INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

file of any detailed investigation on the domestic level. It noted that all the applicants had
provided the same account of events during the hearing and considered that there were
serious doubts about the credibility of the statements they had given to the Cypriot
authorities. The Court found that the arrests and expulsions appeared to have been carried
out according to a similar plan.
Ill-treatment: The Court noted that the medical evidence revealed that the applicants
presented a number of injuries of various degrees. It relied mainly on the findings of the
UN doctors and to a lesser extent on the medical examinations which some applicants
underwent in the northern part of Cyprus. It took into account that the forensic
pathologist had not personally examined the applicants but had been dependent on
photographs, so that his findings inevitably carried less weight. Moreover, he had
rejected the applicants' allegations in an over-assertive and dogmatic manner, making a
number of comments which were not of a medical nature. His evidence therefore had to
be treated with caution. In the light of these considerations, the Court found it established
or reasonable to conclude that the applicants had been beaten or assaulted in detention,
although the precise manner could not be determined.
Confiscation of belongings: The Court found no evidence to support the contention of
one of the applicants that the police had taken money from him. It did find it established,
however, that another applicant had been deprived of the use and enjoyment of his
property due to his forcible expulsion.
Control of movement: The Court was not convinced that the CIS officers had acted only
as social workers in relation to Turkish Cypriots and found no evidence to support the
assertion that surveillance had been for the purpose of protecting the applicants. It
appeared that the Cypriot authorities closely monitored the applicants' movements.
Killing of the ninth applicant's son: There was no evidence from the investigation file
allowing any finding as to the identify of the killers. On the other hand, there was no
significant omission or lack of care in the conduct of the investigation, which was
followed by an inquest.
Government's preliminary objection – Despite the conclusions of the UN report that there
was adequate material to support the plausibility of the allegations, the Attorney General
had not at any time enquired into them and it could not be considered important that the
applicants had not formally addressed a complaint to him. Moreover, the Government's
argument that proceedings would have been doomed to failure in the absence of the
applicants' cooperation lacked substantiation. As to a civil action, against the background
of a lack of prosecution against any State official the prospects of success had to be
considered negligible. Finally, a complaint to the Ombudsman, who has no power to
order any measures or impose any sanctions, could not be regarded as an effective
remedy either. Consequently, there were no effective remedies in respect of the Article 3
complaints. As for the complaint under Article 2, an investigation had been opened at the
authorities' initiative, but no incriminating evidence had been found against any person