CASE OF GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v.

CYPRUS AND TURKEY

Facts
 The background facts about the murder
On 15 January 2005 is committed the murder of Elmas, Zerrin and Eylül Güzelyurtlu, all
Cypriot nationals of Turkish Cypriot origin. The applicants are close relatives of the deceased
( children, brothers and sisters). Both of the killed people live in the territory controlled by the
“TRNC”.
In 2000 Elmas Güzelyurtlu settled in Larnaca, in the Cypriot Government-controlled areas.
His wife and daughter joined him in 2001. In 2003 they moved to the Ayios Dometios district
of Nicosia (in the Cypriot Government-controlled area).

On 15 January 2005 at about 8 a.m. on the Nicosia-Larnaca motorway, near the

Athiainou exit (in the Cypriot Government-controlled area), a police officer spotted a
black Lexus car and Zerrin and Eylül Güzelyurtlu were found dead on the back seat
of the car. Elmas Güzelyurtlu was lying dead at a distance of 1.5 metres from the car
in a nearby ditch. There were indications on the bodies that they had been tied with
adhesive tape.From the evidence gathered, it was determined that the victims had
been kidnapped at 4.41 a.m. on 15 January 2005 and had been murdered between
5.15 and 5.20 a.m.
 The investigation and the measures taken by the Cypriot authorities
 According to the relevant police reports, five vehicles and more than eight people were
involved in the murder. The initial investigation resulted in the identification of five suspects
The first, second, third and fourth suspects were Cypriot nationals and “TRNC” citizens
according to the “TRNC” authorities. The fifth suspect was a Turkish national.

On 20 January 2005 the Larnaca District Court issued arrest warrants in respect of all five
suspects on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the
offences of premeditated murder, conspiracy to murder, abducting a person in order to
commit murder.

On 23 January 2005 the police submitted “Red Notice” requests to Interpol, in order to
locate the suspects and have them arrested with a view to their extradition.These sought the
provisional arrest of the suspects and stated that extradition would be requested from any
country with which the Republic of Cyprus was linked by a bilateral extradition treaty, an
extradition convention or any another convention or treaty containing provisions on
extradition.On or around 11 February 2005 all the suspects were released due to a lack of
evidence connecting them to the crime.

The authorities were not able to undertake other steps through the United Nations
Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, and given that the issuance of international arrest warrants
had not resulted in the suspects’ surrender by Turkey, the police officer in charge of the
investigation suggested in a report dated 30 March 2008 that the case be “otherwise
disposed of” pending future developments. The case file was sent, along with the above-
mentioned proposal by the Larnaca police investigation department, to the Attorney-General.
It was considered that it was necessary for international arrest warrants to be issued in
respect of the suspects and that Turkey, should be requested to enforce them. Attorney-
General demanded that, if this had not been done already, international arrest warrants be
issued as quickly as possible for the surrender of the suspects to the Republic of Cyprus.
  The investigation and measures taken by the Turkish, including the
“TRNC”, authorities
Following a hearing before the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court, the “TRNC” Attorney-
General’s office the court decided that post-mortem examinations were not required as it
had already been carried out in the Republic of Cyprus.

Throughout the investigation the “TRNC” police questioned and took statements from
numerous persons who knew or were somehow connected or related to the suspects. As can
be seen from a document in the internal police files entitled and the copies of the statements
provided, statements were taken from various witnesses, and also from the suspects. They
also searched for evidence and took fingerprints.The Turkish Government submitted that,
following a report by the “TRNC” Police Chief Inspector, the case had been classified as
“unresolved”. They provided a copy of this report, which was not dated. According to this
report, the last action undertaken as part of the investigation appears to have occurred on 22
March 2007, when the fifth suspect’s car, which had been inspected by the “TRNC” police,
had been handed over to the “TRNC” Nicosia Customs and Tax Office

Subsequently, in other proceedings, on 31 August 2010 the Kyrenia Assize Court found
the first and second suspects guilty of the murder of the first applicant’s bodyguard and
passed sentences amounting to thirty years’ imprisonment each. An appeal by the first and
second suspects was dismissed by the “TRNC” Supreme Court on 4 January 2012. They are
both currently serving their sentences.
 Cooperation attempts through the United Nations

 On 24 January 2005 a meeting was held between the private secretary of the “TRNC”
Prime Minister and the head of UNFICYP’s civil affairs unit, and the envoy of the President of
the Republic of Cyprus. According to the minutes of the meeting, the “TRNC” authorities
needed the results of the DNA tests that been carried out by the Cypriot authorities, which
were reluctant to transmit them on the pretext that this would constitute recognition of the
“TRNC”. The “TRNC” authorities suggested that these could be transmitted through
UNFICYP.

There were some additional meetings which main topic were the DNA results and some
other evidences, which were found in Cyprus. Here the need of the UNFICYP help came
from the mistrust between the Republic of Cyprus and “TRNC” and the dificulties between
them to cooperate effectively with each other and take all reasonable steps necessary to
facilitate and realise an effective investigation into the case. In an email sent by UNFICYP to
the applicants’ it was stated:
“ UNFICYP stands ready to facilitate negotiations between the two sides in respect of this
matter and indeed continues in its efforts to find a solution. However, UNFICYP is not in a
position to formally engage a suitably qualified expert to officially adjudicate on the evidence held
by the Republic of Cyprus. It has already been stated that while the UNFICYP believes that there
is enough evidence on face value for the two sides to reach a suitable position, it welcomes the
delivery of any further or all evidence, copies or otherwise, from the Republic of Cyprus that can
be used to further meaningful dialogue between the two sides. I again reiterate the following
options that may in my view facilitate further useful negotiations:
The [Republic of Cyprus], without prejudice, [should] deliver to the UNFICYP all necessary
evidence, allowing this to be used as UNFICYP sees fit, with a view to negotiating the alleged
offenders’ arrest and handover to UNFICYP for delivery to the authorities in the south for the
purposes of a trial. However, without a clear guarantee that the north will arrest and hand over the
alleged offenders there is little chance of this being successful.
The only other solution is for the [Republic of Cyprus] to hand over all the evidence to UNFICYP
for delivery to the relevant persons in the north with a view to having a trial conducted in the
north. This option has already been rejected by the [Republic of Cyprus].”
 LAW:
 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention
by both the Cypriot and Turkish (including the “TRNC”) authorities on account of their
failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, Elmas, Zerrin
and Eylül Güzelyurtlu. They pointed to the failure of the respondent States to cooperate in
investigating the murders and bringing the suspects to justice.
 The Turkish Government pointed out that the purpose of the procedural
obligation to investigate under Article 2 was to secure “the effective
implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life.Since the
domestic criminal law provisions to be put in place by States were to protect
the right of life of persons “within their jurisdiction” only, Article 2 did not
require States to put in place criminal-law provisions dealing with offences
committed outside their jurisdiction, or to assume universal jurisdiction. The
Turkish Government further argued that there was no “jurisdictional link” with
Turkey with regard to the obligation to cooperate, which could not be
construed as a “free-standing obligation” on all Contracting States where
suspects or evidence might be present. 

 The Cypriot Government submitted that the applicants’ complaint was

compatible with the Convention in respect of Turkey for at least four reasons.
The first was because Turkey was in control of the northern part of Cyprus
and the actions of the “TRNC” were attributable to Turkey. Secondly, because
Turkey, as a third State with access to the suspects, had a duty under Article
2 to cooperate with the Cypriot investigation. Thirdly, Article 2 required a State
where it was known that evidence or suspected perpetrators were located to
take, of its own motion, steps to secure that evidence or the suspected.
Fourthly, by the “TRNC”’s initiation of an investigation, Turkey had assumed
an obligation to conduct an Article 2-compliant investigation . At the hearing,
the Cypriot Government argued that the assertion of a right to investigate and
prosecute in the “TRNC” should give rise to a sufficient jurisdictional link for
the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention. The Cypriot Government further
noted that Turkey also had a jurisdictional link, by way of its effective control of
the territory of northern Cyprus. In their opinion, there were two “special
features” in the present case which placed an investigatory obligation on
Turkey, notwithstanding the fact that the murder had been committed outside
its jurisdiction: (a) the fact that Turkey occupied Cypriot territory and had
deliberately obstructed Cyprus’ investigation; and (b) the fact that Turkey
knew that the suspects were within its jurisdiction.

 The Court’s assessment

In the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the “TRNC” authorities instituted
their own criminal investigation into the murder of the applicants’ relatives, under their own
domestic law provisions, which gave the “TRNC” courts criminal jurisdiction over individuals
who had committed crimes anywhere on the whole island of Cyprus. In the course of that
investigation, several suspects were arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of
premeditated murder; statements were also taken from the applicants (at least the first
applicant). In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was a “jurisdictional link”
between the applicants, who complained under the procedural limb of Article 2 in respect of
their relatives’ deaths, and Turkey, whose responsibility is engaged under the Convention by
virtue of the acts and omissions of the “TRNC” authorities. he Court therefore concludes that
the Turkish Government’s preliminary objection of incompatibility must be dismissed. The
extent and scope of the procedural obligation incumbent on Turkey in the circumstances of
the case, including whether it entailed an obligation to cooperate with Cyprus, remains to be
determined in the Court’s assessment of the merits of this complaint.

Conclusion

 In conclusion, having regard to the duty to cooperate, the Court finds no breach by
Cyprus of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, either in terms of its
use of all reasonable means to secure the surrender of the suspects or on account of
its refusal to submit all the evidence to the authorities of the “TRNC” or Turkey.

 The Court concludes that Turkey breached its duty to cooperate in the context of the
procedural limb of Article 2, for the failure to provide a reasoned reply to the
extradition requests by Cyprus.

 Having regard to its findings above, the Court concludes that there has been no
violation by Cyprus of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb. In view of
the grounds on which it has found that Turkey breached its obligation to cooperate
with Cyprus, the Court concludes that there has been a violation by Turkey of Article
2 of the Convention under its procedural limb