7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Nicosia. 8.  The applicant claimed that she had had her home as well as other immovable property in the occupied part of Nicosia (northern Cyprus). In order to substantiate her claim to ownership, she produced certificates of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these certificates, the properties of Mrs “Androulla Savva Olymbiou, née Kyriakos Anatolitis” could be described as follows:
(a) Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no. 497, sheet/plan XXI/38.2.IV, registration no. A533; building site with single storey house (area: 100 m²) and a small house (area: 50 m²) on the east half plot and trees; use: residence; share: ½ (east plot);
(b) Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no. 373, sheet/plan XXI/38.3.III, registration no. B433; building site; share: ½. 9.  The applicant stated that her name was shown as “Andri” in her passport; however, her identity card was in the name of “Androulla”, the name she was given when she was baptised. “Savvas” was her husband's name. 10.  The applicant specified that the property described in paragraph 8 (a) above had originally belonged to her father, Mr Kyriakos Yianni Anatolitis. On 7 August 1980 he had transferred ownership to the applicant by way of gift (Declaration of transfer no. D 5316/80). The half share of the building site described in paragraph 8 (b) above had been purchased by the applicant on 10 October 1973. 11.  The applicant submitted that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, as her property was located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. She had made an attempt to return to her home and property on 19 July 1989, but had not been allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and from using her home and properties.
II.  DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989 12.  On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey and Loizidou v. Turkey cases (see below) also took part. 13.  According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the Nicosia District Court on 3 August 2000, the demonstration of 19 July 1989 was peaceful and was held on the fifteenth anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, in support of the missing persons and to protest against human rights violations. 14.  The applicant and other women gathered at the Ayios Kassianos school in Nicosia, which was in the UN buffer zone. She sat on the stairs in front of the entrance to the school and was listening to other women singing when she noticed that there were Turkish soldiers standing in front of the windows inside the school. The UN forces had taken up position in front of the school and formed a ring around the demonstrators. All of a sudden, some Turkish policemen had started running toward the demonstrators. They hit the women they found in front of them with batons, pushed them and dragged them by their hands, hair and clothes. The UN forces left the premises and invited the demonstrators to do likewise. 15.  The Turkish policemen pushed the applicant with their batons. She felt electricity passing through her body and realised that the batons were electric. She was seized by the armpits, pulled by the hair, dragged along the ground and taken behind the school. While she was being dragged, she was kicked about the body and beaten on the back with a baton. Her handbag was thrown away and her hands were twisted forcefully. She experienced a searing pain and felt as if she was about to faint. 16.  In order to avoid more ill-treatment, the applicant pretended she had fainted. A Turkish policeman came over to her, ordered her to get up and gave her a slap in the face. She was thrown into a very small room together with other arrested persons. 17.  She was then arrested and taken by bus to the so-called “Pavlides Garage”. During her walk to the bus and the subsequent journey she was subjected to assaults, beatings and gestures of a sexual nature by the officers and the crowd. The policemen did nothing to protect the arrested persons from being hit by the crowd, which was swearing, shouting abuse and threats and throwing stones, some of which came through the roof of the garage, tearing holes in the asbestos lining. The conditions of detention in the garage were filthy. When the detainees asked for water, they were given one or two containers of water and just one glass to share. The policemen shouted at them and threatened them. One of the women detainees (Mrs Vrahimi – see application no. 16078/90) was seriously beaten. 18.  The applicant was interrogated the next day, in the morning of 20 July 1989. The interrogation, which touched mainly on political subjects, took place in Greek and was friendly. The applicant refused to sign a statement which was written in Turkish. She was then taken to a court which remanded her in custody for three days. At the court hearing, an interpreter explained in Greek that the suspects were accused of illegally entering the territory of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) and of assaulting the local police. The applicant and the other accused were given an opportunity to speak. They stated that they did not recognise internal borders in Cyprus and that it was they who had been the victims of the assault. 19.  The applicant and other detainees were transferred to Ortakeuy Prison, where they were kept in a ward. The applicant had to lie down on a blanket in the corridor owing to the lack of beds and during the night she and the other detainees were harassed by the guards, who continually picked out detainees for checks and interrogation, so that it was not possible to sleep. 20.  On 21 July 1989 the applicant was again taken to court. She had no legal representation and the quality of the interpretation was poor; the applicant felt that the interpreter was not translating objectively what was being said. Some prosecution witnesses were interrogated. The judge asked whether the accused wanted legal representation; they replied that they would only accept as defence counsel a lawyer registered with the bar association of the Republic of Cyprus or a non-Turkish person. As a result, they were not assisted by a lawyer. 21.  On 22 July 1989 the court sentenced the applicant to three days' imprisonment and to a fine of 50 Cyprus pounds (CYP) – approximately 85 euros (EUR) – with five additional days in prison in default of payment within 24 hours. The accused passed through the back door of the court in order to avoid contact with the crowd. 22.  On 22 July the applicant and the other prisoners were photographed and were given some personal hygiene items that had been sent by the Red Cross. 23.  On 24 July 1989 the applicant was released. Before being set free she was examined by a UN doctor, who looked at her bruises and also at the mark left on her scalp by the tuft of hair that had been pulled out during her arrest. The doctor took notes. The applicant was given back her personal effects and her handbag. 24.  The applicant alleged that as a consequence of the fierce twisting of her hands by the Turkish policemen during her arrest, she had been left with a permanent, serious and incurable injury to her left shoulder. In particular, certain movements of her left hand caused her severe pain in the shoulder. 25.  In support of her claim of ill-treatment, she produced a medical certificate issued on 21 July 2000 by Dr Nicolaos P. Maroudias, a specialist orthopaedic surgeon practising in the Apollonion Private Hospital in Nicosia, which read:
“The [applicant] complains that since 1989 when she had severe injuries to both her shoulders, her left shoulder is painful even when she carries minimal weight. [It is] also painful ... on external rotation and abduction and on raising her arm above her shoulder.
I first examined her on 30.10.93 when a supraspinatus calcification was noted. She was then given anti-inflammatory treatment and shown exercises to do.
She is still having problems on and off and she occasionally uses analgesics.
X-rays show supraspinatus calcification.
Opinion:
As a result of the injuries sustained in 1989, she developed the supraspinatus tendinitis, which is very resistant to treatment. This condition is likely to trouble her from time to time. She might need to come to surgical removal of the calcification with a doubtful outcome and in that case her problems will persist.
Local hydrocortisone injection has been suggested to her.” 26.  The Government alleged that the applicant had participated in a violent demonstration with the aim of inflaming anti-Turkish sentiment. The demonstrators, supported by the Greek-Cypriot administration, were demanding that the “Green Line” in Nicosia should be dismantled. Some carried Greek flags, clubs, knives and wire-cutters. They were acting in a provocative manner and shouting abuse. The demonstrators were warned in Greek and English that unless they dispersed they would be arrested in accordance with the laws of the “TRNC”. The applicant was arrested by the Turkish-Cypriot police after crossing the UN buffer zone and entering the area under Turkish-Cypriot control. The Turkish-Cypriot police intervened in the face of the manifest inability of the Greek-Cypriot authorities and the UN Force in Cyprus to contain the incursion and its possible consequences. 27.  No force was used against demonstrators who did not intrude into the “TRNC” border area and, in the case of demonstrators who were arrested for violating the border, no more force was used than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to arrest and detain the persons concerned. No one was ill-treated. It was possible that some of the demonstrators had hurt themselves in the confusion or in attempting to scale barbed wire or other fencing. Had the Turkish police, or anyone else, assaulted or beaten any of the demonstrators, the UN Secretary General would no doubt have referred to this in his report to the Security Council. 28.  The applicant was charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. She pleaded not guilty, but did not give evidence and declined to use the available judicial remedies. She was asked if she required assistance from a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”, but refused and did not ask for legal representation. Interpretation services were provided at the trial by qualified interpreters. All the proceedings were translated into Greek. 29.  In his report of 7 December 1989 on the UN operations in Cyprus, the UN Secretary General stated, inter alia:
“A serious situation, however, arose in July as a result of a demonstration by Greek Cypriots in Nicosia. The details are as follows:
(a) In the evening of 19 July, some 1,000 Greek Cypriot demonstrators, mostly women, forced their way into the UN buffer zone in the Ayios Kassianos area of Nicosia. The demonstrators broke through a wire barrier maintained by UNFICYP and destroyed an UNFICYP observation post. They then broke through the line formed by UNFICYP soldiers and entered a former school complex where UNFICYP reinforcements regrouped to prevent them from proceeding further. A short while later, Turkish-Cypriot police and security forces elements forced their way into the area and apprehended 111 persons, 101 of them women;
(b) The Ayios Kassianos school complex is situated in the UN buffer zone. However, the Turkish forces claim it to be on their side of the cease-fire line. Under working arrangements with UNFICYP, the Turkish-Cypriot security forces have patrolled the school grounds for several years within specific restrictions. This patrolling ceased altogether as part of the unmanning agreement implemented last May;
(c) In the afternoon of 21 July, some 300 Greek Cypriots gathered at the main entrance to the UN protected area in Nicosia, in which the UN headquarters is located, to protest the continuing detention by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities of those apprehended at Ayios Kassianos. The demonstrators, whose number fluctuated between 200 and 2,000, blocked all UN traffic through this entrance until 30 July, when the Turkish-Cypriot authorities released the last two detainees;
(d) The events described above created considerable tension in the island and intensive efforts were made, both at the UN headquarters and at Nicosia, to contain and resolve the situation. On 21 July, I expressed my concern at the events that have taken place and stressed that it was vital that all parties keep in mind the purpose of the UN buffer zone as well as their responsibility to ensure that that area was not violated. I also urged the Turkish-Cypriot authorities to release without delay all those who had been detained. On 24 July, the President of the Security Council announced that he had conveyed to the representatives of all the parties, on behalf of the members of the Council, the Council's deep concern at the tense situation created by the incidents of 19 July. He also stressed the need strictly to respect the UN buffer zone and appealed for the immediate release of all persons still detained. He asked all concerned to show maximum restraint and to take urgent steps that would bring about a relaxation of tension and contribute to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the negotiations.” 30.  The applicant produced 21 photographs taken at different times during the demonstration on 19 July 1989. Photographs 1 to 7 were intended to show that, notwithstanding the deployment of the Turkish-Cypriot police, the demonstration was peaceful. In photographs 8 to 10 members of the Turkish-Cypriot police are seen breaking up the UNFICYP cordon. The final set of photographs show members of the Turkish-Cypriot police using force to arrest some of the women demonstrators. 31.  The English translation of the “TRNC” Nicosia District Court's judgment of 22 July 1989 indicates that the applicant, together with 24 other women, was charged with two offences: entering “TRNC” territory without permission (contrary to sections 2, 8 and 9 of Law no. 5/72 – see paragraph 38 below) and entering “TRNC” territory other than through an approved port (contrary to subsections 12(1) and (5) of the Aliens and Immigration Law – see paragraph 39 below). 32.  The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter. The trial judge noted the following:
(i) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the “TRNC”;
(ii) the public prosecutor called 7 witnesses, whose statements were translated into Greek for the accused's benefit;
(iii) the witnesses (mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration) declared that the accused had illegally entered the “TRNC” buffer zone, shouted abuse at the Turkish-Cypriot forces and resisted arrest by pulling and pushing; knives and other cutting objects had been found in the bags of some of the demonstrators who had been arrested; in particular, the witnesses declared that the demonstrators had passed the barriers at the UN observation post, broken down the wooden door of a church and moved toward a water reservoir; according to a map shown at trial, the area where the accused had entered was “TRNC” territory;
(iv) the accused had been told that they could cross-examine witnesses in turn and, if they so wished, choose one of their number to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of all the accused; however, they had not done so; some accused had put a few questions to the prosecution witnesses, but most of them had not made use of their right of cross-examination;
(v) the applicant had made the following statement: “As a refugee, I have an inextinguishable desire to return. I want to return there where I lived my childhood. I think that both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots should have this right. I believe that no one has the right and the authority to throw us out of our houses. As long as I am living, I will want to return to my house. For me there is no green line. There is a united Cyprus and the only flag I recognise is the Cyprus flag”;
(vi) some other accused had addressed the court, declaring that the demonstration was peaceful, that they did not have any weapons and that they did not recognise the “TRNC” as a valid State; the “TRNC” District Court considered that these statements were mainly of a political nature and could not undermine the testimony of the prosecution witnesses;
(vii) relying on statements by the latter, the “TRNC” District Court came to the conclusion that the accused had crossed the borders of the “TRNC” at an unapproved entry point and without permission and had resisted by various means the UN and Turkish forces which had tried to stop them;
(viii) the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, so that the accused were guilty on both counts;
(ix) in deciding on the sentence, the “TRNC” District Court had taken into account the seriousness of the offence, and the fact that the accused had shown no remorse and continued to deny the validity of the “TRNC”.