CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 89 September 2006 Isaak v. Turkey (dec.) - 44587/98 Decision 28.9.2006 [Section III] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Killing of a Greek Cypriot civilian demonstrator committed during a collision with Turkish Cypriot counter-demonstrators and police: admissible   Article 1 Responsibility of states Killing of a civilian demonstrator in the UN buffer zone between the Republic of Cyprus and the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”: admissible   Article 2 Positive obligations Lack of effective investigation into killing of a Greek Cypriot civilian demonstrator committed during a collision with Turkish Cypriot counter-demonstrators and police: admissible   In August 1996, the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation held a demonstration near Nicosia. It was the subject of a report by the United Nations Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and by the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN). According to these reports, Greek Cypriots entered into the UN buffer zone, approached the ceasefire line of the Turkish forces, and clashed with Turkish troops and Turkish Cypriot police as well as with Turkish Cypriot counter-demonstrators. The Turkish forces allowed counter-demonstrators and Turkish Cypriot police to cross a restricted military area and to enter the United Nations buffer zone. They proceeded to beat the Greek Cypriots with batons and iron bars. Mr Isaak, the applicants’ relative and one of the Greek Cypriot demonstrators, was beaten to death by a number of Turkish Cypriot demonstrators, including Turkish Cypriot policemen and military personnel. According to the post mortem examination the cause of death was multiple blunt trauma to the head. A Greek Cypriot photographer took 20 pictures of this incident. A video broadcast on Euronews, Worldwide Television News and Reuter’s videotapes clearly showed the killing of Mr Isaak and the intervention of the two UN police who had tried to rescue him. UNFICYP proceeded to investigation of the incident in co-operation with the Cyprus police, collecting evidence at the scene of crime as well as testimonies of the UN officers and other eye-witnesses. On the basis of information and comparison with photographs, an inspector from the Cyprus police could identify six perpetrators of the murder of Mr Isaak. The Court had to ascertain whether Mr Isaak came under the authority and/or effective control, and therefore within the jurisdiction, of the respondent State as a result of the acts of the Turkish soldiers and officials and those of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. To this end, the Court relied on the statements of the UNFICYP police officers, the relevant reports of UNFICYP and the UN Secretary General, the video recording and photographs submitted by the applicants which confirmed that the Turkish-Cypriot military/police officers had taken part in beating of Mr Isaak together with civilian demonstrators. Moreover, it transpired from the case-file that despite the presence of the Turkish armed forces and other Turkish-Cypriot police officers in the area, nothing had been done to prevent or stop the attack or to help the victim. The Court concluded therefore that the matters complained of fell within the “jurisdiction” of Turkey within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention and therefore entail the respondent State’s responsibility under the Convention. Admissible under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention. The Government’s objection for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was joined to the merits.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes