11.  The applicant was born in 1946. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at the Nicosia Central Prison. 12.  On 9 March 1989 the applicant was found guilty by the Limassol Assize Court on three counts of premeditated murder committed on 10 July 1987, under, inter alia, section 203(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). On 10 March 1989 the Assize Court sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment in respect of each count. The applicant had planted an explosive device under a car and detonated it, causing the death of Mr P. Michael and his two children, aged 11 and 13. The applicant had been promised the sum of 10,000 Cypriot pounds by someone who he has not identified for the murder of Mr P. Michael. 13.  In its judgment passing sentence on the applicant, the Limassol Assize Court observed that the prosecution had invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code and, in particular, to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for a period of twenty years as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap. 286). If the court found that the latter was applicable, then the issue of whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently would arise and the prosecution would propose consecutive sentences. 14.  The Assize Court relied primarily on the findings of the Nicosia Assize Court in 1988 in the case of The Republic of Cyprus v. Andreas Costa Aristodemou, alias Yiouroukkis (judgment of 5 February 1988, case no. 31175/87) and accordingly stated that it was not competent to examine the validity of the Regulations or take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the sentence. The Assize Court held that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person. In view of this, the court did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively. 15.  In particular, in its judgment the Assize Court stated the following:
“The Law on the basis of which the accused has been found guilty on three counts of premeditated murder, provides that:
‘Whosoever shall be convicted of premeditated murder shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.
It follows, therefore, that for the offence in question life imprisonment is imposed by the court as a mandatory sentence.
Mr Kyprianou, on behalf of the Prosecution, has invited the court to examine the meaning of life imprisonment and decide whether it means imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or whether it means, as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”) as provided by Regulation 2 of the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap. 286), imprisonment for a period of twenty years. Mr Kyprianou has suggested that in the event that the court concludes that life imprisonment is interpreted as being for twenty years, an interpretation which, if we understood him correctly, he claimed as the correct one, then the issue as to whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently would arise. It was, finally, his suggestion, which was in fact the purpose for which he referred to this matter, that, if this was the outcome, it would be correct in the present case, taking into account the special circumstances of the commission of the offences, that the sentences should be served consecutively.
The same issue, in substance, was put before the Nicosia Assize Court in case no. 31175/87 between The Republic of Cyprus v. Andreas Costa Aristodemou, alias Yiouroukkis. In that case the Assize Court, in its detailed judgment, in which reference is made to the general principles governing the issue and also to the jurisprudence, concluded that the meaning of life imprisonment lies in the clear meaning imparted by the words, and that the Assize Court was not competent to examine the validity of any regulations or to take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the sentence. We completely agree with this judgment to which we refer. Concerning the validity of the Regulations, the Attorney-General of the Republic could probably have looked for other mechanisms for deciding the matter at the time when the competent authorities attempted to implement the specific regulation. We do not make mention here of the constitutional right of the President to grant pardon. With regard to the court’s observation that the repercussions of such regulations, if it is assumed of course that they are valid, are not taken into account, we refer in addition to the decision in Anthony Maguire Frederick George Charles Enos 40 Cr. App. R. p. 92, Martin Derek Turner 51 Cr. App. R. p. 72 and R. v. Black (1971) Crim. L.R. 109.
We consider that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convicted person’s life. It is therefore pointless to consider whether the sentences will run concurrently or whether they will be served consecutively.” 16.  When the applicant was admitted to prison to serve his sentence, he was given written notice by the prison authorities that the date set for his release was 16 July 2002. In particular, he was given an F5 form titled “Personal File of Convict”, “I.D. no. 7176”. On the form, under the heading “Sentence”, it was marked “Life” and then “Twenty Years”; under the heading “Period” it was marked “From 17 July 1987 to 16 July 2007” and under the heading “Expiry” it was noted “Ordinary Remission 16 July 2002”. The applicant’s release was conditional on his good conduct and industry during detention. Following the commission of a disciplinary offence on 6 November 1989, his release was postponed to 2 November 2002. 17.  The applicant appealed against his conviction. 18.  On 21 May 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal upholding his conviction. 19.  On 9 October 1992 in the case of Hadjisavvas v. the Republic of Cyprus (judgment of 8 October 1992, (1992) 1 A.A.D. 1134), the Supreme Court, in the context of a habeas corpus application lodged by a life prisoner who was not released on the date given by the prison authorities, declared the Regulations unconstitutional and ultra vires (see paragraphs 50-51 below). 20.  On 3 May 1996 the Prison Law of 1996 (Law no. 62(I)/96) was enacted, repealing and replacing the Prison Discipline Law. 21.  By a letter of 16 March 1998, the applicant applied, via the Director of Prisons, to the President of the Republic at the relevant time for pardon or the suspension of the remainder of his sentence in order to help care for his wife who was suffering from leukaemia. 22.  By a letter of 30 April 1998, the Attorney-General at the material time refused his request. In particular he informed the applicant that, following an examination of his application, he was of the opinion that a recommendation to the President to suspend or commute his sentence under Article 53 § 4 of the Constitution was not justified. 23.  The applicant was not released on 2 November 2002. 24.  On 8 January 2004 the applicant submitted a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court (first-instance jurisdiction) challenging the lawfulness of his detention. In this context he relied upon Article 3, Article 5 § 4 and Article 7 of the Convention. The Supreme Court, after considering the above-mentioned provisions, dismissed the application on 17 February 2004.
In his judgment Kallis J stated, inter alia, the following:
“... What is of importance in the present case is the principle set out in the case of Hogben and not the differences in the details of the facts. The principle then that has been laid down in the case of Hogben is that Article 7 applies only to the sentence that is imposed and not to the manner of serving the sentence. Therefore Article 7 does not prohibit a retrospective change in the law or in practice concerning release or conditional release from prison of a prisoner.
I am therefore of the view that the principle set out in Hogben can be applied in the present case. Everything that the learned counsel of the applicant has pleaded has to do with the practice of release from prison. In the instant case the Assize Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the applicant and explained to him at the same time that life imprisonment meant imprisonment for the remainder of his life. What the prison authorities then did, with the F5 form, constitutes an action concerning the execution of the sentence. After the case of Hadjisavvas the Regulations on the basis of which the prison authorities gave the applicant the F5 form, have ceased to apply, with the result that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the applicant by the Assize Court is applicable. What happened was a change in the legal situation concerning the time of the applicant’s release. As in the Hogben case, Article 7 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable.
...
I endorse the principle set out in Hogben. I consider that the applicant cannot derive a right to judicial review on the basis of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention because of the alleged change in the date of his release from prison which does not change the legal basis for his detention. It should be emphasised that his detention is founded on the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the Assize Court and this had been explained to him as ‘imprisonment for the remainder of his life’. It follows that the relevant suggestion by Mr Demetriades does not stand and is dismissed.
On this occasion, I should add that the decision of the Commission on the issue of interpretation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (‘Vagrancy’ cases) 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12) ...
The fact that Hogben is a decision of the Commission does not render it less persuasive. It constitutes a decision of a specialised organ with vast experience in interpreting the Convention. It therefore constitutes an authority of great persuasiveness. I am satisfied about the correctness of the Commission’s decision in Hogben, which I have endorsed.
It was further the suggestion of Mr Demetriades that ‘this kind of sentence imposed on the applicant without the possibility of examination by a Parole Board does not conform with Article 3 of the Convention’.
...
I endorse the above approach [in Hogben]. Its essence is that the change in release policy does not constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The existence or not of a Parole Board does not form part of the ratio of the decision. This answers the suggestion of Mr Demetriades concerning the absence of a Parole Board in Cyprus. Consequently, his suggestion based on Article 3 of the Convention does not stand and is dismissed.
...
Finally, I must note that the applicant has sought his release from prison through an order of habeas corpus. As stated, however, in the case of Doros Georgiades (Civil Appeal no. 11355, 3 October 2002), adopting the relevant position of English jurisprudence (see Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition, Volume 11, §§ 1472 and 1473):
‘In general the writ of habeas corpus will not be granted to persons convicted or in execution under legal process, including persons in execution of a legal sentence after conviction on indictment. The writ of habeas corpus will not be granted where the effect of it would be to review the judgment of one of the superior courts which might have been reviewed on appeal or to question the decision of an inferior court or tribunal on a matter within its jurisdiction; or where it would falsify the record of a court which shows jurisdiction on the face of it.’
Consequently, the granting of a habeas corpus order in the present case would have been tantamount to reviewing the sentence that had been imposed by the Assize Court, whereas this could have been done in the context of an appeal.” 25.  On 26 February 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (appeal jurisdiction). 26.  In his grounds of appeal, the applicant challenged the interpretation of the term “life imprisonment” made by the Assize Court when sentencing him in 1989 in view of the prison regulations applicable at the time and the notice given to the applicant by the prison authorities upon his admission to prison. He argued that the fact that he had not challenged his sentence following conviction could not be interpreted as an acceptance of the Assize Court’s interpretation of the term “life imprisonment.” He relied upon, inter alia, Article 3, Article 5 § 4 and Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention in relation to the lawfulness of his continuing detention. 27.  As regards Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that the conduct of the authorities had been contrary to this provision. In particular, ground seven of his appeal read as follows:
“The existence on the date on which the sentence was imposed on the convicted person of the Regulation that defined a sentence of life imprisonment as being twenty years, the issuing of the F5 notice, the admission that the applicant would have been released on 2 November 2002 if the aforementioned Regulation had been applicable and the sudden annulment of all the above constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.
The Republic cannot behave in this way towards the applicant’s life without any consequences for anyone apart from the applicant, who had to live with this uncertainty.
The aforementioned change of twenty years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life following an error by the House of Representatives and/or the Attorney-General of the Republic and/or the President of the Republic constitutes, without any fault on the applicant’s part, inhuman and degrading treatment which, on account of its uncertainty, violates Article 3 of the Convention.
The aforementioned change from the imposed twenty years’ imprisonment to a death sentence, which will take effect on an unknown date given the fact that there is no possibility of re-examining the matter, constitutes inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution. Indeed, this becomes even more obvious, when one considers that the death penalty has already been abolished in Cyprus.” 28.  Concerning Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant in ground six of his appeal noted that he was not requesting judicial review of his sentence on account of a change in policy concerning the day of his release but the examination of the lawfulness of his detention, given that even the prison authorities had admitted that he should have been released on 2 November 2002. In this connection, he complained of the lack of a mechanism to examine the lawfulness of his detention. 29.  When challenging the Supreme Court’s (first instance) interpretation of Article 7 of the Convention, the applicant distinguished his case from that of Hogben v. the United Kingdom (no. 11653/85, Commission decision of 3 March 1986, Decisions and Reports 46, p. 231), in that Hogben related to the manner of application of the sentence in view of the change in the policy of the parole board whereas in his case the issue raised was that of a retrospective change of the law due to unconstitutionality and the increase of his sentence from twenty years to life. In this connection, he emphasised that in Cyprus there was no parole board unlike in England. 30.  On 20 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated, inter alia:
“The appellant is essentially raising one issue. And his learned counsel has acknowledged that judgment as to this [issue] will determine the conclusion ... We summarise the appellant’s positions as set out in the grounds of appeal as explained.
He does not invoke the Regulations as an autonomous ground for his release, especially since ... they are not applicable any more. Furthermore, he does not suggest or attempt a review of the Assize Court’s judgment, as was wrongly perceived at first instance. We are not going against, as he explained, the Assize Court’s judgment but the Republic as a whole. The Regulations were then applicable at that time and since the Assize Court had not annulled them for being unconstitutional, we must conclude that it considered them valid. And since the law does not provide a definition of the term ‘life imprisonment’, it was an element of the regulation of the sentence provided. As Mr Demetriades put it, the overall legal situation at the time of the imposition of the sentence, indicated that life imprisonment meant in essence twenty years’ imprisonment. In addition, even if there was doubt, this had to be taken to the applicant’s benefit. Hence, in view of this fact, there was no reason to lodge an appeal against the Assize Court’s judgment especially since the applicant had been served with the F5 notice.
...
The suggestion of the appellant presumes that a judicial assessment of unconstitutionality, or, more precisely, that the Regulations are ultra vires in relation to the law on the basis of which they were issued, brings about legislative change of whatever form. However, as has been decided (see Georgios Mavrogenis v. the House of Representatives and Others (1996) 1 A.A.D. 315, at 341 and Alekos N. Clerides v. the Republic of Cyprus, 20 October 2000), judicial assessment necessarily adjudicates retrospectively on the law or regulation and, as the principle of separation of powers dictates, it does not entail a legislative development. It is a fact, however, that this question, both at first instance and before us, has not been touched upon from this point of view so as to raise the issue of Law no. 62(1)/96.
In any event the Assize Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant, expressly specifying that this meant imprisonment for the remainder of his life. This was the reason for which it did not examine the question of possible consecutiveness and the appellant’s perception that it is inferred that the Assize Court recognised the Regulations as valid is wrong. The Assize Court essentially considered that the Regulations were not connected with the issue of the sentence envisaged for it did not consider that the then existent Regulations changed the fact that in accordance with the law, imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s life was imposed.
Was this approach wrong? Did in reality the law, viewed as a whole, even in the light of the interpretation suggested by the appellant comparing Article 7 § 1 of the Convention with Article 12 § 1 of the Constitution, envisage imprisonment for only twenty years? We would say that the first-instance judgment was not wrong in finding that this situation corresponded to the one in the case of Hogben. The principle applied, namely that Article 7 § 1 of the Convention does not concern the enforcement of the sentence, which remains one of life imprisonment, is not in question. The Regulations were made on the basis of and for the purposes of the Prison (Discipline) Law, whereas it is the Criminal Code that determines the sentence, in this case mandatory life imprisonment and no other.
Nevertheless, and as Mr Demetriades also agreed, we are not reviewing the correctness of the judgment of the Assize Court. Such review does not fall within the [court’s] jurisdiction in the context of a habeas corpus application.
...
The appellant is being detained on the basis of an Assize Court judgment after being sentenced to life imprisonment, determined as imprisonment for the remainder of his life. Thus, he is being detained on a lawful basis and his application for release was correctly rejected with the final observation that ‘the granting of a habeas corpus order in the present case would have been tantamount to reviewing the sentence that had been imposed by the Assize Court, whereas this could have been done in the context of an appeal’.”