CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 juillet 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS         Application No. 15299/89               Application No. 15300/89         Metropolitan Chrysostomos,             Archimandrite Georgios       Bishop of Kitium                       Papachrysostomou         against Turkey                         against Turkey                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 8 July 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The applications            (paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 23 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 28 - 86)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 28 - 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              1.     The demonstration of 19 July 1989                  (paras. 28 - 32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              2.     The applicants' detention and the proceedings                  against them                  (paras. 33 - 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6         B.    The evidence before the Commission            (paras. 42 - 81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              1.     Evidence concerning the demonstration on                  19 July 1989 (paras. 42 - 69). . . . . . . . . . . 8                    a)    Report of the Secretary-General of the                       United Nations (para. 42) . . . . . . . . . . 8                    b)    Witnesses (paras. 43 - 68). . . . . . . . . . 9                         aa     First applicant (para. 44). . . . . . . 9                         bb     Second applicant (para. 45) . . . . . .10                         cc     Witnesses proposed by the                             applicants (paras. 46 - 54) . . . . . .10                         dd     Witnesses proposed by the respondent                             Government (paras. 55 - 68) . . . . . .12                    c)    Other evidence (para. 69) . . . . . . . . . .15              2.     Evidence concerning the applicants'                  detention and the proceedings against                  them (paras. 70 -   81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    a)    Witnesses (paras. 70 - 80). . . . . . . . . .15                         aa     The first applicant (para. 71). . . . .15                         bb     The second applicant (para. 72) . . . .15                         cc     Witnesses proposed by the                             applicants (paras. 73 - 74) . . . . . .15                         dd     Witnesses proposed by the                             respondent Government                             (paras. 75 - 80). . . . . . . . . . . .15                    b)    Other evidence (para. 81) . . . . . . . . . .16         C.    The relevant domestic law            (paras. 82 - 84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16              1.     Procedural law (para. 82)   . . . . . . . . . . . .16              2.     Substantive law (paras. 83 - 84) . . . . . . . . .17         D.    Agreement on Unmanning of Positions in Sensitive            Areas in Nicosia (1989)            (paras. 85 - 86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 87 - 183)    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19         B.    Points at issue            (paras. 88 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19         C.    The arrest of the applicants            (paras. 90 - 159)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20              1.     Imputability (paras. 90 - 102) . . . . . . . . . .20              2.     Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 103 - 142) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22                    a)    The character of the                       demonstration (paras. 109 - 110)   . . . . . .23                    b)    The situation at the place of                       the applicants' arrest                       (paras. 111 - 115)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .23                    c)    The treatment of the applicants during                       their arrest - evaluation of the                       evidence                       (paras. 116 - 125)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .24                         aa     General (paras. 116 - 118)   . . . . . .24                         bb     The first applicant                             (paras. 119 - 120)   . . . . . . . . . .24                         cc     The second applicant                             (paras. 121 - 125)   . . . . . . . . . .24                    d)    Application of Article 3 of the                       Convention to the facts established                       (paras. 126 - 131)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .25                         aa     General (para. 126) . . . . . . . . . .25                         bb     The first applicant                             (paras. 127 - 128)   . . . . . . . . . .25                         Conclusion (para. 129)   . . . . . . . . . . .25                         cc     The second applicant                             (para. 130) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26                         Conclusion (para. 131)   . . . . . . . . . . .26                    e)    Application of Article 8 of the                       Convention to the facts established                       (paras. 132 - 142)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .26                         aa     The first applicant                             (paras. 132 - 136 ) . . . . . . . . . .26                         Conclusion (para. 137)   . . . . . . . . . . .27                         bb     The second applicant                             (paras. 138 - 141)   . . . . . . . . . .27                         Conclusion (para. 142)   . . . . . . . . . . .27              3.     Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention                  (paras. 143 - 159) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27                    a)    Deprivation of liberty "in accordance                       with a procedure prescribed by law"                       (paras. 146 - 149)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .28                    b)    Justification of the arrest under                       Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the                       Convention                       (paras. 150 - 156)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .29                    c)    Other issues under Article 5 para. 1                       (paras. 157 - 158)   . . . . . . . . . . . . .30                    d)    Conclusion (para. 159)   . . . . . . . . . . .30         D.    The applicants' detention and the proceedings            against them after their arrest            on 19 July 1989 (paras. 160 - 171) . . . . . . . . . . .30              1.     Imputability (paras. 160 - 170)   . . . . . . . . .30              2.     Conclusion (para. 171) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32         E.    Article 13 of the Convention            (paras. 172 - 175) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33              Conclusion (para. 175) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33         F.    Recapitulation            (paras. 176 - 183) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33   PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. NØRGAARD, JÖRUNDSSON, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, SOYER AND DANELIUS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35   PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR BASIL HALL   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36   PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.L. ROZAKIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37   PARTIALLY CONCURRING, PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. E. BUSUTTIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44   APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46   APPENDIX II: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY   . . . . . . . . . . . .49   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The applications   2.     The first applicant, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, Bishop of Kitium, was born in 1938 and resides at Larnaka. The second applicant, Archimandrite Georgios Papachrysostomou, was born in 1949 and resides at Nicosia. Both applicants are Cypriot citizens. They are represented by Dr. K. Chrysostomides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.   3.     The applications are directed against Turkey. The respondent Government were initially represented by their Agent, Prof. S. Bilge, and subsequently by their Acting Agent, Mr. S. Özmen, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are now represented by their Agent, Prof. B. Çaglar.   4.     The applications concern the applicants' deprivation of liberty and their subsequent conditions of detention and proceedings against them in the northern part of Cyprus in July 1989. The applicants allege violations of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13 of the Convention. They claim that their detention and all other acts complained of were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The applications were introduced on 21 July and registered on 25 July 1989.   6.     On 9 November 1989 the Commission ordered the joinder of the present applications and of Application No. 15318/89 (Titina Loizidou v. Turkey). It further decided to bring the applications to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the applications. The Government's observations were filed on 28 February 1990. The applicants' observations in reply were filed on 6 May 1990.   7.     On 5 October 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing.   8.     The applicants filed further written submissions on 18 December 1990.   9.     At the hearing on 11 January 1991 the respondent Government were represented by Prof. S. Bilge as Agent, Prof. H. Golsong and Prof. E. Lauterpacht as Counsel and by Mr. M. Özmen and Dr. D. Akçay, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. D. Bethlehem, Barrister, as Experts. The applicants were represented by Dr. K. Chrysostomides and Prof. I. Brownlie, Q.C. and Mrs. C. Pitsilli-Dekatris, Barrister, as Counsel. The first applicant was also present.   10.    On 4 March 1991 the Commission declared the applications admissible.   11.    The respondent Government were then invited to submit their observations on the merits of the applications. Under cover of a letter of 7 May 1991 they submitted a memorandum requesting the Commission "to re-open the proceedings on the admissibility" of the applications and "to find that each of them is inadmissible". The applicants' comments on this request were filed on 24 May 1991.   12.    On 30 May 1991 the Commission found no legal basis for the respondent Government's request. It invited the Government to submit their observations on the merits, including their evidence, no later than 29 July 1991. At the Government's request this time-limit was subsequently extended to 30 September 1991.   13.    In a letter transmitted on 25 September 1991, the respondent Government informed the Commission that they would not participate in any further proceedings concerning the present applications.   14.    On 16 October 1991 the Commission adopted an Interim Report on the present state of the proceedings in which it requested the Committee of Ministers to urge Turkey, as a High Contracting Party to the Convention, to meet its obligations and accordingly to participate in the Commission's examination of the merits of the present applications, as required by Article 28 para. 1.   15.    On 19 December 1991 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution DH (91) 41, in which it urged Turkey, as a High Contracting Party to the Convention, to meet its obligations and accordingly to participate in the Commission's examination of the merits of the present applications as required by Article 28, para. 1.   16.    On 14 January 1992 the Commission decided to take oral evidence of the applicants, and of the witnesses proposed by them, at a hearing before delegated members of the Commission in the presence of the parties in Strasbourg; and to invite the parties to file, within a time-limit of six weeks, such further observations as they wished to make.   17.    On 9 April 1992 the Commission appointed its Delegation for the hearing of witnesses. It decided to include in the list of witnesses to be examined the persons proposed in the respondent Government's submissions of 28 February 1992. Two further witnesses, one proposed by the respondent Government in a letter of 29 April and one proposed by the applicants in a letter of 30 April 1992, were added to the list on 19 May 1992. Further submissions in writing were filed by the respondent Government on 20 May and by the applicants on 5 June 1992.   18.    At the hearing on 9 and 10 June 1992 the Delegation (MM. Frowein, Busuttil and Pellonpää) heard the applicants, nine witnesses proposed by the applicants and eleven witnesses proposed by the respondent Government.   19.    On 7 July 1992 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the merits of the applications. Further submissions in writing were filed by the applicants on 21 September and by the respondent Government on 1 October 1992.   20.    At the hearing on 4 December 1992 the applicants were represented by Dr. Chrysostomides, Prof. Brownlie and Mrs. Pitsilli-Dekatris. The respondent Government were represented by Prof. B. Çaglar as Agent, Mr. Özmen, Dr. Akçay, Prof. Golsong and Mr. A. Sait as Counsel, and Mrs. G. Erönen, Mr. O. Örek and Mrs. I. Tokcan as Experts. During the hearing the parties were given the opportunity to make supplementary submissions under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the applicants' complaint concerning their arrest. A video film submitted by the applicants and a video film submitted by the respondent Government were shown. At the end of the hearing the Commission accepted, as further written submission, a "Note d'Audience" filed by the respondent Government shortly before the hearing and invited the parties to file, before 31 January 1993, such final submissions in writing as they might wish to make.   21.    On 7 December 1992 the Commission decided to disjoin the present applications from Application No. 15318/89 (cf. para. 6 above) and to invite the respondent Government to provide further information concerning the alleged legal basis for the applicants' arrest and conviction. The applicants' final submissions were dated 27 January and those of the Government 29 January 1993.   22.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   23.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    C.L. ROZAKIS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   24.    The text of this Report was adopted on 8 July 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   25.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:         i)    to establish the facts, and         ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose            a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under            the Convention.   26.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications as Appendix II.   27.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         A.    The particular circumstances of the case         1.    The demonstration on 19 July 1989   28.    The applicants participated   as clergymen in a demonstration of some 1.000 Greek Cypriots, mostly women, which took place in the Saint (Ayios) Kassianos area of Nicosia/Cyprus on 19 July 1989. The demonstration, details of which are in dispute between the parties, has been the subject of a report by the Secretary-General, and of a declaration by the President of the Security Council, of the United Nations (see below para. 42).   29.    The applicants state that the demonstration was organised by the "Women's Pancyprian Movement 'Epistrophe' ('Return')". It aimed at proclaiming the refugees' right to return to their homes in the northern part of Cyprus. GODEK, the women's organisation of the Democratic Party, organised a memorial service in the Church of Saint Kassianos which lies in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus but which is within walking distance from the United Nations buffer- zone. The two applicants held the religious service. The demonstration then proceeded peacefully to conduct prayers in the derelict Church of Saint George which is situated in the buffer-zone, in a former school complex of the Saint Kassianos area.   30.    The respondent Government state that the demonstration was designed as an attack against the buffer-zone and the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". The demonstrators broke through barbed wire and through the defence line of the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). They entered the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" carrying a Greek and a Cypriot flag.   31.    The applicants further state that Turkish military personnel in camouflage uniforms and blue berets and policemen wearing riot gear appeared on the scene. The personnel in police uniforms carried anti- riot gear, electrically charged clubs and perspex shields and wore helmets. The personnel in camouflage uniforms carried sub-machine-guns and pistols. Members of the Turkish Security Forces were also on the scene, wearing camouflage uniforms and green berets and carrying bayonets. The Turkish military and other personnel broke through the UN soldiers line that had been formed in front of the women and drove the UN soldiers away. They "cleared" the area in front of the school buildings and moved into the yard and chapel of Saint George, rounding up and cornering the women and the applicants inside the ruins of the chapel. The Turkish forces fell upon the applicants pulling them by their robes, their beards, hitting them, kicking them, spitting on them, swearing at them and dragging them on the ground. The applicants and many women were led by force into the Turkish occupied area of Nicosia through a hostile mob that inflicted further blows and insults upon them.   32.    The respondent Government state that the Turkish Cypriot Police intervened in the face of the manifest inability of the Greek Cypriot authorities and of UNFICYP to contain the intrusion and its possible consequences. No Turkish forces were involved. The demonstrators were warned in Greek and English that unless they dispersed they would be arrested. The applicants were lawfully arrested in accordance with the law of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", which is in relevant parts based on legislation enacted under British rule. The arrest took place on the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", not in the buffer-zone. This status of the area in question was recognised in the Unmanning Agreement of 1989. During the arrest operation only the necessary force was used. No one was ill-treated.         2.    The applicants' detention and the proceedings against them   33.    The applicants state that they were transported by buses to a hall made of corrugated iron known as "Pavlides Garage". During their journey, they were subjected to further abuse by the persons who had detained them and by the civilian mob that had gathered and threatened to lynch them. They were sworn at and their rank was abased. Whilst detained at the Pavlides Garage, the prisoners were kept waiting for long hours into the night and some of them until the following morning, without any food or water. They were made to sit and sleep on the ground, they were not offered any medical attention and they were prohibited from talking among themselves. The Turkish forces did nothing to protect the detainees from the hostile mob that had gathered outside threatening the detainees, throwing stones on the corrugated iron roof (some of which broke through and fell into the garage on to the persons detained). At one stage the mob even pushed its way forcibly into the garage before being pushed back by the Turkish forces in charge.   34.    The respondent Government state that the applicants were taken to a place formerly known as "Pavlides Garage" which has been reconstructed, is used for sports activities and now known as "Basaran Sports Hall". All the arrested people were treated properly. They were not subjected to any force, torture or ill-treatment. Members of UNFICYP were present. Nobody tried to lynch the applicants, cursed or spat at them.   35.    The applicants further state that, from Pavlides Garage, they were transported to a Police Station where they spent the rest of the night hours after being subjected to further humiliating treatment from their captors. They were then presented to a "Court", transported to a prison and put into tiny cells that could not accommodate all prisoners. The detainees were locked up in cells together with Turkish prisoners serving long sentences for murder and manslaughter. The prison cells were extremely dirty, the conveniences provided were filthy and no toilet paper was provided. Whilst in prison, the applicants were harassed by their guards who would wake them up in the middle of the night or during their afternoon rest to take their photographs, to count them, to take their fingerprints or to open files for them.   36.    The respondent Government state that the applicants were brought before the District Court, remanded in custody and taken to the State prison, accompanied by members of UNFICYP. The State prison was constructed in 1982, with up to date facilities and accommodation. During their stay in the State prison the prisoners were provided with all their requirements and necessities, including toilet papers, sanitary-towels etc. UNFICYP were constantly in touch with them and free to supply them with additional requirements, if needed. The applicants were constantly under medical control of both the United Nations   and Local Medical Officers and all their requirements in this connection were met. They were never kept with other criminals and definitely not with those serving long sentences for murder or manslaughter.   37.    The applicants further state that they were not allowed to pray in prison. The prison authorities did not allow the objects and wares used in the conduct of mass or the robes that were sent to the first applicant to be handed over to him so that he could conduct holy service and take holy communion. They did not allow the first applicant to conduct service for the benefit of the women detainees. The applicants' private prayers were disrupted by the prison guards who would put on loud music through the loudspeakers or would turn on the T.V. On days of regular fasting under the Greek Orthodox religion the applicants were provided with meat and other food that they could not take. Their religion and rank were ridiculed and affronted by their captors. The applicants went on a hunger strike as from 24 July 1989 until the time of their release. During this period they were provoked and filmed or photographed with food on their bed side tables which had been placed there by their prison guards.   38.    The respondent Government state that, during their detention, the applicants could exercise their religion individually, but under the 1959 Prison Rules they were not entitled to conduct mass. The rules are applied in the same way in Southern Cyprus and to Muslim clerics in Northern Cyprus.   39.    The applicants finally state that they were forced to appear before a "Court" where they were charged with "illegal entry" into the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus. They were "tried" and "sentenced" by a "Court" which had no legitimate existence or jurisdiction over them. The proceedings were held in Turkish with a scanty translation into Greek. The interpreter told the prisoners "I translate whatever I like". The persons who "testified" were replaying a rehearsed scenario in order to prove the detainees' alleged guilt.   40.    The respondent Government state that the applicants were tried by the Nicosia District Court on 21 July 1989. At the trial two interpreters were present, who translated all proceedings into Greek. The United Nations observers were also present throughout the trial. The applicants refused the services of a lawyer registered in the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". They were convicted on the charge of unauthorised entry into the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", contrary to section 20 of the Criminal Code, chapter 154 and sections 2, 8 and 9 of Act No. 5/72, as amended by Act No. 14/73 and Regulation No. 119, issued in March 1989 under section 11 of the Act and the Prohibited Military Areas Decree of 1979; and on the charge of entry into the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" at an unauthorised crossing point, contrary to section 20 of the Criminal Code, chapter 105 and section 12 (1) (5) of the Aliens and Immigration Act, as amended by Act No. 21/82 and the "Notification" No. 267/49 under sections 3 and 21 of the same Act. The applicants were sentenced to three days imprisonment and to a fine of 100 Cyprus pounds, to be replaced by ten days in prison if the fine were not paid within 24 hours.   41.    The applicants were released on 30 July 1989.         B.    The evidence before the Commission         1.    Evidence concerning the demonstration on 19 July 1989         a)    The report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations   42.    In his report of 7 December 1989 - Security Council document S/21010 - on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus (for the period 1 June - 4 December 1989) the Secretary-General of the United Nations referred to the demonstration on 19 July 1989 in the following terms (at paras. 10-13):         "10. During the period under review, the number of cease-fire       violations remained at a low level. In Nicosia, the unmanning of       positions implemented in May 1989 (S/20663, para. 14) had a       positive effect and the number of incidents was the lowest since       1974. UNFICYP pursued its efforts to extend the unmanning to       other positions.         11.   A serious situation, however, arose in July as a result of       a demonstration by Greek Cypriots in Nicosia. The details are as       follows:              (a)    In the evening of 19 July , some 1,000 Greek Cypriot            demonstrators, mostly women, forced their way into the            United Nations buffer zone in the Ayios Kassianos area of            Nicosia. The demonstrators broke through a wire barrier            maintained by UNFICYP and destroyed an UNFICYP observation            post. They then broke through the line formed by UNFICYP            soldiers and entered a former school complex where UNFICYP            reinforcements regrouped to prevent them from proceeding            further. A short while later, Turkish Cypriot police and            security forces elements forced their way into the area and            apprehended 111 persons, 101 of them women;              (b)    The Ayios Kassianos school complex is situated in the            United Nations buffer zone. However, the Turkish forces            claim it to be on their side of the cease-fire line. Under            working arrangements with UNFICYP, the Turkish Cypriot            security forces have patrolled the school grounds for            several years within specific restrictions. This patrolling            ceased altogether as part of the unmanning agreement            implemented last May;              (c)    In the afternoon of 21 July, some 300 Greek Cypriots            gathered at the main entrance to the United Nations            protected area in Nicosia, in which the United Nations            headquarters is located, to protest the continuing            detention by the Turkish Cypriot authorities of those            apprehended at Ayios Kassianos. The demonstrators, whose            number fluctuated between 200 and 2,000, blocked all United            Nations traffic through this entrance until 30 July, when            the Turkish Cypriot authorities released the last two            detainees;              (d)    The events described above created considerable            tension in the island and intensive efforts were made, both            at United Nations Headquarters and at Nicosia, to contain            and resolve the situation. On 21 July, I expressed my            concern at the events that had taken place and stressed            that it was vital that all parties keep in mind the purpose            of the United Nations buffer zone as well as their            responsibility to ensure that that area was not violated.            I also urged the Turkish Cypriot authorities to release            without delay all those who had been detained. On 24 July,            the President of the Security Council announced that he had            conveyed to the representatives of all the parties, on            behalf of the members of the Council, the Council's deep            concern at the tense situation created by the incidents of            19 July. He also stressed the need strictly to respect the            United Nations buffer zone and appealed for the immediate            release of all persons still detained. He asked all            concerned to show maximum restraint and to take urgent            steps that would bring about a relaxation of tension and            contribute to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to            the negotiations.         12.   During the period under review, there were three other       occasions on which Greek Cypriot demonstrators entered the United       Nations buffer zone.       ...       13.   The problem posed by demonstrators who violate the United       Nations buffer zone has been the subject of numerous contacts at       all levels between the United Nations and the Government of       Cyprus ... In those contacts the United Nations made clear that       it was obliged, under the UNFICYP mandate, to oppose activities       in the buffer zone that were bound to provoke the other side and       that entailed the risk of incidents. The Untied Nations pointed       out that UNFICYP was neither mandated nor organized to assume       responsibilities that fell within the competence of the civilian       authorities. Accordingly, the United Nations expected the       Government to give clear guidance to the population and to ensure       that the police took effective measures to prevent demonstrators       from entering the United Nations buffer zone."         b)    Witnesses   43.    The evidence of the persons heard as witnesses by three Delegates of the   Commission (cf. para. 18 above) may be summarised as follows:         aa    The first applicant   44.    The first applicant, when heard as a witness, stated that, when proceeding to the derelict church of Saint George in the neutral zone, he saw that the barbed wire had been removed. He was greeted by two UNFICYP soldiers and entered the church throu