CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF069A914 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s61A5E261 { width:17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5877D727 { width:30.27pt; display:inline-block } .sC870B29 { width:188.64pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC1FC6E44 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }       FOURTH SECTION         CASE OF VRAHIMI v. TURKEY   (Application no. 16078/90)             JUDGMENT (merits)     STRASBOURG   22 September 2009     FINAL   01/03/2010     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vrahimi v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Giovanni Bonello,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 1 September 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 16078/90) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Cypriot national, Mrs Eleni Vrahimi (“the applicant”), on 12 January 1990. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr L. Clerides and Mr C. Clerides, two lawyers practising in Nicosia. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Z.M.   Necatigil. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus had deprived her of her properties and that she had been subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention during a demonstration. 4.     The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.     By a decision of 26 September 2002 the Court declared the application partly admissible. 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of Cyprus, which had exercised its right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b)). THE FACTS 7.     The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Nicosia. I.     HOME AND PROPERTY ISSUES 8.     The applicant claimed that her former husband, Mr Ioannis Vrahimis, had been the director and shareholder of a company called Vrahimis Estate Ltd. The company owned two large plots of land located in the village of Klepini, in the District of Kyrenia (plots nos. 6 and 7, sheet/plan   XIII/33.W.I, registration nos. 583 and 586; area: 3,011 and 4,348 square metres respectively; share: whole). On 24   March 1973 the company decided to transfer these two adjoining plots by way of gift to Mr Ioannis Vrahimis. The company secretary was authorised to take all necessary steps on behalf of the company to effect the transfer. On 11   June 1973 the relevant declaration of transfer was submitted to the Kyrenia District Lands Office. However, the process of transfer and registration was not completed owing to the Turkish military intervention. Meanwhile, in view of the proposed gift of the land, the applicant and her former husband proceeded to build a two-storey house (with a surface area of approximately 200 sq. m.) on it. As at the relevant time Mr Ioannis Vrahimis had no income, the applicant bore the costs of building and furnishing the property. In April 1974, when the house was completed, she moved into it with her family. They intended to live there initially for long periods and then permanently. 9.     The applicant further claimed that in 1974 she owned the following land: (a)   Nicosia, Yerollakkos, plot   no.   97, sheet/plan: XXI/43.W.I, registration no.   G80; description: field; area: 5,342 sq. m; share:   ½; (b)   Nicosia, Yerollakkos, plot no.   189, sheet/plan: XXI/43.W.I, registration no.   G170; description: field; use: development; area: 5,575 sq. m; share:   ½; (c)   Famagusta, Akanthou, plot   no.   327, sheet/plan: XIV/2 E1, registration no.   23218; description: field near the sea with water perforation; area: 4,683 sq. m, share:   ½. 10.     In support of her claim to ownership, the applicant submitted copies of the relevant certificates of title of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. 11.     The plots of land described in paragraph 9 (a) and (b) above were registered in the applicant's name until 15 January 1998, when she transferred them by way of gift to her son, Mr Laris Ioanni Vrachimi. The plot described in paragraph 9 (c) above was registered in the applicant's name until 28 March 2000, when she transferred it by way of gift to her other son, Mr Roberto Ioanni Vrachimi (declaration of transfer no.   D477). The applicant stated that she intended to divide the plots described in paragraph 9 (a) and (b) above into approximately 16 building sites. 12.     The applicant alleged that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, as her properties were located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. She had made an attempt to return to her home and property on 19   July 1989, but was not allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and from using her house and property. 13.     In 1994 the applicant divorced her husband. In 1996 she made an application to the local tribunal in which she claimed, inter alia , her rights as beneficial owner of the house and the plots of land described under paragraph 8 above. Her claim was based on the fact that she had borne all the expenses for the construction of the house and all the other financial obligations undertaken to secure the grant of the plots of land to her husband. II.     DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989 14.     On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v.   Turkey and Loizidou v.   Turkey cases (see below) also took part. A.     The applicant's version of events 15.     According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the Nicosia District Court on 1 August 2000, the demonstration of 19 July 1989 was peaceful and was held on the fifteenth anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, in support of the missing persons and to protest against human-rights violations. 16.     The applicant was a member of the co-ordinating Committee of the Pancyprian Women's Movement, Epistrophi and one of the organisers of the demonstration. The demonstrators, mainly women, entered the grounds of the Ayios Kassianos school in Nicosia; one of them climbed a water tank and hung two flags from it, one Cypriot, the other Greek. UNFICYP officers instructed the demonstrators to leave. A little later Turkish soldiers and Turkish policemen carrying shields and electric batons arrived. Their commander shouted in Greek that the demonstrators should leave. They replied that the land belonged to them and that they would not leave; some of them sat on the ground. 17.     While the dialogue between the demonstrators and the Turkish forces was continuing, the peacekeepers created a cordon around the women who were sitting near the water tank. When this cordon opened the applicant suddenly felt a powerful blow in the face delivered by a Turkish army officer with whom she had been talking earlier. She was violently seized by the hair, thrown to the ground and beaten by a number of Turkish soldiers. She received, inter alia , a powerful punch in the abdomen and a boot kick to the inner left leg. 18.     She and other Greek-Cypriots who had taken part in the demonstration were subsequently put in a room with only a small opening that was used as an entrance. She was then taken by bus with other detainees to the so-called “Pavlides Garage”. The crowd outside the garage was swearing, shouting abuse and threats and throwing stones, some of which came through the roof. She was not given any medical attention despite her serious injuries. She complained about her ill-treatment to two members of the UN forces present at the garage. She also asked them to investigate the fate of other women detainees. A Turkish officer denied the facts and shouted at her. Being a lawyer and a spokesperson, the applicant was made to suffer particularly harsh and humiliating treatment at the garage, where she was interrogated. The interrogator, who spoke Greek, tried to imply that somebody had incited the applicant and the other women to demonstrate. The applicant refused to sign a paper written in Turkish, a language which she could not understand. She offered to write her statement in Greek on a blank sheet of paper, but none was given to her. 19.     At one point in the early hours of the morning she made a request to be allowed to sit on the stands in the garage. The officers ordered her to sit on the floor in front of one of them between the iron bars that supported the basketball net and to stretch her legs over a small wall. She refused and was violently dragged to a car and transported to Seray Police Station. Her left wrist was twisted painfully. During the journey she was beaten and sneered at. She was then put in a very small, filthy cell; owing to the intense heat the air was suffocating. Turkish policemen in civilian clothes continually entered the cell and beat her with an electric baton, harassed her and laughed at her. As a result, she had terrible pain in the abdomen and was unable to eat. The next morning she received an assurance from a Greek-speaking police sergeant that no more ill-treatment would be tolerated. In spite of this, she was visited by three individuals in civilian clothes who warned her not to complain to the court about ill-treatment and to comply with whatever the judge ordered. 20.     On 20 July 1989 the applicant was taken to court where she attempted to complain about the ill-treatment; however, the judge did not respond to her complaints. She asked for the services of a lawyer registered with the Cyprus Bar Association, but was told that she could only use the services of a Turkish lawyer. The translation provided was very short and in summary form. The court remanded her in custody for three days and ordered her transfer to hospital. She was taken to hospital and medicines were prescribed, but not given to her. Then she was taken back to the police station where she was detained in the same cell and subjected to interrogation of a political nature. After the interrogation she was taken to the central prison. She was given a questionnaire, which she filled in; it was written in English and contained 6 or 7 questions of a political nature and/or concerning the movement she had joined. 21.     On 21 July 1989 she was taken back to court. She had no legal representation or proper interpretation. Being a lawyer, she asked to be allowed to represent herself and the other women with her but her request was refused. She was therefore unable to raise two preliminary objections concerning the unlawfulness of her arrest and the invalidity of the trial court. The charges were translated orally to the accused, who pleaded “not guilty”. No written documents stating the charges were given to the accused. The applicant tried to object to the admission of some of the evidence adduced in court, but was not allowed to do so. The translation was partial and incomplete. At no stage were the accused informed of their rights. They were not asked to give sworn testimony or whether they wanted to call witnesses. Only after the prosecution witnesses had been examined did the trial judge ask the accused whether they wanted to say anything. 22.     The applicant was subsequently taken back to prison. She was interviewed by a television crew and talked about the unlawfulness of her arrest, the ill-treatment she had endured and the absence of borders in Cyprus. 23.     On 22 July 1989, late at night, she was again taken to court. An angry crowd, which had gathered outside the courtroom, was booing and insulting the accused. The crowd was very menacing but security measures had been taken. The translator announced that the accused had been convicted on both counts. One young woman shouted “This is not a court, this is a circus”. Immediately afterwards, the judge rose from her seat and retired. When she returned to the bench the applicant informed her that the young woman was a minor and should have been tried by a juvenile court. The judge made no reply. The applicant was sentenced to three days' imprisonment and to a fine of 50 Cyprus pounds (CYP – approximately 85   euros (EUR)) – with five additional days in prison in default of payment within 24 hours. 24.     She was taken back to prison. After an incident between one of the other women detainees (Mrs Marianna Petrakidou – see application no.   16081/90) and some Turkish photographers, the applicant was put in an isolation cell. She remained there until she was released later that day. She was examined by a UN doctor and a Turkish doctor, who took notes and disagreed on the extent of her bruises. The next day she visited the Casualty Department of Nicosia General Hospital, where she was examined by another doctor. The marks from the blows the applicant had received took more than one month to fade. Some photographs showing these marks were produced to the Court. 25.     In support of her claim of ill-treatment, the applicant produced three medical certificates. The first was issued on 25   July 1989 by Dr Costas Antoniades, a doctor practising in the Casualty Department of Nicosia General Hospital. It reads as follows: “Bruises over medial aspect (L) Thigh, lateral aspect (L) Humerus, posterior aspect (R) Humerus, (L) Scapula region, lateral aspect (R) Thigh. Abrasions both lower legs. X-Rays: (L) Ribs Chest: N.B.D.” 26.     The second certificate, issued by the same doctor on 10 July 2000, states: “It is certified that the above person was examined by me in the Casualty Department of the Nicosia General Hospital on 25 July 1989 at 4:10 p.m. During the examination the following were observed: Bruises over medial aspect L Thigh, Lateral aspect L Humerus, posterior aspect R Humerus, Scapula region, lateral aspect R Thigh. Abrasions in both lower legs. X-Rays of L Ribs and Chest showed no bone damage.” 27.     The third certificate was issued on 12 November 2002 by Dr   Th.   Constantinides, a cardiologist specialised in internal medicine. It reads as follows: “I first examined Mrs Eleni Vrahimi in June 1998. At the time, Mrs Vrahimi was complaining of chest-pain and super ventricular tachycardia. From the medical history of the patient, it transpires that since 1989 she has been suffering from 1) Phobia (Claustrophobia), 2) Headaches and 3) Chest-pain with recurrent episodes of SVT (Super ventricular Tachycardia) and ventricular Extrasystoles. The symptoms first appeared in 1989. The investigation of the headaches showed normal Brain Computer Tomogram. For the period of nine years before she first visited me, the patient had visited a number of doctors about the phobia and episodes of arrhythmia. The patient described the episodes as events of palpitations and feeling of running of her heart with chest-pain during her sleep and while and after dreaming. On the basis of the history of the patient and of the examination I have conducted, I have diagnosed the patient as suffering from psychological trauma which was directly connected to the events of 1989 when she was seized and imprisoned by Turkish forces. The patient has been influenced in her psyche and subconscious by the traumatic experiences as a result of her seizure, imprisonment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Turkish forces. She is now under medical therapy for the above-mentioned diagnoses and she also undergoes complementary psychological therapy. Despite her therapy, the patient is still suffering from: 1) Nightmares and sleep disturbances; 2) Episodes of arrhythmia during the night, during and after sleep; These symptoms have a direct adverse effect on her personal, social and professional life.” B.     The Government's version of events 28.     The Government alleged that the applicant had participated in a violent demonstration with the aim of inflaming anti-Turkish sentiment. The demonstrators, supported by the Greek-Cypriot administration, were demanding that the “Green Line” in Nicosia should be dismantled. Some carried Greek flags, clubs, knives and wire-cutters. They were acting in a provocative manner and shouting abuse. The demonstrators were warned in Greek and English that unless they dispersed they would be arrested in accordance with the laws of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). The applicant was arrested by the Turkish-Cypriot police after crossing the UN buffer zone and entering the area under Turkish-Cypriot control. The Turkish-Cypriot police intervened in the face of the manifest inability of the Greek-Cypriot authorities and the UN Force in Cyprus to contain the incursion and its possible consequences. 29.     No force was used against demonstrators who did not intrude into the “TRNC” border area and, in the case of demonstrators who were arrested for violating the border, no more force was used than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to arrest and detain the persons concerned. No one was ill-treated. It was possible that some of the demonstrators had hurt themselves in the confusion or in attempting to scale barbed wire or other fencing. Had the Turkish police, or anyone else, assaulted or beaten any of the demonstrators, the UN Secretary General would no doubt have referred to this in his report to the Security Council. 30.     The applicant was charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. She pleaded not guilty, but did not give evidence and declined to use the available judicial remedies. She was asked if she required assistance from a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”, but refused and did not ask for legal representation. Interpretation services were provided at the trial by qualified interpreters. All the proceedings were translated into Greek. C.     The UN Secretary General's report 31.     In his report of 7 December 1989 on the UN operations in Cyprus, the UN Secretary General stated, inter alia : “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 UN 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 UN 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 UN protected area in Nicosia, in which the UN 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 UN 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 the UN headquarters and at Nicosia, to contain and resolve the situation. On 21 July, I expressed my concern at the events that have taken place and stressed that it was vital that all parties keep in mind the purpose of the UN 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 UN 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.” D.   Photographs of the demonstration 32.     The applicant produced 21 photographs taken at different times during the demonstration on 19 July 1989. Photographs 1 to 7 were intended to show that, notwithstanding the deployment of the Turkish-Cypriot police, the demonstration was peaceful. In photographs 8 to 10, members of the Turkish-Cypriot police are seen breaking up the UNFICYP cordon. The final set of photographs show members of the Turkish-Cypriot police using force to arrest some of the women demonstrators. E.   Documents pertaining to the applicant's trial 33.     The English translation of the judgment given on 22   July 1989 by the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court indicates that the applicant, together with 24 other women, was charged with two offences: entering “TRNC” territory without permission (contrary to sections   2, 8 and 9 of Law no. 5/72 – see paragraph   40 below) and entering “TRNC” territory other than through an approved port (contrary to subsections 12(1) and (5) of the Aliens and Immigration Law – see paragraph 41 below). 34.     The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter.   The trial judge noted the following: (i) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”; (ii) the public prosecutor called seven witnesses, whose statements were translated into Greek for the accused's benefit; (iii) the witnesses (mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration) declared that the accused had illegally entered the “TRNC” buffer zone, shouted abuse at the Turkish-Cypriot forces and resisted arrest by pulling and pushing; knives and other cutting objects had been found in the bags of some of the demonstrators who had been arrested; (iv) the accused had been told that they could cross-examine witnesses in turn and, if they so wished, choose one of their number to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of all the accused; the applicant was chosen to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on behalf of all the accused. She put to two of the witnesses questions concerning the area in which the events took place and the objects allegedly found in the arrested persons' bags; (v) the applicant made the following statement: “I do not accept the charges. I was in the territory of the Republic of Cyprus. My arrest was illegal. I was subjected to ill-treatment in a bad manner. If there were no spectators here, I could show my wounds. ... it is indecent. Send away the spectators and let us show you our wounds”; (vi)   the accused did not call any defence witnesses; (vii) relying on statements by the prosecution witnesses, the “TRNC” District Court came to the conclusion that the accused had crossed the borders of the “TRNC” at an unapproved entry point and without permission and had resisted by various means the UN and Turkish forces which had tried to stop them; the statements made by some of the accused had not undermined the statements of the prosecution witnesses; (viii) the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, so that the accused were guilty on both counts; (ix) in deciding on the sentence, the “TRNC” District Court had taken into account the seriousness of the offence, and the fact that the accused had shown no remorse and continued to deny the validity of the “TRNC”. III.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     The Cypriot Criminal Code 35.     Section 70 of the Cypriot Criminal Code reads as follows: “Where five or more persons assemble with intent to commit an offence, or, being assembled with intent to carry out some common purpose, conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace they are an unlawful assembly. It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if, being assembled, they conduct themselves with a common purpose in such a manner as aforesaid. When an unlawful assembly has begun to execute the purpose, whether of a public or of a private nature, for which it assembled by a breach of the peace and to the terror of the public, the assembly is called a riot, and the persons assembled are said to be riotously assembled.” 36.     According to section 71 of the Criminal Code, any person who takes part in an unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for one year. 37.     Section 80 of the Criminal Code provides: “Any person who carries in public without lawful occasion any offensive arm or weapon in such a manner as to cause terror to any person is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years, and his arms or weapons shall be forfeited.” 38.     According to section 82 of the Criminal Code, it is an offence to carry a knife outside the home. B.     Police officers' powers of arrest 39.     The relevant part of Chapter 155, section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Law 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...” C.     Offence of illegal entry into “TRNC” territory 40.     Section 9 of Law No. 5/72 states: “... Any person 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.” 41.     Subsections 12 (1) and (5) of the Aliens and Immigration Law read as follows: “1.   No person shall enter or leave the Colony except through an approved port. ... 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.” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 42.     The applicant complained that since 1974, Turkey had prevented her from exercising her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 43.     The Government disputed this claim. A.     The Government's preliminary objections 44.     The Government raised preliminary objections of inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of victim status. The Court observes that these objections are identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90, §§ 11-22, 20   January 2009), and should be dismissed for the same reasons. B.     The merits 1.     Arguments of the parties (a)     The Government 45.     The Government submitted that they had no knowledge about the applicant's alleged possessions. Moreover the property described in paragraph 8 above was registered in the name of a limited company whose legal personality was separate from that of its shareholders. Therefore, the applicant could not, as an individual, claim a “possession” in respect of that property. Her allegation that the declaration made at the District Land Office in Kyrenia on 11 June 1973 was not registered until 20 July 1974 was “highly doubtful”. The inability to register the property for a period as long as 13 months gave the impression that there had been some impediment. 46.     In the Government's view, the aim of the demonstration of 19 July 1989 had been to make political propaganda. The applicant had not genuinely intended to go to her alleged property, which she knew was inaccessible in view of the existing political situation. In any event, even assuming that a question could arise under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the extensive control of use of property by the authorities of northern Cyprus had been justified in the general interest. 47.     The Government challenged the Court's findings in the Loizidou v.   Turkey judgment ((merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI). (b)   The applicant 48.     The applicant argued that she had submitted sufficient proof of ownership.   She adopted the observations submitted by the Government of Cyprus (see below). (c)     The third-party intervener 49.     According to the Government of Cyprus, the burden of proof was on the respondent Government to prove that the applicant did not own the relevant land. In the absence of evidence showing that in July 1974 another individual owned the properties claimed in the present application, the Government should be estopped from denying the applicant's title. 2.     The Court's assessment 50.     The Court first observes that the applicant has never been the registered owner of the properties described in paragraph 8 above. The property belonged to a limited company, of which the applicant's husband was a shareholder. The company subsequently started procedures to transfer this property by way of gift to the applicant's husband. It follows that the applicant herself was neither a shareholder of the company owning the land nor the person who was to benefit from the gift. Therefore, the properties were not her “possessions” (see, mutatis mutandis , Gavriel v. Turkey , no.   41355/98, § 24, 20 January 2009). It is true that the applicant alleges that she bore the costs of building and furnishing the house that was built on the land. However, no evidence supporting this assertion has been submitted to the Court. In any event, the simple fact of having contributed to the construction works on somebody else's land cannot, in itself, give rise to a legitimate expectation to become the owner of the building and the land on which it stands. It follows that, as far as the property described in paragraph 8 above is concerned, there was no interference with the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 51.     The Court further notes that the documents submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 10 above) provide prima facie evidence that she had title to the land described in paragraph 9 above. As the respondent Government have failed to produce convincing evidence to rebut this, the Court considers that this land was a “possession” of the applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 52.     In its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Court made the following preliminary remark: “The Court considers that in view of the transfer by the applicant in 1998 and in 2000 of the three plots of land she claims to own to her sons, the applicant can only be considered to have victim status in relation to the complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 from 1990, when this application was lodged, until the date the respective properties were transferred. From then onwards, the applicant can no longer be considered as having victim status under the Convention in relation to these complaints.” 53.     However, it is to be noted that according to the Court's well-established case-law, its jurisdiction ratione temporis is determined by the date of deposit of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of individual petition under former Article 25 of the Convention, which was 22 January 1987 (see Cankoçak v.   Turkey , nos. 25182/94 and 26956/95, §§ 25-26, 20   February 2001). Therefore, with regard to the three plots described in paragraph 9 above, the Court should take into account the interference with the applicant's property rights which has occurred from that date until the transfer of the property rights to the applicant's sons (respectively, on 15   January 1998 and 28 March 2000 – see paragraph 11 above). 54.     The Court observes that in the case of Loizidou ((merits), cited above, §§ 63-64), it reasoned as follows: “63.     ... as a consequence of the fact that the applicant has been refused access to the land since 1974, she has effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy, her property. The continuous denial of access must therefore be regarded as an interference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Such an interference cannot, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case to which the applicant and the Cypriot Government have referred, be regarded as either a deprivation of property or a control of use within the meaning of the first and second paragraphs of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, it clearly falls within the meaning of the first sentence of that provision as an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. In this respect the Court observes that hindrance can amount to a violation of the Convention just like a legal impediment. 64.     Apart from a passing reference to the doctrine of necessity as a justification for the acts of the 'TRNC' and to the fact that property rights were the subject of intercommunal talks, the Turkish Government have not sought to make submissions justifying the above interference with the applicant's property rights which is imputable to Turkey. It has not, however, been explained how the need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriot refugees in the years following the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974 could justify the complete negation of the applicant's property rights in the form of a total and continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation. Nor can the fact that property rights were the subject of intercommunal talks involving both communities in Cyprus provide a justification for this situation under the Convention. In such circumstances, the Court concludes that there has been and continues to be a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.” 55.     In the case of Cyprus v.   Turkey ([GC], no.   25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV) the Court confirmed the above conclusions (§§ 187 and 189): “187.     The Court is persuaded that both its reasoning and its conclusion in the Loizidou judgment ( merits ) apply with equal force to displaced Greek Cypriots who, like Mrs Loizidou, are unable to have access to their property in northern Cyprus by reason of the restrictions placed by the 'TRNC' authorities on their physical access to that property. The continuing and total denial of access to their property is a clear interference with the right of the displaced Greek Cypriots to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. ... 189.     .. there has been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus are being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights.” 56.     The Court sees no reason in the instant case to depart from the conclusions which it reached in the Loizidou and Cyprus v. Turkey cases ( op. cit. ; see also Demades v. Turkey (merits), no.   16219/90, § 46, 31   July 2003). 57.     Accordingly, it concludes that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by virtue of the fact that the applicant was denied access to and the control, use and enjoyment of her properties described in paragraph 9 above as well as any compensation for the interference with her property rights. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 58.     The applicants submitted that in 1974 her home had been in northern Cyprus. As she had been unable to return there, she was the victim of a violation of Article   8 of the Convention. This provision reads 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.” 59.     The Government disputed this claim. 60.     The Court recalls its finding that the applicant did not have a “possession” over the land on which the house where she was allegedly living at the time of the Turkish invasion had been constructed (see paragraphs 8 and 50 above). Under these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that a separate issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention. It therefore considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a continuing violation of this provision. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 61.     The applicant complained of a violation under Article   14 of the Convention on account of discriminatory treatment against her in the enjoyment of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She alleged that this discrimination had been based on her national origin. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 62.     The Court recalls that in the Alexandrou case (cited above, §§ 38-39) it found that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court does not see any reason to depart from that approach in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Eugenia Michaelidou Ltd and Michael Tymvios v.   Turkey , no.   16163/90, §§ 37-38, 31 July 2003). IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 63.     The applicant complained about the treatment administered to her during both the demonstration of 19 July 1989 and the proceedings against her in the “TRNC”. She invoked Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 64.     The Government disputed her claim. A.     Arguments of the parties 1.     The Government 65.     Relying on their version of the events (see paragraphs 28-30 above), the Government submitted that this part of the application should be determined on the basis of the Commission's findings in the case of Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey (applications nos.   15299/89 and 15300/89, Commission's report of 8 June 1993, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86, p. 4), as the factual and legal bases of the present application were the same as in that pilot case. They argued that the third-party intervener should be considered estopped from challenging the Commission's findings. 2.     The applicant 66.     The applicant essentially adopted the observations submitted by the Government of Cyprus (see below). 3.     The third-party intervener 67.     The Government of Cyprus submitted that the findings of the Commission in the case of Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou (cited above) were not applicable to the present case. Whether the treatment suffered by the applicant vi