CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 avril 2017

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sF5B34857 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A72FAFE { width:198.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF THUO v. CYPRUS   (Application no. 3869/07)                   JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   4 April 2017     FINAL   18/09/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Thuo v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Luis López Guerra,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3869/07) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr David William Thuo, a Kenyan national, on   16   January 2007. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr M. X. Joannou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their Agent Mr   P.   Clerides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, and subsequently by Mr   C.   Clerides, his successor. 3.     The applicant complained, firstly, of his conditions of detention at Nicosia Central Prisons. He also complained of ill-treatment during his deportation and that no effective investigation of that complaint had taken place. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     On 23 March 2009 the complaints were communicated to the Government. 5.     On 4 May 2010 the Government was requested, pursuant to Rule   49   §   3 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit additional factual information concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the progress of the investigation into his ill-treatment complaint. 6.     Two further requests were made to the Government under Rule   49   §   3   (a) for updated factual information concerning the investigation, on 21 October 2010 and 1 October 2015 respectively. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Nairobi, Kenya. A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention and the relevant domestic proceedings 8.     The applicant left Kenya on 29 March 2005. He entered Cyprus unlawfully through the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) on 4 April 2005. 9 .     On 6 April 2005 the applicant was arrested at Larnaca Airport as he attempted to travel to London on a forged passport. 10 .     On 12 April 2005 the applicant, after pleading guilty to using a forged document (sections 331, 332, 335 and 339 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154; see Seagal v. Cyprus , no. 50756/13, § 100, 26 April 2016) was sentenced by the Larnaca District Court to nine months’ imprisonment (criminal case no. 4728/05). He was detained in Wing 1B of Nicosia Central Prisons. 11.     The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against his sentence (criminal appeal no. 132/05) but it was dismissed on 4 July 2005. 12.     In the meantime, on 21 April 2005, the applicant applied to the Asylum Service for asylum. 13 .     On 10 November 2005, while the applicant was still serving his sentence, the Director of the Civil Registry and Migration Department issued detention and deportation orders against him, pursuant to section   14 of the Aliens and Immigration Law, on the grounds that he was a “prohibited immigrant” within the meaning of section 6(1)(d) of that law (see paragraphs 94-95 below). The enforcement of the deportation order was suspended pending the examination of his asylum application. 14 .     On 14 November 2005 the applicant was released after serving his sentence. However, he was re-arrested the same day under the detention and deportation orders and placed in the immigration detention facilities in Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons. He was presented with the above orders but refused to sign them. 15.     On 31 January 2006 the Asylum Service rejected his application. 16 .     On 22 February 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees (“Reviewing Authority”), which was dismissed on 6 April 2006. 17 .     On 3 May 2006 the applicant brought a “recourse” (judicial review proceedings) before the Supreme Court (in its first-instance revisional jurisdiction) challenging the Reviewing Authority’s decision (recourse   no.   782/06). 18 .     By a letter dated 11 June 2006 the applicant made a complaint to the Commissioner for Administration of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Ombudsman”) concerning, inter alia , the deportation and detention orders. 19.     By letters dated 17 May 2006 and 29 August 2006 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Minister of the Interior of the unlawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention following the expiry of his sentence and requested his release. He further noted that the authorities had threatened to deport the applicant even though his recourse was still pending before the Supreme Court. 20.     By a letter dated 5 December 2006 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that the authorities’ decision to issue deportation orders had been justified as his asylum application had been rejected. 21 .     It transpires from the documents in the case file that the applicant’s deportation was not possible because he had no valid passport or other valid travel document and refused to cooperate with the authorities. When he eventually decided to cooperate, the authorities contacted the Kenyan Embassy in Italy. On 20 February 2007 it issued a travel document for the applicant in the name of David Kandiri Wanjiku. 22 .     The previous orders were cancelled and on 22 February 2007 new ones were issued on the same grounds (see paragraph 13 above) under the name in the travel document. 23.     On 9 March 2007 the applicant was deported (see paragraphs 26-30 below) and added to the authorities’ “stop list” (a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from Cyprus is banned or subject to monitoring). 24.     Following the applicant’s deportation, on 9 May 2007 his lawyer withdrew the recourse from the Supreme Court (see paragraph 17 above). 25.     The applicant’s Kenyan passport, issued on 15 October 2009, is in the name of David William Thuo. B.     The applicant’s account of his deportation and alleged ill-treatment 26 .     According to the applicant, in the early hours of 9 March 2007 prison guards and two immigration officers insulted him by saying “come here you stupid mavro (black)”. They were holding a form with the applicant’s photograph on it but the applicant could not read it. They asked him whether the photograph was of him and the applicant replied in the affirmative. The applicant asked to be allowed to call his lawyer but was told “no telephone for you – you have no rights here”. Then one of the immigration officers pushed him into a room, hitting him and pinching his testicles. It was very painful and he thought they were going to kill him. He could not breathe. He stated that the officers had had their hands on his neck. After a struggle the officers allowed the applicant to call his lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer informed him that he was trying to contact the Minister of the Interior and the applicant told his lawyer that he had been beaten by the immigration officers. One of the officers also spoke to the lawyer but the applicant could not understand the conversation as it was in Greek. He was given very little time before leaving the detention facilities to take his belongings and had to leave some behind. 27 .     The applicant was driven to Larnaca Airport with his hands handcuffed behind his back. He was placed in a room at the airport and the door was closed. The applicant asked to see the officer in charge and speak to his lawyer and began to shout after the officers refused to listen to him. Twenty minutes later three men in military uniform came into the room and, with the two immigration officers, they beat and verbally abused the applicant. They forced him into a chair and held him by the neck while an army officer held his mouth open and stuffed brown paper in it. They then placed adhesive tape with the Cyprus Airways logo on it over his mouth and neck. They wrapped bandages around his head and neck, almost entirely covering those parts. 28 .     The applicant was escorted onto the aircraft, which was empty. He was seated at the back and was still in handcuffs. He was in pain. He remained in that state until the aircraft was near Milan. 29 .     The applicant indicated to the officers that he wanted a pen and paper and they were given to him. He managed to write that he would not cause any problems and that he was in pain but they refused to listen to him. They warned him not to cause any more trouble. He stated that the captain and crew had witnessed everything. 30 .     The applicant was very upset but remained calm during the flight and managed to have a meal. 31 .     The applicant submitted that four of his top teeth had become loose owing to the ill-treatment and that he had later been informed by doctors that they needed to be replaced with artificial ones. 32 .     Lastly, he noted that he could identify the three army officers who had ill-treated him. C.     The applicant’s complaints to the authorities about ill-treatment and the investigation of the complaints 1.     The applicant’s complaint to the Ombudsman 33 .     Following his deportation, on 27 December 2007, the applicant, while in Kenya, lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman concerning his deportation and the ill-treatment he had received during the deportation process at Nicosia Central Prisons, Larnaca Airport and on the aircraft to Milan. The applicant included a detailed chronology of the events with his letter of complaint, describing his alleged ill-treatment (see paragraphs 26-32 above). 34.     On 4 February 2008 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that she would investigate his complaints and inform him of the outcome. 35 .     On 4 June 2009 the Ombudsman submitted her report to the Attorney General. She relied on comments by the Chief of Police as well as on a report dated 23 May 2008 by the Director of the Nicosia Police Aliens and Immigration Unit (see paragraph 37 below). She observed that the applicant had made his complaint following his deportation and so gathering evidence had not been easy and had had adverse consequences for the investigation. Given those factors and having examined the evidence that had been given to her, which did not substantiate the allegations of ill-treatment, she found that intervention on her part and the imputing of responsibility to the police for their handling of the applicant’s situation could not be justified. 2.     The applicant’s complaint to the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints against the Police (“IAIACAP”) and the initial refusal to investigate 36 .     On 23 February 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the IAIACAP (see paragraphs 99-104 below). He complained that he had been deported even though asylum proceedings had still been pending before the Supreme Court and that he had been ill-treated during the deportation process.     The applicant attached a detailed chronology of the events to his letter of complaint (see paragraphs 26-32 above) and requested that the IAIACAP conduct an investigation. 37 .     The president of the IAIACAP conducted a preliminary investigation by collecting material from the police, who denied ill-treating the applicant. The police provided him with a report dated 23 May 2008 by the Director of the Nicosia Police Aliens and Immigration Unit and open statements by the two immigration officers, acting sergeants T.C. and Po.P., who had accompanied the applicant throughout his deportation. According to the above report and statements, when the immigration officers went to take the applicant from his cell, they showed him his travel document, as was the usual practice. The applicant started shouting and asked to call his lawyer, which the officers allowed him to do before leaving the detention facilities. T.C. also spoke to the lawyer and asked him to persuade his client to be cooperative during the deportation process. The applicant calmed down, they handcuffed him and he got into the police car without any problem. They then went to Larnaca Airport. Po.P stated, in particular, that they had sat in the passengers’ waiting area and the applicant had been offered coffee. He had been completely calm. At 9 a.m. the applicant and the two immigration officers had boarded the aircraft for Milan. As soon as they had entered the aircraft they had removed the handcuffs, as the use of handcuffs during flights was prohibited by International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations. They had stayed in Milan for five hours and had then boarded a connecting flight to Nairobi. The officers denied the allegations of ill-treatment, maintaining that the deportation procedure had been carried out without the use of force and in compliance with the applicable rules. They also stated that the applicant had been a problematic, uncooperative person who had made threats to them throughout the process. T.C. stated that the officers had behaved impeccably and with patience, despite the fact that the applicant had been provocative throughout. 38 .     On 9 July 2008 the president of the IAIACAP concluded that the seriousness of the applicant’s allegations meant that his complaint ought to be investigated, irrespective of the police officers’ statements that they had not ill-treated him. Nevertheless, in order to reach a decision he required information as to how the IAIACAP could secure medical evidence and a statement from the applicant. The matter was referred to the Attorney General for his opinion. 39 .     Βy a letter dated 16 July 2008 the IAIACAP informed the applicant that it was willing to investigate the complaint, but there were certain difficulties, such as the fact that he was abroad. The IAIACAP had decided to ask the Attorney General’s opinion on the matter. 40 .     By a letter dated 28 July 2008 counsel for the Attorney General informed the IAIACAP that the applicant’s complaint could not be investigated because the applicant had left Cyprus. The applicant was informed of that decision on   11   August 2008. 3.     The IAIACAP’s investigation 41 .     By a letter of 17 June 2009 to the IAIACAP, the Attorney General, referring to the applicant’s application to the Court, revisited the above decision and ordered the IAIACAP to conduct a formal investigation into the applicant’s complaint. He noted that he had been informed of the position taken by counsel in the letter of 28 July 2008 (see paragraph   40   above) when he had looked into the case following communication of the applicant’s application by the Court. In his opinion, where an arguable claim for ill-treatment had been made, the fact that the complainant had been deported, was not in Cyprus or that he was on the stop list did not constitute grounds for not conducting an investigation. He therefore did not agree with the opinion expressed by his counsel. 42.     The Attorney General requested that the relevant authorities take all the necessary steps to arrange the applicant’s return to Cyprus for the purposes of the investigation. 43.     In their observations the Government submitted that the Attorney General had already informed the president of the IAIACAP in a letter dated   5 December 2007 on the taking of statements from witnesses, that when a person complaining to the IAIACAP was abroad, he or she should be asked to visit the IAIACAP in person and provide a statement and that the Government would pay the expenses for a complainant’s return to Cyprus. 44.     On 13 July 2009 the applicant was informed of the decision to investigate and that he had been temporarily removed from the stop list for the purposes of the investigation. He was requested to inform the IAIACAP when he would be able to travel to Cyprus to provide a statement. 45.     On 14 July 2009 the IAIACAP launched an official investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint. A member of the IAIACAP was appointed as investigator. 46.     In the course of the investigation the investigator collected documents and other physical evidence related to the applicant’s case. It included the records kept by every police unit involved, including at Block   10 at Nicosia Central Prisons and at the airport; domestic court judgments and transcripts; samples of Cyprus Airways adhesive tape; and the aircraft cabin crew supervisor’s report. No mention was made of the incident in the cabin crew report. The footage for that day from the airport’s closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) cameras had already been destroyed. 47.     The investigator singled out five police officers as suspects: acting sergeants T.C. and Po.P. (see paragraph 37 above), the commanding officer of the Ιmmediate Response Squad ( Ουλαμός Ταχείας/Άμεσης Επέμβασης ) (“IRS”) Inspector N.S., and Constables Pa.P. and A.I. 48.     On 12 June 2010 the applicant arrived in Cyprus to take part in the investigation. He was examined by two specialist doctors at Nicosia General Hospital, a maxillofacial surgeon and a urologist. Each prepared a medical report. 49 .     After taking X-rays, the maxillofacial surgeon concluded that as three years had passed since the alleged ill-treatment it was impossible to conclude with any certainty that any damage to the applicant’s teeth that was diagnosed was due exclusively to ill-treatment, especially in view of the applicant’s generally bad oral hygiene.     The urologist did not observe any health issues, defects or signs of ill-treatment which could be linked to the applicant’s complaint. 50 .     The reports were passed on to a forensics pathologist who concluded that there was no way to determine scientifically whether the applicant had been ill-treated, but found such a possibility minimal to negligible ( ελάχιστη εώς μηδαμινή ). 51 .     On 15 June 2010 the applicant was interviewed and gave his first written statement to the investigator. He made reference at the beginning of the statement to his conditions of detention and noted that during his detention in Block 10 he had kept a record of events. Until 8 March 2007 the behaviour of the police and immigration officers had been correct. The applicant continued by providing a detailed account of the events of 8 to 9   March 2007 and his alleged ill-treatment (see paragraphs 26-32 above). He stated that when the immigration officers had come to the detention facility to take him from his cell he had refused to leave and had resisted. He noted that the bandages and the paper that had been put in his mouth at Larnaca Airport had been removed when the aircraft had been approaching Milan. The applicant also complained that he had had pain when urinating and when erect but that it had gone away after three months of treatment. He stated that he had been examined by a doctor in Kenya and had been treated there. 52 .     In support of his allegations the applicant provided the investigator with a certificate dated 9 June 2010 which had been issued by a doctor at Tigoni District Hospital, a public hospital in Kenya. It appears from the document that the applicant had written to the hospital on 21 December 2009 to request such a certificate. According to the certificate the applicant had visited the hospital on 10   March 2007 and had complained of neck and back pain, swelling of the face, dizziness, pain in the testicles and palpitations. It gave the applicant’s blood pressure upon examination at   140/90 and his pulse at 115 bpm. It indicated that the applicant had “facial oedema/puffiness; bruises on wrist; testicles tendon, no obvious cut or fracture; thigh myalgia and bruises”. The applicant was prescribed tablets. According to the certificate the applicant had returned to the hospital on 11   March 2007 because of “painful loose teeth and jaw”. He was referred for a dental examination and told to rest for four days. The medical certificate is signed and was also stamped by the hospital’s superintendent and certified by a notary on 10 June 2010. There is another signature dated   15 June 2010 but there is no indication whose it is. According to the applicant, he was advised to replace his front teeth but decided not to do so as with the passage of time they had gone back into place. 53.     On 16 June 2010 all serving members of the IRS who had been on duty on 9 March 2007 from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (the date and approximate time of the alleged ill-treatment) were ordered to attend an identity parade the following day. 54 .     On 17 June 2010 the investigator visited Larnaca Airport where he took an open statement from N.S., who named the members of the IRS who had been on duty on the day of the alleged ill-treatment, including himself, Pa.P and A.I. He could not recall anything related to the applicant. He further stated that on the day of the alleged ill-treatment the members of his unit had worn blue uniforms. He said he did not object to the applicant, who was at the airport the same day, seeing him or members of the unit. 55.     Certain members of the IRS, including N.S., Pa.P. and A.I., did not attend the identity parade. N.S. and Pa.P were absent for personal reasons while A.I. had already retired. The applicant did not identify any of the police officers present in the identity parade. As some of the officers were absent the investigator showed the applicant pictures of IRS officers who had been on duty on 9 March 2007. The applicant identified N.S., Pa.P. and A.I. as the men in military uniform who had been responsible for his ill ‑ treatment that day with the assistance of the two members of the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit. 56 .     Later the same day the applicant gave a second written statement to the investigator, providing further details of his alleged ill-treatment during the deportation process.     The applicant stated that at Larnaca Airport N.S. had introduced himself as the “chief”, put brown paper in his mouth, stuck adhesive tape on part of his face and had then wrapped almost his entire face in bandages. A.I. had assisted N.S. by holding the applicant by the neck. They had left some space so he could see and breathe. He also alleged that Pa.P. had held him by the shoulders and, with the assistance of one of the immigration officers, had immobilised him on the chair in which he had been sitting. He had kept trying to shout. Samples of the adhesive tape allegedly used during the incident were shown to the applicant. He identified the sample with the Cyprus Airways logo but noticed a difference in the colour of the letters. The applicant left Cyprus a few hours after giving his second statement. 57.     On 21 June 2010 the investigator was informed by an officer working at the warehouse and storeroom at Police Headquarters that the IRS had introduced blue uniforms on 31 May 2007. Before that, the IRS had worn military uniform. This was verified by another officer who kept the warehouse and storeroom records. 58 .     On 25 and 28 June 2010 the investigator interviewed Po.P. and T.C and took statements from them. They handed the investigator the statements they had given in the course of the preliminary investigation in which they had denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph   37   above). They stated that no force had been used at Nicosia Central Prisons, that they had not insulted the applicant and that he had been allowed to speak to his lawyer. 59 .     Po.P. stated that the applicant had reacted only verbally at Nicosia Central Prisons and that after calling his lawyer he had cooperated and shown no resistance. They had thus been able to handcuff him and take him to the police car. Po.P. stated that throughout the trip to and at the airport and during the flight, the applicant had threatened the officers but had not been violent. However, according to Po.P., during the wait at the airport, the applicant had started to become uneasy and had tried to hit his head on the wall to harm himself. With the assistance of colleagues from another unit, T.C. had wrapped bandages around the applicant’s forehead to protect him, but they had not under any circumstances gagged him. The force used for that purpose had been minimal and Po.P could not recall whether the applicant had been injured. They had taken the applicant on board the airplane before the other passengers and had removed the bandages once on board in order to assure the captain, who had come to see them, that the applicant was not injured. From then on the trip had gone smoothly. When Po.P was asked why he had not mentioned this incident to his superiors earlier and had not made a note of it, for instance, in any of the police records, Po.P. stated that such things often happened during deportations, he had not considered it to be significant as no one had been injured and the whole deportation process had been carried out smoothly. He could not recall whether he had been informed of the applicant’s specific allegations when he had given his open statement (see paragraph 37 above). 60 .     T.C. stated that when the applicant had realised he was being deported he had only reacted verbally and had asked to speak to his lawyer. The officers had allowed him to do so. T.C. stated that he had heard the applicant tell his lawyer that the officers had taken him by the neck and had been suffocating him, but that was a lie. T.C. also spoke to the applicant’s lawyer (see paragraph 37 above). The applicant had calmed down, they had handcuffed him and put him in the police car; T.C. stated that the applicant had tried to pull away when they had tried to put him in the car. At the airport in Larnaca, T.C. had left the applicant under Po.P.’s supervision for about twenty minutes for check-in purposes. When he had returned the applicant had been frantic. Po.P had informed him that the applicant had been trying to hit his head on the wall. T.C. stated that he had also noticed that he had tried to hit himself against the chairs and walls in the room. He had been shouting and screaming and causing disruption in the departure hall. The officers had asked him to calm down but to no avail. For that reason, with the help of members of the IRS who had restrained the applicant, they had wrapped the applicant’s head in bandages to protect him from possible self-harm. He could not remember whether they had also tied his feet because he had been kicking. T.C. stated that they had used the amount of force necessary to protect the applicant and immobilise or restrain him. When the aircraft had been ready to depart they had removed the bandages and handcuffs and the applicant had listened to music throughout the flight. When asked why he had not mentioned in his previous open statement that force had been used against the applicant (see paragraph 37 above), T.C. stated that it might have been an omission on his part but at that time he had not thought it essential. 61 .     On 29 June 2010 the IAIACAP investigator arranged an interview with N.S., who refused to answer any questions or provide a statement. On the same day, the investigator interviewed Constable Pa.P. who stated that members of the IRS had been wearing military uniform on the day of the incident but he did not remember coming into contact with the applicant. He observed that IRS officers did not keep a record when they helped other units as it was the responsibility of the unit itself to do that. He could not remember whether he had made a note in his personal notebook. He stated that he would get back to the investigator when he had found it. 62.     On 1 July 2010 the investigator interviewed the applicant’s lawyer. The lawyer stated that on 9 March 2007 he had spoken to the applicant by telephone while the applicant was still at Nicosia Central Prisons. The applicant had informed him that he was being deported. The applicant had not made any mention of ill-treatment. He had next spoken to the applicant a few days after his deportation. The applicant had informed him that he had been ill-treated and insulted by police officers from the beginning of the deportation process in prison to when he had boarded the aircraft. The applicant had not provided further details but had informed him that he had lodged an application with the Court. 63 .     On 2 July 2010 the investigator started taking a statement from A.I. but A.I. left the interview following a telephone call and promised to return on 5 July 2010. However, A.I. informed the investigator on that date that he refused to answer any questions and referred the investigator to his lawyer. 64.     In the course of the investigation statements were taken from various individuals, mainly police officers, inter alia , from the units concerned and from those at the immigration detention facilities at Nicosia Central Prisons. 65.     On 22 July 2010 the investigator prepared a report on the investigation procedure and his findings. 66.     The report stated that the various police records (records of action and log or duty books) were deficient and had failed to keep track of ongoing events (such as the applicant’s being moved from Block 10 to another area on the night of his deportation and the officers’ actions during the deportation). 67 .     The investigator stated that it was clear that the applicant, after failing in his asylum claim and lodging his recourse with the Supreme Court, had tried to delay and obstruct his deportation by reacting negatively and not cooperating. In the end he had applied to the Court for compensation. 68 .     According to the investigator there was a possibility that the applicant had been exaggerating. The officers’ omissions, however, allowed room for questioning the accountability and objectivity which ought to have characterised them as members of the police during the execution of their duties. Furthermore, he noted the discrepancies in the officers’ statements with regard to the colour of their uniform. He observed that that had clearly aimed at hiding the truth ( προφανώς για σκοπούς συσκότισης ). He also noted the fact that three of them had failed to attend the identity parade. The investigator considered that it was questionable whether the medical certificate provided by the applicant could be accepted as evidence in any procedure given that it did not mention the name of the doctor or doctors who had examined him. Relevant evidence from Kenya would therefore be required. 69 .     The investigator found that the applicant had reacted negatively and resisted deportation, both at Nicosia Central Prisons and at the airport, either by trying to obstruct it or through resisting in an effort to gain time in order to prevent it. It was likely that he had caused a great deal of disturbance in Larnaca Airport’s departure hall and it had seemed that that would extend to the aircraft. A certain amount of force had had to be used in those circumstances in order to overcome his resistance and calm him down. It was crucial to examine which of the two versions of events – that of the applicant or the officers – better described the level of force used against the applicant. He concluded with the following words: “Theoretically, if the violence was as described by the complainant, it may be considered excessive, inhuman and degrading. In practice, however, it was imperative to use some analogous/proportionate ( ανάλογη ) force to ensure the success of the deportation, to restore order and to ensure security during the flight, which probably, however, went beyond the permissible limits. It all depends, however, on the credibility of those involved.” 70 .     According to the investigator, on the basis of the evidence, the applicant had by his reactions and behaviour rendered the use of force necessary. However, as the applicant had described it, that force had been excessive ( που όπως την περιγράφει ο ίδιος ήταν υπέρμετρη ). In his opinion it was more suitable to take disciplinary action against the officers for improper conduct and neglecting their duty to record and report the events than to press criminal charges. If the officers had acted appropriately from the beginning it would have given more weight to their accounts and made them more convincing. 71.     On 27 July 2010 the investigator transmitted a summary of his report and findings to the president of the IAIACAP. 72 .     The IAIACAP agreed with the investigator’s finding that no criminal action was merited but disagreed with his suggestion that disciplinary action should be pursued against the officers involved. It stated that it believed the officers’ testimony that only the requisite amount of force had been used to enable the applicant’s deportation. After examining the background to the case, it further stated that it was clear that the applicant’s actions had been self-serving and that through lying and using various stratagems he had tried to make sure he stayed in Cyprus or benefitted financially. To that end, he had proceeded to lodge an application with the Court. In addition, the IAIACAP supported its finding by noting that the cabin crew supervisor had stated that he had not noticed anything untoward during the flight, something he would have recorded in his flight report. The IAIACAP concluded as follows: “If [the applicant’s] claim that he was gagged with bandages was true, the cabin crew would have perceived it as an unusual event and would have recorded it. At the same time, omissions by the officers involved have been identified; they are not, however, of such a nature as to justify disciplinary action. Such omissions can be communicated to the Chief of Police for taking corrective steps”. 73.     The IAIACAP’s conclusion and the investigator’s report with all the relevant material were submitted to the Attorney General for a decision. 4.     Decisions taken by the Attorney General and the Chief of Police 74 .     On 2 September 2010 the Attorney General decided that the police officers’ actions and omissions did not merit criminal prosecution, noting also that it appeared that the applicant’s actions had been self-serving. He agreed with the findings of the investigator and the IAIACAP that no criminal offence had been committed by the officers in question. In his opinion, the officers’ omission in not recording or reporting the incident did not merit disciplinary action either, given that the applicant had been unruly (ατίθασος) and uncooperative. He left that issue, however, to the discretion of the Chief of Police. 75.     On 10 September 2010 the applicant was informed of the Attorney General’s decision. 76 .     The Chief of Police decided not to take disciplinary action against the officers involved. Instead, on 7 October 2010, he issued instructions to the Immigration Police and the Airport Security Police that in future they had to ensure that all relevant information regarding similar incidents and actions taken by the police in such contexts was meticulously recorded. Furthermore, the police departments concerned held meetings and lectures on the matter. D.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention 1.     The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention 77 .     According to the applicant, he was detained in a police detention cell at Nicosia Central Prisons for a long time in conditions which had only been acceptable for a stay of a few days. He had been detained with another detainee in a cell measuring 5.5 sq. m and there had been no room for exercise. The conditions had also been unhygienic: strong smells had emanated from the toilet, the detainees had been made to clean their cells and the area nearby and rubbish had not been collected. He stated that the detention facilities had been overcrowded. 78 .     The applicant submitted a hand-sketched floor plan of his cell in Block 10. The plan showed that it was 5.5 sq. m in area, measuring 2.75 m by 2 m with a window 75 cm wide. It had a bunk bed which measured 83.5   cm by 200 cm, two chairs and a small table. 79 .     In May 2006 a fire broke out in Block 10. As a result the Block had been covered in ash and detainees had been exposed to the smell of smoke. However, despite those conditions the detainees, including the applicant, had still been detained in Block 10. They had even been kept there when the Block had been under renovation and had thus had to bear the smell of paint. In support of that statement, the applicant submitted extracts from newspaper articles describing the situation in Block 10. 2.     The Government’s description of the conditions of detention 80.     Relying on a letter issued by the Prison Director in June 2009 the Government made submissions about the conditions of the applicant’s detention as follows. 81 .     From 6 April 2005 until 14 November 2005, when serving his sentence, the applicant had been detained in Wing 1B of Nicosia Central Prisons. 82.     On 14 November 2005, following his release and re-arrest, the applicant had been moved to Block 10 (see paragraph 14 above). 83 .     The applicant had been detained in a cell measuring 2.73 m by 2 m, equipped with a bunk-bed and any other equipment he had desired; it was likely that he had shared his cell with another detainee. A window measuring   87   cm   by   68 cm had allowed for natural light and ventilation. 84.     Block 10 had had sufficient hygiene facilities such as washbasins, toilets and showers. Although a private cleaner had been hired, the detainees had been personally responsible for keeping their cells clean and had been provided with cleaning products. 85.     Air conditioning units provided heat in the winter and cold air in the summer. A communal area measuring 50 m by 3.5 m, which connected the cells, allowed detainees to move freely inside throughout the day so prisoners had had access to water coolers and entertainment rooms; the applicant had been allowed out of his cell from dawn to the evening, as referred to in the European Prison Regulations. After 11 a.m. all detainees were allowed to leave the common area to go to the laundry room where they could stay until the end of the laundry cycle, which could last up to ninety minutes. 86.     With reference to access to outdoor activities the Government submitted that all detainees were obliged to go out of the detention area straight after breakfast, from 7.30 a.m. until 9 a.m. Outdoor access was restricted from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., during visiting hours. At the end of visiting time detainees could leave the detention area and visit the washrooms. Detainees were allowed out of their cells again from 4 p.m. to   8   p.m. when they also had access to the basketball court. 87.     Block 10 had been under renovation from October 2005 to October 2010 to improve conditions for detainees and ensure their compatibility with European standards. 88.     The Government submitted the file on the applicant which had been kept by prison officers during his detention and a medical certificate. They indicated that the applicant had had visits from his lawyer and other people and that he had received medical examinations on request. 3.     Information concerning the conditions of detention arising from the IAIACAP’s investigation 89 .     In his statement to the IAIACAP on 22 September 2009, the officer in charge of the archives at Nicosia Police Headquarters informed the investigator that on 28 April 1999, the Minister of Justice had declared Block 10 at Nicosia Central Prisons a police detention establishment. He further informed the investigator that for safety purposes Block 10 had been under renovation from October 2005 until October 2007. He provided the investigator with an undated document containing all the steps taken for the renovation of Block 10. With reference to the conditions of detention, the document recorded the following (emphasis in the original): “CONDITIONS OF DETENTION BASED ON EUROPEAN STANDARDS: Cell Size: In Block 10 there are 36 cells measuring 5.4 sq. m. It is noted that according to European standards, each cell should measure at least 7 sq. m for 1   person. - Lighting (metal shutters and natural light): Natural light is considered adequate. - Ventilation [and air conditioning] : There are air conditioning devices which are considered sufficient. There is no ventilation system and the area is ventilated by the windows inside the cells of the detention area. Ventilation is considered adequate. - Hygiene Areas: The toilets and bathrooms are built in a way they cannot be vandalised. - Access to drinking water: There is a water cooler in the common area which is considered sufficient. - Open area for exercise: There is an open area and it is considered sufficient - Chair and table in each cell: Tables and chairs have been placed inside the cells. - Rights of detainees: The rights of detainees are posted within the detention area. They have been translated into seven languages: English, Russian, Turkish, Arabic, Iranian, Chinese and French.” 90.     It appears from extracts of the custody logs held in Block 10 in February 2007 contained in the IAIACAP’s investigation file that detainees were allowed into the open area for walking and exercise for approximately one hour each day. It appears from the same record that overall in February a maximum of fifty-eight detainees were held in Block 10. On 15 February 2007 the police officers in Block 10 received instructions from the detention cell supervising officer that any detainee who refused to clean his cell or failed to contribute to the general cleaning of the detention facilities ( γενική καθαριότητα των κρατητηρίων ) would be placed in isolation until he complied with the cleaning requirements. Food would be provided to the detainee in the isolation cell. 91.     In his statement to the IAIACAP investigator on 15 June 2010 (see paragraph 51 above) the applicant stated the following with regards to the conditions of his detention: “The treatment I had in Block 10 was good, I didn’t have any problems with the policemen, but the conditions were not good. We used to be two in the same room and were locked. The cooling system was problematic, because some detainees from Iran burned the place during a protest they carried out. After the beginning of 2007 they started leaving us to go out of our rooms for one hour every day. ...”. 4.     The applicant’s complaint to the Ombudsman 92.     The applicant also complained about his conditions of detention in his letter to the Ombudsman dated 11 June 2006 (see paragraph   18 above). In her reply of 5 December 2006 the Ombudsman informed him that she would be conducting an investigation into the conditions of detention of foreigners in general in order to make suggestions for improving the situation. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Entry, residence and deportation of aliens 1.     The Aliens and Immigration Law 93.     The entry, residence and deportation of aliens are regulated by the Aliens and Immigration Law of 1959 (Cap. 105, as amended). 94 .     Under section 6(1) of the Law a person is not permitted to enter the Republic if he is a “prohibited immigrant”. This category includes, inter alia , any person who, not having received a pardon, has been convicted of murder or an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment has been passed for any term and who, by reason of the circumstances connected therewith, is deemed to be an undesirable immigrant (section 6(1)(d)). A “prohibited immigrant” can be ordered to leave the Republic under section 13 of the same Law. 95 .     Under the Law the deportation and, in the meantime, the detention of any alien who is considered “a prohibited immigrant” can be ordered by the Chief Immigration Officer, who is the Minister of the Interior (section 14). Section 4 of the Law allows the Minister to delegate the execution of his duties or other powers granted under this Law to any other official in his or her department. Section 14(6) provides that a person against whom a detention and/or deportation order has been issued shall be informed in writing, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for this decision, unless this is not desirable on public-security grounds, and has the right to be represented before the competent authorities and to request the services of an interpreter. In addition, Regulation 19 of the Aliens and Immigration Regulations of 1972 (as amended) provides that when the Immigration Officer decides that a person is a prohibited immigrant, written notice to that effect must be served on that person in accordance with the second schedule of the Regulations (see M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, §§ 63-65, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 2.     The Refugee Law 96 .     Asylum applications are made to the Asylum Service in the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior. Asylum seekers can appeal against decisions by the Asylum Service to the Reviewing Authority, which was established by the Refugee Law (Law 6 (I) of 2000, as amended). Procedures before the Asylum Service and the Reviewing Authority are suspensive: asylum seekers have a right under section 8 of the Refugee Law to remain in the Republic pending the examination of their claim and, if lodged, their ap