Serious questions have been raised by the family’s attorney, Antonis Georgiou, regarding how the Republic of Cyprus handled the case of the missing father and son, Loizos and Giorgos Hatzigeorgiou, during the Turkish invasion of 1974, are being raised by the family’s attorney, Antonis Georgiou.
Speaking on the “Alpha News” program, he noted that this is a unique case, as it involves two unarmed Greek Cypriot civilians who, according to the case file, were abducted by armed Turkish Cypriot fellow villagers in full view of other residents of their village and have been missing ever since. “The state failed to recognize that, despite the political dimension and the difficulties arising from the invasion, this remained a purely criminal case,” he noted.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Republic of Cyprus, the attorney made specific reference to facts documented in the ruling which, he said, demonstrate that there were concrete avenues for further investigation.
According to his account, in the 1980s, one of the six Turkish Cypriots allegedly linked to the case had entered the free areas to receive medical treatment, as he was suffering from cancer. Despite the fact that he was now under the jurisdiction of the Republic, no one was held accountable, nor was the opportunity to investigate taken advantage of.
A similar incident, he noted, was also recorded in 1990, when another Turkish Cypriot who was allegedly involved in the case was seen in Pyla selling dairy products. In that case as well, according to Mr. Georgiou, there was no substantive follow-up.
SEE ALSO: The Unhealed Wounds of the Prisoners
The 2003 Case
The family also attaches particular importance to the events of 2003. As the lawyer noted, following intense protests, one of the individuals involved was taken into custody. However, according to the family, he was subsequently released without any explanation or adequate documentation regarding exactly what had happened. This was followed by correspondence with the Attorney General, to which, according to Mr. Georgiou, no response was given.
In 2016, as he noted, the family was informed by the Missing Persons Service that there was no record or file regarding this specific incident and that, in effect, the incident itself was being disputed. ““We had to wait until 2016 for the state to come forward and provide this information,” said Mr. Georgiou, noting that the family had been seeking information for years. The key issue, according to the attorney, is that the political and humanitarian dimensions of the Cyprus issue cannot override the authorities’ obligation to investigate potential criminal offenses.
As he noted, the state “refuses, fails, and neglects” to recognize that these specific cases, beyond their political dimension, involve acts that must be investigated criminally. According to him, the Supreme Court found that there were specific circumstances that warranted further investigative measures and that this failure led to a failure to investigate. Mr. Georgiou also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Article 3 of the Bill of Rights.
As he explained, the Court ruled that the conduct in question constituted a violation of Article 3 as well, given the extent and scope of the violation. He added that the decision should not be viewed as an isolated incident, but as an opportunity to reexamine other cases involving missing persons.
SEE ALSO: The Legal Service explains: Why the Supreme Court ruled against the Republic in the case of the missing father and son, Loizos and Giorgos Hatzigeorgiou
“Experienced investigators must be brought in”
Mr. Georgiou argued that a serious and organized effort is now required on the part of the state. He proposed that experienced investigators take on these specific cases, that well-documented reports be prepared, and that it be clearly recorded what has been investigated, what was not investigated, and what actions can still be taken. As he noted, it is particularly significant that some of the Turkish Cypriots alleged to have been involved were young in 1974.
“We know that in 2003 at least one of them was alive; he may still be alive today,” he said, raising the question of whether the authorities are currently aware of the whereabouts and circumstances of these specific individuals. “These are questions that the state must answer to the extent possible,” he noted.
Regarding the relatives’ appeal to the ECHR, Mr. Georgiou argued that the case was dismissed on a specific ground concerning the lack or incompleteness of the files and evidence regarding the actions of the Republic of Cyprus. As he noted, during the trial, the Republic presented a voluminous file containing testimonies, news articles, and other evidence. The issue, according to him, is that the family was informed of this evidence in 2016, despite the fact that there had been correspondence and requests for information for years.
SEE ALSO: €100,000 in compensation awarded to relatives of two missing persons: They were abducted by fellow villagers during the “Black August” of 1974
“No court ruling can fully restore justice”
When asked whether the family feels vindicated following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mr. Georgiou emphasized that the ruling has significant moral value, but it cannot restore true justice. “With all due respect to the Court, which issued an excellent ruling in our favor, there is no court that can deliver true justice,” he said.
As he explained, true justice for the family would be if time could be turned back to 1974, when it was still possible to locate one of the individuals involved in the free zones and obtain immediate answers regarding the fate of the two missing persons.Financial compensation and legal redress, he added, have moral significance, but they do not amount to full justice.
Mr. Georgiou revealed that discussions have already taken place with the family regarding the next steps, though no final decisions have yet been made.As he said, the possibility of further legal action is also on the table, as the lawsuit had also sought an order for the issuance of arrest warrants. The Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done through this particular legal proceeding. According to Mr. Georgiou, this does not mean that the family can no longer ask the authorities to take further action.
When asked whether, from Friday—when the decision was announced—until today, there had been any communication from the government or the Legal Service, Mr.Georgiou replied that there had been none. In closing, he stated that the family is now waiting to see whether the Supreme Court’s decision will mark the beginning of a different approach to the case.
