CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 801 27.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Kallis and Androulla Panayi v. Turkey (Application no. 45388/99 )     SOLDIER KILLED BY TURKISH AUTHORITIES IN THE UN BUFFER ZONE IN CYPRUS   Two violations of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 35,000   euros   (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   9,888.30 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English).   Principal facts   The applicants, Kallis Panayi and Mrs   Androulla Panayi, are two Cypriot nationals who were born in 1947 and 1950 respectively and live in Nicosia.   They are a married couple.   The parties disagree as to the facts of the case.   According to the applicants, on the early morning of 3 June 1996, their son Stelios Kalli Panayi who was nineteen years old at the time and serving in the Cyprus National Guard as a private soldier, entered the United Nations (UN) buffer zone in Nicosia to exchange his hat with one belonging to a soldier of the Turkish-Cypriot armed forces. He was off duty and unarmed. The Turkish armed forces shot him. When members of the UN force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) attempted to reach him in order to provide medical treatment needed to save his life, the Turkish armed forces opened fire and did not allow it, as a result of which he died.   According to the Turkish Government the incident took place in the Turkish part of the buffer zone. On the day in question, a fully armed Greek Cypriot soldier, Stelios Kalli Panayi, wearing army uniform entered the buffer zone making gestures by hand and calling the Turkish-Cypriot soldiers to go over to him. They warned him several times in a loud voice in Turkish, English and Greek not to approach but he ignored their warning and entered the buffer zone by crossing the wooden bridge which only UNFICYP soldiers were allowed to use. Two warning shots were fired by Turkish-Cypriot soldiers at him. As he did not stop, one more shot was fired to stop him. On hearing the gunshots, a UNFICYP came towards the place where the gunshots had been heard and was about to cross the bridge. However, he was warned by two shots fired into the air by the Turkish soldiers not to advance any further, as it was not known whether Stelios Kalli Panayi had not adopted a more advantageous crawling position. At 7.01 a.m. an ambulance arrived in the area by the Peace Force patrol road. Stelios Kalli Panayi was placed in the ambulance, which left for the hospital. Later, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities were informed that he had died.   On 7   June 1996 the UN Secretary-General issued a report on the incident stating that an unarmed National Guard soldier was shot and killed inside the UN buffer zone in central Nicosia. The investigation revealed that the lethal round was fired by a Turkish-Cypriot soldier whom members of the UN force in Cyprus observed entering the buffer zone with his rifle strung across his back. UN soldiers were prevented from reaching the National Guard soldier by Turkish-Cypriot soldiers who fired shots in the direction of the UNFICYP soldiers each time the latter tried to move forward.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2, the applicants complained about their son having been killed by the Turkish armed forces and about there not having been an effective investigation into the killing.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 November 1996.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Killing of Stelios Panayi   The Court noted that it had not been contested by the parties that the applicants’ son had voluntarily crossed the UN buffer zone. The Turkish Government had also accepted that it had been a Turkish soldier who had fired and killed Stelios Panayi. Furthermore, the Court noted the UN report issued about the incident. Although Stelios had been wearing uniform and hence one could have assumed that he might have carried a gun, that fact alone could not in the circumstances have justified the shots fired at him. The Turkish soldiers had been in complete control of the area and Stelios’ behaviour had not posed a threat to them; consequently the soldiers would have been able to stop him without jeopardising his life.   The Court further observed that, as the UN Secretary General had reported, UN soldiers had been prevented from reaching Stelios and providing him with medical treatment. The Court found unanimously that Stelios Panayi had been killed by representatives of the Turkish authorities who had used excessive force, not justified by the circumstances of the case, in violation of Article 2.   Inadequate investigation into the killing   The Court observed that the Turkish Government had only produced a few notes prepared by the military authorities and describing the basic events surrounding the shooting of Stelios Kalli Panayi on the basis of the versions given by the soldiers involved in it. The versions had not been challenged in the light of the material evidence available to the Turkish authorities or of the statements of the UN personnel. In addition, the investigation had been carried out by the same body to which those implicated in the events belonged: it could therefore hardly be described as “independent”. Furthermore, the question of the criminal liability of the Turkish soldier who had killed Mr   Panayi had never been even examined by the domestic authorities. Consequently, the Court found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Stelios Panayi, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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 Convention, 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.