitness testimony, that the missing men at Tochni were killed by unlawful violence; disclosures about the killings in 1974 appeared in the press; and some remains have been found and are in course of identification. In the circumstances, the Court finds that an obligation arises on the Government under Article 2 to conduct an investigation the fate of the applicants ’ relatives. It notes that according to the Government an investigation was launched into the fate of the applicants ’ relatives in October 2005. It is still pending in 2014, some nine years later. The Court must examine whether this investigation complies with the standards of Article 2 as outlined above.
43. The applicants complained that they had never been informed about any investigation until 2011 when they indirectly learned through another case lodged with the Court. It was because of this silence that they had brought unsuccessful proceedings before the Supreme Court. They complained that they were not parties to the investigation and doubted that the investigation had been thorough noting that no statements had been taken from the applicants since 2005 and that no information had been forthcoming about what steps had been taken to investigate the persons whose names had been identified as involved in events. They were doubtful about the sincerity of the investigation which had not been mentioned in the Supreme Court proceedings and which appeared to being prolonged indefinitely.
44. The Court would note that although the applicants claimed not to have been informed of any investigation until 2011 they also acknowledged that statements had been taken from applicants in 2005. It further appears that the authorities have taken statements from the men already named as being implicated in the events in 1974. Of these two had died and three had denied any involvement. The sixth had admitted being involved in gathering Turkish Cypriot men in the school but had then left and thus had not been involved in the removal of the victims the next day. Another man named as having guarded the victims at the school had also found to have died. On 11 April 2013 and 5 June 2013, the Attorney-General gave instructions to the police as to further steps that should be taken, widening the investigation. In particular he instructed that the investigation should not be closed without the discovery and identification of all the missing men. The Court observes that while remains have been found, complications have arisen due to the apparent removal of bodies to another burial site. Searches and analyses are ongoing. It may therefore be some time before this aspect of the investigation will be complete.
45. The Court is not convinced against this background that the authorities have shown a failure to take effective investigative steps or properly to follow up known leads. It is true that the investigation has been pending for a considerable time. However, this may be explained by the practical problems of locating remains and identifying them in the context of a large-scale exhumation project and the difficulties of tracing witnesses and evidence after such a long period of time. While it is true that there has been little communication between the applicants and the authorities, it would appear that there has been so far little to report. T he Court notes that the procedural obligation under Article 2 does not require applicants to have access to police files, or copies of all documents during an ongoing inquiry, or for them to be consulted or informed about every step ( McKerr v. the United Kingdom , no. 28883/95 , ECHR 2001 ‑ III, § 121; Green v. the United Kingdom , no. 28079/04 , ( dec. ) 19 May 2005; Hackett v. the United Kingdom , ( dec. ) 34698/04, 10 May 2005 ). Nor, as claimed by the applicants, is there any obligation for the victims ’ relatives to be treated as parties to the investigation as such.
46. The Court cannot but sympathise with the applicants who have waited years for elucidation as to the fate of their relatives and who must be frustrated by the apparent lack of concrete progress. However, the Court perceives no lack of good faith on the part of the authorities and finds no indication of any deliberate procrastination. Given that events took place far in the past, there is no special duty of expedition on the part of the authorities and the fact that a complicated investigation continues over a number of years will not, in itself, disclose a failure of effectiveness, as long as there are steps that are still being taken, which is the case in the current application.
47. In conclusion, the Court notes that the investigation is still ongoing. It finds nothing to support the applicants ’ allegations that the investigations are in some way a sham. For the moment, it is too early to find that overall, despite some possible shortcomings in the area of communication by the authorities with the victims ’ relatives, the approach of the authorities have infringed the minimum standard required under Article 2. I t follows that at the present stage th e applicants ’ complaints are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention .
2. The remaining complaints
48. Insofar as the applicants also raised various complaints under Article 6 concerning the decision of the Supreme Court (see paragraphs 28 ‑ 29 above), the Court recalls that the Supreme Court held that applicants ’ claims concerned “acts of government” outside its jurisdiction to annul. The Court accepts in the circumstances that the proceedings fell outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 as not concerning the determination of any of the “civil rights and obligations” of the applicants. No other issue arises under the other aspects of Article 6 invoked by the applicants. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Concerning the DNA samples
1. Concerning the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
49. The applicants complained that authorities took blood samples and did not inform them subsequently of the purposes for which they were used and why they were retained, invoking Article 8 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life....
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
50. The Court would note, first of all, that the present situation is to be distinguished from that of cases where blood samples were taken under compulsory powers as for example, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008 in which a violation was found due to storage and retention of samples and DNA profiles taken from the applicants without their consent as suspects of offences. In the present applications, the applicants volunteered their samples on one or two occasions and signed consent forms. The first set of consent forms signed in 2003 stated that the DNA would be isolated from the samples and kept to be used in tests and identification of the remains of their missing relatives. The latest set of consent forms, which revoked the prior forms and were signed in 2005-7, indicated that the samples would only be used in the course of the CMP programme of exhumation and that on completion of the programme all data would be transferred to the Turkish-Cypriot member of the CMP.
Loading citations...51. Against that background, the Court finds no indication that there has been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private life in that the applicants consented to give the samples, were informed of the purpose of the samples and there is not the least indication that the samples have been used for any other purpose. Indeed, the exhumation of bodies of the applicants ’ relatives has commenced but the process is far from complete and thus the samples are still being held for their agreed purpose.
52. Insofar as the applicants complained that some of the original samples were destroyed without their knowledge, the Court notes that the destruction took place at the time fresh samples were taken. It does not appear surprising or unexpected that the laboratory holding the first samples proceeded to destroy the samples as no longer required and, in particular, as the samples were no longer subject to valid consent forms – it may have been assumed that the applicants were aware that the revocation of the first consent forms would lead to that destruction. While it may perhaps be regrettable that the applicants were not informed expressly that this step was to be taken, they have now been so informed. The Court is not persuaded that this lapse of time in knowledge is such as to disclose an interference with the applicants ’ rights.
53. Insofar as the applicants complained that some of the original samples were not in fact destroyed – those where no new samples were taken and the original consent forms were still in existence and regarded as valid -, the Court notes that the Government have explained that it is open to the applicants to apply to the laboratory for the samples to be destroyed. A copy of the form has been provided. The applicants appear to take the view however that it should not be necessary for them to take this step; they asserted that the laboratory was no longer directly involved in the exhumation programmes after 2012 and so should no longer hold their samples. The Court would note that, whether or not that was the case, the samples were given to the laboratory by consent of the applicants, which consent had not been revoked and, further, that the work of identification of remains through DNA analysis, the purpose of the samples, had not yet been completed. The Court would consider that the step of applying to the authorities for destruction is neither unreasonable nor onerous in the circumstances. If the authorities then in fact failed to comply with the request, it might be that this could raise issues of interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for private life that would require justification under the second paragraph of Article 8.
54. In sum, the Court finds that the circumstances do not reveal any interference with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that the complaints must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.
2. Any remaining complaints
55. Insofar as the applicants raised any complaints about the handling of their DNA samples under any other provisions of the Convention, the Court finds no appearance of a violation and they fall also to be rejected under Articles 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
F or these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,
Declares the application inadmissible .
Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President
Appe ndix
N o .
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth date
Birth year
Place of residence
Davut CAKICISOY
18/08/1962
1962Girne
Gonul ADAKUL
27/06/1959
1959Girne
Saziye AHMET
30/08/1959
1959Durhanim AHMET HAVUTCU
04/02/1944
1944Magusa
Asiye AK
03/03/1965
1965Girne
Sonuc AKARSULAR
12/01/1967
1967Girne
Nadire AKCAER
18/03/1956
1956Girne
Fatma AKEJDER
08/09/1940
1940Magusa
Niyazi AKSERTEL
13/12/1949
1949Girne
Ahmet AKSOZLU
23/07/1963
1963Magusa
Dilber AKSOZLU
12/10/1942
1942Magusa
Aliye AKTUNA
02/03/1961
1961Magusa
Konca ALI
17/08/1954
1954Girne
Aysen ANGIN
03/06/1970
1970Lefkosa
Mehmet Ali ARDIC
29/09/1964
1964Girne
Melek ASIK
20/05/1968
1968Magusa
Ahmet ATESSONMEZ
30/07/1964
1964Girne
Emiray ATESSONMEZ
27/03/1960
1960Lefkosa
Osman ATESSONMEZ
09/06/1970
1970Girne
Seniha ATESSONMEZ
13/10/1933
1933Girne
Rahme AVCI
14/06/1974
1974Girne
Kiymet AYRILMAZKARDESLER
19/11/1935
1935Girne
Cengiz BARISKAN
17/10/1964
1964Girne
Eren BARISKAN
08/02/1964
1964Girne
Kazim BARISKAN
19/12/1961
1961Girne
Celal BOZAOGLU
20/09/1959
1959Girne
Davut CAKICISOY
18/08/1962
1962Girne
Mustafa CAKICISOY
26/11/1960
1960Girne
Mubeccel CAKICISOY CELIK
22/06/1954
1954Girne
Esen CAKIR
10/01/1973
1973Magusa
Aydin CANLIBALIK
24/11/1944
1944Girne
Aysel CANLIBALIK
22/03/1947
1947Magusa
Izzet CANLIBALIK
24/02/1954
1954Magusa
Cemal CESUR
23/12/1944
1944Girne
Pembe COSKUN
05/04/1964
1964Girne
Mensure CUBUK
12/12/1949
1949Magusa
Serap DAVUTOGLULARI
24/02/1970
1970Girne
Ertan DEGERSOY
18/04/1951
1951Girne
Keziban DEMIREL
09/03/1940
1940Magusa
Ali DERYALI
12/07/1973
1973Girne
Dilber DERYALI
04/04/1949
1949Girne
Mehmet DERYALI
04/01/1970
1970Lefkosa
Aylin DIKMENOGLU
23/08/1968
1968Girne
Kadriye DIKMENOGLU
21/05/1944
1944Girne
Velettin DIKMENOGLU
18/01/1968
1968Girne
Meryem DINCEL
01/02/1961
1961Girne
Salih DINCEL
17/02/1956
1956Girne
Gonca DORUK
29/01/1964
1964Girne
Keziban ENINANC
02/02/1943
1943Girne
Ahmet ERBULAK
10/01/1967
1967Magusa
Fezile ERBULAK
06/07/1974
1974Magusa
Kozan ERBULAK
12/08/1972
1972Magusa
Yildiray ERBULAK
04/02/1969
1969Magusa
Erdinc ERDAGLI
18/03/1966
1966Girne
Ibrahim ERDAGLI
15/10/1969
1969Girne
Rahme ERDAGLI
01/11/1943
1943Girne
Savas ERDAGLI
22/11/1962
1962Girne
Sultan ERDOGAN HUSEYIN
06/10/1951
1951Magusa
Alpay ERISKEN
12/07/1965
1965Girne
Behcet ERISKEN
13/12/1968
1968Girne
Mustafa ERISKEN
29/03/1963
1963Girne
Niyazi ERISKEN
05/02/1959
1959Girne
Gulsen ERMEZ
12/05/1957
1957Magusa
Samiye ERONDE
03/01/1954
1954Girne
Fatma ERTAS
28/04/1949
1949Girne
Besim FARUKCAN
02/03/1962
1962Girne
Emine FARUKCAN
17/08/1939
1939Girne
Ece FIRTINAER
28/09/1974
1974Girne
Emir FIRTINAER
06/03/1971
1971Magusa
Kasif FIRTINAER
17/12/1969
1969Girne
Tolgay FIRTINAER
13/06/1972
1972Lefkosa
Zerin FIRTINAER
06/02/1953
1953Girne
Gulseren GANGUL
02/05/1954
1954Girne
Melek GARIBOGLU
04/05/1926
1926Girne
Salime GAZIOGLU
25/07/1966
1966Girne
Feyziye GOKDENIZ
03/05/1948
1948Magusa
Savas GOKDENIZ
23/08/1974
1974Magusa
Yildan GULAKDENIZ
26/07/1961
1961Girne
Tunay GULBAK
28/01/1943
1943Lefkosa
Duran GULPINAR
09/04/1950
1950Lefkosa
Safiye GUMUS
19/06/1957
1957Girne
Kamil GUVENEL
23/03/1941
1941Magusa
Hasan HOCA
26/06/1942
1942Magusa
Sevket HOCA
25/11/1971
1971Girne
Senay HUDAN
02/10/1941
1941Girne
Yusuf HUDAN
22/09/1970
1970Girne
Nurettin HURDA
22/01/1944
1944Lefkosa
Hayriye HUSEYIN
26/01/1951
1951Magusa
Burhan IBRAHIM
03/05/1951
1951Girne
Nazim ILAL
19/11/1973
1973Magusa
Nermin ILAL
03/12/1970
1970Magusa
Suna ILAL
23/03/1938
1938Magusa
Suat KAFADAR
08/03/1955
1955Girne
Omer KANALIZ
25/05/1972
1972Girne
Sevim KANALIZ
15/12/1946
1946Girne
Emine KANDE
18/03/1944
1944Girne
Askin KARAGIL
02/01/1966
1966Magusa
Sultan KARAKADERLI
01/01/1916
1916Girne
Hudan KARAMUSTAFA
26/12/1974
1974Girne
Nesrin KARATAC
27/08/1959
1959Girne
Umran KARTAL
05/04/1958
1958Magusa
Ahmet KASIFOGULLARI
28/03/1955
1955Girne
Meryem KASIFOGULLARI
01/10/1945
1945Girne
Mustafa KASIFOGULLARI
01/10/1948
1948Girne
Keziban KAYATAS MERCAN
14/08/1971
1971Magusa
Behcet KAYIPOGLU
14/10/1971
1971Girne
Seval KAYIPOGLU
16/01/1946
1946Girne
Coskun KAYIPOGLULARI
02/10/1972
1972Magusa
Feride KAYIPOGLULARI
12/12/1950
1950Magusa
Erol KEDERLI
27/10/1952
1952Guzelyurt
Layka KIRMIZI
02/05/1958
1958Magusa
Ayse KOCAT TUGYAY
27/04/1954
1954Girne
Ali KOKULU
25/11/1967
1967Girne
Ismail KOKULU
21/09/1965
1965Girne
Rahme KOKULU
10/11/1954
1954Girne
Yilkay KOKULU
26/12/1962
1962Girne
Kezban KOKULU KESER
07/02/1969
1969Girne
Hamide KOKULU MEHMET
26/12/1959
1959Girne
Dilber KUCUK
29/09/1970
1970Girne
Huseyin KUCUK
07/06/1938
1938Girne
Meryem KUCUK
17/04/1939
1939Girne
Metin KUCUK
18/04/1958
1958Girne
Musa KUCUK
27/12/1955
1955Girne
Sevilay KUCUK
19/10/1947
1947Girne
Cezar KULAC
02/04/1956
1956Girne
Melek KULAC
02/11/1956
1956Girne
Mustafa KULAC
14/03/1953
1953Melbourne
Nazife MAGOSALI
12/12/1968
1968Lefkosa
Hulya MAKINISTOGULLARI
07/07/1966
1966Girne
Kazim MAKINISTOGULLARI
03/07/1963
1963Girne
Neriman MAKINISTOGULLARI
25/10/1961
1961Girne
Ramadan MAKINISTOGULLARI
09/04/1962
1962Girne
Yusuf MAKINISTOGULLARI
26/11/1960
1960Girne
Sonay MAMALI CUMA
01/12/1951
1951Girne
Meyrem MEHMET
06/04/1964
1964Magusa
Hacer MENEMENCI
12/12/1944
1944Girne
Guner MERCAN
17/09/1966
1966Magusa
Hayriye MERCAN
21/07/1961
1961Magusa
Huseyin MERCAN
31/12/1959
1959Magusa
Incilay MERCAN
08/04/1964
1964Magusa
Kemal MERCAN
20/07/1953
1953Magusa
Keziban MERCAN
05/02/1942
1942Magusa
Mihraciye MERCAN
05/01/1948
1948Magusa
Nilgun MERCAN
10/11/1961
1961Magusa
Narin MERTEROGLU
02/08/1971
1971Girne
Ece MOLLA
16/03/1973
1973Lefkosa
Gokcen MUNUROGLU
05/12/1952
1952Girne
Huda MUNUROGLU
30/10/1944
1944Girne
Ziya MUNUROGLU
19/08/1939
1939Girne
Ali NALBANTSOY
25/05/1952
1952Girne
Ayse NURAK
25/01/1959
1959Lefkosa
Fatma NURI
02/12/1968
1968Girne
Ergun OKHAN
08/01/1954
1954Girne
Isilay OREL
04/02/1964
1964Girne
Selda OZDEGIRMENCI
19/11/1973
1973Girne
Cemaliye OZDIKEN
25/09/1972
1972Lefkosa
Fevzi OZGOKSOY
19/05/1972
1972Girne
Sifa OZGOKSOY
30/11/1947
1947Girne
Erdogan OZISLEYEN
10/02/1956
1956Lefkosa
Nevin OZISLEYEN
19/11/1957
1957Lefkosa
Omer OZMAN
21/08/1943
1943Girne
Behic OZMAN ALI
30/01/1952
1952Girne
Ozdil OZMAN ALI
13/04/1957
1957Girne
Hayriye OZMUTLU
01/01/1933
1933Girne
Ulfet OZMUTLU
29/01/1962
1962Girne
Ziba OZTOREL
16/04/1960
1960Magusa
Hanife OZTUNER
19/04/1954
1954Magusa
Nuray OZVEREL
05/02/1964
1964Girne
Ayse OZYILDIRIM
17/02/1951
1951Girne
Omer OZYILDIRIM
22/02/1947
1947Girne
Akin SADISONMEZ
22/11/1970
1970Magusa
Asim SADISONMEZ
02/05/1964
1964Magusa
Tunsel SADISONMEZ
05/02/1946
1946Magusa
Ugur SADISONMEZ
01/07/1967
1967Magusa
Murude SAFEL
14/09/1969
1969Girne
Ozalp SARICAOGLU
17/01/1971
1971Girne
Suzan SARICAOGLU
04/12/1950
1950Girne
Ayse SEDEF
10/06/1955
1955Girne
Birol SEDEF
07/04/1950
1950Girne
Hamza SEDEF
07/01/1926
1926Girne
Sema SENKAYALAR
03/01/1963
1963Lefkosa
Sermin SERDAL
19/11/1946
1946Lefkosa
Ahmet SERKANLAR
15/08/1972
1972Girne
Dilber SERKANLAR
19/01/1947
1947Girne
Aysan SERMAN
01/03/1957
1957Magusa
Fatma SERMAN
21/08/1973
1973Magusa
Hamiyet SERMAN
24/05/1955
1955Magusa
Meryem SERMAN
25/12/1954
1954Magusa
Selcuk SERMAN
02/11/1951
1951Lefkosa
Fehime SHAHID
20/01/1967
1967Magusa
Cemaliye SOFOREL
05/10/1937
1937Girne
Resat SOFOREL
16/03/1966
1966Girne
Yilmaz SOFOREL
09/09/1961
1961Girne
Ali SONGUZ
28/01/1954
1954Girne
Cuma SONGUZ
23/08/1973
1973Girne
Tulay SONGUZ
28/09/1955
1955Girne
Ali Riza SONMEZANI
16/03/1974
1974Girne
Salih SONMEZANI
03/06/1965
1965Girne
Salime SONMEZANI
28/08/1940
1940Girne
Yusuf SONMEZANI
03/08/1966
1966Girne
Ayse SORGUN
21/11/1971
1971Magusa
Arif SOYKURT
25/12/1951
1951Girne
Mehmet SOYKURT
25/12/1951
1951Girne
Nevin SOYSAL
24/02/1957
1957Girne
Elmaz TALUG
17/02/1956
1956Girne
Ersoy TALUG
04/09/1952
1952Girne
Jale TALUG
07/04/1953
1953Girne
Meryem TALUG
16/10/1946
1946Girne
Oray TALUG
17/01/1947
1947Girne
Yesim TASKAN
21/04/1974
1974Magusa
Afet TAYFUNOGLU
28/12/1948
1948Girne
Yasar TAYFUNOGLU
18/07/1974
1974Girne
Mehmet Ali TAYFUNSEL
03/05/1946
1946Girne
Meliha TAYLAN
01/01/1932
1932Girne
Nuray TOPAL
20/04/1968
1968Lefkosa
Dervis TORAL
30/06/1951
1951Girne
Naile TORAL
04/03/1954
1954Girne
Mustafa TUGYAY
09/09/1940
1940Girne
Turan TUNC
30/11/1959
1959Girne
Hamide TUNCSEZEN
19/08/1947
1947Girne
Radiye TUNCSEZEN
02/11/1972
1972Girne
Turgay TURGUTOGLU
09/04/1958
1958Girne
Naziyet ULUMAN
12/01/1956
1956Magusa
Emine USTUNKAYA
14/09/1944
1944Lefkosa
Huseyin USTUNKAYA
05/08/1972
1972Surrey
Serife YAKUP
12/02/1940
1940Girne
Cuneyt YALCICI
11/11/1969
1969Girne
Gulsun YALCICI
02/06/1948
1948Girne
Mustafa YALCICI
15/09/1967
1967Girne
Ozalp YALCICI
21/12/1968
1968Girne
Ozay YALCICI
09/12/1971
1971Girne
Irfan YANAL
01/11/1958
1958Magusa
Nidai YANAL
08/09/1960
1960Magusa
Rahme YANAL
26/12/1930
1930Magusa
Zubeyir YANAL
19/02/1967
1967Magusa
Hayriye YILDIZDOGAN
30/09/1967
1967Girne
Cimen YILMAZ
15/11/1972
1972Magusa
Ozlem YORGANCIOGLU
15/09/1974
1974Magusa
Sengul YUCEL
14/08/1951
1951Girne
Tuncay ZAHLUL
28/02/1945
1945Magusa