CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCE76BA63 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s327CD7AC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sB7D61AAE { width:208.97pt; display:inline-block } .s1DB4E124 { width:246.32pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF MONIR LOTFY v. CYPRUS (Application no. 37139/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Reductions in required minimum personal space at specialised immigration detention centre not short, occasional and minor Art 5 § 1 (f) • Expulsion • Arbitrariness of applicant’s continued detention with a view to his deportation after habeas corpus writ ordering his immediate release   STRASBOURG 29 June 2021   FINAL   29/09/2021     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Monir Lotfy v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Georges Ravarani,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application 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 an Egyptian national, Mr   Nashat Monir Lotfy (“the applicant”), on 3 June 2013; the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3 and Article 5 §§   1 and   4, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 8 June 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant complained that his detention with a view to his deportation had been unlawful and that there had been no available remedies for challenging that detention; he also complained of the conditions of his detention, the lack of access to medical treatment and that he had been ill-treated while in detention. He relied on Article 3 and Article   5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently living in Egypt. He was represented by Ms N. Charalambidou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr   C.   Clerides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, and then by Mr   G.   Savvides, his successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The circumstances of the case Background to the case 5.     The applicant has a protracted immigration history with the Cypriot authorities after first coming to Cyprus in 1991 . Between 1991 and 2012 he was deported twice. Furthermore, although he was also granted Cypriot citizenship this was subsequently revoked and the proceedings he brought to challenge this decision were unsuccessful. The applicant’s arrest on 10 February 2013 and immigration detention from 11 February 2013 until 30 July 2013 6.     Following the revocation of his citizenship and his second deportation in June 2012, the applicant subsequently re-entered Cyprus unlawfully on an unspecified date. 7 .     On 10 February 2013 the applicant was arrested by the police during a random identity check in the street and, the following day, detention and deportation orders were issued against him under section 14(6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (Cap. 105, as amended) on the grounds that he was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of section 6(1)(i), (k) and (l) of that Law (see Haghilo v. Cyprus , no. 47920/12, §§ 97 and 99, 26   March 2019, and M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). He was placed in detention in Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons. 8.     On 18 February 2013 he was transferred to Menoyia detention centre. 9 .     On 19 June 2013 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided to extend it for an additional six months under section   18ΠΣΤ(8)(a) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see Haghilo , cited above, §§ 100-01). According to the internal notes in the case file, it appears that the applicant did not have a passport and that instructions had been given for the issuance of a travel document so he could be deported. It was also stated that he had not been cooperating with the authorities for the issuance of a passport. 10.     On 6 July 2013 the applicant was transferred to Aradippou police station where he remained until 18 July 2013. On 19 July 2013 he was transferred to Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons. The applicant’s first application for a writ of habeas corpus 11 .     On 11 July 2013 the applicant lodged a habeas corpus application (application no. 139/2013) with the Supreme Court (as the first-instance court) challenging the lawfulness of his detention owing to the length of its duration. In particular, he argued that his detention had been unlawful, as it had lasted for more than five months, and that during this period the authorities had taken no action in respect of his deportation to Egypt in breach of, inter alia , section 18ΠΣΤ of the Aliens and Immigration Law (ibid.) and Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention . 12.     The government did not submit an objection to his application. On the day of the hearing, the government’s lawyer informed the court that the person who had been meant to give him information on the facts of the case had been on leave and therefore the lawyer had not been able to prepare the objection. 13 .     On 30 July 2013 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his immediate release. The court found that the government had failed to show that his continuing detention for more than five months had been lawful: they had not informed the court as to the steps they had taken up to that point to execute the deportation order, or the reasons why it had not been carried out. Moreover, the government had failed to inform the court whether the Minister of the Interior had reviewed the detention order (as required by section 18ΠΣΤ of the Aliens and Immigration Law) or, if the Minister had done so, what his decision had been. It thus concluded that the government had not provided any justification for keeping the applicant in detention. 14 .     The government did not lodge an appeal against this judgment. The applicant’s second arrest on 30 July 2013 15 .     On the same day, 30 July 2013, following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the applicant, while still at the court, was rearrested and taken back to Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons. 16 .     In an internal note of the same date, the Director of the Civil Registry and Migration Department (“the Director”) stated that she had carefully examined the applicant’s file after being informed by the police that a habeas corpus had been ordered for his release. She noted that the application had only been served on the Ministry of the Interior on 15 July 2013 and had been received by her department on 22 July 2013 during her absence on leave. No actions had then been taken to prepare a statement of fact for the lawyer representing the government in the habeas corpus proceedings to inform him of the Minister’s decision of 19 June 2013 (see paragraph 9 above) and of the reasons for which the applicant had not yet been deported, namely, the applicant’s refusal to surrender his passport and/or to visit his country’s embassy in order to secure a temporary travel document. She also observed that the lawyer had only asked for a copy of the orders. Following her re-examination of the case, she concluded that the applicant’s detention had been lawful and that it had been unfortunate that the Supreme Court had not received information on the case because, if it had, it would possibly have decided differently. She also noted that, in any event, the applicant was a prohibited immigrant, without the right to stay in the Republic and that he had been arrested following his unlawful re-entry into Cyprus after already having been deported when his Cypriot citizenship had been revoked on serious grounds. On the basis of the above, the Director gave instructions that the previous deportation and detention orders be annulled and that new ones be issued. 17 .     Consequently, new deportation and detention orders were issued in respect of the applicant on 30 July 2013 on the same grounds as those cited in the first deportation and detention orders – that is to say, under sections   6(1)(i), (k) and (l) and 14(6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 7 above). On that date, the applicant was served with a letter from the Director informing him that he was an illegal immigrant within the meaning of the above sections on the grounds of his previous deportation and his illegal entry and stay in the Republic of Cyprus and of her decision to detain and deport him. 18 .     On 19 September 2013 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided to extend it for an additional six months under section   18ΠΣΤ(8)(a) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see Haghilo , cited above, §§ 100-01) on the ground that the applicant had refused to cooperate with the authorities for his return to Egypt. 19.     In the meantime, on 8 September 2013 the applicant was transferred to Polis Chrysochous police station. On 12 September 2013 he was transferred to Ayia Napa police station and then on 30 September 2013 to Menoyia detention centre. The applicant’s second application for a writ of habeas corpus 20.     On 27 September 2013 the applicant lodged a second habeas corpus application (application no. 183/13) with the Supreme Court (as the first-instance court) challenging the lawfulness of his detention on the same grounds as in his first application (see paragraph 11 above). 21 .     On 28 January 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the application. The court observed that the applicant’s detention had started on 11 February 2013 and had continued ever since. His release effected on 30 July 2013 in application of the habeas corpus writ of that date did not strike out the previous period of detention and did not affect its total duration, given that the applicant remained in detention for the same reasons. In the meantime, the duration of his detention had been reviewed on 19 June 2013 by the Minister of the Interior who had approved its extension for another six months. Following the issuance of the new deportation and detention orders on 30 July 2013, the Minister of the Interior had further extended his detention on 19   September 2013. The court also noted that the government had been trying to acquire a travel document for the applicant from the Egyptian embassy. There had, however, been a delay due both to the unsettled situation in Egypt and also to the applicant’s refusal to cooperate. The applicant’s detention had been extended on both the above dates on the basis of the latter ground as specified in the Minister’s decisions. His detention was therefore lawful. Costs were awarded against the applicant. Subsequent reviews of the applicant’s detention by the Minister of the Interior 22 .     The Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention on 5   February, 2 April and 4 June 2014 and decided to extend it on the same grounds as those cited in respect of the previous decisions (see paragraphs   9 and   18 above). 23.     On 8 July 2014 the applicant was deported to Egypt after the Egyptian authorities agreed to issue a travel document without his consent. The applicant’s recourse challenging the deportation and detention orders of 30 July 2013 24.     In the meantime, on 7 August 2013 the applicant brought a recourse (judicial review proceedings; recourse no. 5848/13) before the Supreme Court (in its first-instance revisional jurisdiction) challenging the lawfulness of the new deportation and detention orders issued on 30   July   2013 on the basis of which he had been rearrested and detained. He argued that the orders had been issued in breach of, inter alia , the provisions of the Aliens and Immigration Law and of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 25.     On 8 August 2013, in the context of this recourse, the applicant applied to the Supreme Court for a provisional order for the suspension of the deportation and detention orders until the determination of the recourse. He claimed that, as a Coptic Christian, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment if deported: Muslim groups in Egypt had systematically attacked Coptic Christians in response to the political events there. 26.     On 14 August 2013, at the hearing concerning the provisional order, the government informed the Supreme Court that the deportation order had been suspended by the Director in order to examine the applicant’s claim. On the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the light of the suspension of the deportation order, the applicant’s detention was no longer justified. It thus also ordered the suspension of the detention order on condition, inter alia , that the applicant sign a financial guarantee for the sum of 10,000 euros (EUR) with a guarantor. The applicant submitted that, as he had been unable to find a guarantor, he had remained in detention. 27.     On 4 October 2013 the Director lifted the suspension of the deportation order as the applicant had not lodged an asylum application. 28 .     On 7 November 2013 the Supreme Court rejected the application for the provisional order as the applicant had not shown flagrant illegality or irreparable damage (see M.A. v. Cyprus , cited above, § 71). In sum, the court noted that the applicant had been declared a prohibited immigrant and had thus been deprived of his right to remain in the Republic. Consequently, there was an immediate risk of him absconding. Under section 18OΔ of the Aliens and Immigration Law, “a risk of absconding” meant the existence of reasons in an individual case to believe that a third-country national who was subject to a return procedure could abscond, and this included prior deportation/expulsion. Consequently, it held that no flagrant illegality could be ascertained in the Director’s action to proceed with the issuance of the orders of 30 July 2013. Flagrant illegality had to be palpably identifiable without the court having to probe into disputed facts. None of the applicant’s remaining allegations concerning the orders established flagrant illegality but concerned the merits of the case or allegations that had been contested and would have to be proven in the context of the main recourse. 29.     The recourse was subsequently transferred to the new Administrative Court (see Haghilo , cited above, §§ 103 and 105), which dismissed it on 31   August 2017. It held that as the deportation and detention orders had, in the meantime, been executed and the applicant deported, the recourse was without object. The applicant’s asylum claim 30.     On 27 January 2014, while in detention, the applicant applied for asylum on the ground that, as a Coptic Christian, he feared persecution if returned to Egypt. 31.     On 12 February 2014 the Asylum Service rejected the application on the grounds that the applicant’s claims were not credible and that he had failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution taking into consideration the fact that he had visited Egypt fifteen to twenty times during his stay in Cyprus. 32.     On 14 February 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees against the Asylum Service’s decision. This was dismissed on 9 June 2015, that is, after the applicant’s deportation. Steps taken by the Cypriot authorities with a view to removing the applicant, as submitted by the Government 33.     On 7 and 13 March 2013 the applicant had been interviewed by members of the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit but he had refused to leave Cyprus or to visit the Egyptian embassy in order to apply for a travel document. 34.     On 19 March 2013 the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit had contacted the Egyptian embassy which had informed them that an Egyptian national had to consent to his or her repatriation and to apply in person for travel documents. 35.     On 22 March 2013 the applicant had been interviewed again but had been uncooperative. He had stated that he would not leave Cyprus until the proceedings concerning the revocation of his Cypriot nationality had been concluded. He had claimed that a friend, who he had refused to name, had his passport. 36.     On 3 April 2013 a copy of the applicant’s Egyptian passport had been found and handed over to the Egyptian embassy for the purpose of facilitating the passport issuance process. The Police Aliens and Immigration Unit had suggested to the embassy that they visit the applicant and inquire with him directly. 37.     On 22 April 2013 the applicant had been interviewed again but had remained uncooperative. 38.     On 14 August 2013 members of the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit had taken a written statement from the applicant for the purpose of clarifying his intentions with regard to his return to Egypt. The applicant had stated that his Egyptian passport had been confiscated by the Egyptian authorities in June 2012 when he had been deported to Egypt. He had submitted that he had no travel documents at all, he did not want to return to Egypt and that he considered Cyprus to be his home. 39.     On 23 August 2013 the Director had met the Egyptian embassy’s chargé d’affaires who had informed her that the delays had been due to the unstable political situation in Egypt and had promised to make an effort to speed up the procedure with the hope that a travel document could be issued in the following weeks. 40.     Further interviews with the applicant had been held on 8 October and 17   December 2013 and 21 January 2014. The applicant had maintained his position in all the interviews, stating that he did not wish to be given an Egyptian travel document. 41.     On 18 December 2013 the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit had contacted the Egyptian embassy but there had been no news at that time concerning the applicant’s travel document. 42.     On 22 January 2014, when they had contacted the Egyptian embassy again, the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit had again been informed that a travel document could not be issued without the applicant’s consent. Members of the Unit had encouraged the embassy officials to visit the applicant at Menoyia detention centre. 43.     During the processing of his asylum application of 27 January 2014, further interviews had been held with the applicant, but he had refused to cooperate with the authorities. The Egyptian embassy had also made some requests in order to proceed with the issuance of the documents and had informed the authorities that they would consider the possibility of issuing a travel document without the applicant’s consent. 44.     On 4 July 2014 the Egyptian embassy had informed the authorities that they would issue a travel document for the applicant on 8 July 2014. The material conditions of the applicant’s detention 45.     The applicant was held from 11 February 2013 until his deportation on 8 July 2014 in immigration detention in various facilities. In particular: (a)     11-18 February 2013 in Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons; (b)     18 February-6 July 2013 at Menoyia detention centre; (c)     6-18 July 2013 at Aradippou police station; (d)     19 July-8 September 2013 in Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons; (e)     8-12 September 2013 at Polis Chrysochous police station; (f)     12-30 September 2013 at Ayia Napa police station; (g)     30 September 2013-8 July 2014 at Menoyia detention centre. The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention 46.     The applicant did not provide a description of the conditions of his detention. The Government’s description of the conditions of detention (a)    Nicosia Central Prisons: Block 10 (11-18 February 2013 and 19 July-8   September 2013) 47.     Block 10 had two wings which could hold up to seventy-two inmates. However, fifty-six had been the maximum that had been held there for security reasons and better conditions. 48.     The applicant had been held in a double-occupancy cell which measured 9 square metres (sq. m). He had shared the cell with one other detainee. It had been equipped with a bunk bed and a table with two chairs. The cell had had a window, allowing access to natural light and ventilation. Sanitary facilities had been for common use: there had been four toilets and eight showers. There had been an air-conditioning system which had been on twenty-four hours a day and could be regulated by the detainees themselves. 49.     Detainees had been able to use the outdoor exercise yard for two hours in the mornings and two hours in the afternoons each day. 50.     All detainees had been provided with hygiene products and meals had been served three times a day. (b)    Menoyia detention centre (18 February-7 July 2013 and 30 September 2013-8   July 2014) 51 .     This facility had been opened on 28 January 2013. It comprised four wings, three for men and one for women. Each wing had held up to sixty ‑ four inmates at the time. The cells in this facility measured 18.36   sq.   m. The applicant had been held in a multi-occupancy cell which, at the time, had been used to hold up to eight inmates. During his detention, he had shared the cell with four to seven other inmates. The Government did not submit any records in this respect. 52.     All the cells had had a window, allowing access to natural light and fresh air. They had been equipped with beds, wardrobes and a table with two benches. Each wing had had common sanitary facilities and showers: seven toilets and eight showers. There had been a central air-conditioning and heating system which had been on twenty-four hours a day. 53.     Detainees had been able to use the outdoor exercise yard for two hours in the mornings and two hours in the afternoons each day. 54 .     Detainees had been provided with the necessary hygiene products and meals had been served three times a day. 55.     A doctor had visited the detention centre every day from 8 a.m. until 2   p.m., nursing staff three times a week from 7 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. and a psychologist once a week. (c)    Aradippou police station (6-18 July 2013) 56.     In this station the applicant had been held in a double-occupancy cell which had measured 6.9 sq. m. The cell had been equipped with bunk beds and a table with chairs. All cells had had windows looking out onto the internal yard, allowing access to natural light and fresh air. Sanitary facilities had been for common use. The cells had been open with free access to the sanitary facilities, common areas and interior yard. Access to the interior yard had been on a rota basis with the female detainees, if there were any. The facility had had a central air-conditioning and heating system. Detainees had been provided with all the necessary hygiene products and meals had been served three times a day. 57.     The applicant had not made any complaints during his detention or upon his transfer to Block 10. (d)    Polis Chrysochous police station (8-12 September 2013) 58.     At the time the applicant had been detained in this station there had been two other detainees. The applicant had been held alone in a single ‑ occupancy cell which had measured about 10.8 sq. m. It had had a toilet and shower and had also been equipped with a bed, table and chair. The cell had had a window, allowing access to natural light and ventilation. There had been an air-conditioning system which had been on all day and, if all three detainees held in the station agreed, at night too. The cells in the station had been open all day and detainees had been able to move about freely in the internal yard, giving them access to fresh air and natural light. 59.     The applicant had been provided with the necessary hygiene products and meals had been served three times a day. 60.     The applicant had gone on hunger strike on 10 September 2013 which had lasted until 12 September 2013. During the hunger strike he had been checked every half an hour and had insisted that he was well. On the latter date he was taken to Polis Chrysochous hospital. He was then returned to the station and later that day transferred to Ayia Napa police station. (e)    Ayia Napa police station (12-30 September 2013) 61.     The applicant had been held alone in a single-occupancy cell which had measured about 9.4 sq. m. The cell had had a toilet and shower and had also been equipped with a bed, table and chair. It had had a window/skylight and an individual air-conditioning and heating system. The station’s detention facility had had an outdoor exercise yard which detainees had been allowed to use for at least one hour per day. 62.     Detainees had been provided with the necessary hygiene products and meals had been served three times a day. 63.     The applicant had continued his hunger strike until 16 September 2013. He had been protesting against not being detained in Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons. During this period he only drank tea. From 17   September 2013, he ate all his meals. The applicant’s medical treatment while in detention at Menoyia detention centre (a)    The applicant’s version of the events 64 .     In his application form, the applicant attached a letter dated 27   October 2013 to the “Human Right European Committee” [ sic ] in which he complained that, while detained at Menoyia detention centre, he had been denied access to his medication or to a hospital. In the same letter, the applicant complained that, on 19 October 2013, he had asked to be transferred to a hospital but that the authorities had refused and he had only been taken to see a doctor five days later. 65 .     Further, the applicant submitted in his observations of 16 January 2017 that it emerged from the medical rec ords submitted by the Government that on 19 March 2013 he had not been able to take his medication because he had been handcuffed and the guard had asked him to take it himself. (b)    The Government’s version of the events 66.     According to the applicant’s medical file, on 19 March 2013 the applicant had refused to take his medicine if his handcuffs had not been removed. 67 .     On 14 October 2013 the applicant had drunk shampoo and been taken to hospital. 68 .     The applicant had requested to be taken to hospital on 18   October 2013. In his records it is stated that the applicant had wished to go to hospital because he had “damage in my head. It’s made me don’t sleep at night” [ sic ]. On the same day an appointment had been scheduled with the doctor at the centre for 21 October 2013. On the latter date, however, the applicant had refused in writing to be examined by a doctor and had stated that he was feeling well. 69 .     On 19 October 2013 the applicant had not requested to be taken to hospital. He had, however, been taken to Larnaca General Hospital because he had drunk shampoo. He had been examined by a doctor in the Accident and Emergency Department and had claimed that he had been beaten and felt dizzy. According to the doctor’s findings, he had had various abrasions. An X-ray had been carried out and no fracture found. He had been prescribed medication and the doctor had suggested that he should be examined by a psychiatrist because he had put his life in danger. 70 .     On 27 October 2013 the applicant had not requested to be taken to hospital. According to his personal file, on 29 October 2013 he had requested to visit a dentist and an appointment had been made that same day. When he had been informed of this, the applicant had changed his mind and said he did not wish to visit the doctor for personal reasons. There was a note in his file to this effect by the police officer. The applicant had refused to sign the relevant form concerning his refusal. It was also noted that the applicant had continuously caused problems to the on-duty officers. 71 .     On 7 January 2014 the applicant had been taken to hospital after scratching himself with a blunt object. The doctor had recorded that he had threatened to drink shampoo again and had requested a psychiatric evaluation. He had been taken to a psychiatrist at Larnaca General Hospital the next day who had examined the applicant and noted that he had been “logorrhoeic, with various demands which [were] impossible to meet in Menoyia”. 72 .     According to the applicant’s medical file, between 8   March 2013 and 26 June 2014, the applicant had been taken to hospital or examined by a doctor at Menoyia detention centre eighty-two times and he had been provided, inter alia , with medication and various supplements. The applicant’s solitary confinement while in detention at Menoyia detention centre 73 .     The applicant, while at Menoyia detention centre, had been put in solitary confinement from 24 April to 1 May 2014 and from 14 to 19   May 2014 for misconduct. The applicant had sent a letter of complaint through KISA, a local non-governmental organisation (NGO), to the Commissioner for Administration and the Protection of Human Rights of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Ombudsman”) on 14 May 2014 about this. 74.     By a letter dated 11 August 2015, the Ombudsman informed KISA that, as the applicant had already been deported, she could not investigate this complaint. Allegations concerning ill-treatment (a)    Incident of 17 July 2013 (i)       The applicant’s version 75 .     On 16 July 2013 the applicant had been informed that he had to appear the next day before the Supreme Court with regard to his habeas corpus application, so at 1 a.m. he would be transferred to Block 10 of Nicosia Central Prisons from Aradippou police station. However, on 17   July 2013, at 2.30 a.m., he had been taken from Aradippou police station to the Police Immigration Unit in Nicosia, where he had been handcuffed to a chair for the next six hours. When he had complained, the prison officers had assaulted him. The applicant had sent a letter of complaint dated 17   July 2013 by fax to his lawyers, the NGO Future Worlds Center and various media channels. (ii)     The Government’s version 76 .     According to police records, on 17 July 2013 the applicant had been taken from Aradippou police station at around 2.50 a.m. and transferred to the Police Immigration Unit in Nicosia where he arrived at around 4 a.m. The applicant had remained there until 8 a.m., when he had been transferred to the Supreme Court for a hearing at 8.45 a.m. The applicant had not been left handcuffed to a chair or ill-treated in any way. The applicant had sent a letter of complaint by fax from the centre to six recipients unknown to the authorities. (b)    Incident of 9 October 2013 at Menoyia detention centre (i)       The applicant’s version 77 .     On 9 October 2013 the applicant had been physically ill-treated by first one and later eight police officers. Instead of looking into his complaints, the authorities had brought criminal proceedings against him. 78 .     The applicant had sent a letter by fax to the Ombudsman on 21   March 2014 complaining that he had been beaten by five police officers and alleging that he had subsequently complained of this to the doctor at the hospital but that she had not made a report of it as the police had spoken to her. 79 .     The applicant had also informed KISA about, inter alia , this incident. KISA had then sent a letter dated 14 May 2014 to the Ombudsman and the Minister of Justice and Public Order. In their letter it had been noted that the applicant had complained about this incident and that he had been ill-treated, and that when he had asked for the footage from the detention’s closed-circuit television cameras, the administration had informed him that on that day they had been out of order and had not recorded anything. In the letter it was also stated that the applicant had complained that the officers had not been wearing any insignia and he had therefore not been able to see their names or numbers. (ii)     The Government’s version 80 .     On 9 October 2013 at around 3.30 p.m. an incident had occurred at the detention centre between the applicant and two officers, A.K. and Y.M., following a routine check of the cells. 81 .     In statements given that day, A.K. and Y.M. stated that when they had finished the search, the applicant had started to bang on the doors, shouting that the officers had broken his shampoo (bottle) during the search and that he wanted to see the officer in charge. Three of the officers had then taken him to see the officer in charge, who had checked the bottle and seen that it had not been broken. The applicant had been shouting that he was going to file a complaint about these cell checks, but the officer in charge had informed him that they would continue and had instructed the officers to return the applicant to his cell. While going up the stairs, the applicant had insulted the officers and then, once in the corridor leading to his cell, the applicant had punched Y.M. in the neck. The three officers had tried to handcuff the applicant in order to immobilise him but before they had been able to, he had managed to kick A.K.’s foot. Once they had managed to handcuff the applicant, they had taken him back to the officer in charge who had instructed that he be taken to the waiting room in order to calm him down. 82 .     According to an internal report of that date, it appears that blunt objects (two small, blunt, pieces of metal, a screw and two clips) had been found in the applicant’s cell. 83 .     Both officers had then gone to the Accident and Emergency Department of Larnaca General Hospital. The doctor who had examined Y.M. had found that he had pain and redness on the left side of his neck and neck pain during palpitation. He had noted in his report that no pathological findings had been detected on an X-ray of his neck. Y.M. had been prescribed a soft cervical collar and medication. The doctor who had examined A.K. had found redness and sensitivity on the skin of the left thigh. He had been prescribed medication and two days’ sick leave. 84 .     The applicant had also been taken to the Accident and Emergency Department of the above hospital on the same day to a different doctor but, according to the doctor’s report, he had refused to be examined. 85 .     The next day the applicant had been transferred to the old General Hospital in Larnaca because of a problem with his skin. He had been examined by a dermatologist who had prescribed treatment. The doctor had not noted any injuries and the applicant had not complained to the doctor about any injuries or ill-treatment by the police. 86.     The incident had been investigated by the Kofinou police station after two officers had filed a complaint against the applicant. 87 .     On 18 October 2013 the applicant had been charged of assaulting two police officers. When the applicant had been cautioned, he had not mentioned that he had been ill-treated and although he had been given the opportunity to make a written statement giving his version of the events, he had not done so. 88.     Criminal proceedings had been brought against the applicant before the Larnaca District Court (case no. 2178/14) on 11 February 2014 for assaulting two police officers during the performance of their duties contrary to section 244(b) of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). The proceedings had been discontinued, however, as the applicant had been deported before his trial had taken place. (iii)    Subsequent statement given by the applicant 89 .     On 18 February 2014 the applicant gave a written statement to a criminal investigator appointed by the Independent Authority for Investigation of Allegations and Complaints against the Police (“the IAIACAP”) in the context of an investigation following complaints about a particular officer in Menoyia by a number of detainees, including the applicant. In his statement the applicant referred to the incident of 9 October 2013, stating that on that day, in the morning, he had intended to go to the hospital because he had not been feeling well. He had gone to have a shower before leaving, but one of the officers had kicked open the door while he had been showering. The applicant had protested and asked to be taken to the officer in charge. He had been taken to an officer after he had got dressed and when he had asked whether there was any law permitting this behaviour, the officer in charge had replied that there was. The applicant had then said he did not want to go to the hospital anymore and that he would complain to the centre’s director. They had called another officer who had told the officer in charge to take him to the hospital and that they would talk to him about the problem later. When the applicant had repeated that he no longer wanted to go to the hospital, the officer in charge had sworn at him and told him to go back to his cell. Then another officer, G., had punched him two or three times in the back. After that, five officers had escorted the applicant to his cell. On the way to the cell, the applicant had met Officer G. again who had made a gesture meaning that he would deal with the applicant later. The applicant had then told Officer G. to come upstairs if he wanted to deal with him. When the applicant and the five officers had been on the stairs, which was not covered by cameras, the five officers had started to beat him with their hands and legs on various parts of his body. They had hit him another three times on the way to his cell. They had handcuffed him. His hands had been swollen and he had had some swelling behind the left ear. After some time, the applicant had been taken to Larnaca General Hospital where he had been examined by a doctor. He had told the doctor that he had been beaten by police officers and then an officer had spoken to the doctor in private. The applicant stated that he did not know what the doctor had said in her report. (c)    Incident of 19 October 2013 at Menoyia detention centre (i)       The applicant’s version 90 .     The applicant claimed that when he had requested to be taken to hospital on 19 October 2013 he had been beaten up by the police officers at the detention centre (see paragraph 64 above). (ii)     The Government’s version 91.     The Government’s version is set out in paragraphs 67 to 69 above. (d)    Incident of 29 October 2013 at Menoyia detention centre (i)       The applicant’s version 92.     On 29 October 2013 the applicant had had an appointment with a dentist, but when the police had come to take him they had started to “buser” [ sic ] him and had humiliated him by ordering him to remove his clothes and making him shower in the presence of the officers. The applicant had asked to speak with the “boss” but they had told him that he was busy and if he did not want to take a shower he would go back to his section. 93 .     On that same date the applicant had sent a letter complaining about the above incident. The letter had been addressed to, inter alia , Mr P.P. who was the Chair of the Complaints Committee of the Menoyia detention centre. (ii)     The Government’s version 94.     By virtue of the detention centre’s safety regulations in force at the time, each detainee upon his or her arrival or departure from the centre had to have a shower for safety reasons in order to ensure that the detainees were not carrying any dangerous objects which they could use to harm themselves or others or which they could use to escape. The shower took place in the presence of a police officer of the same sex. This provision had subsequently been abolished. 95 .     The applicant’s letter had been addressed to Mr P.P., a media channel, his lawyer, the CPT and the NGOs KISA and Future Worlds Center. According to the applicant’s personal file, the letter had been sent by fax and only to the CPT and Future Worlds Center. 96.     That morning, the applicant had had an appointment with the dentist at 10   a.m. but he had refused to go (see paragraph 70 above). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE Entry, residence and deportation of aliens, and challenging the lawfulness of immigration detention 97.     The relevant domestic law and practic