European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Semral EMIN (MUSTAFA) and Others v Cyprus - 59623/08 [2012] ECHR 650 (3 April 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/650.html
Cite as: [2012] ECHR 650

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 59623/08
Semral EMİN (MUSTAFA) and Others against Cyprus
and six other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on lodged on 21 November 2008, 19 December 2008, 18 March 2009, 29 April 2009, 10 June 2009, 30 June 2009 and 30 September 2009,

Having regard to the partial decision of 3 June 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Government of Turkey as intervenor,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants state that they are nationals of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. Their names, dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex. They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. Renda, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows. They are relatives of Turkish-Cypriot men who went missing in either December 1963 or April-May 1964 during incidents of mounting tension and violence in which Turkish Cypriots or Turkish-Cypriot villages were targeted (see Annex for further details).

These men were listed as missing persons, the information being given to the Cypriot authorities, the Red Cross and the United Nations.

The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons(“CMP”) in 2006 9. Further details are set out in the Annex.

In three cases, the applicants wrote to the Cypriot authorities requesting information about any investigation into the disappearance of their relative and/or the discovery of the remains: in Akay and Others, no. 32744/08, by letter dated 6 May 2009 to the Minister of the Interior, in Gürtekin and Others, no. 3706/09, by letter dated 14 November 2008 to the Minister of the Interior and in Arkut and Others, no. 25180/09, by letters dated 22 February 2009, to the Attorney-General and to the Minister of the Interior. No reply or information was received, save for an e-mail from the Attorney-General’s office dated 18 March 2009 in the Arkut case, stating that all necessary action would be taken.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Panagiota Konstantinou and others v. Republic of Cyprus, Council of Ministers, Attorney-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Presidency of the Commission of Humanitarian Affairs (case no. 1253/00)

In this case, the claimants challenged the decision in 1997 to remove their relative, a Greek-Cypriot combatant last seen in July 1974, from the list of missing persons after examination of the list by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus; his file was communicated to the Turkish Cypriot side instead on the basis that he had died of wounds during the fighting and not to the Committee of Missing Persons. In a decision dated 16 October 2003, the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction rejected the case on the basis that the case did not concern an administrative decision but was an act of government outside the court’s jurisdiction. Matters relating to missing persons were part of the Cyprus problem and fell within the power of the political authority.

2. Öealp Behiç, Ece Behiç and Suzan Behiç and others v. Republic of Cyprus Attorney-General, Council of Ministers, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior (case nos. 589/06, 590/06, 591/06, 592/06, 593/06)

In these cases lodged in 2006, the relatives of five Turkish Cypriot men who went missing on 14 August 1974 after they had been taken from their homes by armed Greek Cypriots, lodged applications under Article 146 of the Constitution, claiming that the Republic of Cyprus had known of the deaths of the missing persons but had not searched for the corpses or brought the guilty persons to justice and that the Republic had not taken the necessary actions to pursue an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts and fate of the missing persons. In their response, the Republic of Cyprus stated that they had not been passive but had been unable to pursue their intentions to exhume and identify corpses due to the agreement between the United Nations, the Turkish-Cypriot side and themselves that exhumations would be conducted by a common programme of the Committee of Missing Persons. They also pointed out that exhumations had begun in 2004 and the programme indicated the likelihood of the exhumation of the graves in the relevant area would commence in August 2008. They disputed that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the courts but fell rather under the supervision of the United Nations and the authority and initiative of the President of the Republic.

In its decision dated 29 May 2008, the Supreme Court in its appellate capacity held that the fate of missing persons fell under the authority of the President of the Republic as it had an international aspect; the cases therefore concerned an act of government which did not fall within the jurisdiction to annul of the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the respondent Government failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance and killings of their relatives even though all necessary information had been provided to their authorities.

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the continued and serious trauma and anguish which they suffer following the discovery of the remains and the lack of any serious efforts to hold to account those responsible for the deaths of their relatives.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained that there had been no effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives who had gone missing in 1963-1964 and whose remains had been exhumed in the last few years. They invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as relevant:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ....”

The Government contended that there had been no failure to comply with the obligations under Article 2.

A. Submissions before the Court

1. The respondent Government

The Government submitted that the ascertainment of the fate of the applicants’ relatives on discovery of the bodies was capable of triggering an investigative obligation under Article 2 to find out whether the deaths were the result of unlawful acts and to identify and punish the perpetrators. It was the identification of the remains, not their discovery, which gave rise to the obligation. Thus, by letter of 11 October 2010 the Attorney-General gave directions that an investigation be carried out by the police in the terms set out above. With the exception of application no. 25180/09 Arkut and Others, the Attorney-General was informed for the first time of the identification of the remains when the applications were communicated on 14 June 2010. This was due to the lack of a practice whereby the authorities concerned would acquaint the Attorney-General of the identification of exhumed remains. In other cases, where the Attorney-General was informed by the relatives, a criminal investigation was launched. When new information came to light in a Turkish-Cypriot newspaper article (which named an alleged perpetrator in killings in Maratha-Sandallari-Aloa – the “MSA case”), this caused the Attorney-General to give further direction in an investigation which was already in being. Mere reports of discovery of unidentified bodies in the newspapers could not be sufficient to spark an investigation.

Following realisation of this lack of communication in practice, the Attorney-General had now given directions that he should be informed immediately of the identification of exhumed remains of Turkish Cypriots.

The Government rejected allegations that the investigations were a sham and or a cynical means of evading responsibility. The matters raised by the intervening Government were largely outside the temporal jurisdiction of the Court and irrelevant to the issues.

2. The applicants

The applicants welcomed the Government’s acceptance that an obligation arose to investigate how and by whom their relatives were killed. They noted that the applicant, Mehmet Savas Arkut, had sent a letter to the Attorney-General on 22 February 2009 not making a complaint but asking for information about the ongoing investigation which he was sure would have started automatically. All the applicants were sure that the Government authorities knew of the finding and identification of the remains; these were published in the newspapers and most took place in Nicosia. If the Attorney-General was able to start an investigation for one incident due to a newspaper report, he could have done so for all of these cases. This did not disclose promptness.

The applicants considered that the ongoing investigation was purely for show, serving only to furnish a defence to these applications. No step had been taken until an international procedure was initiated whereas the authorities should have acted of their own initiative as a matter of domestic law. No information about the investigations was received until they received the Government’s observations. In the Arkut case, the applicants received an e-mail dated 18 March 2009 from the Attorney-General stating that all necessary action would be taken to elucidate the death but no further information had been received, showing that this was a formal and meaningless response. The authorities had not contacted any of the applicants to take their witness statements or gather their evidence until very recently, when the police contacted the applicants’ lawyer on 23 November 2010. Some of the applicants then went to the police in the south and submitted their complaints, with some difficulty since the police did not have a command of adequate Turkish.

The applicant submitted that there had been no progress in any of the other investigations which were allegedly launched. The complainants in the MSA case (see paragraph 13 above) have heard nothing further; and in the cases lodged in the domestic courts concerning missing Turkish Cypriots (see Relevant domestic law above), it was concluded that the complaints concerned an “act of state” and they were rejected. However, in cases concerning Greek Cypriots, proceedings are not protracted and have positive outcomes, as where the family of missing person, Christofi Vassiliou Pasi, were awarded compensation when it was belatedly discovered that he had been buried in a military cemetery.

The applicants doubted the impartiality and confidentiality of the CMP procedures, noting that the Greek-Cypriot member was in close communication with the Attorney-General and that his assistant was also head of the missing persons unit in the Ministry of the Interior.

3. The intervening Government

The Government of Turkey recalled that the background of the cases was set in 1963-4, when the missing persons were abducted by Greek Cypriot military elements or police forces under government control, and killed because they were Turkish Cypriot, their bodies dumped in wells or mass graves, a bullet to the head or other parts of the body. Hostility from the Greek-Cypriot community was such that approximately 25,000 Turkish Cypriots evacuated some 103 villages to take refuge in more secure areas.

They pointed out that the Greek-Cypriot authorities had never brought to justice any of the perpetrators or furnished any information about the fate of the victims from 1963-1964 or from the later conflict in 1974. No investigative response had been forthcoming as regarded the death of Erdogan Cakir, killed in reprisal in 1974 (Cakir v. Cyprus (dec), no. 7864/06, 11 January 2008). Nor had any investigations occurred in the other cases lodged with the Court by families of the victims (Karabardak and Others v. Cyprus and Baybora and Others v. Cyprus ((decs.), nos. 76575/01 and 77116/01, 22 October 2002). Promises in the press had come to nothing. They also submitted that there was a lack of redress in the Cypriot courts, noting that in the case of Behic and Others (see paragraph 7 above) the missing person problem was held to be an “act of state” and the claimants’ complaints about an effective investigation were rejected.

B. Admissibility

1. Six months

The Court put a question to the parties as to whether the applicants had complied with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention by introducing their complaints within the six month time-limit. The Government did not advert to the point in their observations; nor did the applicants make any comment. This is not the end of the matter since the six month time-limit cannot be waived by either side.

The purpose of the six month rule is to prevent stale claims and preserve legal certainty and security. Where there are effective domestic remedies, it runs from the final decision taken in that process; where there are none, the applicant must take care to introduce his complaints within six months of becoming aware of the matters at stake in the application; or of becoming aware that apparent remedies were not effective. In situations of disappearances which often by their nature are plagued by uncertainty, doubt and lack of information, the cut-off date may be less clear; in any event, the applicant must act with due expedition in bringing the complaint to Strasbourg (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 156-172, 18 September 2009, ECHR 2009-...).

In the present cases, the Court has already rejected, as outside its temporal competence, substantive complaints about the disappearance in 1963-1964 of the applicants’ relatives, and as out of time, procedural complaints about a lack of effective investigation into those disappearances. The only live issues remaining in the cases are the existence, and extent, of any fresh obligation to investigate arising out of the discovery of the bodies of the missing persons between 2006-8. The state of the bodies and their location give disturbing signs of the apparent use of unlawful violence; the cases have therefore ceased to be about disappearance but about suspicious or unlawful deaths. In normal circumstances, the six month time-limit would run from the final decision in any process of domestic remedies applicable to the process of investigation and eventual trial of any perpetrators; or from the moment when the applicant should reasonably be aware that the investigation is ineffective or that no investigation at all is likely to be forthcoming (Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey 73065/01, (dec.) 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey, 38587/97, January 29, 2001).

In the present cases, it appears that the authorities have launched investigations. The applicants have submitted that these are a sham and ineffective. In five applications (all but no. 25180/09, Arkut and Others), the applicants have all introduced their applications within six months of the date of the formal identification report which identified the remains as belonging to their relative. Therefore, even on the assumption that there is no prospect of any effective investigative response to the discovery of the remains, the applicants must be regarded as having brought their cases with due expedition and within the requisite time-limit.

In application no. 25180/09, Arkut and Others, the remains were handed over to the family in August 2007; the formal identification report was dated later on 29 November 2007, and so appears to have been delayed for an unknown reason. However, the family were clearly aware of the identification from August 2007 at the earliest. They did not bring their case to Strasbourg until 29 April 2009. There is no explanation given for the delay. The file indicates that the applicants wrote on 22 February 2009 to the Attorney-General asking for information about the progress in any pending investigation; a brief reply was received. Whether or not the applicants were justified in waiting some one year and eight months before reaching the conclusion that no investigation was in progress or likely to be forthcoming is linked closely to the applicability and procedural aspect of the Article 2 complaints in this case, namely, whether the authorities were under an obligation to investigate on discovery of the remains and whether they have complied with that obligation. The Court will therefore leave this question open at this stage, and return to it after examining these aspects further.

2. Applicability and scope of the procedural obligation under Article 2

Where an investigation into a death has long ended or an incident is far in the past, it is possible that new developments occur such that a fresh obligation to investigate arises, for example, newly-discovered evidence casting doubt on the results of an earlier investigation or trial or information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death. Such a fresh obligation arose in Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no. 32457/04, §§ 73 75, 27 November 2007) where, years after the original investigation ended, a witness came forward making plausible allegations about security force collusion in a sectarian killing; in Hackett v United Kingdom (no. 4698/04, (dec.) May 10, 2005) where the person convicted of a murder made revelations years after his trial alleging his confession had been false to protect the real killer; and in Gasyak and Others v. Turkey (no. 27872/03, 13 October 2009) where the family brought to the attention of the authorities new evidence of the perpetrators of a killing. In contrast, no new obligation to investigate arose where an applicant contacted the authorities with the effect of prodding them into some belated activity after a lull of more than seven years (see Finozhenok v Russia, 3025/06, (dec.) May 31, 2011; see also Nasirkhayeva v Russia, no. 1721/07, (dec.) 31 May 2011 – six years’ gap in activity by the authorities).

The scope of the fresh obligation to investigate will vary according to the nature of the purported new evidence or information. It may be restricted to verifying the reliability of the new evidence. The authorities can legitimately take into account the prospects of launching a new prosecution at such a late stage. Due to the lapse of time, the level of urgency may have diminished; the immediacy of required investigative steps in the aftermath of an incident is likely to be absent. Thus in Brecknell (cited above, paras. 79-81), where the new information had come to light in 1999 and inquiries had lasted to 2007, the Court found no lack of expedition, given the lack of concrete leads and difficulties in obtaining the co-operation of a witness outside the jurisdiction as well as the considerable number of other historical crime cases that were being reviewed at the time. In Hackett, the lack of apparent progress or outcome two-three years on from the publication of apparent new information was not sufficient to disclose a lack of expedition in the circumstances. The standard of expedition in such historical cases is much different from the standard applicable in recent incidents where time is often of the essence in preserving vital evidence at a scene and questioning witnesses when their memories are fresh and detailed.

The extent to which the other requirements of an adequate investigation -effectiveness, independence, accessibility to the family and sufficient public scrutiny- apply will again depend on the particular circumstances of the case (for a general statement of principle on the requirements of Article 2 under its procedural head, see, for example, Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §§67-71, ECHR 2003 VIII). While what reasonably can be expected by way of investigative measures may well be influenced by the passage of time as stated above, the criterion of independence will, generally, remain unchanged (see, for the importance of this criterion from the very earliest stage of the procedure, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§. 325, 333-341, ECHR 2007-...).

Applying those principles to the present cases, the Court considers that the discovery of the remains of the applicants’ relatives bearing signs of violence and buried in circumstances highly suggestive of extra-judicial execution or murder triggered an obligation on the authorities to take investigative steps to identify the remains, the likely cause and circumstances of death and the identity of the perpetrators of any unlawful violence. Even though the disappearance of the persons concerned has been known since 1963-64, their actual fate was uncertain. The finding of the bodies in a particular location, bearing signs from which the cause of death may be ascertained and allowing the pursuit of leads that might possibly lead to identification of those responsible for the killings must be regarded as crucial evidence casting new light on the case. A procedural obligation under Article 2 therefore arises requiring an investigative response by the authorities.

The parties have disputed the moment at which the obligation to investigate arose. The respondent Government argued that it was only the identification of the bodies, not their discovery, which triggered the obligation to investigate. Until a body has been identified, the Court observes that in practical terms it would be difficult for the next of kin to introduce a complaint; it is that moment of identification at which the Convention mechanism, in its aspect of individual petition, will generally become operational. It cannot be the case however that on discovery of mass graves of victims of violence the authorities could remain inactive and claim that no Article 2 obligations arose as the identities of the victims were unknown. That would be a bizarre result. Such inaction could arguably found complaints of an inter-State nature; or complaints from a group of families who could claim a real possibility that their relative might be amongst the victims. The point would have to be decided in the future according to the specific circumstances. In any event, it has no decisive import in the present case for the reasons set out below.

The bodies in these cases have been identified; the next of kin have applied to the Court. The steps, and time, taken between discovery and identification may, in the Court’s view be taken into account in assessing the compliance of the authorities with any obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the fate of the victims concerned. In the context of Cyprus, the task of locating and identifying remains has been delegated by both sides of the conflict to the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons (“CMP”). Since 2006, that organisation has been making appreciable progress in locating mass graves, carrying out exhumations and identifying the remains through DNA analysis. The authorities are not exempted from their obligation for this part of the investigation but may take the benefit of the work done by the CMP in this respect. There is no indication of any failings or undue delay, nor any complaint of such by the applicants, as regards the CMP’s fulfilment of its functions. The bodies having been identified, it falls to the authorities to uncover, as far as may be practicable and reasonable in the circumstances, the facts surrounding the death and the identities of any persons involved in unlawful acts in that regard.

The parties have made various submissions as to when the authorities should have commenced this next stage. The applicants took the view that the Attorney-General should have acted as soon as the identities of the persons were uncovered and that he must have known this long before October 2010 when he directed the police to investigate in these cases, a date some months after the applications were communicated to the Government by this Court. The Government acknowledged a lacuna in information flowing to the Attorney-General, claiming that this had now been addressed but submitting that earlier reports in newspapers were not sufficient to trigger an official response. The Court sees force in the applicants’ assertions that the authorities must have known what was going on. The exhumation of remains north and south of the buffer zone has been attended by much publicity in both communities, funerals were being held and reported in the press and the activities of the CMP were well-known to officialdom. Even if the families and the CMP were not forwarding information directly to the authorities, a pro-active response by the authorities in seeking information which would have readily been made available or confirmed and the passing of such information to the appropriate investigating body could reasonably have been expected. The Government appear to acknowledge that this approach has now been adopted. The Court finds the lapse of time before the instigation of an investigation shows a certain lack of initiative and regrettable tardiness but that in a case concerning deaths which took place many decades in the past it cannot be said that by itself it undermines any subsequent steps or offends against the requirement of expedition.

There are allegations that the investigation is pro forma, without any real inquiries being pursued and that the applicants, as the families, have not been informed properly about the investigation. The Court notes that the Government have not provided any information about the ongoing investigations beyond the fact that the police have been directed to investigate. The applicants’ lawyer however provided the information that the police have contacted her and that some of the applicants have gone to give statements. It cannot be said therefore at this stage that the investigation is completely inactive.

As concerns accessibility of the investigations to the families and the existence of sufficient public scrutiny, the Court notes that this aspect of the procedural obligation does not require applicants to have access to police files, or copies of all documents during an ongoing inquiry, or for them to be consulted or informed about every step (McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001 III, § 121; Green v. the United Kingdom, no. 28079/04, (dec.) 19 May 2005; Hackett v. the United Kingdom, cited above). While it appears little or no information about the investigation has been transmitted to the families at this stage, it is not apparent that this flowed from any obstructiveness or obfuscation rather than a lack of anything significant to report from the initial steps which have been taken. The Court is not persuaded at this stage that any of the applicants have been excluded from the investigative process to such a degree as would infringe the minimum standard under Article 2.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the investigations have been underway since October 2010 with no apparent concrete progress. This does not in itself disclose any lack of good faith or will on the part of the authorities. In the circumstances, it is premature to impugn the response of the authorities as ineffective. The Court would not underestimate the difficulties of finding witnesses who are still alive after this lapse of time and who are able to recall, and willing to give evidence, about past events. However, it would emphasise that the authorities must take reasonable steps to find the available evidence and pursue the practicable leads open to them at this time to uncover the perpetrators of any unlawful violence; that in due course an assessment will have to be made as to whether the evidence gathered is sufficient to justify a prosecution; and that the families should be informed of any key factual conclusions and procedural developments and any reasoned decisions in this regard. But it is too early for the Court as a supervisory international jurisdiction to reach any findings that the authorities’ actions are a mere sham or that there is bad faith, wilful footdragging and prevarication involved. Prolonged inactivity and silence by the authorities over a more significant period of time might eventually render such a conclusion possible but not yet.

Given its conclusion above, the Court does not find the applicants in application no. 25180/09, Arkut and Others have failed to introduce their complaints within six months of the moment when they should reasonably have deduced that any investigation was ineffective.

It follows that at the present stage the applicants’ complaints under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are premature and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention which provides:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The applicants submitted that for years the Government had prevented them from finding out the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths. The state of uncertainty and mental distress was still continuing as there had been no information given about any progress or developments. Further, through the questioning by the police, the applicants had been forced to relive events.

The Government contested those allegations. They submitted that there had been no undue delay in ordering an investigation in October 2010 in response to the identification of remains in 2008-2009.

The Court recalls that the allegations concerning the uncertainty flowing from the disappearances were rejected as out of time. It is only concerned with complaints as to the response of the authorities following the discovery of the remains of the applicants’ relatives. It notes its findings above that the investigations launched into the discovery of the remains do not show a lack of effectiveness or expedition at this stage. The fact that the questioning of the applicants by the police has touched on distressing memories cannot by itself disclose any issues but may be regarded as the inevitable consequence of an investigation. Nor is there any indication at the current time of obstructiveness or callous indifference on the part of the investigating authorities towards the families such as might disclose treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 § 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President

A N N E X

No.	Application No.	Applicant name date of birth place of residence	Missing person	Date and circumstances of disappearance	Date and location of discovery of body	Details of forensic report
	59623/08	Semral Emin (Mustafa) 17/12/1945 Gazimağusa Asim Sermet Erk (Mustafa) 04/12/1946 Gazimağusa Huseyin Semih Erk (Mustafa) 04/11/1949 Gönyeli / Lefkoşa Kutlay Erk (Mustafa) 13/09/1952 Lefkoşa	Mustafa Arif	Last seen by family on 22.12.1963 in hospital in Nicosia after he had suffered a heart attack. Hospital witnesses told the family that on 23. 12.1963 two uniformed Greek Cypriots from the Central Prison had taken him from the ward	Remains found with another body in a backfilled well in Strovolos, south Nicosia on 20 February 2007; identification report dated 23 May 2008; family viewed body on 29 May 2008.	Forensic report dated 10 June 2008; death caused by massive brain damage from gun shot to the head by longbarrelled weapon or high calibre automatic weapon at close proximity.
	3706/09	Nazli Gürtekin 28/10/1926 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Ali Gürtekin 05/01/1963 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Mehmet Salih Gürtekin 19/02/1954 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Lema Tavli 25/12/1955 Konya Serife Gürtekin 05/05/1957 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10	Derviş Mehmet	Last seen 24 December 1963 setting out for Nicosia on foot; the Turkish-Cypriot village of Matyat had been attacked on 23 December by EOKA paramilitaries, the population forced out and the houses looted and set on fire.	Remains found with another in a backfilled well in Strovolos, south Nicosia; identification report dated 29 July 2008;	Forensic report dated 10 June 2008 indicated that he had been killed by a bullet to the head fired at close range.
	16206/09	Fatma Aybenk Abdullah 03/01/1938 Mersin Nazim Aybenk 12/02/1958 London Goksun Denizhan 24/08/1960 Mersin Emir Erdinc Aybenk 25/12/1963 Mersin	Abdullay Emirzade	Killed by Greek Cypriot soldiers on 11 May 1964 when his truck was stopped; truck later seen driven by Greek Cypriot soldiers.	Remains found 18-19 January 2008 in a burial site containing another body at Dipkarpaz/Rizokarpasson; identification report dated 3 November 2008; family saw the remains on 7 November 2008.	Forensic report dated 18 November 2008 indicated bullet wound to head and multiple fractures
	25180/09	Meryem Arkut 05/04/1937 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Mehmet Savas Arkut 12/01/1964 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Ahmet Arkut 29/04/1962 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10	Hüseyin Ahmet	Last seen on 11 May 1964, when the bus he was driving for NAAFI was stopped by Greek Cypriot soldiers; he was taken from the bus with another Turkish Cypriot.	Remains located in backfilled well in locality Protaras-Pirki with five other bodies in June 2006; formal identification report dated 29 November 2007; remains handed over to family August 2007.	No forensic report in the file. Bullet hole visible in skull and shrapnel damage to left hip.
	32744/09	Ayşe Akay 06/12/1940 Mersion 10 Halil Tomac 26/10/1958 Mersin 10 Akay Osman 07/12/1959 Girne / Mersin 10 Zuhal Keskinel 23/01/1962 Mersin 10 Mesut Akay 09/03/1964 Mersin 10	Mustafa Osman Akay	Last seen on 29 April 1964 driving to deliver groceries, van found abandoned when stopped by Greek-Cypriot paramilitaries.	Identification report 9 April 2009.	Forensic report 16 April 2009; death by bullet to the head.
	36499/09	Omer Hussein 27/12/1952 Kent Hasan Buba 24/03/1958 Girne / Mersin 10 Fahri Egemen 1934 Girne / Mersin 10	Hüseyin Mehmet Baba	Last seen getting off bus in Nicosia on the way to his duty as Cypriot soldier at the tripartite army HQ on 23 December 1963.	Remains found in locality of Strovalos when well was re-opened Sept-Nov 2007 and further three bodies found; identification report 12 February 2009; remains handed over to family on 17 February 2009.	Forensic report dated 3 March 2009 indicated a bullet entry and exit hole to the skull.
	57250/09	Ayşe Eray 05/07/1939 Mağusa / Mersin 10 Sadi Esentan 12/08/1952 Mersin 10 Ayse Esentan 1927 Mersin 10 Ayse Aykanat 17/10/1939 Güzelyurt / Mersin 10 Vasviye Aysan 08/03/1957 Güzelyurt / Mersin 10 Salih Aykanat 03/03/1958 Mersin 10 Gulay Inonulu 17/10/1959 Mersin 10 Umit Aykanat 01/04/1962 Güzelyurt / Mersin 10 Melek Ozluses 10/06/1964 Mersin 10 Vijdan Ozanalp 12/03/1939 Mersin 10 Mustafa Ozatli 18/03/1960 Girne / Mersin 10 Duru Ozatli 04/02/1957 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Musteyde Hacioglu 1954 Mersin 10 Ayse Esencag 1957 Mersin 10 Fikriye Ozgum 01/04/1937 Girne / Mersin 10 Mustafa Ozgum 27/11/1954 Girne / Mersin 10 Ali Ozgum 04/09/1957 Girne / Mersin 10 Ercan Ozgum 18/03/1959 Girne / Mersin 10 Tunay Ozgum 19/07/1962 Girne / Mersin 10 Fatma Mercanoglulari 13/10/1936 Mersin 10 Fatma Taskan 25/07/1955 Mersin 10 Erbay Goksan 12/02/1949 Mersin 10 Hasan Eray Goksan 06/02/1947 Mersin 10 Zehra Guneysel 08/04/1937 İskele / Mersin 10 Huseyin Guneysel 11/12/1960 İskele / Mersin 10 Mumus Alkim 15/12/1962 Lefkoşa / Mersin 10 Goksel Yusuf 09/02/1939 Melbourne Victoria Ozel Sehitoglu 30/10/1942 Mersin 10 Aysel Aydin Durusoy 16/08/1947 Mersin 10 Hatice Dimililer 24/10/1930 Mersin 10 Ceylan Celiker 07/07/1951 Mersin 10 Taner Dimililer 04/09/1952 Girne / Mersin 10 Yahya Dimililer 14/02/1954 Mersin 10 Celal Dimililer 01/11/1955 Mersin 10 Husnuye Bitta 02/02/1957 Girne / Mersin 10 Songul Sagdinc 27/08/1959 Mersin 10 Sentac Ari 02/04/1962 Girne / Mersin 10	Mehmet Indiyano	One of the ten passengers last seen on 13 May 1964 on the bus to the British Base at Dhekelia where they worked: Yusuf Tosun (below) was the bus driver. The bus was never found.	Remains found at burial site in a well in Voroklini village in Sept-Oct 2006; handed over to family in April 2009. Identification report 20 May 2009.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; two bullets to head, one bullet to right arm.
			Kamil Raif Dimililer	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; three bullets to the head, severe traumatic fractures to ribs and left arm bones.
			Ahmet Balamagi	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; death by bullet to head; fractures on ribs possibly due to other bullet injuries.
			Hasan Mustafa Bari	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; three bullet wounds at least to head (bones fractured severely); one bullet entry wound to the back.
			Behiç Hasan Göksan	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; two bullets to head at least; fracture to left leg bone.
			Hasan Durmus	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; two bullet wounds to head, three others on left arm, right arm and back.
			Yusuf Tosun	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; at least two bullets to the head; at least three fractures by bullets caused to right arm bones, left leg bones (2).
			Kemal Enver Veloks	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009, four bullet wounds to head, one to ribs; numerous fractures possibly indicative of ill-treatment before death.
			Bayram Mustafa	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; three bullets to the head; bullet fracture on left leg bone.
			Hasan Hüseyin Fehmi	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; three, possibly four bullets to the head; traumatic lesion on right foot.
			Kemal Mustafa Aydoglani	As above.	As above.	Forensic report dated 24 July 2009; two bullet wounds to head, traumatic fractures of ribs, left leg and left pelvis.