*Main photo: CNA Archive
Violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the Republic of Cyprus, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the disappearance of two missing persons in August 1974, upholding the appeal filed by their relatives and awarding a total of €100,000 in damages, according to a statement from the law firm “Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC,” which represented the appellants.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, dated September 4, 2026, overturned the 2017 first-instance ruling of the Nicosia District Court, which had dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of the missing persons against the Republic in 2009.
According to the ruling, the two men, unarmed residents of Strongylo, were abducted on August 15, 1974, and their fate has remained unknown ever since.
The Supreme Court ruled that this particular case differs substantially from other cases of missing persons from the period of the invasion, since, according to the available testimony, the two men were allegedly abducted by fellow villagers, who were also citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, and not by members of a military force or the Turkish army.
Given these circumstances, the Court held that the competent authorities had an enhanced obligation to conduct a “targeted, specialized, and intensive investigation,” including the investigation of any potential criminal liability at the domestic level, “to ensure the effective administration of justice in a state governed by the rule of law.”
Treating the case within the same general framework as other cases involving missing persons was deemed inadequate. The Court ruled that “this uniform and non-individualized approach to the case lacks the necessary adaptation to the specific facts and does not meet the standard of care required by the Convention”.
At the same time, the Court noted that the State’s positive obligation requires “a substantive, independent investigation capable of leading to the identification and, where appropriate, the attribution of responsibility to those responsible.” This obligation, as it states, applies regardless of whether the disappearance is linked to state actors, since “the obligation to conduct an effective investigation applies regardless of whether the alleged offenses were committed by state agencies or by third parties.”
The Supreme Court also clarified that the Republic’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation does not depend on the prior discovery or identification of the remains of the missing persons.
With regard to the Committee on Missing Persons (CMP), the Court notes that its mandate is limited to determining whether the missing persons are dead or alive and does not include attributing responsibility for deaths or investigating their causes. Consequently, it held that “the fact that some form of investigation is being conducted by the CMP is not sufficient for the purposes of Article 2.”
The Court took into account, among other things, information regarding individuals alleged to have been involved in the abduction. According to the testimony presented before it, one of the individuals named had crossed into the liberated areas in 1984, while another had been seen in the free areas after the invasion, with no indication that the Cypriot authorities had taken any action in that regard.
The Court further notes that the State’s obligation to investigate could not be circumvented due to the particular circumstances prevailing after the Turkish invasion. While acknowledging the “circumstances of widespread unrest and administrative difficulties” of that period, it adds that these “cannot relieve the State of its positive obligations.”
Based on these facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the Republic failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR to effectively investigate the fate of the two missing persons.
Article 2 of the ECHR enshrines the right to life and imposes on the state, among other things, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation when circumstances exist that endanger life or when a person has disappeared under such circumstances.
At the same time, the Supreme Court also found a violation of Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
In this context, it acknowledged the years of uncertainty and mental anguish endured by the relatives of the two missing persons, due to the failure of the competent authorities to provide substantive answers regarding their fate.
“The State’s failure to effectively investigate, within a reasonable time, the fate of the Appellants’ missing relatives has, for decades, the opportunity to learn the truth and has trapped them in a constant state of anguish and mental suffering,” it states.
The Supreme Court further notes that “it is not compatible with the requirements of Article 3 to shift the burden of investigating the fate of the missing person onto the relatives.”
With regard to compensation, the Court ruled that the established violation justified the award of monetary compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the relatives, clarifying that the compensation “is not intended to confer financial benefit or to enrich the Appellants,” but rather to acknowledge the violation and, to the extent possible, to redress the harm caused.
The appellants had raised a total of 19 grounds for appeal, challenging, among other things, the trial court’s assessment of the testimony, their access to the files of the missing persons, the finding that the abduction and disappearance took place during hostilities, as well as the application of case law regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
The Supreme Court found six grounds for appeal to be well-founded, which primarily concerned the issue of hostilities and the application of the relevant provisions of the ECHR, as well as the dismissal of the complaint by the trial court and the characterization of the decision as a “dangerous precedent.”
In contrast, grounds related to, among other things, the failure to keep the relatives informed about the progress of the case and their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights were rejected.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court awarded a total of €100,000 in compensation to the relatives of the two missing persons, as well as the related court costs.
*Source: CNA
