CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 12 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sB66A2442 { width:26.81pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA7EF62D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBF73616E { width:186.29pt; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFA0E4E80 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sEF26C930 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }     GRAND CHAMBER                   CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY   (Application no. 25781/94)                     JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction)         STRASBOURG   12 May 2014       In the case of Cyprus v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President ,   Françoise Tulkens,   Guido Raimondi,   Nina Vajić,   Mark Villiger,   Corneliu Bîrsan,     Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Davíd Thór Björgvinsson,   George Nicolaou,   András Sajó,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ledi Bianku,   Ann Power-Forde,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges , and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2012, 10 April 2013, 27 June 2013 and 12 March 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus (“the applicant Government”) on 30 August 1999 and by the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 September 1999 (Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 and former Articles 47 and 48 of the Convention). 2.     In the course of the proceedings on the merits of the case, on 27   October 1999, the President of the Court met the Agent of the applicant Government and the Agent of the Government of the Republic of Turkey (“the respondent Government”) with a view to discussing some preliminary procedural issues in the case. The Agents accepted that, if the Court were to find a violation, a separate procedure would be required for dealing with claims under Article 41 of the Convention. 3.     By a letter of 29 November 1999, the Court instructed both parties as follows: “The applicant Government are not required to submit any claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention at this stage of the proceedings. A further procedure on this matter will be organised depending on the Court’s conclusions on the merits of the complaints.” 4.     In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2001 ( Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no.   25781/94, ECHR 2001 ‑ IV – “the principal judgment”), the Court (Grand Chamber) found numerous violations of the Convention by Turkey arising out of the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974, the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus and the activities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). Concerning just satisfaction, the Court held unanimously that the issue of the possible application of Article   41 of the Convention was not ready for decision and adjourned consideration thereof. 5.     The case concerning the execution of the principal judgment is currently pending before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 6.     On 31 August 2007 the applicant Government informed the Court that they intended to submit an “application to the Grand Chamber to resume its consideration of the possible application of Article 41 of the Convention”. On 11 March 2010 the applicant Government submitted to the Court their claims for just satisfaction concerning missing persons in respect of whom the Court had found a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Part II, points 2, 4 and 7 of the operative provisions of the principal judgment and the corresponding paragraphs to which they refer). They declared that the just-satisfaction issue with respect to the remaining violations, in particular those relating to homes and property of Greek Cypriots, remained reserved, and that they would possibly come back to this issue later. Both the applicant and the respondent Governments subsequently filed observations. 7.     On 7 April 2011 the President of the Court fixed the composition of the Grand Chamber for the purposes of ruling on the application of Article   41 of the Convention, by drawing lots (Rules 24 and 75 § 2 of the Rules of Court). Lots were subsequently drawn by the President of the Court to complete the composition (Rule 24 § 2 (e)). 8.     On 25 November 2011 the applicant Government sent to the Court a request entitled “Application for just satisfaction (Article 41) on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus”, targeting the enforcement procedure of the principal judgment by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and requesting the Court to take certain steps in order to facilitate the enforcement of the principal judgment. 9.     By a letter of 21 March 2012, following the deliberations of 14 March 2012, the Court invited the applicant Government to respond to some further questions, and to submit a final version of their claims for just satisfaction. In response, on 18 June 2012 the applicant Government amended their initial claims under Article 41 of the Convention concerning missing persons, and raised new just-satisfaction claims in respect of the violations of human rights (more precisely, Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) of the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula (see Part IV, points 4, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 19 of the operative provisions of the principal judgment and the corresponding paragraphs to which they refer). On 26   October 2012 the respondent Government submitted their observations on these claims. THE LAW 10.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 11.     The relevant parts of Article 46 of the Convention read as follows: “1.     The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2.     The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” 12.     Rule 60 of the Rules of Court states: “1.     An applicant who wishes to obtain an award of just satisfaction under Article   41 of the Convention in the event of the Court finding a violation of his or her Convention rights must make a specific claim to that effect. 2.     The applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, within the time-limit fixed for the submission of the applicant’s observations on the merits unless the President of the Chamber directs otherwise. 3.     If the applicant fails to comply with the requirements set out in the preceding paragraphs the Chamber may reject the claims in whole or in part. 4.     The applicant’s claims shall be transmitted to the respondent Contracting Party for comment.” I.     THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT’S CLAIMS FOR JUST SATISFACTION A.     Admissibility 1.     Whether the applicant Government’s just-satisfaction claims are out of time (a)     The parties’ submissions (i)     The Cypriot Government 13.     The Cypriot Government recognised that their just-satisfaction claims were filed only on 11 March 2010, that is, almost nine years after the delivery of the principal judgment. However, they considered that their inaction between 2001 and 2010 was fully justified. Firstly, in the judgment on the merits, the Court had adjourned sine die the issue of the possible application of Article 41 of the Convention, leaving this question open. Both before and after the judgment, the applicant Government had simply waited for further instructions from the Court, which was supposed to fix the further procedure pursuant to its own Rules. Secondly, after the delivery of the principal judgment, Cyprus had hoped bona fide that it would be properly enforced through the usual mechanism of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Only several years later, when it had become obvious that Turkey was unwilling to solve the issue by political means (that is, through the adoption of general and specific measures), had the Cypriot Government realised that it had no other option than to turn to the Court again, in order to ensure proper execution of the judgment by means of awarding just satisfaction. In particular, there was an impasse resulting from different interpretations of the decision in Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey ((dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010); unlike Turkey, the Cypriot Government did not consider that it could be interpreted as a finding that Turkey had satisfied its obligations in order to comply with the principal judgment. Moreover, it appeared from the relevant findings of the Committee of Ministers that the investigative measures required by the judgment have not been taken. 14.     Aware that a number of individual applications overlapping with the inter-State case were pending before the Court, the applicant Government considered that such individual claims had to be granted priority. However, in the light of the “newly reformulated time-limits” in Varnava and Others v.   Turkey ([GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, ECHR 2009), they had to make this claim in order not to lose their rights under Article 41. 15.     As to whether the time factor precludes the Court from examining the claims for just satisfaction, the Cypriot Government considered that there were six relevant principles of international law, that is to say: extinctive prescription, waiver and acquiescence, estoppel, res judicata , duty to maintain the status quo , and good faith. None of these justifies dismissal of the case based on time considerations. The applicant Government invoked the following basic arguments under the six principles quoted above. First of all, in the principal judgment, the Court had clearly stated that the matter had simply been adjourned – therefore it had been expressly left open indefinitely. Furthermore, a waiver of a right must be clear and unequivocal; it cannot be presumed. Cyprus had neither made an express or implied statement nor behaved in a way to show that it had renounced or waived its right to claim just satisfaction. On the contrary, in 2007 it had expressly asserted this right before the Court, and nobody had objected to that. It is rather Turkey which is now estopped from invoking an estoppel since it did not do so in 2007. 16.     According to the Cypriot Government, the passage of time had not caused any evidential disadvantage to the Turkish Government, because the facts had not changed; they were basically the same as in 2001. Moreover, Turkey could not have reasonably expected that the claim for just satisfaction would no longer be pursued. Finally, in 2001 it had been decided by the Court that the parties would await a final decision on the matter of just satisfaction, and the principle of good faith obliged them to maintain the existing situation as far as possible so that that final decision would not be prejudiced. It would undermine the principle of effectiveness if Turkey were permitted, through its failure to abide by the judgment, to frustrate the taking of that final decision. 17.     The Cypriot Government also invoked the legitimate expectations of the individual victims. They cited Article 55 of the Convention, by which the Contracting Parties have agreed “not [to] avail themselves of treaties, conventions or declarations in force between them for the purpose of submitting, by way of petition, a dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of [the] Convention to a means of settlement other than those provided for in [the] Convention”. It would be contrary to the principle of legitimate expectation to deny an adequate remedy in cases between two States, both of which have specifically agreed to confer jurisdiction on the Court and to exclude any other form of settlement. (ii)     The Turkish Government 18.     The respondent Government considered that the applicant Government’s claims for just satisfaction were belated. Nothing, or very little, had happened between 2001 and 2010, apart from the letter sent to the Court in August 2007. Even assuming that Article 41 of the Convention applies in inter-State cases, the applicant Government remains bound by a minimal-diligence requirement according to Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, which requires that there should be no undue delay in the claims for just satisfaction under Article 41. In the present case the applicant Government had caused such an unacceptable delay. 19.     The Turkish Government observed that the Cypriot Government had not submitted any claims for just satisfaction in the course of the procedure on the merits of the case. In their written submissions of 22 November 1994, the applicant Government had not asked for just satisfaction, declaring instead that the inter-State application had been lodged “without prejudice to individual applications against Turkey under Article 25 [now Article 34] of the Convention which have already been made or which will be made in future”. This meant that Cyprus had indeed chosen to give precedence to the supervisory function of the Committee of Ministers and not to apply to the Court for just satisfaction. This was their choice at the time, but they could also have chosen otherwise: in fact, Articles 41 and 46 of the Convention have different purposes, and nothing prevented the Cypriot Government from presenting timely just-satisfaction claims concurrently with the supervisory proceedings before the Committee of Ministers. Anyway, it was up to the applicant Government to put the process in motion soon after the principal judgment and not to expect the Court to fix the procedure on its own motion. Having failed to do so, the applicant Government had not done everything they could reasonably have done to maintain and pursue their claim, and their behaviour had to be interpreted as implicitly dropping the claims for just satisfaction in the present case. 20.     The respondent Government also pointed to the fact that the just-satisfaction claims had been addressed to the Court only after the Grand Chamber had delivered its judgment in Varnava and Others , cited above, concerning a series of individual applications made under Article 34, and the sums initially claimed by the Cypriot Government amounted to 12,000   euros (EUR) in every case, which was exactly the sum granted to each of the individual applicants in Varnava and Others . This means that the Court’s judgment in Varnava and Others , which had limited the chances of success for individual applicants, had sounded an alarm bell for the applicant Government and prompted them to come back before the Court. However, according to the Turkish Government, both the principle of good faith and respect for the rule of res judicata should make it impossible for the Cypriot Government to revive this matter now; any claims for just satisfaction should be made in such individual applications (like Varnava and Others ) rather than in the present inter-State case. 21.     According to the Turkish Government, the application of Article   41 would be unjustified, as the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons has evolved considerably since the delivery of the principal judgment. Contrary to the Cypriot Government’s allegations, there has been considerable progress in locating and identifying the victims’ remains – and this had been expressly recognised by the Court (see Charalambous and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 46744/07 and others, 3 April 2012). Therefore, the “missing persons” issue gradually becomes a “dead persons” issue and, according to the Court’s judgment in Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no.   32457/04, 27 November 2007), this creates substantively new procedural obligations with new time-limits. Thus, on the one hand, the supervisory proceedings before the Committee of Ministers remain effective and, on the other hand, the relatives of the missing persons should now await for the revival of the procedural obligation according to the Brecknell rule in order to protect their legitimate interests. 22.     The Turkish Government insisted that the specific temporal provisions of the Convention (as interpreted in Varnava and Others ) should have precedence over the general principles of international law. More precisely, it is not possible to present claims in an inter-State application which would have been time-barred had they been raised in an individual application under Article 34. It would cause an immense prejudice to Turkey if individual claims which are time-barred could be revived in an application for just satisfaction submitted nearly nine years after the judgment on the merits. (b)     The Court’s assessment 23.     The Court reiterates that the provisions of the Convention cannot be interpreted and applied in a vacuum. Despite its specific character as a human rights instrument, the Convention is an international treaty to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant norms and principles of public international law and, in particular, in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 (the “Vienna Convention”). As a matter of fact, the Court has never considered the provisions of the Convention as the sole framework of reference for the interpretation of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein. On the contrary, it must also take into account any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties (see, among many others, Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, § 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Al ‑ Adsani v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   35763/97, §   55, ECHR 2001 ‑ XI; Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no.   45036/98, §   150, ECHR 2005 ‑ VI; Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no.   34503/97, §   67, ECHR 2008, and Article   31 §   3 (c) of the Vienna Convention). 24.     The Court acknowledges that general international law does, in principle, recognise the obligation of an applicant government in an inter-State dispute to act without undue delay in order to uphold legal certainty and not to cause disproportionate harm to the legitimate interests of the respondent State. Thus, in the case of Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru ( Nauru v. Australia (preliminary objections), ICJ Reports 1992, p. 240), the International Court of Justice held: “32.     The Court recognizes that, even in the absence of any applicable treaty provision, delay on the part of a claimant State may render an application inadmissible. It notes, however, that international law does not lay down any specific time-limit in that regard. It is therefore for the Court to determine in the light of the circumstances of each case whether the passage of time renders an application inadmissible. ... 36.     ... The Court considers that, given the nature of relations between Australia and Nauru, as well as the steps thus taken, Nauru’s Application was not rendered inadmissible by passage of time. Nevertheless, it will be for the Court, in due time, to ensure that Nauru’s delay in seising it will in no way cause prejudice to Australia with regard to both the establishment of the facts and the determination of the content of the applicable law.” 25.     First and foremost, the Court observes that the present application was introduced in 1994, before the former European Commission of Human Rights, under the system previous to the entry into force of Protocol No.   11 (see paragraph 1 above). Under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission then in force, neither an applicant Government in an inter-State case nor an individual applicant had to make a general indication of their just-satisfaction claims in their application form. The Court further reiterates that in its letter of 29 November 1999 sent to both Governments it had expressly instructed the applicant Government not to submit any claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention at the merits stage (see paragraph 3 above); it is thus understandable that they did not do so. It also notes that in its judgment of 10 May 2001 it held “that the issue of the possible application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision and adjourn[ed] consideration thereof” (Part VIII of the operative provisions). No time-limits were fixed for the parties to submit their just-satisfaction claims (see paragraphs 2-4 above). The Court must ascertain whether, in spite of this absence of time-limits, the fact that the Cypriot Government did not submit their claims for just satisfaction until 11   March 2010 has nevertheless rendered these claims inadmissible according to the basic criteria defined in the Nauru case. 26.     The Court considers that this is not the case. In the first place, unlike in the Nauru case examined by the International Court of Justice, the impugned delay did not occur before the filing of the inter-State application but between the judgment of this Court on the merits of the case and the continued supervision of the enforcement of this judgment by the Committee of Ministers. During this phase of the case both Governments were entitled to believe that the issue relating to a possible award of just satisfaction was in abeyance pending further developments. Moreover, the just-satisfaction issue was repeatedly mentioned in the course of the proceedings on the merits of the case (see paragraphs 2-3 above). In the principal judgment the issue of a possible award of just satisfaction was adjourned, which clearly and unambiguously meant that the Court had not excluded the possibility of resuming the examination of this issue at some appropriate point in the future. Neither of the parties could therefore reasonably expect that this matter would be left unaddressed, or that it would be extinguished or nullified by the passage of time. Lastly, as the Cypriot Government have rightly pointed out, they had never made an express or implied statement showing that they had renounced or waived their right to claim just satisfaction; on the contrary, their letter of 31   August 2007 should be seen as a clear and unequivocal reassertion of this right. In these circumstances the respondent Government are not justified in claiming that the resumption of the examination of the applicant Government’s claims would be prejudicial to their legitimate interests, as they should have reasonably expected this matter to come back before the Court at some point. In the light of the Nauru judgment, cited above, the Court considers that in this context, the “prejudice” element is first and foremost related to the procedural interests of the respondent Government (“the establishment of the facts and the determination of the content of the applicable law”), and that it was for the respondent Government to prove convincingly the imminence or the likelihood of such a prejudice. However, the Court sees no such proof in the present case. 27.     In so far as the Turkish Government have referred to the supervisory proceedings before the Committee of Ministers, the Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory and that, by Article 46 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no.   32772/02, § 61, ECHR 2009). In this respect, one should not confuse, on the one hand, proceedings before the Court, which is competent to find violations of the Convention in final judgments which are binding on the States Parties (Article 19, in conjunction with Article 46 § 1) and to afford just satisfaction (Article 41) where relevant, and, on the other hand, the mechanism for supervising the execution of judgments, which is under the Committee of Ministers’ responsibility (Article 46   §   2). Under Article   46, the State Party is under an obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by the Court by way of just satisfaction, but also to take individual and/or, if appropriate, general measures in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress the effects, the aim being to put the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he would have been in had the requirements of the Convention not been disregarded (ibid., § 85). Albeit connected with each other, the obligation to take individual and/or general measures and the payment of just satisfaction are two distinct forms of redress, and the former in no way precludes the latter. 28.     As to the developments between 2001 and 2010 in the course of or in connection with the supervisory proceedings before the Committee of Ministers, the Court considers that these developments are undoubtedly relevant when assessing the substance of the applicant Government’s just-satisfaction claim; however, they do not preclude the Court from examining this claim. 29.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court sees no valid reason to consider the Cypriot Government’s claims for just satisfaction as belated and to declare them inadmissible. The Turkish Government’s objection must therefore be dismissed. 30.     The Court also reiterates that on 14 March 2012 it had invited the applicant Government to submit a “final” version of their just-satisfaction claims, and that their resulting submissions of 18   June 2012 have to be seen, indeed, as final. Consequently the Court considers that the present judgment concludes the consideration of the matter. 2.     Applicability of Article 41 of the Convention to the present case (a)     The parties’ submissions (i)     The Cypriot Government 31.     The applicant Government argued that Article 41 of the Convention is applicable in inter-State cases in general and in the present case in particular. First of all, they pointed to the fact that the very text of Article 41 makes no distinction between individual cases and inter-State cases, the latter not being expressly excluded from the scope of the just-satisfaction rule. They also referred to the principle of the effectiveness of individual rights protected by the Convention. The applicant Government proposed that this norm should be viewed in the light of two other principles defined by the Court’s case-law: on the one hand, the status of the Convention as an instrument of public international law which has to be interpreted in accordance with the rules and principles codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and, on the other hand, the specific object and purpose of the Convention as an international human rights treaty. According to the Cypriot Government, these principles are particularly pertinent to the Court’s ability to award just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, which ensures that there is an effective means of enforcing the Convention and encouraging the Contracting Parties not to ignore the Court’s rulings. In other words, Article 41 must be interpreted as an important tool at the Court’s disposal with a view to achieving compliance with its own judgments, both in individual cases under Article   34 and in inter-State cases under Article 33. 32.     The applicant Government also referred to Article 32 § 1 of the Convention, according to which “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in Articles   33, 34, 46 and 47”. In their view, these four Articles must be seen as part of a unique structured system together with Article 32 § 1: Articles   33, 34, 46 and 47 establish different routes by which a case may come before the Court, but they do not establish distinct spheres or types of jurisdiction for the Court. No matter how an application against a State comes before the Court, the jurisdiction of the latter remains the same and includes the competence to grant just satisfaction. There is no good reason to think otherwise, since the human rights at stake are the same and possibly even more serious than in an individual case; in addition, the authors of the Convention did not put a restriction on the ability to grant just satisfaction expressly in the text of Article 41; and finally, there is no indication that there is an implied restriction resulting from the very logic of this provision (or of Article 33). Therefore it cannot be said that the Court has fewer powers in respect of cases that come before it by means of an inter-State application than it has in respect of cases brought by way of an individual application. 33.     According to the Cypriot Government, the Court itself has always implicitly regarded Article 41 as applicable in inter-State cases, and this is reflected both in the Rules of Court and in the Court’s case-law. In this respect, they quoted Rule 46 (e), according to which the applicant Government in an inter-State case has to submit an application setting out “a general indication of any claims for just satisfaction made under Article   41 of the Convention on behalf of the alleged injured party or parties” as well as Rules 60 and 75 § 1, which do not distinguish between individual and inter-State applications. 34.     As to the Court’s case-law, the Cypriot Government considered that the Court had itself recognised implicitly, but quite clearly, that the just-satisfaction rule does apply in inter-State cases. Thus, in Ireland v. the United Kingdom (18   January 1978, §§ 244-46, Series A no. 25) the Court, instead of declaring former Article 50 inapplicable, had simply considered that it was “not necessary to apply it”. Likewise, in the present case the Court merely adjourned the consideration of the issue of just satisfaction, instead of dismissing it. 35.     Finally, the applicant Government pointed out that the Court has discretionary power under Article 41. Both the case-law of the Court and legal scholars have always emphasised that, when the Court awards just satisfaction, the application of Article 41 is a matter entirely within the Court’s discretion in any given case, including an inter-State application . In the present case, the Cypriot Government’s claim for just satisfaction is not a claim for pecuniary damages directly caused to Cyprus as a State, but rather a claim for the awarding of just satisfaction to the individual injured parties, its nationals, in respect of violations already determined to have taken place. (ii)     The Turkish Government 36.     The Turkish Government considered that, as a general rule, Article   41 does not apply to inter-State cases. In the first place, the operative provisions of the principal judgment cannot be construed as a recognition, albeit implicit, of the applicability of the just-satisfaction rule in inter-State cases. In the judgment, the Court spoke merely of a “possible” application of Article   41. The Turkish Government also argued that the Grand Chamber judgment in Varnava and Others (cited above, § 118) had to be interpreted as recognising the lack of jurisdiction of the Court to afford just satisfaction in an inter-State case. Furthermore, the respondent Government proposed to examine Article 41 of the Convention in the general context of the law of international responsibility, the law of diplomatic protection and the principles of the international protection of human rights. While Article 33 basically corresponds to the classical logic of diplomatic protection (a direct State-to-State liability), Article   34 constitutes a derogation from this logic: individuals may, through individual applications, act directly against the allegedly wrongdoing State and request just satisfaction without having to solicit the diplomatic protection of their national State. For the Turkish Government, this description justifies the conclusion that Article 41 of the Convention does not apply to inter-State proceedings except, perhaps, where the violation has caused a direct injury to the complaining State Party. In other words, the scope of Article 41 as such is limited in principle to the mechanism of individual applications. 37.     Another argument used by the respondent Government in favour of the non-applicability of Article 41 to inter-State cases is that such cases are not motivated by the applicant’s self-interest. In this respect, the Turkish Government referred to the case-law of the European Commission of Human Rights, according to which the applicant State in an inter-State case does not enforce its own rights, or the rights of its nationals, but rather vindicates the public order of Europe (see Austria v. Italy , no. 788/60, Commission decision of 11 January 1961, Yearbook 6, p. 116). Indeed, inter-State applications aim at complaining about a pattern of official conduct giving rise to continuing breaches of the Convention. Inter-State complaints should by definition be broader than individual complaints; they should relate to systemic failures rather than to individual violations. In this context, the finding of a violation in itself achieves the purpose of an inter-State litigation. On the other hand, every individual applicant has the opportunity to lodge his or her own application with the Court according to Article   34 of the Convention, and to obtain just satisfaction; therefore it would be wrong to confuse these procedures which have such different purposes. 38.     Referring to the Court’s case-law, the respondent Government considered that just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention was meant to include physical or psychological trauma, pain and suffering, distress, anxiety, frustration, feelings of injustice or humiliation, prolonged uncertainty, disruption to life, etc. These factors exclusively pertain to the suffering of an individual applicant, that is to say, of a natural person, and have no meaning in an inter-State case. As to the Rules of Court, the respondent Government argued that the use of the animate personal pronouns “his” or “her” (instead of “its”) in Rule 60 § 1 showed that this rule concerns only individuals, and not States. (b)     The Court’s assessment 39.     The Court observes that until now, the only case where it has had to deal with the applicability of the just-satisfaction rule in an inter-State case was the judgment in Ireland v. the United Kingdom , cited above. In that case, the Court found that it was not necessary to apply this rule (former Article 50 of the Convention) as the applicant Government had expressly declared that they “[did] not invite the Court to afford just satisfaction ..., of the nature of monetary compensation, to any individual victim of a breach of the Convention” (ibid., §§ 245-46). 40.     The Court further reiterates that the general logic of the just-satisfaction rule (Article 41, or former Article 50 of the Convention), as intended by its drafters, is directly derived from the principles of public international law relating to State liability, and has to be construed in this context. This is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires to the Convention, according to which,   “... [t]his provision is in accordance with the actual international law relating to the violation of an obligation by a State. In this respect, jurisprudence of the European Court will never, therefore, introduce any new element or one contrary to existing international law ...” (Report presented by the committee of experts to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16   March 1950 (Doc. CM/WP   1(50)15)). 41.     The most important principle of international law relating to the violation, by a State, of a treaty obligation is “that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form” (see the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of the Factory at Chorzów (jurisdiction), Judgment No. 8, 1927, PCIJ, Series   A, no. 9, p. 21). Despite the specific character of the Convention, the overall logic of Article 41 is not substantially different from the logic of reparations in public international law, according to which “[i]t is a well-established rule of international law that an injured State is entitled to obtain compensation from the State which has committed an internationally wrongful act for the damage caused by it” (see the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v.   Slovakia) , ICJ Reports 1997, p. 81, § 152). It is equally well-established that an international court or tribunal which has jurisdiction with respect to a claim of State responsibility has, as an aspect of that jurisdiction, the power to award compensation for damage suffered (see the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland) (merits), ICJ Reports 1974, pp.   203-05, §§   71-76). 42.     In these circumstances, bearing in mind the specific nature of Article   41 as lex specialis in relation to the general rules and principles of international law, the Court cannot interpret this provision in such a narrow and restrictive way as to exclude inter-State applications from its scope. On the contrary, such an interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Article   41 which provides for “afford[ing] just satisfaction to the injured party” (in French – “à la partie lésée”); a “party” (with a lower-case “p”) has to be understood as one of the actual parties to the proceedings before the Court. The respondent Government’s reference to the current wording of Rule   60   §   1 of the Rules of Court (paragraphs 12 and 38 above) cannot be deemed convincing in this respect. In fact, this norm, of a lower hierarchical value compared to the Convention itself, only reflects the obvious reality that in practice all the awards made by the Court under this provision until now have been directly granted to individual applicants. 43.     The Court therefore considers that Article 41 of the Convention does, as such, apply to inter-State cases. However, the question whether granting just satisfaction to an applicant State is justified has to be assessed and decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, inter   alia , the type of complaint made by the applicant Government, whether the victims of violations can be identified, as well as the main purpose of bringing the proceedings in so far as this can be discerned from the initial application to the Court. The Court acknowledges that an application brought before it under Article 33 of the Convention may contain different types of complaints pursuing different goals. In such cases each complaint has to be addressed separately in order to determine whether awarding just satisfaction in respect of it would be justified. 44.     Thus, for example, an applicant Contracting Party may complain about general issues (systemic problems and shortcomings, administrative practices, etc.) in another Contracting Party. In such cases the primary goal of the applicant Government is that of vindicating the public order of Europe within the framework of collective responsibility under the Convention. In these circumstances it may not be appropriate to make an award of just satisfaction under Article 41 even if the applicant Government were to make such a claim. 45.     There is also another category of inter-State complaint where the applicant State denounces violations by another Contracting Party of the basic human rights of its nationals (or other victims). In fact such claims are substantially similar not only to those made in an individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, but also to claims filed in the context of diplomatic protection, that is, “invocation by a State, through diplomatic action or other means of peaceful settlement, of the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act of that State to a natural or legal person that is a national of the former State with a view to the implementation of such responsibility” (Article 1 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006, see Official Records of the General Assembly , Sixty-first Session, Supplement No .   10 (A/61/10), as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case of Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) (preliminary objections), ICJ Reports 2007, p. 599, § 39). If the Court upholds this type of complaint and finds a violation of the Convention, an award of just satisfaction may be appropriate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria set out in paragraph 43 above. 46.     However, it must always be kept in mind that, according to the very nature of the Convention, it is the individual, and not the State, who is directly or indirectly harmed and primarily “injured” by a violation of one or several Convention rights. Therefore, if just satisfaction is afforded in an inter-State case, it should always be done for the benefit of individual victims. In this respect, the Court notes that Article 19 of the above-mentioned Articles on Diplomatic Protection recommends “transfer[ring] to the injured person any compensation obtained for the injury from the responsible State subject to any reasonable deductions”. Moreover, in the above-mentioned Diallo case the International Court of Justice expressly indicated that “the sum awarded to [the applicant State] in the exercise of diplomatic protection of Mr Diallo is intended to provide reparation for the latter’s injury” (see Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) (compensation), ICJ Reports 2012, p. 344, § 57). 47.     In the present case the Court finds that the Cypriot Government has submitted just-satisfaction claims in respect of violations of the Convention rights of two sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable groups of people, that is, 1,456 missing persons and the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula. In other words, just satisfaction is not sought with a view to compensating the State for a violation of its rights but for the benefit of individual victims, as described in paragraph 45 above. In these circumstances, and in so far as the missing persons and the Karpas residents are concerned, the Court considers that the applicant Government are entitled to make a claim under Article 41 of the Convention, and that granting just satisfaction in the present case would be justified. B.     Just satisfaction claims of the Cypriot Government 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     Claims concerning missing persons (i)     The Cypriot Government 48.     The Cypriot Government declared that, in view of the outcome of the cases of Varnava and Others , cited above, and Karefyllides and Others v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 45503/99, 1 December 2009), “it now appear[ed] that individual claimants in respect of continuing violations concerning disappearances of family members, [could] not (unless there [was] new evidence or information giving rise to fresh obligations for the authorities to take further investigative measures) bring claims to the Court because of the new admissibility rulings”. The applicant Government recognised that out of 1,485 missing persons mentioned in paragraph 119 of the principal judgment, some should be excluded. Firstly, nine missing persons were already covered by individual applications in the Varnava and Others case. Secondly, the remains of twenty-eight persons had been exhumed and identified, but it had not been established that they had died as a consequence of Turkey’s action; therefore no claim could be made in respect of these people. On the other hand, the applicant Government insisted on the factual accuracy of the existing list of missing persons, the Turkish party never having challenged the validity of that list. Therefore, just satisfaction is sought for 1,456 persons. 49.     In their initial observations the Cypriot Government requested EUR   12,000 per missing person, this sum corresponding to the amount awarded by the Court in Varnava and Others , but in the final version of their observations they abandoned this claim and instead requested the Court to award just satisfaction “at a standard rate in accordance with equitable principles”. In this respect, the Cypriot Government considered that the sum of EUR 12,000 per person awarded in Varnava and Others did not correspond to the considerably higher amounts awarded in other recent and le