CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 24 janvier 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   58 24.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 24 January 2007 at 9 a.m., in the case of Kafkaris v. Cyprus (application no. 21906/04).   The applicant   The applicant, Panayiotis Agapiou Panayi, alias Kafkaris, is a Cypriot national, who was born in 1946. He is currently serving a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Nicosia Central Prison.   Summary of the facts   On 9 March 1989 the applicant was found guilty by Limassol Assize Court on three counts of premeditated murder under the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). The next day he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The applicant had planted and detonated a bomb in a car, killing its passengers, a man and his two young children, aged 11 and 13.   During the hearing before the assize court concerning the sentencing of the applicant, the prosecution invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code and, in particular, to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for a period of 20 years, as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (the Regulations), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap 286).   The assize court held that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person and therefore did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively.   On the day on which the applicant was admitted to prison, he was given written notice by the prison authorities that the date set for his release was 16 July 2002, subject to his good conduct and industry during detention. After committing a disciplinary offence, his release was postponed to 2 November 2002.   The applicant appealed against his conviction, which was dismissed on 21 May 1990 by the Supreme Court.   On 9 October 1992 the Supreme Court declared the Regulations in question to be unconstitutional and ultra vires and, on 3 May 1996, the Prison Law of 1996 (Law 62(I)/96) was enacted, repealing and replacing the Prison Discipline Law.   The applicant was not released on 2 November 2002.   Consequently, on 8 January 2004 he submitted a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness of his detention, which was dismissed. He appealed unsuccessfully.   Complaints   The applicant complains about his life sentence and continuing detention. In particular, he complains that his mandatory life sentence amounted to an irreducible term of imprisonment, that his continuous detention beyond the date set for his release by the prison authorities was unlawful and that it had left him in a prolonged state of distress and uncertainty over his future. He also claims that, as a result of the repeal of the Regulations, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and their retroactive application, he has been subjected to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite 20-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article   5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention and Article 7 (no punishment without law). He further complains under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in that, while most other inmates serving life sentences have been released having served their 20-year sentence, he remains the longest serving life prisoner and, also, that, as a life prisoner, he is now excluded from the possibility of any remission to his sentence under section 12 of the Prison Law of 1996.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 June 2004 and declared admissible on 11 April 2006. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber [1] at the Chamber’s request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Petros Clerides , Agent ,   Ben Emmerson , Sam Grodzinski , Maro Clerides-Tsiappas , Counsel .   Applicant :   Achilleas Demetriades , Counsel ,   Joanna Loizidou , Silvia Bartolini , Advisers .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.