CASE OF A.H. AND J.K. v. CYPRUS
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens)
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev
10. The applicants, A.H. (“the first applicant”) and J.K. (“the second applicant”), who are wife and husband, are Syrian nationals of Kurdish origin and were born in Syria in 1985 and 1979 respectively. They live in Paphos. 11. The second applicant left Syria on 25 August 2004 and entered Cyprus illegally on 9 September 2004 after travelling from Turkey. 12. He applied for asylum the next day. 13. The first applicant left Syria at a later date in order to join the second applicant in Cyprus as they had been engaged to be married. She entered Cyprus illegally on 29 November 2007 after travelling from Turkey. 14. The applicants married in Cyprus on 4 December 2007 and the first applicant applied for asylum on 6 February 2008. 15. The applicants’ asylum applications were examined jointly by the Asylum Service. 16. The Asylum Service held an interview with the applicants on 3 March 2009. 17. Their applications were dismissed on 26 March 2009 on the ground that they did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (as amended up to 2007), in that they had not shown that they had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well-founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons. The Asylum Service noted that there had been contradictions in the account of facts given by the second applicant with regard to his participation in a demonstration concerning the Qamishli events which raised doubts as to his credibility. Furthermore, it considered that there was no possibility of the second applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. Consequently, it held that the asylum applications had not been substantiated. 18. On 24 April 2009 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority against the Asylum Service’s decision. 19. On 26 March 2010 the Asylum Service’s decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed. 20. The Reviewing Authority underlined the contradictions and inconsistencies in the second applicant’s claims. It pointed out that he had not given the same reasons for leaving Syria in his written application and in his interview. In the former he had stated that he had come to Cyprus to find work whereas in his interview he claimed that he had left Syria because he feared arrest following his participation in a demonstration. Further, the Reviewing Authority gave weight to the fact that the second applicant had stated that following the demonstration he had allegedly participated in, nothing had actually happened to him and that he had not been sought by the authorities. In his asylum application he had stated that he had not been arrested, detained, harassed, persecuted or wanted by the Syrian authorities. He had also been able to leave Syria legally. The second applicant’s claims were therefore unsubstantiated. No issue arose in respect of the first applicant as she had stated that she had left Syria in order to join the second applicant and marry him and had admitted that she did not face any problems in Syria. 21. The Reviewing Authority concluded by observing that the applicants had not established that they were at risk of persecution if they returned to Syria. Nor did they satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds. 22. On 15 May 2010 the second applicant brought a “recourse” (judicial review proceedings) before the Supreme Court (first-instance revisional jurisdiction) under Article 146 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Reviewing Authority. A subsequent application to amend the recourse by adding the first applicant as a complainant was withdrawn as the time-limit of seventy-five days had in the meantime expired (see paragraph 89 below). 23. On 14 June 2010 the applicants filed the present applications with the Court. The second applicant, in his application form stated that on 13 March 2004 he had taken part in a demonstration in his village in Derit. The purpose of the demonstration was to go to Qamishli to show solidarity with the Kurdish demonstrators following the events of 12 March 2004. Following the intervention of the authorities this had not been possible. The second applicant stated that the police had attacked the demonstrators killing two persons. After going into hiding for a month in a neighbouring village, the second applicant was arrested in Qamishli. He was detained for fourteen days and subjected to torture. He was subsequently transferred to the central prison of Damascus where he was detained for two and a half months. After bribing the authorities he was released on the condition that he would present himself to the authorities in Damascus every fifteen days. He did not do so, however, out of fear to be detained and tortured again. 24. On 8 October 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the second applicant’s recourse. It upheld the Reviewing Authority’s decision of 26 March 2010 after examining all the grounds of annulment put forward by the second applicant. The court noted, inter alia, that the main ground for which the second applicant’s asylum claim had not been accepted was the lack of plausibility of his principal allegations and the existence of significant contradictions and omissions which had undermined his credibility. The second applicant had not substantiated that he was at risk of persecution if returned to Syria because he had allegedly participated in a demonstration. Furthermore, the fact that the second applicant was of Kurdish origin was not sufficient in itself to justify the granting of refugee status. The Supreme Court also held that new grounds and allegations concerning his detention, arrest and ill-treatment following the events could not be taken into account. Its jurisdiction under Article 146 of the Constitution was limited to reviewing his claim as it had been made before the Asylum Service and the Reviewing Authority (see paragraph 89 below). Grounds for annulment that had not been put before the Reviewing Authority could not be examined for the first time by the court. 25. No appeal was lodged against the first instance judgment. 26. In the meantime, on 17 May 2010 the Yekiti Party and other Kurds from Syria organised a demonstration in Nicosia, near the Representation of the European Commission, the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance and the Government Printing Office. They were protesting against the restrictive policies of the Cypriot Asylum Service in granting international protection. About 150 Kurds from Syria, including the applicants, remained in the area around the clock, having set up about eighty tents on the pavement. According to the Government, the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic. The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance. The protesters performed their daily chores on the pavement, including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions. The sewage pits had overflown, causing a nuisance and offensive odours. The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and, as a result, were continuously overflowing. Furthermore, the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from the Printing Office. Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities. The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave, but to no avail. As a result, the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area. 27. On 28 May 2010 instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers in the normal way. 28. On 31 May 2010 the Minister requested the Chief of Police, among others, to take action in order to implement his instructions. Further, he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against Syrian-Kurdish failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have Ajanib or Maktoumeen status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters. The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest. 29. According to the Government, letters were sent by the Civil Registry and Migration Department to a number of failed Syrian-Kurdish asylum-seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave Cyprus in view of their asylum applications being turned down (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 32, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). They submitted a copy of such a letter which was dated 1 June 2010 and addressed to the applicants. 30. From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from 31 May until 7 June 2010 the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the protesters’ daily activities and of all comings and goings. In the relevant records it is noted that invariably, between 1.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m., things were, in general, quiet, and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard. During the above-mentioned period a large-scale operation was organised by the Police Emergency Response Unit, “ERU” (“ΜΜΑΔ”), and a number of other authorities, including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ERU headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case-by-case basis. 31. In the meantime, between 28 May 2010 and 2 June 2010 orders for the detention and deportation of forty-five failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks. Letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person. This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service, the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority, where lodged, and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities’ “stop list” (a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from Cyprus is banned or subject to monitoring). The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The Government submitted copies of two such letters with information concerning thirteen people. 32. On 2 June 2010, letters were also prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them. The Government submitted that, at the time, the authorities did not know whether those individuals were among the protesters. 33. The removal operation was carried out on 11 June 2010, between approximately 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. with the participation of about 250 officers from the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit, the ERU, the Nicosia District Police Division, the Traffic Division, the Fire Service and the Office for Combating Discrimination of the Cyprus Police Headquarters. The protesters, including the applicants, were led to buses, apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part. At 3.22 a.m. the mini buses carrying the male protesters left. The women, children and babies followed at 3.35 a.m. A total of 149 people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ERU headquarters: eighty-seven men, twenty-two women and forty children. Upon arrival, registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed the day before. The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by 6.40 a.m. the identification of approximately half of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by 4.30 p.m. 34. It was ascertained that seventy-six of the adults, along with their thirty children, were in the Republic unlawfully. Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews. Those who had appealed to the Reviewing Authority had had their appeals dismissed. Some final decisions dated back to 2006. A number of people had also been included on the authorities’ “stop list”. Deportation orders had already been issued for twenty-three of them (see paragraph 31 above). 35. The authorities deported twenty-two people on the same day at around 6.30 p.m. (nineteen adults and three children). Forty-four people (forty-two men and two women), including the applicants, were arrested. The persons against whom deportation and detention orders had been issued on 2 June 2010 were detained under these orders. The remaining persons, including the applicants, were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the Republic under section 19(2) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 86 below). They were all arrested and transferred to various detention centres in Cyprus. The applicants were placed in the immigration detention facilities in the Nicosia Central Prisons (Blocks 9 and 10 respectively). Further, on humanitarian grounds, thirteen women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of twenty-seven children between them were not arrested themselves. 36. According to the Government the applicants and their co-detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the Republic unlawfully and were thus “prohibited immigrants” (see paragraph 84 below). They were also informed of their rights pursuant to the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained Law 2005 (Law 163(I)/2005) (see paragraph 113 below) and, in particular, of their right to contact by phone, in person and in private, a lawyer of their own choice. The applicants submitted that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention on that date. 37. On the same day letters were sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Nicosia Police to the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders. The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status. This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by the Asylum Service and the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Reviewing Authority where lodged. Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities’ “stop list”. The Government submitted copies of letters concerning thirty-seven people (most of these letters referred to groups of people). 38. Deportation and detention orders were also issued in Greek on the same day in respect of the remaining fifty-three people detained (see paragraph 34 above), including the applicants, pursuant to section 14 (6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that they were “prohibited immigrants” within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of that Law. These were couched in identical terms. In respect of two people the orders also mentioned sections 6(1)(i) and 6(1)(l) of the Law. 39. Subsequently, on the same date, letters were prepared in English by the Civil Registry and Migration Department informing all the detainees individually, including the applicants, of the decision to detain and deport them. The Government submitted thirty-seven copies of these letters, including those addressed to the applicants, the text of which was virtually identical, a standard template having been used. The text of the letter reads as follows: “You are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph (k). section 1, Article 6 of the Aliens and Immigration law, Chapter 105, as amended until 2009, because you of illegal entry [sic] Consequently your temporary residence permit/migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated 11th June 2010 against you. You have the right to be represented before me, or before any other Authority of the Republic and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter.” 40. The only differences was that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to 2 June 2010 as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders (see paragraph 32 above). 41. On the copy of the letters to the applicants provided by the Government, there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letters were served on the applicants on 18 June 2010 but that they refused to receive and sign for them. The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date, stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and/or receive the letter. In a letter dated 7 September 2010 the Government stated that the applicants had been served on 18 June 2010. In their subsequent observations the Government submitted, however, that this was the second attempt to serve the letters, the first attempt having been made on 11 June 2010, that is, the day of the arrest. 42. The applicants submitted that they had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing. They claimed that it had only been on 14 June 2010 that they had been informed orally that they would be deported to Syria on the same day but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on them on that date or subsequently. They submitted that they had eventually been informed by their lawyer, following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the Court in the context of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that deportation and detention orders had been issued against them. 43. From the documents submitted by the Government, it appears that at least another fourteen of the detainees were to be deported on 14 June 2010 (this figure is stated in documents submitted by the Government with no further details). 44. On Saturday, 12 June 2010, the applicants, along with forty-two other persons of Kurdish origin, submitted a Rule 39 request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to Syria. 45. On 14 June 2010 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to Syria until the Court had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim. The parties were requested under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation. 46. On 21 September 2010 the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule 39 in the light of information provided by the parties. He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of five cases, including the present ones. Rule 39 was lifted with regard to the thirty-nine remaining cases (for further details see M.A., cited above, § 58). 47. Rule 39 was subsequently lifted with regard to three cases, but remained in force in the present two applications. 48. On 24 January 2011 the applicants filed habeas corpus applications with the Supreme Court claiming that their continued detention from 11 June 2010 had violated Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Members states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, “the EU Returns Directive”. The applicants, relying on the Court’s judgment in Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996V) and the Commission’s report in Samie Ali v. Switzerland (no. 24881/94, Commission’s report of 26 February 1997) also claimed that their detention had breached Article 11 (2) of the Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see M.A., § 50, cited above). 49. The Supreme Court set the applications for directions for 31 January 2011. On that date the Government asked for a few days so they could file an objection to the applications. They were given until 4 February 2011 and the habeas corpus applications were set for hearing on 9 February 2011. The parties were also requested to prepare a short note with the issues they would address and to produce it on the day of the hearing. 50. The Government filed their objection on 4 February 2011. 51. On 10 February 2011 the parties appeared before the court and submitted their written addresses. The hearing of the applications was held. Judgment was reserved on the same day. 52. On 23 February 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applications. With regard to the preliminary issues raised, the Supreme Court first of all held that it had the competence to examine the applications as it was called upon to examine the lawfulness of the applicants’ protracted detention and within the context of a habeas corpus application, examine the conformity of their detention with Article 15 (3) of the EU Returns Directive and Article 11 (2) not the lawfulness of the deportation and detention orders. The applicants were not estopped from bringing a habeas corpus application just because they had not challenged the deportation and detention orders issued against them. Even if the lawfulness of the detention was assumed, detention for the purpose of deportation could not be indefinite and the detainee left without the right to seek his release. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the applicants were estopped from bringing the application because their continued detention had been brought about by their own action, that is, by their application to the Strasbourg Court for an interim measure suspending their deportation. 53. The Supreme Court then examined the substance of the applications. It noted that the EU Returns Directive had direct effect in the domestic law, as the period for transposition had expired and the Directive had not been transposed. It could therefore be relied on in the proceedings. However, it went on to hold that the six-month period provided for in the Directive had not yet started to run. The applicants had been arrested on 11 June 2010 with a view to their deportation but had not been deported by the Government in view of the application by the Court on 14 June 2010 of Rule 39 and the issuing of an interim measure suspending their deportation. Consequently, the authorities had not been able to deport them even though, as they stated before the court, they had been ready to do so from 18 June 2010. As the applicants themselves had taken steps to suspend their deportation, the ensuing time could not be held against the Government and could not be taken into account for the purposes of Article 15 (5) and (6) of the Directive. The six-month period would start to run from the moment that the interim measure had been lifted. From that moment onwards the Government had been under an obligation in accordance with Article 15 (1) of the Directive to proceed with the applicants’ deportation with due diligence. The situation would have been different if the deportation had not been effected owing to delays attributable to the authorities. 54. In so far as the applicants’ complaints under Article 11 (2) of the Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention were concerned, the Supreme Court distinguished the applicants’ situation from those in the cases they relied on and in which responsibility for the protracted detention lay with the authorities. Further, it held that it had not been shown that the continued detention of the applicants had been arbitrary, abusive and contrary to the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 48 above). 55. The applicants lodged two separate appeals with the Supreme Court (appellate jurisdiction) on 17 March 2011. Another two appeals were lodged at the same time by M.A. (see M.A., §§ 54, cited above) and another Syrian of Kurdish origin (see K.F. v. Cyprus, no. 41858/10, § 62, 21 July 2015). 56. The applicants sent a letter dated 13 April 2011 to the Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting that the appeals be fixed for pre-trial within a “short period of time” and then for hearing. 57. The applicants were released on 20 May 2011 following revocation of the deportation and detention orders of 11 June 2010 by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. They were informed on 17 May 2011 by a letter dated 10 May 2011 that they would be issued with a special residence/employment permit under the Aliens and Immigration Law and the relevant Regulations for a period of six months from the date of their release with a possibility of further renewal. However, prior to the issuance of this permit they were obliged to sign a contract of employment with an employer indicated and approved by the Department of Labour. The applicants were also asked to report to the police once a month. 58. On 15 July 2011 the Supreme Court informed the applicants that one of the other appeals that had been filed at the same time as theirs was set down for hearing for 12 September 2011. 59. On 7 September 2011 the applicants’ lawyer filed an application for joining the four appeals (see paragraph 55 above). 60. On 12 September 2011 the Supreme Court issued an order joining the appeals and also instructed the parties to file their written addresses. The applicants submitted that on this date the court was informed that they had been released. 61. On 8 November 2011 the applicants filed an application requesting an extension of twenty days for filing their written addresses. These were filed on 28 November 2011. 62. On 17 March 2012 the appeals were set for directions. 63. On 18 July 2012 the Government filed an application requesting the parties to appear before the Supreme Court and requested a forty-day extension for filing their written address. This was granted and the appeals were set down for hearing on 11 September 2012. 64. In the meantime, the Government filed their written address on 28 August 2012. 65. On 11 September 2012 the hearing was held and judgment was reserved. 66. The appeals were dismissed on 15 October 2012. The Supreme Court held that as the applicants had, in the meantime, been released, the application was without object (see M.A., cited above, § 55). 67. The applicants submitted that following their release on 20 May 2011 the authorities did not grant them residence permits. The applicants were not able to fulfil the terms and conditions imposed by the Ministry of Interior in order to have residence permits. Their issuing was subject to finding an employer approved by the Department of Labour and to present to the immigration authorities an approved contract of employment. The applicants could not find and/or were not referred by the Department of Labour to an approved employer despite their numerous attempts to that effect. Their situation was explained to the competent authorities in a letter dated 28 July 2011 to which they never received a reply. As a result they were not able to regularise their stay in Cyprus and had no access to any rights apart from a tolerated residence status. 68. On 24 November 2012, at 9.45 a.m., the applicants, along with another Syrian couple who had three children, were stopped at Paphos airport while they attempted to take a flight to Bergamo-Milano in Italy by using false Bulgarian passports. During passport control, the police officer in charge suspected that their passports were false because the colour of the page containing the biometric data differed to that used in genuine passports. The applicants were then requested to give a sample of their signatures. These did not correspond to those in the passports they had presented. After having being questioned by the officer they admitted that the passports were not their own and revealed their true personal details. An immigration officer carried out a search of their immigration status and ascertained that they were failed asylum seekers as their appeal to the Reviewing Authority been dismissed and they did not have valid residence permits. 69. According to the statement of the police officer taken on the same date, the applicants were arrested for committing the flagrant offences of personation and unlawful stay in the Republic (see paragraphs 86 and 114 below). The second applicant was arrested at 1 p.m. and the first applicant at 1.05 pm. In his statement the police officer stated that he had drawn their attention to the law and that the second applicant replied “I made a mistake”. The officer also noted that their legal rights had been explained to them in the Arabic language by an interpreter. The other couple was also arrested and the social welfare office was contacted concerning the children. Around 2 p.m. they were all taken to the Paphos Criminal Investigation Department (CID). 70. The second applicant along with the other man, was then arrested by virtue of an arrest warrant issued by the District Court of Paphos at 2.20 pm the same day pursuant to section 18 of Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155; see paragraph 116 below) on the ground that there had been reasonable suspicion based on evidence that he had been involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony, forgery, circulation of a forged document, personation and unlawful stay in the Republic between 15 September 2009 and 14 November 2012. There is a handwritten signed note on the warrant by the arresting police officer stating that he arrested the second applicant at 2.40 p.m. at Paphos CID and that with the assistance of an interpreter he had informed him of the reasons for his arrest, had drawn his attention to the law and that the second applicant had replied “I did it for a better life”. 71. The second applicant also signed a document containing his rights to communication as set out in sections 3 and 4 of Law 163(I)/of 2005 (see paragraphs 36 above and 113 below). The copy of the document signed by him was in Arabic. 72. The second applicant was then questioned by a police officer with the assistance of an interpreter and gave a written statement. The statement was then translated into Arabic. The first part of the statement contains the information given to him by the police officer which reads as follows: “I inform you that I am investigating a case of conspiracy to commit a felony, forgery, uttering false documents and personation and unlawful stay on the territory of the Republic, offences that were committed between 26 March 2010 and 24 November 2012 in Paphos, for which I have evidence which gives me reasonable suspicion that you are implicated. I wish to question you and to take your statement. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you say may be written down and used as evidence”. 73. The second applicant signed next to this paragraph. 74. In his statement the second applicant stated that he had decided to leave Cyprus, as following his release and the expiry of the six-months, he was not given another residence and work permit (see paragraph 57 above). He also admitted that he had bought the passports from a Kurdish national for the amount of 1100 euros (EUR) and explained how these were secured. The applicants intended to leave Cyprus and go to Germany through Italy. He also apologised for what happened “today” and that he had done it because he could no longer live in Cyprus. The statement was read to the applicant by the interpreter; he confirmed it and signed it. A statement was also given by the interpreter. 75. According to the relevant police report of Paphos CID, the first applicant and the other woman stated that they did not know anything about the passports and that their husbands had organised everything. 76. At around 4.10 p.m. both women were released from custody as they were both pregnant and the one also had three children. 77. The following day, 25 November 2012, the second applicant was taken to the Paphos District Court and was remanded in custody for four days for the purposes of further investigation of the alleged commission of a number of offences by the applicants under the Criminal Code and the Aliens and Immigration Law; in particular, the offences of conspiracy to commit a felony, forgery, uttering false documents and personation (sections 371, 331, 333, 334, 337, 339 and 360 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154) and unlawful stay in the Republic (section 19 (l) (l) of the Aliens and Immigration Law)(see paragraphs 86, 114 and 115 below). 78. On 28 November 2012, following the conclusion of the police investigation, the case file was transmitted to the office of the Attorney-General for the purposes of deciding whether the applicants would be subject to criminal prosecution. The Attorney-General at the time, decided not to prosecute the applicants because of the particularity of their cases. He gave instructions to the police to proceed with the deportation of the applicants when the situation in Syria would allow it. 79. On 29 November 2012, upon expiry of the second applicant’s remand, detention and deportation orders were issued pursuant to section 14(6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that the second applicant was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of section 6 (1) (k) and (l) of that law (see M.A., § 62, cited above). On the same day the second applicant was served with a letter informing him of the decision to detain and deport him on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant as he had stayed unlawfully in the Republic. It also informed him that he had the right to file a recourse against these orders before the Supreme Court. 80. The Government submitted that on the same day the execution of the deportation order was suspended as “it transpired” that the Court’s interim measure under Rule 39 was still in force. 81. The second applicant was detained at Paphos Police Station Detention Facility until 21 December 2013 when he was released following a decision by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior to revoke the deportation and detention orders. The conditions attached to his release were set out in a letter dated 20 December 2013 given him on the date of his release. In particular, the second applicant was requested to hand over his passport to the Aliens and Immigration police. He would be given a certified copy of the passport which would allow the issuance of a residence permit or any other permit. A special residence/employment permit would then be issued for a period of six months. Prior to the issuance of this permit, however, the second applicant would have to sign a contract of employment with an employer indicated and approved by the Department of Labour. The second applicant was also obliged to report to the nearest police station once a month and to inform the authorities of a change of address. 82. The second applicant submitted that although he found employment he was informed by the Department of Labour that the employer in question did not fall within the categories entitled to employ him. The Department of Labour did not refer him to an eligible employer. The first applicant submitted that she was not given any terms or conditions of residence. They both therefore remained in an irregular situation.