CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 octobre 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 } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40E12E37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9138CF0B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF OLYMBIOU v. TURKEY   (Application no. 16091/90)             JUDGMENT ( merits )     STRASBOURG   27 October 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 Olymbiou v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 16091/90) 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 Andri Olymbiou (“the applicant”), on 16 January 1990. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr L. Clerides and by 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 home and 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 1950 and lives in Nicosia. I.     PROPERTY ISSUES 8.     The applicant claimed that she had had her home as well as other immovable property in the occupied part of Nicosia (northern Cyprus). In order to substantiate her claim to ownership, she produced certificates of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these certificates, the properties of Mrs “Androulla Savva Olymbiou, née Kyriakos Anatolitis” could be described as follows: (a)   Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no.   497, sheet/plan   XXI/38.2.IV, registration no. A533; building site with single storey house (area: 100 m²) and a small house (area: 50 m²) on the east half plot and trees; use: residence; share: ½ (east plot); (b)   Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no.   373, sheet/plan   XXI/38.3.III, registration no. B433; building site; share: ½. 9.     The applicant stated that her name was shown as “Andri” in her passport; however, her identity card was in the name of “Androulla”, the name she was given when she was baptised. “Savvas” was her husband's name. 10.     The applicant specified that the property described in paragraph 8 (a) above had originally belonged to her father, Mr   Kyriakos Yianni Anatolitis. On 7 August 1980 he had transferred ownership to the applicant by way of gift (Declaration of transfer no.   D   5316/80). The half share of the building site described in paragraph 8 (b) above had been purchased by the applicant on 10 October 1973. 11.     The applicant submitted that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, as her property was 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 had not been allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and from using her home and properties. II.     DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989 12.     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 the events 13.     According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the Nicosia District Court on 3 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. 14.     The applicant and other women gathered at the Ayios Kassianos school in Nicosia, which was in the UN buffer zone. She sat on the stairs in front of the entrance to the school and was listening to other women singing when she noticed that there were Turkish soldiers standing in front of the windows inside the school. The UN forces had taken up position in front of the school and formed a ring around the demonstrators. All of a sudden, some Turkish policemen had started running toward the demonstrators. They hit the women they found in front of them with batons, pushed them and dragged them by their hands, hair and clothes. The UN forces left the premises and invited the demonstrators to do likewise. 15.     The Turkish policemen pushed the applicant with their batons. She felt electricity passing through her body and realised that the batons were electric. She was seized by the armpits, pulled by the hair, dragged along the ground and taken behind the school. While she was being dragged, she was kicked about the body and beaten on the back with a baton. Her handbag was thrown away and her hands were twisted forcefully. She experienced a searing pain and felt as if she was about to faint. 16.     In order to avoid more ill-treatment, the applicant pretended she had fainted. A Turkish policeman came over to her, ordered her to get up and gave her a slap in the face. She was thrown into a very small room together with other arrested persons. 17.     She was then arrested and taken by bus to the so-called “Pavlides Garage”. During her walk to the bus and the subsequent journey she was subjected to assaults, beatings and gestures of a sexual nature by the officers and the crowd. The policemen did nothing to protect the arrested persons from being hit by the crowd, which was swearing, shouting abuse and threats and throwing stones, some of which came through the roof of the garage, tearing holes in the asbestos lining. The conditions of detention in the garage were filthy. When the detainees asked for water, they were given one or two containers of water and just one glass to share. The policemen shouted at them and threatened them. One of the women detainees (Mrs   Vrahimi – see application no. 16078/90) was seriously beaten. 18.     The applicant was interrogated the next day, in the morning of 20   July 1989. The interrogation, which touched mainly on political subjects, took place in Greek and was friendly. The applicant refused to sign a statement which was written in Turkish. She was then taken to a court which remanded her in custody for three days. At the court hearing, an interpreter explained in Greek that the suspects were accused of illegally entering the territory of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) and of assaulting the local police. The applicant and the other accused were given an opportunity to speak. They stated that they did not recognise internal borders in Cyprus and that it was they who had been the victims of the assault. 19.     The applicant and other detainees were transferred to Ortakeuy Prison, where they were kept in a ward. The applicant had to lie down on a blanket in the corridor owing to the lack of beds and during the night she and the other detainees were harassed by the guards, who continually picked out detainees for checks and interrogation, so that it was not possible to sleep. 20.     On 21 July 1989 the applicant was again taken to court. She had no legal representation and the quality of the interpretation was poor; the applicant felt that the interpreter was not translating objectively what was being said. Some prosecution witnesses were interrogated. The judge asked whether the accused wanted legal representation; they replied that they would only accept as defence counsel a lawyer registered with the bar association of the Republic of Cyprus or a non-Turkish person. As a result, they were not assisted by a lawyer. 21.     On 22 July 1989 the court sentenced the applicant 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. The accused passed through the back door of the court in order to avoid contact with the crowd. 22.     On 22 July the applicant and the other prisoners were photographed and were given some personal hygiene items that had been sent by the Red Cross. 23.     On 24 July 1989 the applicant was released. Before being set free she was examined by a UN doctor, who looked at her bruises and also at the mark left on her scalp by the tuft of hair that had been pulled out during her arrest. The doctor took notes. The applicant was given back her personal effects and her handbag. 24.     The applicant alleged that as a consequence of the fierce twisting of her hands by the Turkish policemen during her arrest, she had been left with a permanent, serious and incurable injury to her left shoulder. In particular, certain movements of her left hand caused her severe pain in the shoulder. 25.     In support of her claim of ill-treatment, she produced a medical certificate issued on 21 July 2000 by Dr Nicolaos P. Maroudias, a specialist orthopaedic surgeon practising in the Apollonion Private Hospital in Nicosia, which read: “The [applicant] complains that since 1989 when she had severe injuries to both her shoulders, her left shoulder is painful even when she carries minimal weight. [It is] also painful ... on external rotation and abduction and on raising her arm above her shoulder. I first examined her on 30.10.93 when a supraspinatus calcification was noted. She was then given anti-inflammatory treatment and shown exercises to do. She is still having problems on and off and she occasionally uses analgesics. X-rays show supraspinatus calcification. Opinion: As a result of the injuries sustained in 1989, she developed the supraspinatus tendinitis, which is very resistant to treatment. This condition is likely to trouble her from time to time. She might need to come to surgical removal of the calcification with a doubtful outcome and in that case her problems will persist. Local hydrocortisone injection has been suggested to her.” B.     The Government's version of the events 26.     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 “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. 27.     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. 28.     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 29.     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 30.     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 31.     The English translation of the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court's judgment of 22   July 1989 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   38 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 39 below). 32.     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 7 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; in particular, the witnesses declared that the demonstrators had passed the barriers at the UN observation post, broken down the wooden door of a church and moved toward a water reservoir; according to a map shown at trial, the area where the accused had entered was “TRNC” territory; (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; however, they had not done so; some accused had put a few questions to the prosecution witnesses, but most of them had not made use of their right of cross-examination; (v) the applicant had made the following statement: “As a refugee, I have an inextinguishable desire to return. I want to return there where I lived my childhood. I think that both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots should have this right. I believe that no one has the right and the authority to throw us out of our houses. As long as I am living, I will want to return to my house. For me there is no green line. There is a united Cyprus and the only flag I recognise is the Cyprus flag”; (vi)   some other accused had addressed the court, declaring that the demonstration was peaceful, that they did not have any weapons and that they did not recognise the “TRNC” as a valid State; the “TRNC” District Court considered that these statements were mainly of a political nature and could not undermine the testimony of the prosecution witnesses; (vii) relying on statements by the latter, 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; (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 33.     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.” 34.     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. 35.     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 arm or weapons shall be forfeited.” 36.     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 37.     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 38.     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." 39.     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 40.     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.” 41.     The Government disputed this claim. A.     The Government's preliminary objections 42.     The Government raised preliminary objections of inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of victim status. The Court observes that these objections were 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 43.     The Government submitted that the information supplied by the applicant was not sufficient to establish a proprietary interest. In particular, on the certificates provided by the applicant (see paragraph 8 above), the name of the owner was recorded as “Androulla Savva Olymbiou, née Kyriakos Anatolitis”. Thus, there was no evidence that the applicant, Mrs   Andri Olymbiou, was the same person as the alleged owner of the property in question. Further, as the property had been acquired in 1980 (see paragraph 10 above), the applicant did not have any existing proprietary right in 1974; therefore, it could not be argued that she had been “dispossessed” due to the Turkish intervention, which had occurred six years earlier. 44.     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 to be inaccessible in the existing political situation. In any event, even assuming that a question could arise under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the control of the use of property by the “TRNC” authorities had been justified in the general interest. (b)     The applicant 45.     The applicant stressed that she was the owner of the properties described in paragraph 8 above. She observed that in 1974 the land and the houses were family properties and there had been a natural expectation that she would acquire ownership in due course. Subsequent acts of the “TRNC” could not deprive her family of the title to those properties. With the transfer of ownership from her father, the applicant had acquired the proprietary interest. 2.     The third-party intervener 46.     The Government of Cyprus submitted that it was the duty of the respondent Government to prove that the applicant did not own the relevant land and buildings. 3.     The Court's assessment 47.     The Court observes that the Government did not contest the applicant's statement that her father had been the owner of the property described in paragraph 8 (a) above. They stressed, however, that this property had been acquired by the applicant more than six years after the 1974 Turkish intervention and that the name on the certificates issued by the Republic of Cyprus did not correspond to the applicant's name. 48.     The Court notes that the applicant has produced written proof that her father transferred to her the property at issue by way of gift on 7   August 1980 (see paragraph 10 above). Together with the other documents submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 8 above), this material provides prima facie evidence that, from August 1980 onwards, she had title to the property described in paragraph 8 (a) above, which had previously belonged to her father. As held by the Court in the Loizidou v.   Turkey case ((merits), 18   December 1996, §§ 44 and 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), the latter could not be deemed to have lost title to his property by virtue of subsequent acts of expropriation of the “TRNC” authorities. 49.     The applicant has also produced prima facie evidence that she had title to the land described in paragraph 8 (b) above. As regards the differences in the spelling of the applicant's name in the certificates of affirmation of ownership and in the application form, the Court accepts the explanations given by the applicant (see paragraph 9 above). As the respondent Government have failed to produce convincing evidence in rebuttal, the Court considers that the applicant had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 over the properties described in paragraph 8 (a) and (b) above. 50.     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.” 51.     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.” 52.     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). 53.     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 as well as any compensation for the interference with her property rights.   II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 54.     The applicant submitted that in 1974 she had her home in Nicosia. 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.” 55.     The Government disputed this claim. 56.     The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been driven from her home by the Turkish invasion and had been consistently refused the right to return ever since, in violation of Article   8 of the Convention. This interference could not be justified under the second paragraph of this provision. 57.     The Court notes that the Government failed to produce any evidence capable of casting doubt upon the applicant's statement that, at the time of the Turkish invasion, she was regularly residing in Nicosia and that the house was treated by her and her family as a home. 58.     Accordingly, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant's house qualified as “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention at the time when the acts complained of took place. 59.     The Court observes that the present case differs from the Loizidou case ((merits), cited above) since, unlike Mrs Loizidou, the applicant actually had a home in northern Cyprus. 60.     The Court notes that since 1974 the applicant has been unable to gain access to and to use that home. In this connection it points out that, in its judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (cited above, §§   172-175), it concluded that the complete denial of the right of Greek ‑ Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes in northern Cyprus since 1974 constituted a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court reasoned as follows: “172.     The Court observes that the official policy of the 'TRNC' authorities to deny the right of the displaced persons to return to their homes is reinforced by the very tight restrictions operated by the same authorities on visits to the north by Greek Cypriots living in the south. Accordingly, not only are displaced persons unable to apply to the authorities to reoccupy the homes which they left behind, they are physically prevented from even visiting them. 173.     The Court further notes that the situation impugned by the applicant Government has obtained since the events of 1974 in northern Cyprus. It would appear that it has never been reflected in 'legislation' and is enforced as a matter of policy in furtherance of a bi-zonal arrangement designed, it is claimed, to minimise the risk of conflict which the intermingling of the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot communities in the north might engender. That bi-zonal arrangement is being pursued within the framework of the inter-communal talks sponsored by the United Nations Secretary-General... 174.     The Court would make the following observations in this connection: firstly, the complete denial of the right of displaced persons to respect for their homes has no basis in law within the meaning of Article 8 §   2 of the Convention (see paragraph 173 above); secondly, the inter-communal talks cannot be invoked in order to legitimate a violation of the Convention; thirdly, the violation at issue has endured as a matter of policy since 1974 and must be considered continuing. 175.     In view of these considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus.” 61.     The Court sees no reason in the instant case to depart from the above reasoning and findings (see also Demades (merits), cited above, §§ 36-37). 62.     Accordingly, it concludes that there has been a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the complete denial of the right of the applicant to respect for her home. 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 63.     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.” 64.     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 65.     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.” 66.     The Government disputed her claim. A.     Arguments of the parties 1.     The Government 67.     Relying on their version of the events (see paragraphs 18-20 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 68.     The applicant essentially adopted the observations submitted by the Government of Cyprus (see below). B.     The third-party intervener's arguments 69.     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 violated Article   3 had to be examined and determined in light of the facts of the case and on the basis of the evidence provided. 70.     The treatment endured by the applicant during her arrest and subsequent imprisonment and trial had been of a very severe nature, including inter alia physical violence and punishment, exposure to violent and abusive crowds, inhuman and degrading conditions of detention (including solitary confinement and sleep deprivation) and humiliating and frightening treatment in court. Whether such treatment was viewed cumulatively or separately, it had caused severe physical and psychological suffering amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention. C.     The Court's assessment 71.     The general principles concerning the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment are set out in Protopapa v. Turkey , no.   16084/90, §§ 39-45, 24 February 2009. 72.     As to the application of these principles to the present case, the Court observes that it is undisputed that the applicant was arrested during a demonstration which gave rise to an extremely tense situation. It will be recalled that in the case of Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou , the Commission found that a number of demonstrators had resisted arrest, that the police forces had broken their resistance and that in that context there was a high risk that the demonstrators would be treated roughly, and even suffer injuries, in the course of the arrest operation (see the Commission's report, cited above, §§ 113-15). The Court does not see any reason to depart from these findings and will take due account of the state of heightened tension at the time of the applicant's arrest. 73.     It further observes that the applicant submitted that in the course of her arrest she was pushed, pulled, beaten all over her body (in particular on her back) with an electric baton, dragged along the ground and kicked. She moreover alleged that her hands had been twisted forcefully (see paragraph   15 above), a fact which has allegedly provoked a permanent, serious and incurable injury to her left shoulder (see paragraph 24 above). However, the Court has at its disposal little evidence to corroborate the applicant's version of events. The sole medical certificate produced by the applicant was issued on 21 July 2000 (see paragraph 25 above), which is eleven years after the date of the alleged ill-treatment. Even if the orthopaedic surgeon consulted by the applicant stated