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. 15318/89                               Titina Loizidou                               against Turkey                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 8 July 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (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 - 45)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 28 - 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              1.     Possessions (paras. 29 - 30) . . . . . . . . . . . 5              2.     Deprivation of liberty                  (paras. 31 - 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              3.     Responsibility of Turkey                  (paras. 36 - 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6         B.    The evidence before the Commission            (paras. 38 - 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              1.     Evidence concerning the applicant's                  possessions (para. 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              2.     Evidence concerning the demonstration of                  19 March 1989 (paras. 39 - 42) . . . . . . . . . . 7                    a)    Report of the Secretary-General of the                       United Nations (para. 39) . . . . . . . . . . 7                    b)    Witnesses (paras. 40 - 42). . . . . . . . . . 7                         aa     The applicant (para. 40). . . . . . . . 7                         bb     Witness proposed by the                             applicant (para. 41). . . . . . . . . . 8                         cc     Other evidence (para. 42) . . . . . . . 8         C.    The relevant domestic law            (paras. 43 - 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              1.     Procedural law (para. 43). . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              2.     Substantive law relied on by the                  respondent Government (paras. 44 - 45) . . . . . . 8   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 46 - 106) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         B.    Points at issue            (para. 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         C.    Arrest and detention            (paras. 48 - 85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              1.     Imputability (paras. 48 - 51). . . . . . . . . . .10              2.     Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 52 - 72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11                    a)    The character of the demonstration                       (paras. 55 - 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11                    b)    The treatment of the applicant -                       evaluation of the evidence                       (paras. 59 - 62). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    c)    Application of Article 3 of the                       Convention to the facts established                       (paras. 63 - 64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    Conclusion (para. 65). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    d)    Application of Article 8 of the                       Convention to the facts established                       (paras. 66 - 71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    Conclusion (para. 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13              3.     Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention                  (paras.   73 - 85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13                    a)    Deprivation of liberty "in accordance                       with a procedure prescribed by law"                       (paras. 76 - 79). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                    b)    Justification of the arrest and detention                       under Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the                       Convention                       (paras. 80 - 83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                    c)    Other issues under Article 5 para. 1                       (para. 84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    d)    Conclusion (para. 85) . . . . . . . . . . . .15         D.    Access to property            (paras. 86 - 101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              1.     Article 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 86 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    a)    Interference with home                       (paras. 86 - 88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    b)    Conclusion (para. 89) . . . . . . . . . . . .15              2.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                  (paras. 90 - 101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16                    Conclusion (para. 101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17         E.    Recapitulation (paras. 102 - 106). . . . . . . . . . . .17   PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. NØRGAARD, JÖRUNDSSON, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, SOYER AND DANELIUS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18   PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.L. ROZAKIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19   PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ. . . . . . . . .21   APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23   APPENDIX II: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY   . . . . . . . . . . . .26   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 application   2.     The applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1949 and residing at Nicosia. She is represented by Mr. Achileas Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.   3.     The application is 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 application concerns the applicant's deprivation of liberty on 19 March 1989, and access to her property, in the northern part of Cyprus. The applicant alleged violations of Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention and a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She claims that all 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 application was introduced on 22 July and registered on 31 July 1989.   6.     On 9 November 1989 the Commission ordered the joinder of the present application and of Applications No. 15299/89 (Metropolitan Chrysostomos v. Turkey) and No. 15300/89 (Archimandrite Papachrysostomou 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 applicant's observations in reply were filed on 11 May 1990.   7.     On 5 October 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing.   8.     The applicant 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 applicant was represented by Mr. Demetriades and Prof. I. Brownlie, Q.C. and Mrs. Joanna Loizidou, Barrister, as Counsel. The applicant was also present.   10.    On 4 March 1991 the Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaints of continuing violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alleged to have occurred before 29 January 1987. The remainder of the application was declared admissible.   11.    The respondent Government were then invited to submit their observations on the merits of the application. 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 application and "to find that (it) is inadmissible". The applicant's 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 application.   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 application, 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 application as required by Article 28 para. 1.   16.    On 14 January 1992 the Commission decided to take oral evidence of the applicant at a hearing of witnesses 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 person proposed in the applicant's submissions of 24 March 1992. Further submissions in writing were filed by the respondent Government on 20 May and by the applicant on 5 June 1992.   18.    At the hearing on 9 and 10 June 1992 the Delegation (MM. Frowein, Busuttil and Pellonpää) heard the applicant and the witness proposed by her.   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 applicant on 28 September and by the respondent Government on 1 October 1992.   20.    At the hearing on 4 December 1992 the applicant was represented by Mr. Demetriades, Prof. Brownlie and Mrs. J. Loizidou. 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 applicant's complaint concerning her arrest. 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 application from Applications Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89 (cf. para. 6 above). The applicant's final submissions were dated 28 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 application 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   28.    The applicant grew up in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. In 1972 she married and moved with her husband to Nicosia.         1.    Possessions   29.    The applicant states that she is the owner of plots of land Nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002, 5004, 5386 and 5390 in Kyrenia in northern Cyprus. Before 20 July 1974 work had commenced on plot No. 5390 for the construction of a home for the applicant. She has been prevented in the past, and is still prevented, by Turkish forces from returning to, and peacefully enjoying, the said properties.   30.    The respondent Government state that, after 15 July 1974, there was an agreement for exchange of Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Turks living in the south were allowed to come to the north of the island and the Greeks living in the north were allowed to go to the south. The properties of the communities concerned were taken over by the administrative authorities on both sides. The question of Greek Cypriot properties in the north and Turkish Cypriot properties in the south is a matter discussed within the framework of the intercommunal talks. The applicant has not been residing in the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Her allegation that she went there to claim her property is false.         2.    Deprivation of liberty   31.    The applicant states that she participated in each of the four marches organised by the "Women Walk Home" movement. The last demonstration was on 19 March 1989 at the location of Lymbia. The applicant, leading a group of some fifty participants in the march, advanced towards the Church of the Holy Cross (Stavros) in the Turkish- occupied part of Cyprus. They passed the United Nations' guard post, but further on unarmed Turkish soldiers tried to prevent them from continuing. The group persisted, but when they reached the churchyard the soldiers surrounded them and they were unable to move any further up the hill.   32.    The applicant further states that the Turkish army was gradually replaced by members of the Turkish Cypriot police force, who advanced wearing helmets and carrying shield and clubs. The applicant was pushed down the hill and two policemen took hold of her. She was carried round to the west side of the hill and deposited on the ground with other women. A Turkish officer who was in charge of the situation asked them if they needed anything. Two United Nations' officers were also there to reassure the women that they would make all the necessary arrangements for their release. The women sat there for about two hours, while negotiations took place between the United Nations' representatives, the Turkish army, and the police.   33.    Eventually, the group was split up and the applicant was put into an ambulance with six or seven other women. They were escorted by two Turkish Cypriot policewomen and a United Nations' officer. The ambulance took them first to the village of Lourougina, where a great many Turkish Cypriots and settlers (identifiable by their clothes) were demonstrating - apparently a pre-arranged counter-demonstration. They were held up in a traffic jam, with some of these people banging on the ambulance and gesticulating at the women to go away. The applicant felt insulted and she felt that her life was under threat. The ambulance stopped at the Lourougina police station at the north entrance of the village. Turkish commandos in blue berets were lined up there.   34.    The car went back to Nicosia. Near the Ledra Palace they waited for a further two hours or more. Before their release they passed one by one before a United Nations' doctor, who asked if anyone had been injured. The applicant had nothing to report on that score. She was released around midnight, having been detained for more than ten hours.   35.    The respondent Government state that on 19 March 1989 the women's "Return" movement of the Greek Community of Nicosia organised an anti- Turkish demonstration. About 1,000 women got into about 80 busses and departed from the town centre. About 15 of these busses went to Lymbia, near the Turkish village of Akincilar in the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". From Lymbia the demonstrators after violating the buffer-zone marched into the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". They were warned by loud speakers to leave the area but refused. Upon this refusal 29 persons including the applicant were arrested. They were brought by Turkish Cypriot police, accompanied by Australian police serving with UNFICYP, to Nicosia where they were handed over to U.N. officials and taken over to the Greek Cypriot Area.         3.    Responsibility of Turkey   36.    The applicant claims that the acts complained of were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.   37.    The respondent Government do not find it established that Turkish officials have exercised any control over the issue of property which Greek Cypriots left behind in Northern Cyprus, the administration of such property and their possible future disposition, or that Turkish troops which may have been involved in the border incident of 19 March 1989 have acted outside the instructions of the constitutional authorities of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".         B.    The evidence before the Commission         1.    Evidence concerning the applicant's possessions   38.    The applicant has submitted copies of certificates of registration of immovable property.         2.    Evidence concerning the demonstration of 19 March 1989         a)    The report of the Secretary General of the United Nations   39.    In his report of 31 May 1989 - Security Council document S/20663 - on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus (for the period 1 December 1988 - 31 May 1989) the Secretary-General of the United Nations referred to the demonstration on 19 March 1989 in the following terms (at para. 11):         "11. In March 1989, considerable tension occurred over the well-       publicized plans of a Greek Cypriot women's group to organize a       large demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the       Turkish forces cease-fire line. In this connection it is relevant       to recall that, following violent demonstrations in the United       Nations buffer-zone in November 1988, the Government of Cyprus       had given assurances that it would in future do whatever was       necessary to ensure respect for the buffer-zone ... Accordingly,       UNFICYP asked the Government to take effective action to prevent       any demonstrators from entering the buffer-zone, bearing in mind       that such entry would lead to a situation that might be difficult       to control. The demonstration took place on 19 March 1989. An       estimated 2,000 crossed the buffer-zone at Lymbia and some       managed to cross the Turkish forces' line. A smaller group       crossed that line at Akhna. At Lymbia, a large number of Turkish       Cypriot women arrived shortly after the Greek Cypriots and       mounted a counter demonstration, remaining however on their side       of the line. Unarmed Turkish soldiers opposed the demonstrators       and, thanks largely to the manner in which they and the Turkish       Cypriot police dealt with the situation, the demonstration passed       without serious incident. Altogether, 54 demonstrators were       arrested by Turkish Cypriot police in the two locations; they       were released to UNFICYP later the same day."         b)    Witnesses         aa    The applicant   40.    The applicant, when heard as a witness, stated that she participated in the march organised by the organisation "Women Walk Home" on 19 March 1989. From Nicosia the demonstrators drove to the village Lymbia. In their march they passed by a United Nations post and walked up towards the top of a hill, where they were stopped by unarmed Turkish soldiers. The demonstrators sat down. After some time the Turkish soldiers were replaced by Turkish Cypriot policemen. The policemen arrested the applicant and other women. The applicant had no injuries. There was no physical violence. The applicant felt insecure. A Turkish officer asked her whether she needed anything. The police wanted to know the names of the arrested persons. The women preferred to hand a list with the names to a sergeant of the United Nations for security reasons. The women waited for two or three hours. Then they were put in a car. They were altogether 32 women. Turkish Cypriot civilians insulted them. As the women were driven away the applicant saw Turkish soldiers.         bb    Witness proposed by the applicant   41.    Witness A. Moysseos, referring to photographs he had taken of the incident on 19 March 1989, stated that violence was used to arrest the women.         cc    Other evidence   42.    The applicant has submitted maps, photographs and other documents.         C.    The relevant domestic law         1.    Procedural law   43.    Criminal Procedure Law, Chapter 155, Section 14 (legislation enacted in Cyprus under British rule and still in force today) states:         "(1) Any officer may, without warrant, arrest any            person -            ...            (b)    who commits in his presence any offence                  punishable with imprisonment;              (c)    who obstructs a police officer, while in the                  execution of his duty ..."         2.    Substantive law relied on by the respondent Government   44.    Aliens and Immigration Law (1952), Section 12         "(1) No person shall enter or leave the Colony except       through an approved port.         (2) A person entering the Colony by sea shall not disembark       without the consent of the immigration officer ...         (3) Every person entering the Colony as a passenger by air       shall forthwith present himself in person to the nearest       immigration officer.       ...       (5) Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of       the provisions of subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this       section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable       to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to       a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such       imprisonment and fine."   45.    Prohibited Military Areas Decree of 1979         (translation)         "Section 3: Definitions         a.    Prohibited military areas:              (1) Military area No. 1:              This area is situated between the frontier (contact line)            and the line picked out by the markings placed at a            distance of 500 metres from the frontier (contact line).            ..."         "Section 9         ... Any persons who enters a prohibited military area without       authorization, or by stealth, or fraudulently, shall be tried by       a military court in accordance with the Military Offences Act;       those found guilty shall be punished."   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         A.    Complaints declared admissible   46.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints concerning her arrest and detention on 19 March 1989 and access to her property. In its decision on the admissibility (see below p. 36) the Commission noted the applicant's claim that the 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.    Points at issue   47.    The Commission considers that the issues now to be determined are:         1.    with regard to the applicant's arrest and detention:              a)     whether there has been a violation of Article 3                  (Art. 3) of the Convention;              b)     whether there has been a violation of Article 8                  (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the applicant's                  private life;              c)     whether there has been a violation of Article 5                  para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention;         2.    with regard to access to property:              a)     whether there has been a violation of Article 8                  (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the applicant's                  home;              b)     whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of                  Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.         C.    Arrest and detention         1.    Imputability   48.    The applicant claims that her arrest and detention on 19 March 1989 were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.   49.    The respondent Government do not deny that Turkish troops were involved in that incident.   50.    The Commission, having regard to the report of the Secretary- General of the United Nations (para. 39 above), finds it established that Turkish soldiers were involved in the applicant's arrest and detention.   51.    It follows that the applicant's arrest and detention on 19 March 1989 are imputable to Turkey.         2.    Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3,8) of the Convention   52.    With regard to her treatment during her arrest and detention the applicant alleges a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which provides as follows:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or       degrading treatment or punishment."   53.    The Commission has considered the applicant's complaint concerning her treatment during her arrest and detention also under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (cf. para. 20 above), which provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life, his home and his correspondence.         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."   54.    In the present case the Commission is confronted with different versions as regards the events on 19 March 1989.         a)    The character of the demonstration   55.    The Commission notes the descriptions of the events given in the submissions by the applicant (see paras. 31 - 34 above) and by the respondent Government (see para. 35 above).   56.    The Commission further notes the evidence given by the applicant (see para. 40 above) and the photographs submitted by her (cf. paras. 41 and 42 above).   57.    The Commission attaches particular weight to the evidence contained in the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He stated that "considerable tension occurred over the well-publicized plans of a Greek Cypriot women's group to organize a large demonstration with the announced intention of crossing the Turkish forces cease-fire line" and he described the demonstration as follows: "An estimated 2,000 crossed the buffer-zone at Lymbia and some managed to cross the Turkish forces' line. A smaller group crossed that line at Akhna. At Lymbia, a large number of Turkish Cypriot women arrived shortly after the Greek Cypriots and mounted a counter demonstration, remaining however on their side of the line. Unarmed Turkish soldiers opposed the demonstrators and, thanks largely to the manner in which they and the Turkish Cypriot police dealt with the situation, the demonstration passed without serious incident" (see para. 39 above).   58.    In the light of the above evidence the Commission finds that the demonstration constituted a serious threat to peace and public order on the demarcation line in Cyprus.         b)    The treatment of the applicant - evaluation of the evidence   59.    The applicant submits that her arrest and detention constituted degrading treatment, in particular because of the way she was seized and brought to Nicosia under escort, a prisoner in her own country. She felt that her life was threatened and she was insulted by the crowd while she was in the ambulance.   60.    The respondent Government state that the applicant was treated properly.   61.    The Commission notes the applicant's description of the circumstances of her arrest and her detention (paras. 31 ff. and 40 above) and the evidence given by a witness proposed by her (see para. 41 above).   62.    The Commission observes that the applicant passed before a United Nations' doctor and did not claim to have suffered any injuries. Moreover, two United Nations officers were present during her arrest and she was accompanied by a United Nations officer when transported in the ambulance.         c)    Application of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention to the            facts established   63.    The Commission recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its   duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, para. 100, with further references).   64.    The Commission does not find that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention attained a level of severity which was sufficient to bring it within the ambit of Article 3 (Art. 3).         Conclusion   65.    The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         d)    Application of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention to the            facts established   66.    The Commission observes that, as deprivations of liberty, arrest and detention primarily fall to be considered under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.   67.    With regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) the Commission recalls that a person's "private life" includes his or her physical integrity (cf. e.g. Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, para. 22; No. 8239/78, Dec. 4.12.78, D.R. 16 p. 184 at p. 189; No. 8278/78, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 154; No. 10435/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 251).   68.    The Commission has therefore examined whether the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention constituted an "interference" with her right, under Article 8 (Art. 8), to respect for her private life, which was not justified under para. 2 of that Article (Art. 8-2).   69.    The Commission considers that arrest and detention may affect the physical integrity, and thus the private life, of the arrested person, However, not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely the physical or moral integrity of a person necessarily gives rise to an interference with the right to respect for private life (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, para. 36).   70.    The Commission has found above (at para. 64) that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during her arrest and detention did not attain a level of severity which was sufficient to bring it within the ambit of Article 3 (Art. 3).   71.    Even assuming, under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, that the applicant's arrest interfered with her private life, the Commission does not find that this interference exceeded the limits of what in the circumstances could reasonably be considered as "necessary", in the interest of public safety and for the prevention of disorder, within the meaning of second paragraph of this article.         Conclusion   72.    The Commission concludes by eleven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as regards the applicant's private life.         3.    Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention   73.    Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.       No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following       cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:              ...            c.     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected            for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal            authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an            offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to            prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having            done so;            ...            f.     the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent   &#