CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s35B93C04 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s6A6A94D7 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify } .sC772FC40 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sD2178FDD { width:9.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6B4E1ED1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:32.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s8ADF609 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:32.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3838A079 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s88690062 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s6AEBA299 { width:6.07pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE2EB3648 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:20.9pt; text-align:justify } .sEC880A83 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .sA0493E75 { width:3.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC01937F9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.4pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5AE3DA4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC7640BE9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAAD5D99A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sDCB22E24 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-11.35pt; font-size:12pt } .s64A09B87 { width:5.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s17F22A1 { width:8.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s75DEE122 { width:8.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB92CD745 { width:128.22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE97F4D3 { width:2.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1A315C25 { width:55.53pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF18AFABB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; font-size:12pt } .s3D1522D8 { width:213.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE8438B76 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; font-size:12pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1CE42D69 { width:129.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB6686A27 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7EA9B01 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s1D4A078A { width:15.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s836E1A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFC353FA9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s8750BF75 { width:8.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3EB11201 { width:3.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9E658AED { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB0DC05C3 { width:8.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9C05AC20 { width:9.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2F785AAD { width:7.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFD98DDDA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBDA4B1F0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:27.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s1347D82B { width:5.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s23D77467 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2B61AD06 { width:4.53pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7D459DF { width:10.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2AE0D01E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF7A8F241 { width:11.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s420BE900 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sC2354B74 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFCB87528 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s3EA78489 { width:2.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5BD3D434 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s42C54FA3 { width:5.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD99DC1BA { width:1.53pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CE056FE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .sA8F9C786 { width:2.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8BB842AB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s820009A6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s286D21C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s135FA932 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s895D998D { width:4.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s68C5AD94 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .sBD8E234 { width:4.87pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s39B11FF { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8D0BC531 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s2DC53EE5 { width:14.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAE5BCF31 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF3F78251 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.65pt; text-align:justify } .s489D9DF1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.65pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s54C1B73 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-55.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3B79B419 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-55.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A2B7F5B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:27.35pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s82F43C8D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-33.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAA90B3D8 { width:8.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB5C83C64 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-33.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s9FDE67AD { width:11.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB591789 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-33.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s1B40D034 { width:8.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sED46559C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:55.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-33.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s571A81B8 { width:8.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s990277FC { width:8.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s18493772 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s34A82C43 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s63EB1168 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s48E744A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:282.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF445294B { width:37.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD5779408 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE442C826 { width:2.58pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s152499B7 { width:3.26pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA0916559 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s29185AB { width:324.52pt; display:inline-block } .sF1D05512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2ACD795E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE04D62DC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sABF2DDC0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA6D058AA { width:10.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         CASE OF ANDRONICOU AND CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS   (86/1996/705/897)                       JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG     9   October 1997       The present judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997. These reports are obtainable from the publisher Carl Heymanns Verlag KG (Luxemburger Straße 449, D ‑ 50939 Köln), who will also arrange for their distribution in association with the agents for certain countries as listed overleaf.   List of Agents     Belgium : Etablissements Emile Bruylant (rue de la Régence 67,   B - 1000 Bruxelles)   Luxembourg: Librairie Promoculture (14, rue Duchscher   (place de Paris), B.P.   1142, L - 1011 Luxembourg-Gare)   The Netherlands: B.V. Juridische Boekhandel & Antiquariaat   A. Jongbloed & Zoon (Noordeinde 39, NL - 2514 GC ‘s-Gravenhage)     SUMMARY [1] Judgment delivered by a Chamber Cyprus – alleged unlawful killing of a young couple by officers of a special police unit ( MMAD ) in the course of a rescue operation i.   government’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Government’s assertion that applicants failed to take civil proceedings to claim compensation on strength of authorities’ ex gratia offer of legal aid. Effective remedy in circumstances would have been institution of criminal proceedings against officers involved – Attorney-General refused applicants’ request – in addition, detailed and reasoned findings of domestic commission of inquiry after exhaustive investigation of circumstances of killings likely in practice to remove any reasonable prospects which applicants had of winning a civil action – commission of inquiry chaired by most senior judicial appointee in respondent State. Conclusion : objection dismissed (seven votes to two). Abuse of process Applicant’s refusal either to enter or continue negotiations on terms of friendly settlement over alleged breach of Convention right not to be construed as abuse of process – in instant case, proposed settlement did not moreover contain any admission of authorities’ liability for deaths of couple, as sought by applicants. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   article 2 of the convention Reiteration of Court’s case-law on principles governing use of lethal force by security forces. Application of Article 2 to facts in issue Court takes Commission’s findings of fact, which are not disputed, to be an accurate and reliable account of circumstances of case – Court must make its own assessment as to whether facts disclose a violation of Article 2. Planning and control of   rescue operation Court only concerned to establish whether in circumstances authorities had taken appropriate care in planning and control of rescue operation, including decision to deploy MMAD officers, to minimise any risk to lives of couple – not appropriate to assess alternative ways of handling situation with benefit of hindsight. Authorities conducted prolonged negotiations in knowledge that they were dealing with a young couple – negotiations carried out in a reasonable manner in view of circumstances – however, as situation became increasingly fraught with danger, authorities could reasonably conclude that decisive action needed to bring an end to incident in view of failure of negotiations phase – justified fear that young man, known to be armed, would kill his fiancée at midnight and commit suicide – decision to send in MMAD officers only taken after careful reflection and high-level consultation. Although officers armed with machine guns it was never intended that these weapons be used – officers given clear instructions to use only proportionate force and to open fire only if life of young woman or their own lives in danger. Not shown in view of above considerations that rescue operation had not been planned and organised in a way which minimised to greatest extent possible any risk to lives of couple. Administration of force Officers’ use of force was direct result of young man’s decision to open fire when rescue team entered flat – officers had to take split-second decisions to save life – officers’ honest, even if mistaken, belief at the time that young man constituted a real and immediate danger to life of young woman and to lives of officers – valid reasons for this belief in circumstances and for officers’ conclusion that it was necessary to kill young man to save young woman’s life as well colleagues’ lives – clearly regrettable that Officers nos.2 and 4 used as much fire power as they did – however, Court cannot with detached reflection substitute its own assessment of situation for that of officers confronted with agonising dilemma and the need to neutralise any risk presented by young man to lives of others. Use of lethal force in circumstances did not exceed what was absolutely necessary for purposes of defending life of young woman and lives of officers.   Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four). III.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Applicants’ assertion that absence of legal-aid system in respondent State for civil proceedings resulted in a denial of possibility to seek damages in respect of deaths of couple – justified in refusing to accept authorities’ ex gratia offer of legal aid – offer not administered independently and arbitrarily withdrawn shortly afterwards. Court reiterates that it is not its function to indicate measures to be taken by Contracting States to guarantee litigants an effective access to a court – in instant case , ex gratia offer would have provided solution to overcome applicants’ lack of resources to take civil proceedings – applicants cannot maintain therefore that they were denied an effective access to a court. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). court’s case-law referred to 18.1.1978, Ireland v. the United Kingdom; 9.10.1979, Airey v. Ireland; 27.9.1995, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom; 18.12.1996, Aksoy v. Turkey   In the case of Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus [2] , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article   43 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and the relevant provisions of Rules   of Court   B [3] , as a Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   R. Ryssdal , President ,   Mr   N. Valticos ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   R. Pekkanen ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   G. Mifsud Bonnici ,   Mr   D. Gotchev ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   G. Pikis , ad hoc judge , and also of Mr   H. Petzold , Registrar , and Mr   P.J. Mahoney , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 23   April and 25 August 1997, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) and by the Government of Cyprus (“the Government”) on 4   July 1996 and 20   September 1996 respectively, within the three-month period laid down in Article   32 §   1 and Article   47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no.   25052/94) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Commission under Article   25 by four Cypriot nationals, Mr   Andreas and Mrs   Paraskevoula Andronicou and Mr   Gregoris and Mrs   Yiolanda Constantinou, on 22 August 1994. The first and second applicants were the father and sister of Mr   Lefteris Andronicou, deceased. The third and fourth applicants were the parents of Miss Elsie Constantinou, deceased. The Commission’s request referred to Articles   44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby Cyprus recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article   46). The Government’s application referred to Articles   44 and   48 (d) of the Convention. The object of the Commission’s request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article   2 and Article   6 of the Convention. The object of the Government’s application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach of Article   2 of the Convention. 2.     In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court   B, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule   31). 3.     The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr   A.N. Loizou, the elected judge of Cypriot nationality (Article   43 of the Convention), and Mr   R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule   21 §   4 (b)). In a letter to the President of 1   August 1996, Mr   Loizou stated that he wished to withdraw pursuant to Rule   24 §   3 as he had chaired a public inquiry into the events giving rise to the application. On 17   September 1996 the Agent of the Government informed the Registrar that Mr   Georghios Pikis, President of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, had been appointed as ad hoc judge (Article   43 of the Convention and Rule   23). On 7   August 1996 in the presence of the Registrar, the President had drawn by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr N. Valticos, Mrs   E. Palm, Mr   R. Pekkanen, Mr   A.B. Baka, Mr   G. Mifsud Bonnici, Mr   D. Gotchev and Mr   K. Jungwiert (Article   43 in fine of the Convention and Rule   21 §   5). 4.     As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 6), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicants’ lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules   39 §   1 and 40). Pursuant to the order made in consequence on 8   October 1996, the Registrar received the Government’s and the applicants’ memorials on 7 and 9   January   1997 respectively. 5.     In accordance with the decision of the President, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22   April 1997. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.   There appeared before the Court: (a)   for the Government Mr   A. Markides , Attorney-General       of the Republic of Cyprus,   Agent , Mrs   L. Koursoumba , Senior Counsel,       Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Mrs   P.   Polychronidou - Orphnidou , Counsel “A”,       Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus,   Counsel ; (b)   for the Commission Mr   S. Trechsel ,   Delegate ; (c)   for the applicants Mr   M ichael Kyprianou , Barrister-at-Law, Mr   M enelaos Kyprianou , Barrister-at-Law, Mr   K. Starmer , Barrister-at-Law,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Mr   Trechsel, Mr   Michael Kyprianou and Mr   Markides. AS TO THE FACTS i.   circumstances of the case 6.     The facts of the case as established by the Commission in its report of 23   May   1996 are not disputed. The events giving rise to the application were fully examined at the national level by a commission of inquiry which held hearings over a 46-day period during which it took evidence from 72 witnesses and examined 113 exhibits (see paragraph   96 below). The Commission was able to examine a full transcript of the proceedings before the commission of inquiry and to study various pieces of evidentiary material submitted to it, including a video recording of the incident. 7.     The conclusions to be drawn from the facts as established by the Commission are, on the other hand, disputed by the Government since its conclusions differ from those reached by the domestic commission of inquiry. 8.     The facts set out below are based mainly on those contained in the report of the Commission. The conclusions of the commission of inquiry are set out at paragraphs   123–39 below. A.   The deceased couple 9.     Lefteris Andronicou and Elsie Constantinou were at the time of the events 33 and 22 years old respectively. Lefteris Andronicou had two children from a previous marriage which was dissolved in 1988. He first met Elsie Constantinou in August   1993. At the time she was working for a fashion shop. He was employed by a cement company. On 26   November 1993 Elsie Constantinou moved into Lefteris Andronicou’s ground-floor flat in the Chloraka district of Paphos. It would appear that her parents, the third and fourth applicants, did not approve of the relationship and attempted to persuade her to return home. On one occasion her father enlisted the help of the police. Elsie Constantinou’s mother did in fact succeed in persuading her to move out of the flat and return home. She subsequently spent two weeks in England. She returned from England on 19   December and moved back into Lefteris Andronicou’s flat. The couple announced their engagement in the local press on 22   December 1993. B.     The early phases of the incident 10.     On 24   December 1993 at around 8.30 a.m., three of Lefteris Andronicou’s neighbours, D. Papapetru, G. Georgiu and H.   Hrisanthu, heard a woman calling for help from inside Lefteris Andronicou’s flat. Initially, they decided not to interfere and D.   Papapetru and G. Georgiu left. However, as the woman continued to shout: “Stop beating me,” H.   Hrisanthu, who owned the shop next door, decided to call A.   Trifonos, the owner of the block of flats, and the third applicant, Elsie   Constantinou’s father. At one stage H. Hrisanthu saw a woman trying to jump from the window and someone pulling her inside. At around 10.30 he called Paphos police station and two police officers were sent to investigate. 11.     The police officers rang the door bell, but did not get an answer. One of the officers, who happened to know Lefteris Andronicou, pleaded with him to open the door. He heard a woman calling from behind the closed door: “Lefteris, leave the gun aside; what are you going to do?” 12.     The officers withdrew and radioed Paphos police station. At that stage D. Papapetru and G. Georgiu returned to the scene and saw a girl getting out of Lefteris Andronicou’s flat and signalling to them. Then she went back into the flat again. They were not in a position to say whether she returned of her own accord or whether someone pulled her back inside. 13.     At around 11.30 I. Hatzipashalis, the deputy head of the Paphos Criminal Investigations Department (hereinafter “CID”) arrived on the scene together with other police officers. He knocked on the door and spoke with Lefteris Andronicou, who told him that he had quarrelled with Elsie Constantinou and that they had hit each other. He then heard Elsie Constantinou shouting to him that Lefteris Andronicou had beaten her and asking to be let out. He also heard Elsie Constantinou asking Lefteris Andronicou why he was loading the gun and pointing it at her. I.   Hatzipashalis tried to calm Lefteris Andronicou by telling him that many couples quarrel and then make up without the need for the police to intervene. However, when he approached the window, Lefteris Andronicou threatened to shoot him if he did not move away. I.   Hatzipashalis asked him to let him see Elsie Constantinou, specifying that, if the latter told him that she had no complaint, he would leave. There was no reply. 14.     D. Papapetru, with the authorisation of I. Hatzipashalis, succeeded in engaging Lefteris Andronicou in a conversation. The latter asked him for cigarettes, telling him that: “Afterwards he would think what he should do and would open the door.” D. Papapetru pushed some cigarettes under the door. At one stage Elsie Constantinou cried to D. Papapetru that Lefteris Andronicou was pointing the gun at her and that he was going to shoot her. At one point Lefteris Andronicou drew the curtain and D. Papapetru saw him holding a shotgun. 15.     Efforts to persuade Lefteris Andronicou to release Elsie Constantinou continued but to no avail and at 12.50 p.m. I.   Hatzipashalis decided to notify A.   Nikolaidis, the deputy director of Paphos police, and G.   Georgiagis, the head of Paphos CID. 16.     The deputy director of Paphos police, A. Nikolaidis, arrived on the scene at around 1 p.m. He talked to Lefteris Andronicou, who asked in an angry manner for the police to withdraw. A. Nikolaidis promised him help and protection and invited him to state his claims. Lefteris Andronicou repeated that he just wanted the police to go. Elsie Constantinou started shouting for help, claiming that Lefteris Andronicou had hit her the previous evening and that her eye was now swollen and sore. Sobbing, she stated that she feared he would kill her and claimed that he was pointing his gun at her. A. Nikolaidis called D. Konstantinidis, the director of Paphos police. 17.     In the meantime the third applicant, Elsie Constantinou’s father, arrived together with her cousin, Andreas Onufriu. They found there Antonis Onufriu, another cousin who had also made an attempt to persuade Lefteris Andronicou to release the young woman. A. Nikolaidis started gathering information concerning the couple’s relationship. It was established that they were living together. As it emerged however in the course of the proceedings before the commission of inquiry, the police were not aware during the operation that they had just announced their engagement. 18.     D. Konstantinidis, the director of Paphos police, arrived on the scene at around 2.15 p.m. He told Lefteris Andronicou that he had nothing to fear, as there would be no consequences. Lefteris Andronicou demanded once more the complete withdrawal of the police. 19.     At around 3 p.m. I. Hatzipashalis, the deputy head of Paphos CID, ordered another policeman to obtain an arrest and search warrant on the ground that Lefteris Andronicou was holding Elsie Constantinou against her will and threatening her with a shotgun. The warrants were issued by a Paphos district judge. 20.     D. Konstantinidis, the director of Paphos police, discussed the situation with Elsie Constantinou’s father in H. Hrisanthu’s shop, which was now being used as an operations room. As A. Nikolaidis, the deputy director of Paphos police, confirmed before the commission of inquiry, Elsie Constantinou’s father suggested that the police should withdraw and leave the family to deal with the problem on their own. 21.     D. Konstantinidis also asked for the assistance of G. Poliviu, Lefteris Andronicou’s previous employer, who was present at the scene. G.   Poliviu talked to Lefteris Andronicou and found out that his telephone was not functioning. G. Poliviu, having obtained D. Konstantinidis’s approval, left outside the window of the flat a telephone which belonged to H.   Hrisanthu. It was later established that the telephone had a loudspeaker facility. 22.     D. Konstantinidis called the fourth applicant, Elsie Constantinou’s mother, and persuaded her to come. He also asked Elsie Constantinou’s father to talk to her, but the applicant refused. At a certain stage, Lefteris Andronicou asked G. Poliviu for cigarettes and food, specifying that Elsie Constantinou was hungry and must have something to eat. D. Konstantinidis decided that no food should be given to him. G. Poliviu left some cigarettes outside the window of the flat. 23.     D. Konstantinidis had several telephone conversations with Lefteris Andronicou promising him help. He also talked to Elsie Constantinou on the telephone who said that she was being held against her will since 11   p.m. the previous night. D. Konstantinidis concluded that Lefteris Andronicou did not want to negotiate. At around 4.50 p.m. he called A.   Potamaris, the chief of police, and explained the situation. He volunteered to conduct a rescue operation should the need arise. A. Potamaris, however, decided to dispatch to Chloraka the platoon of the Police Special Forces ( Mihanokiniti Monada Amesis Drasis – hereinafter “ MMAD ”) which, in his opinion, was specially trained for this type of action. 24.     At some stage Elsie Constantinou’s mother arrived, but Lefteris Andronicou refused to talk to her on the telephone. The young woman’s mother suggested that the police should leave and let the family handle the situation. 25.     Shortly before 5 p.m. G. Georgiadis, the head of Paphos CID, arrived. A great number of persons had already gathered at the scene and the area around the flat had been cordoned off. At around 5 p.m., the director of Paphos police, D. Konstantinidis, departed leaving his deputy, A.   Nikolaidis, in charge. A. Nikolaidis testified before the commission of inquiry that it was the first time in his career that he had been involved in such an operation or such negotiations. 26.     At around 5.10 p.m. A. Potamaris, the chief of police, ordered H.   Mavros to lead to Chloraka the specially trained platoon of MMAD of which he was in charge. 27.     A. Nikolaidis, the deputy director of Paphos police, repeatedly tried to communicate with Lefteris Andronicou, but the telephone was engaged. At a certain point the latter’s sister and niece arrived and talked to him through the door. He told them that he was afraid of the police. Elsie Constantinou confirmed that this was so. He told his sister to take her children home and when she returned he would open the door. 28.     At around 6 p.m. Lefteris Andronicou called Dr A. Hatzimitsi, a general practitioner whom he had consulted on occasion during the past three months. He told her that he had beaten up Elsie Constantinou and that the police were outside his flat. He said that he was going to lose Elsie Constantinou. He asked the doctor to call his sister and tell her that he had left money on the fridge. He indicated that, after he had done what he intended to do, his sister might have health problems and need the money. When Dr A. Hatzimitsi tried to reason with him, he said that he did not want to talk and warned her that he would hang up on her if she tried to call him back. Dr A. Hatzimitsi called G. Poliviu, who had introduced Lefteris Andronicou to her, and asked him to inform the police about her conversation with him. 29.     At 6.10 p.m. A. Potamaris, the chief of police, called his deputy, K.   Papakostas, and put him in charge of the operation. He also ordered N.   Konstantinu, the deputy director of MMAD , to go to Paphos. 30.     At 6.15 p.m. A. Potamaris, in the course of his daily telephone conversation with the Minister of Justice and Public Order, informed the Minister of the incident. 31.     At around 6.30 p.m. Lefteris Andronicou   agreed to talk with the deputy director of Paphos police, A. Nikolaidis, on the phone. He told A.   Nikolaidis that his relationship with Elsie Constantinou was over, that he had behaved very badly towards her and had lost her forever. He appeared to be concerned about the damage to her eye and A. Nikolaidis offered to take her to the doctor. However, he refused, telling A. Nikolaidis that he should wait until midnight. He specified that, after celebrating Christmas with Elsie Constantinou, A. Nikolaidis could come and get her at five minutes past midnight. When A. Nikolaidis asked him whether he meant that he would release Elsie Constantinou, he did not reply. He claimed that he was tired and hung up.   32.     At around 7.30 p.m. H. Mavros, the head of the MMAD platoon, arrived on the scene together with three other officers of the MMAD . He was briefed by A. Nikolaidis, the deputy director of Paphos police, who told him that Lefteris Andronicou was carrying a double-barrelled shotgun. It was later established that the gun could only contain two shots at a time. H.   Mavros asked him whether there was any indication that Lefteris Andronicou might be in possession of other weapons and A. Nikolaidis replied that this possibility could not be excluded. H. Mavros also talked with N. Konstantinu, the deputy director of MMAD , who was already there. H. Mavros noticed the presence of a great number of bystanders, which he considered “unacceptable”. A. Nikolaidis ordered a number of persons to be moved along. 33.     H. Mavros asked A. Trifonos, the owner of the block of flats, who had also previously tried to persuade Lefteris Andronicou to release Elsie Constantinou, to show him the layout of the flats. H. Mavros visited the flat above Lefteris Andronicou’s as well as the identical flat next door. A.   Trifonos made a sketch of the flat for him. 34.     The flat consisted of two rooms and a bathroom. The living-room was in the front. It measured 5 by 3.6 metres and had a door and a window. There was a skylight above the door. The bedroom and bathroom were at the back. They had one window each. 35.     At some point after 7.30 p.m. G. Poliviu told A. Nikolaidis, the deputy director of Paphos police, that Lefteris Andronicou had told Dr   A.   Hatzimitsi on the phone that around midnight he would set Elsie Constantinou free and commit suicide. A. Nikolaidis conveyed this information to his director, D. Konstantinidis, and to the deputy chief of police, K. Papakostas. The latter ordered A. Nikolaidis to act as the principal negotiator, since he had gained Lefteris Andronicou’s confidence. He also told him to engage Dr A. Hatzimitsi in the negotiations, as well as a psychologist or a psychiatrist and other persons who could influence him. Finally, A. Nikolaidis and K. Papakostas discussed the possibility of administering soporifics to Lefteris Andronicou’s food. 36.     A. Nikolaidis called Lefteris Andronicou and told him that Elsie Constantinou’s mother and grandmother wished to talk to him, but he refused. He then called the district doctor in order to find out the whereabouts of the psychiatrists of Paphos Hospital. He was informed that both psychiatrists lived in Limassol. A. Nikolaidis also called the pharmacist of Paphos Hospital and ordered drugs. P.   Hatzimitsis, the pharmacist, testified that he had provided one packet of 1mg and one packet of 2mg Lorezabam pills. The hospital did not store 3mg pills. 37.     Two police officers were dispatched to Dr A. Hatzimitsi’s surgery. Dr   A. Hatzimitsi discussed Lefteris Andronicou’s telephone call with them. In reply to their questions, she expressed the view that Lefteris Andronicou did not have any psychological problems. She also expressed doubts as to whether she could help since Lefteris Andronicou had already told her not to call him again. C.   The rescue plan 38.     At around 8 p.m. H. Mavros went to Paphos police station where the rest of the MMAD platoon had arrived. According to the testimony of the police witnesses before the commission of inquiry the platoon included two officers whom the police witnesses described as “trained negotiators”. H.   Mavros explained the plan to the officers of the platoon, the aim of which was to rescue Elsie Constantinou and capture Lefteris Andronicou. The key elements of the plan were surprise, speed and accurate execution. As soon as the platoon were in position outside the flat, H. Mavros would inform the commanding officer via a link person. The commanding officer would in turn ask the negotiator to call Lefteris Andronicou. While he was busy talking on the phone, which was in the front room to the left of the door, tear gas would be thrown into the flat through the three glass windows by four officers. Two other officers would force the door with a battering ram. Four men would enter the front room. The first two would seize Lefteris Andronicou who would be expected to be less than two metres away from the door. A third officer would seize the young woman. A fourth officer would enter the flat to provide any form of assistance which might prove necessary. All communications would be made by walkie-talkie on a secure frequency. The members of the platoon would carry their pistols and machine guns. They were informed by their head, H.   Mavros, that Lefteris Andronicou had a double-barrelled shotgun. They were also told that the possibility could not be excluded that he could be in possession of other arms. They were instructed to use proportionate force and fire only if Elsie Constantinou’s life or their own lives were in danger. If the room was dark, they were to use the lights fitted to their machine guns. D.   Later phases of the incident 39.     At 8.40 p.m. the chief of police, A. Potamaris, had a meeting with his deputy, K. Papakostas. It was decided that the deputy director of Paphos police, A. Nikolaidis, should continue to conduct the negotiations, that two additional negotiators should be sent and that the police, after obtaining appropriate medical advice, should administer soporifics to Lefteris Andronicou’s food, if he asked for any. 40.     While the meeting between A. Potamaris and K. Papakostas was still in progress and at around 8.50 p.m., the deputy director of Paphos police, A.   Nikolaidis, talked with Lefteris Andronicou on the phone again. Lefteris Andronicou was very negative because of the media coverage that the incident had received. He did not allow A. Nikolaidis to talk to Elsie Constantinou. She shouted that Lefteris Andronicou would kill her. N.   Hatziharalambus, a police officer who knew Lefteris Andronicou, also tried to persuade him to release Elsie Constantinou. 41.     The meeting between A. Potamaris and K. Papakostas ended at 9   p.m. K. Papakostas ordered two additional negotiators from the police force to be dispatched to Chloraka. He also called the deputy director of Paphos police, A. Nikolaidis, who informed him that he had not been able to contact the psychiatrists of Paphos Hospital and that Lefteris Andronicou would not talk to Elsie Constantinou’s parents. K. Papakostas ordered A.   Nikolaidis to look for psychologists in the private sector. 42.     At around 9.30 p.m. D. Konstantinidis, the director of Paphos police, returned to the scene together with H. Mavros, the head of the MMAD platoon. He was briefed by the deputy director of Paphos police, A.   Nikolaidis. He called the deputy chief of police K. Papakostas. He also called Dr A. Hatzimitsi who agreed to go to the scene. 43.     D. Konstantinidis then saw H. Athinodoru, Lefteris Andronicou’s last employer, talking with Lefteris Andronicou on his mobile phone. H.   Athinodoru had already made various unsuccessful efforts to persuade him to release Elsie Constantinou. Lefteris Andronicou had threatened that he would shoot Elsie Constantinou if H. Athinodoru tried to enter the flat. 44.     The director of Paphos police, D. Konstantinidis, interrupted the conversation between H. Athinodoru and Lefteris Andronicou and instructed H. Athinodoru to tell him that they wanted to help him. He specified that he had been authorised by his superiors to promise Lefteris Andronicou that there would be no consequences if he let Elsie Constantinou go. He could leave by car, together with the young woman if he wished. H. Athinodoru conveyed the message to Lefteris Andronicou. 45.     In the course of the second part of his conversation with Lefteris Andronicou, H. Athinodoru threatened him with the possibility of being left to starve and being beaten up. This is heard in the video recording. Moreover, D. Konstantinidis accepted before the commission of inquiry that he heard such a statement being made by H. Athinodoru. He also testified that H. Athinodoru talked to Elsie Constantinou on the phone who said that Lefteris Andronicou had been pointing his gun at her. 46.     D. Konstantinidis subsequently called the chief of police, A. Potamaris, and told him about the telephone conversation between Lefteris Andronicou and Dr A. Hatzimitsi. In the meantime, H. Mavros returned to Paphos police station and led the MMAD platoon to a warehouse situated 200 to 300   metres away from the flat where they could not be seen by the bystanders. 47.     Dr A. Hatzimitsi arrived at the scene escorted by G. Georgiadis, the head of Paphos CID. She talked with Lefteris Andronicou from the operations room. She offered to help him end the incident without any consequences. He refused to let her enter the flat, saying that he was afraid of the police. Having obtained the authorisation of the director of Paphos police, D. Konstantinidis, Dr A. Hatzimitsi made the following proposal to Lefteris Andronicou. A car would be brought to his door, the police would withdraw, he would leave his gun and get in the car alone or with Elsie Constantinou. The doctor, or any other person whom he wished to accompany him, could get in the car as well. They could all leave together and go to another location to discuss the matter. Lefteris Andronicou refused. Elsie Constantinou intervened and asked the doctor whether Lefteris Andronicou had psychological problems. The doctor replied that she was not aware of any such problems. Lefteris Andronicou repeated that he was afraid of the police and of the consequences. He insisted that he would let Elsie Constantinou out of the flat at midnight or five past and then he would commit suicide. In the course of the telephone conversation, the couple quarrelled and Lefteris Andronicou threatened her: “Sit down and do not move.” He also told the doctor not to call again because it made Elsie Constantinou nervous. At one stage Dr A. Hatzimitsi passed Lefteris Andronicou to D. Konstantinidis who promised once again that there would be no consequences. 48.     At 9.50 p.m. D. Konstantinidis, the director of Paphos police, called the deputy chief of police, K. Papakostas, and told him that Dr A.   Hatzimitsi was of the view that Lefteris Andronicou had decided to kill Elsie Constantinou and commit suicide. In the first statement she gave to the police, Dr   A.   Hatzimitsi confirmed that this was the view which she had formed and conveyed to D. Konstantinidis. In a letter she addressed to applicants’ counsel on 28   December 1995, Dr A. Hatzimitsi claimed that, in the course of her telephone conversation with Lefteris Andronicou she had formed the view that he was intransigent and “capable of doing harm to himself and Elsie”. She further specified that this was the personal opinion of somebody who was not a psychiatrist. She also protested that the police had tried to attribute to her more responsibility for the operation than she could have had. In her testimony before the commission of inquiry, when under examination by counsel for the police, Dr   A.   Hatzimitsi repeated her initial statement, specifying that that was her personal opinion. 49.     H. Athinodoru then told D. Konstantinidis that Lefteris Andronicou had asked on the phone for food. D. Konstantinidis told his deputy, A.   Nikolaidis, to call Lefteris Andronicou. A. Nikolaidis called him and two kebab pies were ordered. 50.     A person whom A. Nikolaidis could not identify had told A.   Nikolaidis that he had received a telephone call from Lefteris Andronicou asking for a written assurance that he would not go to jail. A.   Nikolaidis called Lefteris Andronicou again, who told him that he was afraid that he would go to jail. A. Nikolaidis told him that the situation was not so serious and offered to enter the flat and hand him a written assurance that he would not go to jail. However, Lefteris Andronicou told A.   Nikolaidis not to be in a hurry; he could enter the flat at five minutes past midnight. A.   Nikolaidis told Lefteris Andronicou that he would break the door down and enter the flat unarmed. Lefteris Andronicou   warned him that, if he tried, he would kill Elsie Constantinou and commi